RE: [CANSLIM] SHFL

From: Tomas <tomas986@yahoo.com>
Subject: RE: [CANSLIM] SHFL
Date: Mon, 12 May 2003 00:26:27 -0700 (PDT)

Next Article (by Date): RE: [CANSLIM] Institutional Ownership Dave Cameron
Articles sorted by: [Date] [Author] [Subject]

Katherine,

I see.  Make sense.  thanks

tomas

- --- Katherine Malm <kmalm@earthlink.net> wrote:
> 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.
> 
=== 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.

Next Article (by Date): RE: [CANSLIM] Institutional Ownership Dave Cameron
Articles sorted by: [Date] [Author] [Subject]

Go to Jeff Salisbury LWGate Home Page.