Re: [CANSLIM] Institutional Ownership

From: Harvey Brion <hbrion@ieee.org>
Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Institutional Ownership
Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2002 15:14:35 -0700

Next Article (by Subject): Re: [CANSLIM] Institutional Ownership "Tom Worley"
Previous Article (by Subject): RE: [CANSLIM] easi "Mike Gibbons"
Top of Thread: Re: [CANSLIM] Institutional Ownership "Tom Worley"
Next in Thread: Re: [CANSLIM] Institutional Ownership "Tom Worley"
Articles sorted by: [Date] [Author] [Subject]

The new DGO gives Sponsorship Rating in the data block on the weekly
chart.  They also show the number of funds owning the stock over the
last four quarters.  They say Sponsorship Rating's "calculation averages
3-year performance of all mutual funds owning the stock plus [emphasis]
trend in recent quarters of the number of funds owning the stock."  For
a while I used it for screening but now I just glance at it and if it's
a D or E, I look a little closer but don't necessarily eliminate the
stock from consideration.

Katherine Malm wrote:

> Hi Duke, I have 4 recent Investor's Corners that give a brief
> description of the Institutional Sponsorship Rating, and the
> definitions are all similar. This description is from the 9/6/01
> article: The rating gauges the three year performance of the mutual
> funds investing in the stock. This helps you zero in on stocks that
> have a place in the portfolios of the best performing funds. The
> rating also factors in the number of funds moving into and out of the
> stock in recent quarters. The paper is the only place I've ever seen
> this ranking. It doesn't appear in DGO or Investors.com in this same
> form, so I've only found it "of interest" over the years. In some ways
> this can actually be misleading. In early 2000, I noticed that in the
> paper's "What Mutual Funds are Buying" in which they list buys of the
> top rated funds, that they were buying everything that was topping
> out. The fund ratings are based on the prior 3 years performance, so
> it seemed to me that if the market were undergoing any major shifts,
> that the top performing funds would be come the laggards over the next
> cycle and vice versa. That meant that what the *laggard* funds were
> buying was actually more telling that what the *leading* funds were
> buying. I asked about this at the June 2000 seminar in NYC, wondering
> how we could monitor for this and was told that I was "trying to make
> it too complex." Complex or not, I decided to forever ignore these
> tables in the paper and instead pay attention to the price/volume
> action of the stocks, using a check on the quality of current
> institutional owners as a sanity check, but not a selection
> tool. Katherine
>
>      ----- Original Message -----
>      From: Duke Miller
>      To: canslim@lists.xmission.com
>      Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2002 11:34 AM
>      Subject: RE: [CANSLIM] Institutional Ownership
>       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
>


- -
- -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.