Re: [CANSLIM] Point of View: Why bother with fundamentals?

From: esetser <esetser@covad.net>
Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Point of View: Why bother with fundamentals?
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2001 13:08:54 -0800

Next Article (by Date): Re: [CANSLIM] Point of View: Why bother with fundamentals? "Norman"
Previous Article (by Date): [CANSLIM] How many HGS and/or QP/2 subscribers on this list? "Perry Stanfield"
Top of Thread: [CANSLIM] Point of View: Why bother with fundamentals? "Katherine Malm"
Next in Thread: Re: [CANSLIM] Point of View: Why bother with fundamentals? "Norman"
Articles sorted by: [Date] [Author] [Subject]

I believe the fundamental analysis in CANSLIM increases the odds of gains,
both in the short term, and in the longer term.  This is the advantage that
CANSLIM should give us over other momentum approaches, better odds and
longer advances.  At least that is my view, and my goal.

At 10:12 AM 12/16/01 -0600, you wrote:
>    Proposed:   If a typical CANSLIM/Intermediate term move in a  stock
>lasts only a few weeks, and in good markets, only a few months, why bother 
>selecting portfolio candidates using any sort of fundamental analysis?
>Returns  in this time period are strictly based on price movement and can
>be maximized  based on technical indicators and price/volume action alone. 
> Thoughts pro/con?   Katherine 

- -
- -To subscribe/unsubscribe, email "majordomo@xmission.com"
- -In the email body, write "subscribe canslim" or
- -"unsubscribe canslim".  Do not use quotes in your email.

Go to Jeff Salisbury LWGate Home Page.