Re: [CANSLIM] Institutional Ownership

From: Davellil5@aol.com
Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Institutional Ownership
Date: Mon, 12 May 2003 15:59:20 EDT

Next Article (by Date): Re: [CANSLIM] TSCO Chazmoore@aol.com
Previous Article (by Date): Re: [CANSLIM] TSCO Marc Deiter
Top of Thread: [CANSLIM] Institutional Ownership "Gene Ricci"
Next in Thread: [CANSLIM] Institutional Ownership "Gene Ricci"
Articles sorted by: [Date] [Author] [Subject]

A possibly useful way to look at I is from the angle of your time horizon.

If you're looking for stocks to buy on breakout, in the hope of riding them 
to substantial gains over a period of time, say, 1-3 months, then it may 
matter a whole lot if 90% of the stock is already in the hands of 
Institutions and Mutuals (I&M's).  You might want to stay out of stocks of 
which I&M's hold more than some percentage, like 50 or 60%.  Tom Worley had 
an even lower maximum.  Because they might take profi.t

If, on the other hand, you're willing to settle for small gains in hope of 
rolling your cash over rapidly for good cumulative gain -- with a time 
horizon up to a month, then I doesn't make too much difference.

How about the lower end?  What minimum holding by I&M's.  If at least 30% of 
a stock is held by I&M's, it shows some interest on their part.  Since the 
I&M's sometimes follow each other like sheep, that's a plus factor.  But, 
again, if your time horizon is short,
and a stock is being accumulated, it isn't as important to have an existing 
interest on the part of the I&M's.

Would be most interested in comments on this criterion of the C-M system.

Dave



- -
- -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.