Re: [CANSLIM] Let's play "Where are they now?"

From: "Larry Worden" <lworden@attbi.com>
Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Let's play "Where are they now?"
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 06:20:57 -0800
Next Article (by Subject): [CANSLIM] STST Ian
Previous Article (by Subject): RE: [CANSLIM] Let's play "Where are they now?" "Robin Gridley"
Top of Thread: Re: [CANSLIM] Let's play "Where are they now?" Kent Norman
Articles sorted by: [Date] [Author] [Subject]
Robin, thanks for the work. I have also looked at this. The bottom  groups
have more up potential when the market turns up, but more down potential
when the market turns down? I would like to see your % when the market turns
down.
           Lary
- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Robin Gridley" <gridley02@earthlink.net>
To: <canslim@lists.xmission.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2002 9:16 PM
Subject: RE: [CANSLIM] Let's play "Where are they now?"


> So THAT'S the problem with my Fidelity funds all this time... they've
> only been buyin' the good rated stuff! (Note to self... send Fidelity
> an email to start buying the crappy looking stocks....)
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com
> [mailto:owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com]On Behalf Of John Solarno
> Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2002 6:51 PM
> To: canslim@lists.xmission.com
> Subject: [CANSLIM] Let's play "Where are they now?"
>
>
> Every weekend, I download a copy of a detailed report off of a website
> we all know and love that contains all of the pricing data, earnings
> ratings, relative strength ratings, etc. for several thousand stocks as
> of the end of the preceding week.  I keep all of those reports on my
> hard drive, thinking they might prove useful SOMEDAY.
>
> Tonight, just for fun, I decided to play a game I call "Where Are They
> Now?" I went back to a report I ran about 30 trading days ago and, using
> Excel and some current pricing data, I did a very clumsy analysis of the
> report to see where all of these stocks now stood, subtotaled by various
> criteria. (For example, how did stocks with an earnings rating between
> 80-99 vs. stocks with an earnings rating of 70-79 perform in the last 30
> trading days?)
>
> The results were startling, even if my analysis was, as I said, pretty
> crude.  I merely looked at price today vs. price 30 trading days ago and
> then sorted and subtotaled by various criteria. (I'm sure a statistician
> would have a field day pointing out the faults in my methods.)
>
> Here was the part that surprised me: the worse the ratings, the better
> the stock performance!  It seemed as if no matter which criteria I used,
> the "bottom of the barrel" ended up out-performing what are usually
> referred to as "the top-rated stocks."
>
> Here are the results.  (The percentage shown is the average percentage
> increase of all stocks in a given category.) I have been very careful to
> make sure that I am not violating any copyright laws or user agreements,
> so in each case, I have invented a annoyingly cute or confusing
> name/description of my own invention for each criterion just to make
> sure I won't get in trouble.
>
> I also make no claims as to what any of this analysis means.  I merely
> offer it up for amusement.  (But earlier this week, the Large Picture in
> that newspaper we all read DID mention that the only people making any
> money right now were the bottom fishers!  I guess they weren't kidding!)
>
> One last heartening note: notice that all of the percentages are
> positive.  That means that even though some stocks went into the toilet,
> overall, prices were up.
>
> John
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -----------------------
>
>
> CRITERIA: The rating of the growth of a company's sales, their margin on
> profit and the return on their equity. (I've assigned a fake letter
> grade of my own invention which mimics the real thing. "V" is presumably
> the best letter grade, "Z" the worst.)
>
> V = 3.4%
> W = 3.58%
> X - 4.68%
> Y = 5.57%
> Z = 10.60%
>
> CRITERIA: The stock's earnings per share
>
> 90-99:  2.82%
> 80-89:  3.58%
> 70-79:  1.75%
> 60-69:  3.75%
> 50-59:  4.07%
> 40-49:  7.17%
> 30-39:  5.74%
> 20-29:  8.01%
> 10-19:  6.19%
> 0-9: 9.05%
>
> CRITERIA: The stock's strength, all things being relative
>
> 90-99: 1.67%
> 80-89: 3.01%
> 70-79: 3.39%
> 60-69: 3.15%
> 50-59: 2.63%
> 40-49: 4.22%
> 30-39: 5.70%
> 20-29: 4.67%
> 10-19: 10.19%
> 0-9:  10.47%
>
> CRITERIA: Rating of the stock's group strength, all things being
> relative
>
> 90-99: 0.87%
> 80-89: 2.28%
> 70-79: 0.18%
> 60-69: 1.98%
> 50-59: 0.45%
> 40-49: 4.53%
> 30-39: 8.94%
> 20-29: 10.39%
> 10-19: 6.24%
> 0-9: 15.34%
>
>
>
>
>
> -
> -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.
Go to Jeff Salisbury LWGate Home Page.