Go to Jeff Salisbury LWGate Home Page.From: "Katherine Malm" <kmalm@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: "M" (was Re: [CANSLIM] S&P 500 forecast)
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 19:59:54 -0500
Next Article (by Author): Re: "M" (was Re: [CANSLIM] S&P 500 forecast) "Tom Worley"
Previous Article (by Author): [CANSLIM] Investor's Corner Puzzlement "Harold Josephson"
Next in Thread: Re: "M" (was Re: [CANSLIM] S&P 500 forecast) "Tom Worley"
Articles sorted by: [Date]
[Author]
[Subject]
This is a multi-part message in MIME format. - ------=_NextPart_000_0064_01C1EB01.6F91B800 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Woa there, Tom....I don't think anybody is "discounting tech = stocks"..... that would be nuts. My personal point of view is that the = time of "all tech all the time" is past us. New winners will of course = include tech, it's just that there are going to be far more industries = and business types represented in the next push than we saw in the late = '90's when, if it wasn't tech, it didn't go up. Katherine ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Tom Worley=20 To: canslim@lists.xmission.com=20 Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2002 7:47 PM Subject: Re: "M" (was Re: [CANSLIM] S&P 500 forecast) Fred, this group seems to be pretty universally discounting tech = stocks as "yesteryears winners", and I am going to disagree. yes, I think the CSCO, ERICY, LU, MSFT, INTC, and so forth will take = years before they become attractive from a CANSLIM perspective, if they ever = do that. They will still attract lots of institutional dollars (including = our mutual fund dollars, unfortunately). But the tech sector includes new = names every day, and some of them will be the future CSCO that we will be discussing here in two or three years. Those are the ones that I am = trying to find now, and as I find them, find a point to buy them and make = money off them. If I can hold the best for a few years, all the better. I will still look at other sectors, but personally feel the top = returns are still going to come from tech stocks, just names most of us have never = heard of before, just like Cisco before it became so well known. Tom Worley stkguru@bellsouth.net AIM: TexWorley ----- Original Message ----- From: "Fred Richards" <adrich@gte.net> To: <canslim@lists.xmission.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2002 4:08 PM Subject: RE: "M" (was Re: [CANSLIM] S&P 500 forecast) > 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. - -To subscribe/unsubscribe, email "majordomo@xmission.com" -In the email body, write "subscribe canslim" or -"unsubscribe canslim". Do not use quotes in your email. - ------=_NextPart_000_0064_01C1EB01.6F91B800 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; = charset=3Diso-8859-1"> <META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2600.0" name=3DGENERATOR> <STYLE></STYLE> </HEAD> <BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff> <DIV>Woa there, Tom....I don't think anybody is "discounting tech = stocks".....=20 that would be nuts. My personal point of view is that the time of "all = tech all=20 the time" is past us. New winners will of course include tech, it's just = that=20 there are going to be far more industries and business types represented = in the=20 next push than we saw in the late '90's when, if it wasn't tech, it = didn't go=20 up.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Katherine</DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE=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=3Dstkguru@bellsouth.net = href=3D"mailto:stkguru@bellsouth.net">Tom=20 Worley</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>= </DIV> <DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Tuesday, April 23, 2002 = 7:47=20 PM</DIV> <DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: "M" (was Re: = [CANSLIM]=20 S&P 500 forecast)</DIV> <DIV><BR></DIV>Fred, this group seems to be pretty universally = discounting=20 tech stocks as<BR>"yesteryears winners", and I am going to=20 disagree.<BR><BR>yes, I think the CSCO, ERICY, LU, MSFT, INTC, and so = forth=20 will take years<BR>before they become attractive from a CANSLIM = perspective,=20 if they ever do<BR>that. They will still attract lots of institutional = dollars=20 (including our<BR>mutual fund dollars, unfortunately). But the tech = sector=20 includes new names<BR>every day, and some of them will be the future = CSCO that=20 we will be<BR>discussing here in two or three years. Those are the = ones that I=20 am trying<BR>to find now, and as I find them, find a point to buy them = and=20 make money off<BR>them. If I can hold the best for a few years, all = the=20 better.