Go to Jeff Salisbury LWGate Home Page.From: "Duke Miller" <dukemill@tampabay.rr.com>
Subject: RE: [CANSLIM] Institutional Ownership
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2002 12:34:24 -0400
Next Article (by Date): Re: [CANSLIM] Institutional Ownership Davellil5@aol.com
Previous Article (by Date): Re: [CANSLIM] DFXI again E2moskow@aol.com
Next in Thread: Re: [CANSLIM] Institutional Ownership Davellil5@aol.com
Articles sorted by: [Date]
[Author]
[Subject]
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
- ------=_NextPart_000_0023_01C1E867.B7081400
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
What about the Sponsorship ratings that are listed in the minigraphs?
Their definition is: "Based on change in number of funds owning stock
recently and sponsors performance rating. A is highest, E lowest."
Anybody explain what this means or how it's derived?
Duke
- -----Original Message-----
From: owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com
[mailto:owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Katherine Malm
Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2002 10:55 AM
To: canslim@lists.xmission.com
Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Institutional Ownership
Morning Ira,
Yes, the A/D ranking is weighted so that more recent periods in the 13
weeks used are weighted more heavily. At one time, I tried to get a more
specific description from DailyGraphs Support, but they were unwilling
to give away the double-secret-formula, so we don't really know *how* it
is weighted. One thing I've learned with A/D is that it's very useful
for buying, but because it is a weighted moving average, its lousy for
selling. In other words, a stock could easily be going through a
blow-off top or other form of topping action and the darned A/D ranking
will sit there with an A or B the whole time. Makes sense, its a lagging
indicator that describes 13 weeks past action.
I think what you've described as a preference is actually very
CANSLIMish. If you find a stock with all the CANSLIM evidence early
enough, the rising price and rising AvgVol are giving clues that
institutions are likely accumulating it. The SEC reporting lags so much
that by the time you see it in the % institutional ownership numbers,
much of it has already happened. Folks like Ian and Tom are good at
spotting this. I generally don't notice it until the stock has moved out
of the initial round of buying because my radar doesn't look below
certain price points. Mark Boucher of TradingMarkets.com is very good at
this as well, preferring to catch stocks that have nearer 10% ownership.
You've got to have really good radar and chart reading skills to find
these, but as you can see from Ian and Tom's returns over the last
couple of years, its radar worth developing.
Katherine
- ----- Original Message -----
From: Ira Post <mailto:ip108@yahoo.com>
To: canslim@lists.xmission.com
Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2002 9:39 AM
Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Institutional Ownership
Good morning Katherine,
Thanks for the clarification. One question. Is the A/D rating weighted
to give more empahsis on current purchases and sales?
Another point on institutional ownership - although it's not a CANSLIM
approach. When I find a company that's recently gone public and looks
very good fundamentally, I look at the lack of insititutional ownership
as an advantage. This is because it won't take these institutions very
long to find out about the company and when they buy in, the price will
soar. This was part of my thinking with AMGP.
Ira
- ----- Original Message -----
From: Katherine <mailto:kmalm@earthlink.net> Malm
To: canslim@lists.xmission.com
Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2002 10:07 AM
Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Institutional Ownership
Hi Ira,
Just a point of clarification on the A/D rating vs. Institutional
Ownership--
The A/D rating is a weighted ranking on the recent price/volume action
of the stock. IBD looks for accumulation (up days on volume higher than
the previous day) of large blocks of stock vs distribution (down days on
volume higher than the day before) of large blocks and then creates a
ranking A-E. In that sense, you are right, that when large blocks are
being accumulated more than they are distributed, the stock would rank
very high. This is a proxy for current institutional price/volume action
but does not address, in general, what % of the shares in float are
*owned* by institutions. For example, 2 stocks could have an A/D rating
of A, yet one could be 10% owned by institutions while the other could
be 80% owned by institutions.
On institutional ownership, Matt--
I've noticed large discrepancies like this in the Yahoo/MarketGuide data
and the DGO data before. As a cautionary approach, if you see a high
number like 80-90% as you saw for ANSS, it's probably an error in their
data (I think their shares outstanding in the calculation aren't updated
to reflect share buy backs, primary offers, etc). Sure enough, DGO has
banks owning 14% and funds owning 30% of the float for a total
institutional ownership of 44% of the 13.4m shares in the float. The
remaining 1m shares outstanding are owned by management (7% of
outstanding). Though that's what I'd consider the higher end of the
"acceptable" range, I never let that keep me away from a stock if I feel
it has everything else going for it, especially when the float is rather
small.
