Re: [CANSLIM] M

From: "Tom Worley" <stkguru@bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] M
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2003 23:05:15 -0500
Next Article (by Date): Re: [CANSLIM] Bailing out of a would-be breakout "Tom Worley"
Previous Article (by Date): [CANSLIM] Bailing out of a would-be breakout "Jerome Buckmelter"
Articles sorted by: [Date] [Author] [Subject]
jans, I remain unconvinced that WON either writes, reads, or even approves
each article in IBD such as the one you cite. I do believe that the editors
at IBD have considerable license to attempt to redefine CANSLIM and its
rules, and not necessarily with implicit or actual consent of WON.
Certainly, they will try to put a positive spin on anything that would
discourage present or potential subscribers from taking a renewed interest
in investing.

I do agree with you, the definitions of distribution days are pretty clear,
and redefining them is unwise.

I like to look at a lot of different stuff in my evaluating and
understanding of "M". One of those is a loose impression of investor
sentiment, often gleaned from market summaries. Here are some of my
observations from today: large cap driven, ratio of up to down volume far
surpassed the ratio of up to down stocks; lots of money still sidelined but
rushing back in as evidenced by 3-5% moves up on the biggest cap and best
known names (INTC, MSFT, DIS, MO, JPM); market shrugging off bad news (e.g.
factory orders down 1.5% vs expected decline of 0.7%, yesterday it was worse
than expected news on the ISM Index), and there were also several downgrades
today that barely declined; sector movement (software, networking,
semiconductors all up about 5% or better); movement of oil / gold / US
dollar (gold and oil crashed today and back below recent support); and the
market's kneejerk reaction to news about the war in Iraq (as if wasting two
Iraqi divisions means the war will be over tomorrow).

I do agree, and have been saying, that how the markets have behaved in the
months since hitting the October lows, and especially since hitting the more
recent highs, does suggest strong institutional support. A lot of money is
sitting on the sidelines, and the institutional money managers are scared to
be left behind even in a short term rally. But that may simply mean that
fear is driving many of them to disregard (reinvent) the rules, including on
distribution.

- ----- Original Message -----
From: <Spencer48@aol.com>
To: <canslim@lists.xmission.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 1:28 PM
Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] M


Ian:

     I could not agree more with your implied suggestion that WON is
redefining his distribution days on the fly.  He said (in IBD) that the
first
two dates aren't D-days because, even though the index closed lower on
higher
volume both days, the fact that it didn't close at its lows (and near its
highs) indicates institutional support.

    This is a tough market, and this 3 year Bear can't have been good to IBD
finances (and subscriber rates), but it makes me nervous when ANYONE revamps
a tried and true definition because "this time it's different".  That very
well could be, but WON doesn't say WHY it is different this time.   (In my
opinion, I think he's right in that the markets are turning into a Bullish
mode, but I don't think we are out of the Bearish woods yet.  I'd keep my
distribution definition intact:  Its worked many times in the past, and
now-at this juncture-should not be the time to re-define it).

jans


In a message dated 3/31/2003 4:11:17 PM Eastern Standard Time,
ianstm@shaw.ca
writes:

<< Today marks the 3rd distribution day for the NASDAQ in the last 9 trading
 days:

 Wed 19th
 Thurs 27th
 Mon 31st
  >>

- -
- -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.