RE: "M" (was Re: [CANSLIM] S&P 500 forecast)

From: "Fred Richards" <adrich@gte.net>
Subject: RE: "M" (was Re: [CANSLIM] S&P 500 forecast)
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 15:08:12 -0500

Next Article (by Author): [CANSLIM] Times Are Changing Gene Ricci
Previous Article (by Author): Re: "M" (was Re: [CANSLIM] S&P 500 forecast) "Bill Triffet"
Top of Thread: Re: "M" (was Re: [CANSLIM] S&P 500 forecast) "Bill Triffet"
Next in Thread: Re: "M" (was Re: [CANSLIM] S&P 500 forecast) "Bill Triffet"
Articles sorted by: [Date] [Author] [Subject]

> 3. We shouldn't be buying 'yesteryears winners', whose revenues and EPS
are declining

True. But, techs were yesteryears winners. This years? How bout Gaming,
Homebuilders, consumer, finance, medical, retail, etc...Though  I considered
them cyclical, they led this "hidden" rally. (I missed them all...)
- --------------------
I guess that also means that you missed the explosion in the gold shares.

Fred Richards

- -----Original Message-----
From: owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com
[mailto:owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com]On Behalf Of Bill Triffet
Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2002 12:02 PM
To: canslim@lists.xmission.com
Subject: Re: "M" (was Re: [CANSLIM] S&P 500 forecast)


To play the devil's advocate (spelled IBD):
> 1. M must be rising
It has since 9/11.

> 2. We must be only buying stocks with strongly rising revenues and EPS
True in any market.

> 3. We shouldn't be buying 'yesteryears winners', whose revenues and EPS
are declining

True. But, techs were yesteryears winners. This years? How bout Gaming,
Homebuilders, consumer, finance, medical, retail, etc...Though  I considered
them cyclical, they led this "hidden" rally. (I missed them all...)

> 4. The indexes are made up of '3'
Techs led the last big bull. The indexes are far more watered down, hence
the rise since last year.

> 5. 'M' is defined as '4', the indexes
See 1.

Of course I know it's not that cut and dried. WON says the new leaders won't
be the ones from the last rally. That explains the lack of techs and the
rise in the "boring" stocks mentioned above. One of the big problems I had
was not committing to these new leaders because they looked like
non-exciting areas to me. Boy was I wrong! I'm still watching Homebuilders
speed forward thinking they must run out of steam soon.

- -Bill Triffet


- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Ian" <ianstm@shaw.ca>
To: <canslim@lists.xmission.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2002 9:45 AM
Subject: Re: "M" (was Re: [CANSLIM] S&P 500 forecast)


> MessageI can't help thinking that we are in the period that represents
"The Great CANSLIM Contradiction":
>
> 1. M must be rising
> 2. We must be only buying stocks with strongly rising revenues and EPS
> 3. We shouldn't be buying 'yesteryears winners', whose revenues and EPS
are declining
> 4. The indexes are made up of '3'
> 5. 'M' is defined as '4', the indexes
>
> Ian



- -
- -To subscribe/unsubscribe, email "majordomo@xmission.com"
- -In the email body, write "subscribe canslim" or
- -"unsubscribe canslim".  Do not use quotes in your email.


- -
- -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.