Go to Jeff Salisbury LWGate Home Page.From: "Katherine Malm" <kmalm@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] institutional sponsorship
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 20:38:23 -0600
Next Article (by Subject): Re: [CANSLIM] Market tops "Tom Worley"
Previous Article (by Subject): [CANSLIM] I Got It Gene Ricci
Articles sorted by: [Date]
[Author]
[Subject]
This is a multi-part message in MIME format. - ------=_NextPart_000_01A7_01C2900B.9A95BE20 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Robin, I think % institutional sponsorship is the great paradox of CANSLIM = investing. On one hand, you *want* good sponsorship, as the CANSLIM = method essentially rides their coattails. On the other, you don't want = an overabundance, as the stock tends to take a dive when the = institutional crowd puts on its herd-mentality-cap. I personally rank % = ownership *way* down in the list when evaluating the stock. If the = fundamentals are sound, the technicals are sound (and it's not a late = stage base), and you can make a good case for the stock's continued = growth earnings/revenues via your due diligence, then I wouldn't kick = out a candidate simply because it's 30% owned. All else being equal = however, % ownership might make a good tie breaker between two good = candidates. Katherine ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Robin Gridley=20 To: CANSLIM=20 Sent: Monday, November 18, 2002 11:15 PM Subject: [CANSLIM] institutional sponsorship I'm not sure if this is a fair observation or not... A lot of the stocks that I'm looking into because I like the charts (and have decent fundamentals...) are coming up with institutional ownership well over 30%. Is this a common phenomena (the funds buy the stuff with the good fundamentals just as I'm looking=20 for...) or is this made more of an issue because there are not a whole lot of great choices out there so the institutions are more prevalent in the ones that look favorable.... - -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_01A7_01C2900B.9A95BE20 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 Robin,</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I think % institutional sponsorship is the great paradox of CANSLIM = investing. On one hand, you *want* good sponsorship, as the CANSLIM = method=20 essentially rides their coattails. On the other, you don't want an=20 overabundance, as the stock tends to take a dive when the institutional = crowd=20 puts on its herd-mentality-cap. I personally rank % ownership *way* down = in the=20 list when evaluating the stock. If the fundamentals are sound, the = technicals=20 are sound (and it's not a late stage base), and you can make a good case = for the=20 stock's continued growth earnings/revenues via your due diligence, then = I=20 wouldn't kick out a candidate simply because it's 30% owned. All else = being=20 equal however, % ownership might make a good tie breaker between two = good=20 candidates.</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=3Dgridley02@earthlink.net = href=3D"mailto:gridley02@earthlink.net">Robin=20 Gridley</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</A> </DIV> <DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Monday, November 18, 2002 = 11:15=20 PM</DIV> <DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> [CANSLIM] = institutional=20 sponsorship</DIV> <DIV><BR></DIV>I'm not sure if this is a fair observation or = not...<BR><BR>A=20 lot of the stocks that I'm looking into because<BR>I like the charts = (and have=20 decent fundamentals...)<BR>are coming up with institutional ownership = well=20 over<BR>30%. Is this a common phenomena (the funds buy the<BR>stuff = with the=20 good fundamentals just as I'm looking <BR>for...) or is this made more = of an=20 issue because<BR>there are not a whole lot of great choices out = there<BR>so=20 the institutions are more prevalent in the ones<BR>that look=20 favorable....<BR><BR><BR><BR>-<BR>-To subscribe/unsubscribe, email "<A = = 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_01A7_01C2900B.9A95BE20-- - - - -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] Market tops "Tom Worley"
Previous Article (by Subject): [CANSLIM] I Got It Gene Ricci
Articles sorted by: [Date]
[Author]
[Subject]