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

From: Kent Norman <kent_norman@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Point of View: Why bother with fundamentals?
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2001 11:33:46 -0800 (PST)

Next Article (by Subject): Re: [CANSLIM] Point of View: Why bother with fundamentals? "Perry Stanfield"
Previous Article (by Subject): Re: [CANSLIM] Point of View: Why bother with fundamentals? "Tom Worley"
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? "Perry Stanfield"
Articles sorted by: [Date] [Author] [Subject]

don' the fundamentals narrow the universe to a
manageable number of candidates?

My watch list has a 75 symbol limit.

Kent Norman

- --- Katherine Malm <kmalm@earthlink.net> 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
> 

=====
Opportunities always look bigger going than coming.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Check out Yahoo! Shopping and Yahoo! Auctions for all of
your unique holiday gifts! Buy at http://shopping.yahoo.com
or bid at http://auctions.yahoo.com

- -
- -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.