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 20:48:06 -0500
Next Article (by Author): Re: [CANSLIM] Investor's Corner Puzzlement "Katherine Malm"
Previous Article (by Author): [CANSLIM] Spurious Attachments "Harold Josephson"
Top of Thread: Re: "M" (was Re: [CANSLIM] S&P 500 forecast) "Patrick Wahl"
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_0073_01C1EB08.2B8FE1C0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
The comment you made that I was disagreeing with was "this group seems =
to be pretty universally discounting tech stocks" which I do not believe =
anybody has voiced. I agree with you that technical innovation is =
critical and leads just about any major bull, but that is very different =
than saying that the only thing that will work will be tech. The point =
to be made is that we should focus on earnings and revenue strength and =
not be in the habit of ignoring that strength if the business just so =
happens not to be a tech stock. Earnings/revenue growth is about =
innovation and innovation can take many forms.
I haven't changed my opinion about the homebuilders, though it still =
leaves me scratching my head when I see them continue to go up. At some =
point I may have to say "I was wrong" (it wouldn't be the first time) =
but in the meantime I still believe that at some point housing supply =
will far outstrip demand, prices will drop, inventories will rise, and =
growth in earnings/revenues will slow. Until then price/volume action is =
all that counts, *not* my opinion.
All in all, that's the crux of the matter. Whether it's tech, non-tech, =
or whatever, price/volume strength tells us what we need to know, *not* =
what we believe *should* or *will* happen. As CANSLIMers we cannot =
discount strength--fundamental and technical combined. When it shows up, =
we have to be ready, regardless of the industry. In the meantime, WON =
says that the 3 top growth companies are typically found in tech, =
medical/healthcare, and select portions of retail.
Katherine
----- Original Message -----=20
From: Tom Worley=20
To: canslim@lists.xmission.com=20
Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2002 8:26 PM
Subject: Re: "M" (was Re: [CANSLIM] S&P 500 forecast)
I don't know that I agree with you on this, Katherine. In the past 4 =
decades or so, the best markets I have seen were all led by some form of =
technology stocks, with financial stocks as the secondary support during =
corrections and taking over brief leadership. Maybe that's my "rose =
tinted glasses" thinking, because of my personal bias towards tech =
stocks, certainly nothing I have tried to scientifically quantify. But =
it is the area where I see the greatest potential for rapid earnings and =
sales growth, and that certainly will remain as the primary driving =
force in the markets.
Some very sound and astute minds in this group, yours included, were =
pointing out some months ago why homebuilders were turning into a bubble =
that was likely to burst. Some have, and I even exited the last of mine =
a while ago, content with the profits I had. But the best continue to =
outperform everything because of their growth in both sales and =
earnings. Regardless of the industry, earnings and sales growth will =
rule the markets, and I see techs as offering the best opportunities for =
that.
Tom Worley
stkguru@bellsouth.net
AIM: TexWorley
----- Original Message -----=20
From: Katherine Malm=20
To: canslim@lists.xmission.com=20
Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2002 8:59 PM
Subject: Re: "M" (was Re: [CANSLIM] S&P 500 forecast)
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_0073_01C1EB08.2B8FE1C0
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>The comment you made that I was disagreeing with was "this group =
seems to=20
be pretty universally discounting tech stocks" which I do not believe =
anybody=20
has voiced. I agree with you that technical innovation is critical and =
leads=20
just about any major bull, but that is very different than saying that =
the only=20
thing that will work will be tech. The point to be made is that we =
should focus=20
on earnings and revenue strength and not be in the habit of ignoring =
that=20
strength if the business just so happens not to be a tech stock.=20
Earnings/revenue growth is about innovation and innovation can take many =
forms.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I haven't changed my opinion about the homebuilders, though it =
still leaves=20
me scratching my head when I see them continue to go up. At some point I =
may=20
have to say "I was wrong" (it wouldn't be the first time) but in the =
meantime I=20
still believe that at some point housing supply will far outstrip =
demand, prices=20
will drop, inventories will rise, and growth in earnings/revenues will =
slow.=20
Until then price/volume action is all that counts, *not* my =
opinion.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>All in all, that's the crux of the matter. Whether it's tech, =
non-tech, or=20
whatever, price/volume strength tells us what we need to know, *not* =
what we=20
believe *should* or *will* happen. As CANSLIMers we cannot discount=20
strength--fundamental and technical combined. When it shows up, we have =
to be=20
ready, regardless of the industry. In the meantime, WON says that the 3 =
top=20
growth companies are typically found in tech, medical/healthcare, and =
select=20
portions of retail.</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=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 =