Katherine
- ----- Original Message -----
From: Ira Post <mailto:ip108@yahoo.com>
To: canslim@lists.xmission.com
Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2002 2:57 AM
Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Institutional Ownership
I think you got that information from Yahoo. If you go to the IBD site
and do a stock check-up, you'll find an Accumulation/Distribution
(Acc/Dis) Rating of B-. I think the discrepancy has to do with IBD's
more recent monitoring of this information and their taking into account
of more recent institutional buying or selling.
WON feels this is very important. However, IBD's stock check-up gives
this stock an overall rating of A+. So I wouldn't worry about it the B-
in this area. The significance lies in the fact that institutions
control large blocks of money and when they move into or out of a stock
it influences the price significantly.
Ira
- ----- Original Message -----
From: Matt <mailto:malever@bellsouth.net> & Alicia Leverette
To: canslim@lists.xmission.com
Sent: Friday, April 19, 2002 9:35 PM
Subject: [CANSLIM] Institutional Ownership
Hi,
I have been considering ANSS. It is rated a 98 on IBD Stock Checkup and
it's chart looks pretty good to me. Also, I have noticed other stocks
within it's group have been doing well of late.
My question has to do with Institutional Ownership. ANSS is at 81% (89%
of Float). I know this is high, but how important of a factor is this.
I would love some thoughts.
Matt
- ------=_NextPart_000_0023_01C1E867.B7081400
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Dus-ascii">
<TITLE>Message</TITLE>
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2715.400" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D827442716-20042002><FONT face=3DArial>What about the =
Sponsorship=20
ratings that are listed in the minigraphs? Their definition =
is: =20
"Based on change in number of funds owning stock recently and sponsors=20
performance rating. A is highest, E lowest."</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D827442716-20042002><FONT =
face=3DArial></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D827442716-20042002><FONT face=3DArial>Anybody explain =
what this=20
means or how it's derived?</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D827442716-20042002><FONT =
face=3DArial></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D827442716-20042002><FONT =
face=3DArial>Duke</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr style=3D"MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV class=3DOutlookMessageHeader lang=3Den-us dir=3Dltr =
align=3Dleft><FONT=20
face=3DTahoma size=3D2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B>=20
owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com =
[mailto:owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com]=20
<B>On Behalf Of </B>Katherine Malm<BR><B>Sent:</B> Saturday, April 20, =
2002=20
10:55 AM<BR><B>To:</B> canslim@lists.xmission.com<BR><B>Subject:</B> =
Re:=20
[CANSLIM] Institutional Ownership<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV>Morning Ira,</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Yes, the A/D ranking is weighted so that more recent periods in =
the 13=20
weeks used are weighted more heavily. At one time, I tried to get =
a more=20
specific description from DailyGraphs Support, but they were =
unwilling to give away the double-secret-formula, so we don't really =
know=20
*how* it is weighted. One thing I've learned with A/D is that it's =
very useful=20
for buying, but because it is a weighted moving average, its lousy for =
selling. In other words, a stock could easily be going through a =
blow-off top=20
or other form of topping action and the darned A/D ranking will sit =
there with=20
an A or B the whole time. Makes sense, its a lagging indicator that =
describes=20
13 weeks past action.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I think what you've described as a preference is actually very=20
CANSLIMish. If you find a stock with all the CANSLIM evidence early =
enough,=20
the rising price and rising AvgVol are giving clues that institutions =
are=20
likely accumulating it. The SEC reporting lags so much that by the =
time you=20
see it in the % institutional ownership numbers, much of it has =
already=20
happened. Folks like Ian and Tom are good at spotting this. I =
generally don't=20
notice it until the stock has moved out of the initial round of buying =
because=20
my radar doesn't look below certain price points. Mark Boucher of=20
TradingMarkets.com is very good at this as well, preferring to catch =
stocks=20
that have nearer 10% ownership. You've got to have really good radar =
and chart=20
reading skills to find these, but as you can see from Ian and Tom's =
returns=20
over the last couple of years, its radar worth developing.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Katherine</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=3Dip108@yahoo.com href=3D"mailto:ip108@yahoo.com">Ira =
Post</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>=
=20
</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Saturday, April 20, =
2002 9:39=20
AM</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [CANSLIM] =
Institutional=20
Ownership</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Good morning =
Katherine,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Thanks for the clarification. =
One=20
question. Is the A/D rating weighted to give more empahsis on =
current=20
purchases and sales?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Another point on institutional =
ownership -=20
although it's not a CANSLIM approach. When I find a company =
that's=20
recently gone public and looks very good fundamentally, I look at =
