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

From: John Kruger <jokguger@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Point of View: Why bother with fundamentals?
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 11:24:36 -0800 (PST)

Next Article (by Subject): Re: [CANSLIM] Point of View: Why bother with fundamentals? Gene Ricci
Previous Article (by Subject): Industry Analysis (was:[CANSLIM] Point of View: Why bother with fundamentals?) "Katherine Malm"
Next in Thread: Re: [CANSLIM] Point of View: Why bother with fundamentals? Gene Ricci
Articles sorted by: [Date] [Author] [Subject]

> But my Industry Analysis that I am doing right know (its a hell of a
> work 
> to backtest, so it will take some weeks until I have statistical 
> significance)

Andreas,

Thank you for sharing your efforts.  One of the risks that you must
guard against in such studies, is to make sure that the period that you
use for your back-test is similar to the period during which you will
use the results.  

In particular, be wary of doing back-tests of the long bull market, and
then useing those results in the current transtional (my opinion)
market.

The long bull market had both a strong upward bias and slower group
rotation.

Just my opinion.

John


__________________________________________________
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.