RE: [CANSLIM] SHFL

From: "Katherine Malm" <kmalm@earthlink.net>
Subject: RE: [CANSLIM] SHFL
Date: Mon, 12 May 2003 01:00:37 -0500
Next Article (by Author): RE: [CANSLIM] Institutional Ownership "Katherine Malm"
Previous Article (by Author): RE: [CANSLIM] SHFL "Katherine Malm"
Top of Thread: RE: [CANSLIM] SHFL "Katherine Malm"
Articles sorted by: [Date] [Author] [Subject]
Thanks, Tomas.

I think that for the most part, insider activity is a hard nut to crack.
Others are likely to give you a different point of view on this one, but I
think insider activity is only significant in a couple of ways. First,
insiders are going to sell, that's the nature of ownership. They'll sell to
rebalance their portfolios, to send Susie to college, to buy a new house,
etc. By itself, selling doesn't really mean anything. However, consistent
selling at fresh lows is not a good thing. This is one time when you want to
see insider selling abate. Second, I am more interested in the trend of
insider buying. Say, for example there has been very little insider buying
and then suddenly there's a rash of it. The change in tone can be a clue
that something is going on. Similarly, buying at new 52 week highs may be an
indication that insiders see something of value, despite the fresh highs.

All in all, I see this as only a tertiary indicator. All else being equal,
if I were trying to decide between 2 stocks, I'd use this only as a tie
breaker.

Here's one of my favorite insider links:
http://insider.thomsonfn.com/tfn/insider.asp?linkcode=7rdcg6divt9fsuu5awkj

You might also use the IBD archives to search for articles on insider
trading: www.investors.com

Katherine

- -----Original Message-----
From: owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com
[mailto:owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com]On Behalf Of Tomas
Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2003 9:13 PM
To: canslim@lists.xmission.com
Subject: RE: [CANSLIM] SHFL


Katherine,

As always, I like to read your email a few times b/c
it has so much valuable information.

One question, you mention about not putting too much
weight on institional activities.  How much weight do
you put on the insider trading?  I see quite a few
CANSLIM stocks that has been going up being sold by
insiders.  If you see about 10% of stocks own by
insiders sold in the last 6 months, do you think twice
before considering this stock?