the lack=20
of insititutional ownership as an advantage. This is because =
it won't=20
take these institutions very long to find out about the company and =
when=20
they buy in, the price will soar. This was part of my thinking =
with=20
AMGP.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Ira</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=20
title=3Dcanslim@lists.xmission.com=20
=
href=3D"mailto:canslim@lists.xmission.com">canslim@lists.xmission.com</A>=
=20
</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Saturday, April 20, =
2002 10:07=20
AM</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [CANSLIM] =
Institutional=20
Ownership</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Hi Ira,</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Just a point of clarification on the A/D rating vs. =
Institutional=20
Ownership--</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>The A/D rating is a weighted ranking on the recent =
price/volume=20
action of the stock. IBD looks for accumulation (up days on volume =
higher=20
than the previous day) of large blocks of stock vs distribution =
(down days=20
on volume higher than the day before) of large blocks and then =
creates a=20
ranking A-E. In that sense, you are right, that when large blocks =
are=20
being accumulated more than they are distributed, the stock would =
rank=20
very high. This is a proxy for current institutional=20
price/volume action but does not address, in general, what % of =
the shares=20
in float are *owned* by institutions. For example, 2 =
stocks could=20
have an A/D rating of A, yet one could be 10% owned by =
institutions while=20
the other could be 80% owned by institutions.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>On institutional ownership, Matt--</DIV>
<DIV>I've noticed large discrepancies like this in the =
Yahoo/MarketGuide=20
data and the DGO data before. As a cautionary approach, if you see =
a high=20
number like 80-90% as you saw for ANSS, it's probably an error in =
their=20
data (I think their shares outstanding in the calculation aren't =
updated=20
to reflect share buy backs, primary offers, etc). Sure enough, DGO =
has=20
banks owning 14% and funds owning 30% of the float for a total=20
institutional ownership of 44% of the 13.4m shares in the float. =
The=20
remaining 1m shares outstanding are owned by management (7% of=20
outstanding). Though that's what I'd consider the higher =
end of=20
the "acceptable" range, I never let that keep me away from a stock =
if I=20
feel it has everything else going for it, especially when the =
float is=20
rather small.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Katherine</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=3Dip108@yahoo.com href=3D"mailto:ip108@yahoo.com">Ira =
Post</A>=20
</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A=20
title=3Dcanslim@lists.xmission.com=20
=
href=3D"mailto:canslim@lists.xmission.com">canslim@lists.xmission.com</A>=
=20
</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Saturday, April 20, =
2002 2:57=20
AM</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [CANSLIM]=20
Institutional Ownership</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I think you got that =
information from=20
Yahoo. If you go to the IBD site and do a stock check-up, =
you'll=20
find an <FONT size=3D3>Accumulation/Distribution (Acc/Dis) =
Rating of=20
B-. I think the discrepancy has to do with IBD's more =
recent=20
monitoring of this information and their taking into account of =
more=20
recent institutional buying or selling.</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial>WON feels this is very important. =
However,=20
IBD's stock check-up gives this stock an overall rating of=20
A+. So I wouldn't worry about it the B- in this =
area. The=20
significance lies in the fact that institutions control large =
blocks of=20
money and when they move into or out of a stock it influences =
the price=20
significantly.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial>Ira</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=3Dmalever@bellsouth.net=20
href=3D"mailto:malever@bellsouth.net">Matt & Alicia =
Leverette</A>=20
</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A=20
title=3Dcanslim@lists.xmission.com=20
=
href=3D"mailto:canslim@lists.xmission.com">canslim@lists.xmission.com</A>=
=20
</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Friday, April 19, =
2002 9:35=20
PM</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> [CANSLIM] =
Institutional=20
Ownership</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Hi,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I have been considering =
ANSS. It is=20
rated a 98 on IBD Stock Checkup and it's chart looks pretty =
good to=20
me. Also, I have noticed other stocks within it's group =
have=20
been doing well of late.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>My question has to do with =
Institutional=20
Ownership. ANSS is at 81% (89% of Float). I know =
this is=20
high, but how important of a factor is this.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I would love some =
thoughts.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial=20
=
size=3D2>Matt</FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQ=
UOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>
- ------=_NextPart_000_0023_01C1E867.B7081400--
- -
- -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 Date): Re: [CANSLIM] Institutional Ownership Davellil5@aol.com
Previous Article (by Date): Re: [CANSLIM] DFXI again E2moskow@aol.com
Next in Thread: Re: [CANSLIM] Institutional Ownership Davellil5@aol.com
Articles sorted by: [Date]
[Author]
[Subject]