Go to Jeff Salisbury LWGate Home Page.From: "Duke Miller" <dukemill@tampabay.rr.com>
Subject: [CANSLIM] Boomer Babies
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 12:16:10 -0400
Next Article (by Subject): Re: [CANSLIM] Boomer Babies Spencer48@aol.com
Top of Thread: Re: [CANSLIM] Boomer Babies Spencer48@aol.com
Next in Thread: Re: [CANSLIM] Boomer Babies Spencer48@aol.com
Articles sorted by: [Date]
[Author]
[Subject]
This is a multi-part message in MIME format. - ------=_NextPart_000_0028_01C27B57.26AD7BB0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Boomer Babies concept that that I passed on several weeks ago was so poorly received by this group that I hesitate to bring it up again! I'm not hurt, I promise. I've never been known to run with the crowd, more often than not taking Frost's road less traveled. However, dear friends, I have been doing some analysis on the list that now contains 84 stocks, and I've discovered and interesting lack of correlation. Interesting to me, at any rate. I'll explain: The weekend of October 9, I created a Boomer Babies Watch List portfolio using the closing price on October 8 as the basis for each stock. As of yesterday's close, this whole group is up about 4.5%, or over $12,000 if you'd purchased 100 shares of each. No great shakes. I thought it would be interesting to indicate on my spreadsheet the dates any of the stocks appear on IBD's Screen of the Day. At risk of eliciting a "duh", the assumption is the SODs more than likely feature the better performing stocks to watch. At least that's what WON often suggests. Going back to October 3rd's SOD and working forward, I found: Out of the 84 stocks on the Boomer Babies list, 38 (45%) have made at least one SOD appearance since 10/3. (The most is 7 appearances by a total of five of the stocks.) Sorting the list based on the number of appearances by each stock revealed stocks that appeared more than five times increased an average of 5.5%; those appearing one to four times rose less than half that at an average of 2.3%. As for the five that have appeared seven times, they're up a little over 8%. But what of the 56 stocks not appearing on a SOD since October 3? Holy assumption, Batman, they're up an average of 9.3%!! In other words, none of these stocks appeared in screens ranging from ROE leaders to Total Composite Ratings. What does all this prove? It tells me the Boomer Babies list is producing the kind of prospects I'm interested in: Solid companies across a broad range of industries that stand to profit from the aging and eventual retirement of boomers. (The "solid" is derived from, I think, the fact that all the candidates were culled from nine months of New America features. A plus for IBD, the publication.) However, a) It has prompted me to consider ceasing the downloading every SOD for future study; b) I intend to follow the progress of each stock with CANSLIM on my mind, but not obsessively so; c) It has raised a level in cynicism regarding devotion to analysis of bases, breakouts, etc. Those narratives are somewhat befuddling and often contradictory at best). Sorry if that seems blasphemous, but that's my observation(s). It just seems every time a breakout fails, they can spot the reason, in hindsight, of course. Same theme, different day. Have a great weekend. Duke PS: It was my intent to post the results of my survey as described above, citing the specific stocks. But, alas, as some of you know, I received a certified wrist-spanking from IBD's SS troops after posting a SOD analysis back in July. Heaven forbid a further possible suspected violation of IBD's proprietary blah, blah, blah... - ------=_NextPart_000_0028_01C27B57.26AD7BB0 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 6.00.2716.2200" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD> <BODY> <DIV><SPAN class=3D607294613-24102002><FONT face=3DArial>The Boomer=20 Babies concept that that I passed on several weeks ago was so = poorly=20 received by this group that I hesitate to bring it up again! I'm = not hurt,=20 I promise. I've never been known to run with the crowd, more = often=20 than not taking Frost's road less traveled. = </FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D607294613-24102002><FONT = face=3DArial></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial><SPAN class=3D607294613-24102002>However, dear = friends, I=20 have been doing some analysis on the list that now contains 84 stocks, = and =20 I've discovered and interesting <EM>lack</EM> of correlation. = Interesting=20 to me, at any rate.