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

From: "Bill Triffet" <btriffet@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Point of View: Why bother with fundamentals?
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 22:06:47 -0800

Next Article (by Date): Re: [CANSLIM] Devil's Advocate: Why bother with fundamentals? "Katherine Malm"
Previous Article (by Date): RE: [CANSLIM] Devil's Advocate: Why bother with fundamentals? John Kruger
Top of Thread: Re: [CANSLIM] Point of View: Why bother with fundamentals? "Al French"
Articles sorted by: [Date] [Author] [Subject]

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Norman" <theboyd@tisd.net>
To: <canslim@lists.xmission.com>
Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2001 8:45 AM
Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Point of View: Why bother with fundamentals?

Good question K,

One thought; if we want to get a "tiger by the tail" then fundamentally
sound companies is probably a requisite.  How many companies with poor
sales/earnings go on 500% tears?  If we only want to get 10-20% then charts
may be most important; but if we want those tigers more may required.
IMVHO.

Norman,

Well...during the 1998-2000 "gold rush" years I recall a certain Ebay,
Amazon, etc...(g)
Seriously, I would like to think of the fundamentals as added insurance
against significant down side potential - especially right at the breakout.

- -Bill Triffet

- -
- -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.