tomas

- --- Katherine Malm <kmalm@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> Hi Tomas, Roger, jans,
>
> I thought it would be appropriate to comment on some
> of the figures Tomas
> gave in his reply, as he mentions numbers from our
> site.
>
> -On fundamentals: Our CANSLIM Evaluator (CE) is
> divided into 2 separate
> figures, one for fundamentals (i.e. the drivers of
> technical action) and one
> for technicals (the price/volume action). For SHFL,
> the total of 15.69 is
> derived from a technical score of 6.47 (out of 7
> possible) and a fundamental
> score of 9.22 (out of 11 possible). That's nothing
> to sneeze at, but I
> wouldn't want to mislead anybody into thinking that
> all 15.69 points were
> derived from fundamentals alone. Part of our
> reasoning for having these two
> separate components is to be sure that a stock has a
> good combination of
> *both* fundamental and technical attributes at the
> same time. That helps
> avoid stocks that are strong one way or the other,
> but not in tandem. In
> comparison to the other 44 stocks in the industry,
> SHFL rates first in
> fundamentals, a hair better than PENN. It ranks 5th
> in overall technical
> condition. It's rare to find stocks that get a
> "perfect" fundamental score.
> In SHFL's case, it looses some points due to the
> slight deceleration in
> sales and earnings growth rates and due to the net
> shares sold by
> institutions which both Roger and Tomas mentioned.
>
> -On the chart: It is true that SHFL originally set
> up in a cup with handle
> pattern back in March. It appeared on one of our
> watchlists 3/31 and set up
> with the pivot as you described:
>
> http://www.cwhcharts.com/katherine/SHFL033103.JPG
>
> However, it did not breakout at that time. You can
> see a close up of the
> action shortly after. While it tried to break free,
> it did not do so on
> volume, so effectively, the right side of the cup
> continued to form:
>
>
http://www.cwhcharts.com/katherine/SHFLSincePivot0303.JPG
>
> In general, I don't much like the volume on the
> right side of the
> continuation of the cup. It looks wedge-like to me
> and I think SHFL may need
> to spend some time in the current handle to properly
> shake out that lousy
> action in the base. It might be a bit easier to see
> in a weekly chart:
>
>
http://www.cwhcharts.com/katherine/SHFL050903Wkly.JPG
>  (Note: current pivot
> is at 24.85)
>
>
> -General comments: When I first took a look at SHFL
> this morning, I truly
> expected to see the industry action rolling over. As
> jans mentioned, this
> group has been strong in the last couple of years
> and the odds of an
> industry staying at the top after such a long time
> is rather low. However,
> when I took a look at the industry action as a whole
> and at the charts of
> the stocks within the industry, I noticed that for
> the most part, most of
> the stocks have been oscillating sideways for quite
> a while. That *could*
> very well indicate a shoring up for another move up.
> Looking at the chart of
> the industry technicals and rank as a whole, there's
> certainly evidence that
> the group is turning back *up* rather than rolling
> over and heading down:
>
>
http://www.cwhcharts.com/katherine/LeisureGaming050903.JPG
>
> The popularity of gambling escapes me, so I can't
> say that this group has
> ever interested me enough to dive into the details,
> but technically and
> fundamentally, there seems to be some promise in the
> group. Here's one last
> look at the distribution of the group across the CE
> Zone Map:
>
>
http://www.cwhcharts.com/katherine/LeisureGamingMap050903.JPG
>
> This shows that there are quite a few stocks with
> good CANSLIM
> characteristics, i.e. a good combo of both
> fundamentals and technical, as
> the number of stocks in the green zone area are
> pretty impressive.
>
> Katherine
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com
> [mailto:owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com]On Behalf
> Of Tomas
> Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2003 1:52 PM
> To: canslim@lists.xmission.com
> Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] SHFL
>
>
> Roger, Jans,
>
> I believe Roger is looking at the institutional
> ownership activities for the stock when he commented
> about the institional thing.
>
>
http://moneycentral.msn.com/investor/invsub/ownership/ownership.asp?Symbol=s
> hfl
>
> I cannot comment on the RS lines from Jans' input
> since I don't have much experience reading the RS
> line.
>
> The fundies for SHFL looks good.  15.69 out of 18
> (very good) for the CS evaluator.  The zone is green
> 4-4.  The institional ownership looks too high ~98%.
> Anyone want to correct me on this opinion?
>
> Looking at the chart, left side of the cup starts at
> 11/4/02 and right side of the cup is at 3/21/03
> at $21.98.  Handle is from 3/22 to 4/29.  Handle
> trended down, which is good.  BO is on 4/30
> with not as much volume as I would have liked.  But
> big volume two days later.
>
> If you agreen with the CwH dates, then the stock is
> a
> little extended.
>
> Just my $.02
> tomas
>
>
> --- Spencer48@aol.com wrote:
> > Roger,
> >
> >      What gives you the clue that "...institutions
> > seem to be getting out."
> > The number of funds invested in SHFL, according to
> > Daily Graphs Online, from
> > June/02 to March/03 is 81->98 (although in Dec. it
> > was 99).  Is this the only
> > signal that you see?
> >
> >      In my opinion I wouldn't invest in SHFL for
> > these reasons:  1) I believe
> > strength of the Leisure/Gaming Equip. industry is
> > beginning to end; its power
> > was shown in the past few months and now-in my
> > opinion-it's going to
> > dissipate.  The stocks in this group are already
> > surfeited and ready to
> > digest their gains.  The up and coming industries,
> I
> > believe, will have to do
> > with Technology and Medical stocks.
> >
> >      Also, specifically to SHFL, notice the four
> > weakly peaks it has made
> > since May/01.  Around 25 seems to be the
> resistance
> > point.  And the
> > RelativeStrengthLine does not indicate that the
> > stock is strong enough to
> > break the resistance.  I conclude this because:
> > Notice that the previous
> > peak's RSL was in strong divergence from its prior
> > resistance peak (in early
> > Nov./02).
> >
> >      However, in last week's price peak (at the
> > resistance) RSL is either
> > below or just barely above (it is certainly not
> > showing the kind of strength
> > the previous RSL showed at Nov/02's resistance
> > point).
> >
> > jans
>
=== message truncated ===


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com

- -
- -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.