8:26=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>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial>I don't know that I agree with you on this, =
Katherine.=20
In the past 4 decades or so, the best markets I have seen were all led =
by some=20
form of technology stocks, with financial stocks as the secondary =
support=20
during corrections and taking over brief leadership. Maybe that's my =
"rose=20
tinted glasses" thinking, because of my personal bias towards tech =
stocks,=20
certainly nothing I have tried to scientifically quantify. But it is =
the area=20
where I see the greatest potential for rapid earnings and sales =
growth, and=20
that certainly will remain as the primary driving force in the=20
markets.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial>Some very sound and astute minds in this =
group,=20
yours included, were pointing out some months ago why homebuilders =
were=20
turning into a bubble that was likely to burst. Some have, and I even =
exited=20
the last of mine a while ago, content with the profits I had. But the =
best=20
continue to outperform everything because of their growth in both =
sales and=20
earnings. Regardless of the industry, earnings and sales growth will =
rule the=20
markets, and I see techs as offering the best opportunities for=20
that.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>Tom Worley<BR><A=20
=
href=3D"mailto:stkguru@bellsouth.net">stkguru@bellsouth.net</A><BR>AIM:=20
TexWorley</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message -----=20
<DIV style=3D"BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color: black"><B>From:</B> <A=20
title=3Dkmalm@earthlink.net =
href=3D"mailto:kmalm@earthlink.net">Katherine Malm</A>=20
</DIV>
<DIV><B>To:</B> <A title=3Dcanslim@lists.xmission.com=20
=
href=3D"mailto:canslim@lists.xmission.com">canslim@lists.xmission.com</A>=
</DIV>
<DIV><B>Sent:</B> Tuesday, April 23, 2002 8:59 PM</DIV>
<DIV><B>Subject:</B> Re: "M" (was Re: [CANSLIM] S&P 500=20
forecast)</DIV></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<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=20
all the time" is past us. New winners will of course include tech, =
it's just=20
that there are going to be far more industries and business types =
represented=20
in the next push than we saw in the late '90's when, if it wasn't =
tech, it=20
didn't go 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>=
=20
</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=20
dollars (including our<BR>mutual fund dollars, unfortunately). But =
the tech=20
sector includes new names<BR>every day, and some of them will be the =
future=20
CSCO that we will be<BR>discussing here in two or three years. Those =
are the=20
ones that I am trying<BR>to find now, and as I find them, find a =
point to=20
buy them and make money off<BR>them. If I can hold the best for a =
few years,=20
all the better.<BR><BR>I will still look at other sectors, but =
personally=20
feel the top returns are<BR>still going to come from tech stocks, =
just names=20
most of us have never heard<BR>of before, just like Cisco before it =
became=20
so well 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]=20
S&P 500 forecast)<BR><BR><BR>> 3. We shouldn't be buying =
'yesteryears=20
winners', whose revenues and EPS<BR>are declining<BR><BR>True. But, =
techs=20
were yesteryears winners. This years? How bout =
Gaming,<BR>Homebuilders,=20
consumer, finance, medical, retail, etc...Though I =
considered<BR>them=20
cyclical, they led this "hidden" rally. (I missed them=20
all...)<BR>--------------------<BR>I guess that also means that you =
missed=20
the 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=20
buying 'yesteryears winners', whose revenues and EPS<BR>are=20
declining<BR><BR>True. But, techs were yesteryears winners. This =
years? How=20
bout 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.=20
One of the big problems I had<BR>was not committing to these new =
leaders=20
because they looked like<BR>non-exciting areas to me. Boy was I =
wrong! I'm=20
still watching Homebuilders<BR>speed forward thinking they must run =
out of=20
steam soon.<BR><BR>-Bill Triffet<BR><BR><BR>----- Original Message=20
-----<BR>From: "Ian" <<A=20
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]=20
S&P 500 forecast)<BR><BR><BR>> MessageI can't help thinking =
that we=20
are in the period that represents<BR>"The Great CANSLIM=20
Contradiction":<BR>><BR>> 1. M must be rising<BR>> 2. We =
must be=20
only buying stocks with strongly rising revenues and EPS<BR>> 3. =
We=20
shouldn't be buying 'yesteryears winners', whose revenues and =
EPS<BR>are=20
declining<BR>> 4. The indexes are made up of '3'<BR>> 5. 'M' =
is=20
defined as '4', the indexes<BR>><BR>> =
Ian<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.<BR><BR><BR>-<BR>-To =
subscribe/unsubscribe,=20
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><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></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>
- ------=_NextPart_000_0073_01C1EB08.2B8FE1C0--
- -
- -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: [CANSLIM] Investor's Corner Puzzlement "Katherine Malm"
Previous Article (by Author): [CANSLIM] Spurious Attachments "Harold Josephson"
Top of Thread: Re: "M" (was Re: [CANSLIM] S&P 500 forecast) "Patrick Wahl"
Next in Thread: Re: "M" (was Re: [CANSLIM] S&P 500 forecast) "Tom Worley"
Articles sorted by: [Date]
[Author]
[Subject]