Go to Jeff Salisbury LWGate Home Page.From: "Katherine Malm" <kmalm@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] OK Show me BIG MONEY
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 14:40:08 -0600
Next Article (by Date): Re: [CANSLIM]lost confidence... BIKEAR@aol.com
Previous Article (by Date): Re: [CANSLIM] WGO Spencer48@aol.com
Top of Thread: Re: [CANSLIM] OK Show me BIG MONEY Spencer48@aol.com
Articles sorted by: [Date]
[Author]
[Subject]
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
- ------=_NextPart_000_0231_01C28F10.6435C790
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi jans,
In reference to "consistent methodology", I remember from reading John =
C's introductory post that he's a heavy user of the screens and =
mini-charts in the IBD. No question that John's methodology is rigorous, =
as he so clearly laid out in his post earlier this year. (Apologies =
John, I remembered well your original post and methodology, but didn't =
more recently make the connection to your name)
With respect to editorial slant--while the stocks the IBD chooses to =
highlight in the mini-charts, etc. are based on the high relative =
strength approach that forms the core of the CANSLIM style, the physical =
paper itself is limited in space, so the charts shown may not represent =
the entire universe of "good quality stocks." Also, given that there =
might be more than could fit in the allotted space, the editors will =
pick and choose which to show. They also choose which stocks to comment =
on, so there is no guarantee that the one or two they mention are =
necessarily the better candidates, though they may very well be the most =
interesting. I also remember times in the past where the stocks showing =
up were indeed high RS stocks, but because the market was doing so =
poorly, they weren't necessarily CANSLIM quality from a growth and/or =
fundamental perspective.
There's a theory that investors tend to be biased when a stock tends to =
be mentioned quite often in the press. Simply mentioning a stock doesn't =
necessarily make it a good (or the best) candidate, but the frequency of =
mention tends to influence how one *perceives* the qualities of the =
company and/or the stock. Take, for instance, the Screen of the Day on =
the website. The editors will choose which screens to run from one day =
to the next. While a good stock will naturally make it to several lists, =
it doesn't necessarily hold that the number of times it shows up makes =
it a "better" stock or that all "good" stocks are represented in the =
screens. There's really no cause and effect there, just luck of the draw =
on editorial choice.
All in all, I think it's far more important to utilize a consistent =
methodology that doesn't introduce this type of editorial bias. In other =
words, the core of CANSLIM is high relative strength, technically sound, =
fundamentally sound, growth stocks. Take away all the fluff , the =
proprietary rankings and the frequency of mention and you're left with =
stocks that fit this bill and stocks that don't. With a sound methodical =
approach, it's possible to zoom in on the stocks that qualify, those =
that are moving up and those that are moving down at all times, without =
bias. That's the ebb and flow that I was referring to in my earlier =
post. In other words, I rely on WON and IBD to help me understand and =
interpret the CANSLIM style, but I don't want them to them lead me by =
the nose if I am to understand and interpret the market. That's the =
beauty of tools such as HGSI, Vectorvest, TC2000 and others...they rely =
on technical indicators to lead you to strength, not editors.
Katherine
- ----- Original Message -----=20
From: Spencer48@aol.com=20
To: canslim@lists.xmission.com=20
Sent: Monday, November 18, 2002 1:32 PM
Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] OK Show me BIG MONEY
Katherine:
I agree. More than any technical tool or whiz-bang chart =
analysis,=20
discipline and an educated-consistent methodology is necessary to =
garner=20
success in the market.
However, I don't understand how IBD's editorial slant can =
influence=20
someone in following the "ebb and flow" of the market. What has one =
to do=20
with the other?=20
Anyway, it's nice to see your E-mails again. And also to read =
them.
