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 18:09:28 -0600
Next Article (by Subject): [CANSLIM] ROOM "Norman Boyd"
Previous Article (by Subject): [CANSLIM] MBT "Robin Gridley"
Articles sorted by: [Date]
[Author]
[Subject]
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
- ------=_NextPart_000_0382_01C28F2D.A27126E0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Fred,
I believe you have misread my post as there was no "IBD bashing" =
anywhere in sight. I simply stated that I do not personally use the IBD =
for methodically mining for my stocks because I believe that it creates =
bias in my mind as a reader. As stated in an earlier email, I also =
believe that it takes a great deal of time to use the manual method it =
requires for mining so have chosen another methodology, I still have a =
subscription, and I still read it and find value in it.=20
Katherine
----- Original Message -----=20
From: Fred Winkle=20
To: canslim@lists.xmission.com=20
Sent: Monday, November 18, 2002 3:13 PM
Subject: Fw: [CANSLIM] OK Show me BIG MONEY
Please, enough bashing of IBD. I happen to disagree with you but there =
isn't any value in arguing. I am getting very uncomfortable with the =
running down of the editors of IBD. You've made your point why not let =
it alone? Thank you for your patience and understanding.
----- Original Message -----=20
From: Katherine Malm=20
To: canslim@lists.xmission.com=20
Sent: Monday, November 18, 2002 2:40 PM
Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] OK Show me BIG MONEY
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." >>
- ------=_NextPart_000_0382_01C28F2D.A27126E0
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>Fred,</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I believe you have misread my post as there was no "IBD bashing" =
anywhere=20
in sight. I simply stated that I do not personally use the IBD for =
methodically=20
mining for my stocks because I believe that it creates bias in my mind =
as a=20
reader. As stated in an earlier email, I also believe that it =
takes a=20
great deal of time to use the manual method it requires for mining so =
have=20
chosen another methodology, I still have a subscription, and I still =
read it and=20
find value in it. </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=3Dwinkle@swbell.net href=3D"mailto:winkle@swbell.net">Fred =
Winkle</A>=20
</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 =
3:13=20
PM</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Fw: [CANSLIM] OK Show =
me BIG=20
MONEY</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Please, enough bashing of IBD. I happen to disagree with you but =
there=20
isn't any value in arguing. I am getting very uncomfortable with=20
the running down of the editors of IBD. You've made your point =
why not=20
let it alone? Thank you for your patience and understanding.</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS"></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS"></FONT> </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> Monday, November 18, 2002 2:40 PM</DIV>
<DIV><B>Subject:</B> Re: [CANSLIM] OK Show me BIG MONEY</DIV></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS"></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Hi jans,</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS"></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>In reference to "consistent methodology", I remember from reading =
John=20
C's introductory post that he's a heavy user of the screens and =
mini-charts in=20
the IBD. No question that John's methodology is rigorous, as he so =
clearly=20
laid out in his post earlier this year. (Apologies John, I remembered =
well=20
your original post and methodology, but didn't more recently make the=20
connection to your name)</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS"></FONT> </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=20
is limited in space, so the charts shown may not represent the entire =
universe=20
of "good quality stocks." Also, given that there might be more than =
could fit=20
in the allotted space, the editors will pick and choose which to show. =
They=20
also choose which stocks to comment on, so there is no guarantee that =
the one=20
or two they mention are necessarily the better candidates, though they =
may=20
very well be the most interesting. I also remember times in the =
past=20
where the stocks showing up were indeed high RS stocks, but because =
the market=20
was doing so poorly, they weren't necessarily CANSLIM quality from a =
growth=20
and/or fundamental perspective.</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS"></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>There's a theory that investors tend to be biased when a stock =
tends to=20
be 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=20
mention tends to influence how one *perceives* the qualities of the =
company=20
and/or the stock. Take, for instance, the Screen of the Day on the =
website.=20
The editors will choose which screens to run from one day to the next. =
While a=20
good stock will naturally make it to several lists, it doesn't =
necessarily=20
hold that the number of times it shows up makes it a "better" stock or =
that=20
all "good" stocks are represented in the screens. There's really no =
cause and=20
effect there, just luck of the draw on editorial choice.</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS"></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>All in all, I think it's far more important to utilize a =
consistent=20
methodology that doesn't introduce this type of editorial bias. In =
other=20
words, the core of CANSLIM is high relative strength, technically =
sound,=20
fundamentally sound, growth stocks. Take away all the fluff , the =
proprietary=20
rankings and the frequency of mention and you're left with stocks that =
fit=20
this bill and stocks that don't. With a sound methodical approach, =
it's=20
possible to zoom in on the stocks that qualify, those that are moving =
up and=20
those that are moving down at all times, without bias. That's the ebb =
and flow=20
that I was referring to in my earlier post. In other words, I rely on =
WON=20
and IBD to help me understand and interpret the CANSLIM =
style, but I=20
don't want them to them lead me by the nose if I am to =
understand=20
and interpret the market. That's the beauty of tools such as HGSI, =
Vectorvest,=20
TC2000 and others...they rely on technical indicators to lead you to =
strength,=20
not editors.</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS"></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>Katherine</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS"></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS"></FONT> </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>=
=20
</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><FONT=20
face=3D"Comic Sans =
MS"></FONT><BR></DIV>Katherine:<BR><BR> =20
I agree. More than any technical tool or whiz-bang chart =
analysis,=20
<BR>discipline and an educated-consistent methodology is necessary =
to garner=20
<BR>success in the market.<BR><BR> However, =
I don't=20
understand how IBD's editorial slant can influence <BR>someone in =
following=20
the "ebb and flow" of the market. What has one to do =
<BR>with=20
the other? <BR><BR> Anyway, it's nice to see =
your=20
E-mails again. And also to read =
them.<BR><BR>jans<BR><BR><BR>In a=20
message dated 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=20
the market without <BR>being influenced by their editorial =
bias..... =20
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=20
was "better" than another, just "better for <BR>you."=20
>><BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>
- ------=_NextPart_000_0382_01C28F2D.A27126E0--
- -
- -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): [CANSLIM] ROOM "Norman Boyd"
Previous Article (by Subject): [CANSLIM] MBT "Robin Gridley"
Articles sorted by: [Date]
[Author]
[Subject]