</SPAN> <SPAN class=3D607294613-24102002> I'll=20 explain:</SPAN></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial><SPAN = class=3D607294613-24102002></SPAN></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D607294613-24102002><FONT face=3DArial>The weekend of = October 9,=20 </FONT></SPAN><SPAN class=3D607294613-24102002><FONT face=3DArial>I = created a Boomer=20 Babies Watch List portfolio using the closing price on October = 8 as=20 the basis for each stock. As of yesterday's close, this whole=20 group is up about 4.5%, or over $12,000 if you'd purchased 100 = shares of=20 each. No great shakes. </FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D607294613-24102002><FONT = face=3DArial></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D607294613-24102002><FONT face=3DArial>I thought it = would be=20 interesting to indicate on my spreadsheet the dates any of the = stocks=20 appear on IBD's Screen of the Day. At risk of eliciting a = "duh", the=20 <EM>assumption </EM>is the SODs more than likely feature the better = performing stocks to watch. At least that's what WON often=20 suggests. </FONT></SPAN><SPAN class=3D607294613-24102002><FONT=20 face=3DArial>Going back to October 3rd's SOD and working forward, I=20 found: </FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D607294613-24102002><FONT = face=3DArial></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D607294613-24102002><FONT face=3DArial>Out of = the 84 stocks=20 on the Boomer Babies list, 38 (45%) have made at least one SOD = appearance since 10/3. (The most is 7 appearances by a total = of five=20 of the stocks.)</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D607294613-24102002><FONT = face=3DArial></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D607294613-24102002><FONT face=3DArial>Sorting the = list based on=20 the number of appearances by each stock revealed stocks that = appeared more=20 than five times increased an average of 5.5%; those appearing one to = four times=20 rose less than half that at an average of 2.3%. As for the = five that=20 have appeared seven times, they're up a little over = 8%.</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D607294613-24102002><FONT = face=3DArial></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D607294613-24102002><FONT face=3DArial>But what of the = 56 stocks=20 <EM>not</EM> appearing on a SOD since October 3? Holy assumption, = Batman,=20 they're up an average of 9.3%!! In other words, none of these = stocks=20 appeared in screens ranging from ROE leaders to Total Composite=20 Ratings.</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D607294613-24102002><FONT = face=3DArial></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D607294613-24102002><FONT face=3DArial>What does all = this=20 prove? </FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D607294613-24102002><FONT = face=3DArial></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D607294613-24102002><FONT face=3DArial>It tells me the = Boomer=20 Babies list is producing the kind of prospects I'm interested in: = Solid=20 companies across a broad range of industries that stand to profit = from the=20 aging and eventual retirement of boomers. (The "solid" is = derived=20 from, I think, the fact that all the candidates were culled from nine = months of=20 New America features. A plus for IBD, the=20 publication.)</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D607294613-24102002><FONT = face=3DArial></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D607294613-24102002><FONT face=3DArial>However, a) It = has prompted=20 me to consider ceasing the downloading every SOD for future study; b) I = intend=20 to follow the progress of each stock with CANSLIM on my mind, but = not=20 obsessively so; c) It has raised a level in cynicism regarding = devotion to=20 analysis of bases, breakouts, etc. Those narratives=20 are somewhat befuddling and often contradictory at = best). =20 Sorry if that seems blasphemous, but that's my observation(s). It = just=20 seems every time a breakout fails, they can spot the reason, in = hindsight, of=20 course. Same theme, different day.</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D607294613-24102002></SPAN><SPAN = class=3D607294613-24102002><FONT=20 face=3DArial></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D607294613-24102002><FONT face=3DArial>Have a great=20 weekend.</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D607294613-24102002></SPAN><SPAN = class=3D607294613-24102002><FONT=20 face=3DArial></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D607294613-24102002><FONT face=3DArial>Duke =20 </FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D607294613-24102002></SPAN><SPAN = class=3D607294613-24102002><FONT=20 face=3DArial></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D607294613-24102002><FONT face=3DArial> <DIV><SPAN class=3D607294613-24102002><FONT face=3DArial>PS: It was my = intent to=20 post the results of my survey as described above, citing the specific=20 stocks. But, alas, as some of you know, I received a certified=20 wrist-spanking from IBD's SS troops after posting a SOD analysis = back in=20 July. Heaven forbid a further possible suspected violation of = IBD's=20 proprietary blah, blah, blah...</FONT></SPAN></DIV></FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D607294613-24102002><FONT = face=3DArial></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D607294613-24102002><FONT = face=3DArial></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial></FONT> </DIV></BODY></HTML> - ------=_NextPart_000_0028_01C27B57.26AD7BB0-- - - - -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 Subject): Re: [CANSLIM] Boomer Babies Spencer48@aol.com
Top of Thread: Re: [CANSLIM] Boomer Babies Spencer48@aol.com
Next in Thread: Re: [CANSLIM] Boomer Babies Spencer48@aol.com
Articles sorted by: [Date]
[Author]
[Subject]