Go to Jeff Salisbury LWGate Home Page.From: "Perry Stanfield" <mpstan@attbi.com>
Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Point of View: Why bother with fundamentals?
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2001 11:45:29 -0800
Next Article (by Subject): Re: [CANSLIM] Point of View: Why bother with fundamentals? esetser
Previous Article (by Subject): Re: [CANSLIM] Point of View: Why bother with fundamentals? Kent Norman
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? esetser
Articles sorted by: [Date]
[Author]
[Subject]
This is a multi-part message in MIME format. - ------=_NextPart_000_000B_01C18627.28FCFEC0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Good question Katherine, I never had the guts to ask it myself. I notice that Worden Bros. = identify stock breakouts or other patterns which suggest an impending up = move with stocks that would never make Canslim characteristics. One = good example from a couple months ago was Immunex (IMNX), which had = created a huge bowl some 6 to 9 months wide. A lot of overhead = resistance had been cleared out, albeit not all of it. Anyway, I've = watched it double since then. Key word here is watch. I guess the main reason I try to restrict my universe to the "Best" = fundy companies is that perhaps these companies will move up more = predictably, and for better reasons, than lesser companies, and perhaps = will have better persistance with more reasons to remain in the proper = direction than lesser companies. Otherwise I'm just a momentum investor. I don't think I'm interested in = that game too awful much. Although as I've confessed before, I did = trade AMCC a few months ago. Fallen angel or not, that would have to be = termed a straight momentum move. Perry ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Katherine Malm=20 To: canslim@lists.xmission.com=20 Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2001 8:12 AM Subject: [CANSLIM] Point of View: Why bother with fundamentals? 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 - ------=_NextPart_000_000B_01C18627.28FCFEC0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; = charset=3Diso-8859-1"> <META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2600.0" name=3DGENERATOR> <STYLE></STYLE> </HEAD> <BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff> <DIV><FONT face=3D"Gill Sans MT">Good question Katherine,</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3D"Gill Sans MT"></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3D"Gill Sans MT">I never had the guts to ask it=20 myself. I notice that Worden Bros. identify stock breakouts = or other=20 patterns which suggest an impending up move with stocks that would never = make=20 Canslim characteristics. One good example from a couple = months ago=20 was Immunex (IMNX), which had created a huge bowl some 6 to 9 months=20 wide. A lot of overhead resistance had been cleared out, = albeit not=20 all of it. Anyway, I've watched it double since then. = Key word=20 here is watch.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3D"Gill Sans MT"></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3D"Gill Sans MT">I guess the main reason I try to = restrict my=20 universe to the "Best" fundy companies is that perhaps these = companies will=20 move up more predictably, and for better reasons, than lesser companies, = and=20 perhaps will have better persistance with more reasons to remain in the = proper=20 direction than lesser companies.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3D"Gill Sans MT"></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3D"Gill Sans MT">Otherwise I'm just a momentum = investor. I=20 don't think I'm interested in that game too awful much. Although = as I've=20 confessed before, I did trade AMCC a few months ago. Fallen angel = or not,=20 that would have to be termed a straight momentum move.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3D"Gill Sans MT"></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3D"Gill Sans MT">Perry</FONT></DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr=20 style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; = BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV> <DIV=20 style=3D"BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: = black"><B>From:</B>=20 <A title=3Dkmalm@earthlink.net = href=3D"mailto:kmalm@earthlink.net">Katherine=20 Malm</A> </DIV> <DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A = title=3Dcanslim@lists.xmission.com=20 = href=3D"mailto:canslim@lists.xmission.com">canslim@lists.xmission.com</A>= </DIV> <DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Sunday, December 16, 2001 = 8:12=20 AM</DIV> <DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> [CANSLIM] Point of = View: Why=20 bother with fundamentals?</DIV> <DIV><BR></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Proposed:</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> </DIV></FONT> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>If a typical CANSLIM/Intermediate = term move in a=20 stock lasts only a few weeks, and in good markets, only a few months, = why=20 bother selecting portfolio candidates using any sort of fundamental = analysis?=20 Returns in this time period are strictly based on price movement and = can be=20 maximized based on technical indicators and price/volume action=20 alone.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Thoughts pro/con?</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial=20 size=3D2>Katherine</DIV></FONT></FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML> - ------=_NextPart_000_000B_01C18627.28FCFEC0-- - - - -To subscribe/unsubscribe, email "majordomo@xmission.com" - -In the email body, write "subscribe canslim" or - -"unsubscribe canslim". Do not use quotes in your email.
Next Article (by Subject): Re: [CANSLIM] Point of View: Why bother with fundamentals? esetser
Previous Article (by Subject): Re: [CANSLIM] Point of View: Why bother with fundamentals? Kent Norman
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? esetser
Articles sorted by: [Date]
[Author]
[Subject]