jans
In a message dated 11/18/2002 12:03:07 AM Eastern Standard Time,=20
kmalm@earthlink.net writes:
<< [IBD] didn't allow me to track the ebb and flow of the market =
without=20
being influenced by their editorial bias..... Regardless of the =
choice, I=20
still think the real secret to successful investing is using a =
disciplined=20
approach and a methodical/consistent methodology. I think most would =
be hard=20
pressed to argue any one tool was "better" than another, just "better =
for=20
you." >>
-
-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_0231_01C28F10.6435C790
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 6.00.2800.1106" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV>Hi jans,</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>In reference to "consistent methodology", I remember from reading =
John C's=20
introductory post that he's a heavy user of the screens and mini-charts =
in the=20
IBD. No question that John's methodology is rigorous, as he so clearly =
laid out=20
in his post earlier this year. (Apologies John, I remembered well your =
original=20
post and methodology, but didn't more recently make the connection to =
your=20
name)</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>With respect to editorial slant--while the stocks the IBD chooses =
to=20
highlight in the mini-charts, etc. are based on the high relative =
strength=20
approach that forms the core of the CANSLIM style, the physical paper =
itself is=20
limited in space, so the charts shown may not represent the entire =
universe of=20
"good quality stocks." Also, given that there might be more than could =
fit in=20
the allotted space, the editors will pick and choose which to show. They =
also=20
choose which stocks to comment on, so there is no guarantee that the one =
or two=20
they mention are necessarily the better candidates, though they may very =
well be=20
the most interesting. I also remember times in the past where the =
stocks=20
showing up were indeed high RS stocks, but because the market was doing =
so=20
poorly, they weren't necessarily CANSLIM quality from a growth and/or=20
fundamental perspective.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>There's a theory that investors tend to be biased when a stock =
tends to be=20
mentioned quite often in the press. Simply mentioning a stock doesn't=20
necessarily make it a good (or the best) candidate, but the frequency of =
mention=20
tends to influence how one *perceives* the qualities of the company =
and/or the=20
stock. Take, for instance, the Screen of the Day on the website. The =
editors=20
will choose which screens to run from one day to the next. While a good =
stock=20
will naturally make it to several lists, it doesn't necessarily hold =
that the=20
number of times it shows up makes it a "better" stock or that all "good" =
stocks=20
are represented in the screens. There's really no cause and effect =
there, just=20
luck of the draw on editorial choice.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>All in all, I think it's far more important to utilize a consistent =
methodology that doesn't introduce this type of editorial bias. In other =
words,=20
the core of CANSLIM is high relative strength, technically sound, =
fundamentally=20
sound, growth stocks. Take away all the fluff , the proprietary rankings =
and the=20
frequency of mention and you're left with stocks that fit this bill and =
stocks=20
that don't. With a sound methodical approach, it's possible to zoom in =
on the=20
stocks that qualify, those that are moving up and those that are moving =
down at=20
all times, without bias. That's the ebb and flow that I was referring to =
in my=20
earlier post. In other words, I rely on WON and IBD to help me =
understand and interpret the CANSLIM style, but I don't want them=20
to them lead me by the nose if I am to understand and interpret the =
market.=20
That's the beauty of tools such as HGSI, Vectorvest, TC2000 and =
others...they=20
rely on technical indicators to lead you to strength, not editors.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Katherine</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV=20
style=3D"BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: =
black"><B>From:</B>=20
<A title=3DSpencer48@aol.com=20
href=3D"mailto:Spencer48@aol.com">Spencer48@aol.com</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> Monday, November 18, 2002 =
1:32=20
PM</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [CANSLIM] OK Show =
me BIG=20
MONEY</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>Katherine:<BR><BR> I =
agree. More=20
than any technical tool or whiz-bang chart analysis, <BR>discipline =
and an=20
educated-consistent methodology is necessary to garner <BR>success in =
the=20
market.<BR><BR> However, I don't understand =
how IBD's=20
editorial slant can influence <BR>someone in following the "ebb =
and=20
flow" of the market. What has one to do <BR>with the other?=20
<BR><BR> Anyway, it's nice to see your E-mails =
again. And also to read them.<BR><BR>jans<BR><BR><BR>In a =
message dated=20
11/18/2002 12:03:07 AM Eastern Standard Time, <BR><A=20
href=3D"mailto:kmalm@earthlink.net">kmalm@earthlink.net</A>=20
writes:<BR><BR><< [IBD] didn't allow me to track the ebb and =
flow of the=20
market without <BR>being influenced by their editorial bias..... =
Regardless of the choice, I <BR>still think the real secret to =
successful=20
investing is using a disciplined <BR>approach and a =
methodical/consistent=20
methodology. I think most would be hard <BR>pressed to argue any one =
tool was=20
"better" than another, just "better for <BR>you." =
>><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></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>
- ------=_NextPart_000_0231_01C28F10.6435C790--
- -
- -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 Date): Re: [CANSLIM]lost confidence... BIKEAR@aol.com
Previous Article (by Date): Re: [CANSLIM] WGO Spencer48@aol.com
Top of Thread: Re: [CANSLIM] OK Show me BIG MONEY Spencer48@aol.com
Articles sorted by: [Date]
[Author]
[Subject]