Go to Jeff Salisbury LWGate Home Page.From: "Katherine Malm" <kmalm@earthlink.net>
Subject: RE: [CANSLIM] SHFL
Date: Mon, 12 May 2003 01:00:37 -0500
Previous Article (by Subject): Re: [CANSLIM] SHFL Spencer48@aol.com
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.
Previous Article (by Subject): Re: [CANSLIM] SHFL Spencer48@aol.com
Top of Thread: RE: [CANSLIM] SHFL "Katherine Malm"
Articles sorted by: [Date]
[Author]
[Subject]