<BR><BR>I will still look at other sectors, but personally feel = the top=20 returns are<BR>still going to come from tech stocks, just names most = of us=20 have never heard<BR>of before, just like Cisco before it became so = well=20 known.<BR><BR>Tom Worley<BR><A=20 = href=3D"mailto:stkguru@bellsouth.net">stkguru@bellsouth.net</A><BR>AIM:=20 TexWorley<BR>----- Original Message -----<BR>From: "Fred Richards" = <<A=20 href=3D"mailto:adrich@gte.net">adrich@gte.net</A>><BR>To: <<A=20 = href=3D"mailto:canslim@lists.xmission.com">canslim@lists.xmission.com</A>= ><BR>Sent:=20 Tuesday, April 23, 2002 4:08 PM<BR>Subject: RE: "M" (was Re: [CANSLIM] = S&P=20 500 forecast)<BR><BR><BR>> 3. We shouldn't be buying 'yesteryears = winners',=20 whose revenues and EPS<BR>are declining<BR><BR>True. But, techs were=20 yesteryears winners. This years? How bout Gaming,<BR>Homebuilders, = consumer,=20 finance, medical, retail, etc...Though I considered<BR>them = cyclical,=20 they led this "hidden" rally. (I missed them=20 all...)<BR>--------------------<BR>I guess that also means that you = missed the=20 explosion in the gold shares.<BR><BR>Fred = Richards<BR><BR>-----Original=20 Message-----<BR>From: <A=20 = href=3D"mailto:owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com">owner-canslim@lists.xmis= sion.com</A><BR>[mailto:owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com]On=20 Behalf Of Bill Triffet<BR>Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2002 12:02 = PM<BR>To: <A=20 = href=3D"mailto:canslim@lists.xmission.com">canslim@lists.xmission.com</A>= <BR>Subject:=20 Re: "M" (was Re: [CANSLIM] S&P 500 forecast)<BR><BR><BR>To play = the=20 devil's advocate (spelled IBD):<BR>> 1. M must be rising<BR>It has = since=20 9/11.<BR><BR>> 2. We must be only buying stocks with strongly = rising=20 revenues and EPS<BR>True in any market.<BR><BR>> 3. We shouldn't be = buying=20 'yesteryears winners', whose revenues and EPS<BR>are = declining<BR><BR>True.=20 But, techs were yesteryears winners. This years? How bout=20 Gaming,<BR>Homebuilders, consumer, finance, medical, retail,=20 etc...Though I considered<BR>them cyclical, they led this = "hidden"=20 rally. (I missed them all...)<BR><BR>> 4. The indexes are made up = of=20 '3'<BR>Techs led the last big bull. The indexes are far more watered = down,=20 hence<BR>the rise since last year.<BR><BR>> 5. 'M' is defined as = '4', the=20 indexes<BR>See 1.<BR><BR>Of course I know it's not that cut and dried. = WON=20 says the new leaders won't<BR>be the ones from the last rally. That = explains=20 the lack of techs and the<BR>rise in the "boring" stocks mentioned = above. One=20 of the big problems I had<BR>was not committing to these new leaders = because=20 they looked like<BR>non-exciting areas to me. Boy was I wrong! I'm = still=20 watching Homebuilders<BR>speed forward thinking they must run out of = steam=20 soon.<BR><BR>-Bill Triffet<BR><BR><BR>----- Original Message = - -----<BR>From:=20 "Ian" <<A = href=3D"mailto:ianstm@shaw.ca">ianstm@shaw.ca</A>><BR>To: <<A=20 = href=3D"mailto:canslim@lists.xmission.com">canslim@lists.xmission.com</A>= ><BR>Sent:=20 Tuesday, April 23, 2002 9:45 AM<BR>Subject: Re: "M" (was Re: [CANSLIM] = S&P=20 500 forecast)<BR><BR><BR>> MessageI can't help thinking that we are = in the=20 period that represents<BR>"The Great CANSLIM = Contradiction":<BR>><BR>>=20 1. M must be rising<BR>> 2. We must be only buying stocks with = strongly=20 rising revenues and EPS<BR>> 3. We shouldn't be buying 'yesteryears = winners', whose revenues and EPS<BR>are declining<BR>> 4. The = indexes are=20 made up of '3'<BR>> 5. 'M' is defined as '4', the = indexes<BR>><BR>>=20 Ian<BR><BR><BR><BR>-<BR>-To subscribe/unsubscribe, email "<A=20 = href=3D"mailto:majordomo@xmission.com">majordomo@xmission.com</A>"<BR>-In= the=20 email body, write "subscribe canslim" or<BR>-"unsubscribe = canslim". Do=20 not use quotes in your email.<BR><BR><BR>-<BR>-To = subscribe/unsubscribe, email=20 "<A = href=3D"mailto:majordomo@xmission.com">majordomo@xmission.com</A>"<BR>-In= =20 the email body, write "subscribe canslim" or<BR>-"unsubscribe = canslim". =20 Do not use quotes in your email.<BR><BR><BR><BR><BR>-<BR>-To=20 subscribe/unsubscribe, email "<A=20 = href=3D"mailto:majordomo@xmission.com">majordomo@xmission.com</A>"<BR>-In= the=20 email body, write "subscribe canslim" or<BR>-"unsubscribe = canslim". Do=20 not use quotes in your email.</BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML> - ------=_NextPart_000_0064_01C1EB01.6F91B800-- - - - -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 Author): Re: "M" (was Re: [CANSLIM] S&P 500 forecast) "Tom Worley"
Previous Article (by Author): [CANSLIM] Investor's Corner Puzzlement "Harold Josephson"
Next in Thread: Re: "M" (was Re: [CANSLIM] S&P 500 forecast) "Tom Worley"
Articles sorted by: [Date]
[Author]
[Subject]