From: Marc Deiter <dites@yahoo.com>
Subject: RE: [CANSLIM] filter
Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2003 13:57:25 -0700 (PDT)
Next Article (by Subject): RE: [CANSLIM] filter "Katherine Malm"
Top of Thread: RE: [CANSLIM] filter "Katherine Malm"
Next in Thread: RE: [CANSLIM] filter "Katherine Malm"
Articles sorted by: [Date]
[Author]
[Subject]
Hi Jeff, Welcome to the group. I looked at your filter and I would suggest some modifications. EPS Qtr to Qtr growth - this is set at 70 in your screen. I would put this around 20-25. Sales Growth and ROE - I would add two criteria for Sales Growth Yr over Yr and Qtr over Qtr. I personally would set these around 20 - adjust to your own rules and preferences. For ROE criteria, WON recommends 17% but I like to do around 12%. One other modification I would suggest is to remove or lower the criteria you have put in for daily volume. You want to see volume on the breakout day be 50% above average. The objective of running the screen is to find stocks prior to break-out that are setting up. Ideally, the volume of a stock forming a handle will be much lower than 50% above the daily average. Marc - --- Jeff Henderson <JHend746@cox.net> wrote: > Ok, for the sake of organization here is a link to my filter: > http://moneycentral.msn.com/investor/invsub/finder/finderx.asp?Query=SV1 > QF153Z04L70ZF131Z04L24ZF3Z00F233Z05L25000000ZF307Z04L80ZF5Z04L1%2e5F116M > ZF116Z00F102Z04L10Z > <http://moneycentral.msn.com/investor/invsub/finder/finderx.asp?Query=SV > 1QF153Z04L70ZF131Z04L24ZF3Z00F233Z05L25000000ZF307Z04L80ZF5Z04L1%2e5F116 > MZF116Z00F102Z04L10Z&Name=o%27neal&Tickers=25> > &Name=o%27neal&Tickers=25 > > As I mentioned earlier I am using the EXACT recommendations from > O'Neil's book but I am getting NO query results. Why is this? Are > WON's standards too high? What fundamentals should I be using? I > assume we all can agree on the CANSLIM methods but I guess there is > disagreement in the specific numbers to be used. > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com > [mailto:owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Katherine > Malm > Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2003 2:46 PM > To: canslim@lists.xmission.com > Subject: RE: [CANSLIM] filter > > Hi Gene, > > Please see my follow up clarification post on the comment on "the > prior > 52 weeks." > > I did not state nor intend to imply that MSN screeners weren't > effective, but that they would not produce the same results as > those you > would get when using DGO/IBD RSRanks. It's worth noting for those > that > are unaware that the RS values at free screening sites such as MSN > are > *not* the same as those from IBD/DGO. The same is true of industry > ranks, etc., as the methdologies are quite different. > > It does leave a particular question, however, as to why you would > find > it necessary to use free MSN screeners when you use several > different > subscription services (HGSI and Vectorvest) and also use Metastock > for > screening (though I realize you probably use the QP2 data from the > HGSI > feed). HGSI, in particular, closely mirrors the IBD/DGO RSranks and > includes EPS ranks as well. They also have a particularly > comprehensive > set of tools for performing analysis of a stock's technicals and > fundamentals. Why use so many different tools? > > Katherine > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com > [mailto:owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com]On Behalf Of Gene Ricci > Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2003 2:31 PM > To: canslim@lists.xmission.com > Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] filter > Hi Katherine, I'm pretty sure that the RS ranks are not based over > the > prior 52 weeks. > And, I have found the MSN screener to be very effective. > > Gene > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Katherine Malm <mailto:kmalm@earthlink.net> > To: canslim@lists.xmission.com > Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2003 2:21 PM > Subject: RE: [CANSLIM] filter > > Hi Jeff, > > I might add a note of caution on using the MSN screener. That is, > their > RS ranks are based on a flat change in price over the prior 52 > weeks. > This is significantly different than IBD's RS ranks, which are > weighted > so that the price action in the most recent quarter carries more > weight > (40%), while previous quarter's each carry 20% weight. The other > difference in RS ranks is that the database over which they are > determined is very different. RS ranks for the IBD are based on a > universe of stocks which includes *only* common stocks on the major > US > (NASDAQ, NYSE, AMEX) and Canadian exchanges, plus closed end bond > and > equity funds. From what I remember, MSN RS ranks are calculated > across > all equities in the US markets, including warrants and preferreds. > While > the RS ranks at MSN are indeed useful, you would not be emulating > the > IBD rankings for purposes of filtering your stocks. > > Katherine > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com > [mailto:owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com]On Behalf Of DMC197807 > Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2003 2:08 PM > To: canslim@lists.xmission.com > Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] filter > Jeff, > > If you're using a free scanner, why don't you use the one Gene > posted a > couple of days ago (I'll repost his post) and play with the > criteria > there. If I adjust relative strength to 80 or above it spits out > 15 > names. > > As for CANSLIM criteria, after M one supposes they are all > important, > and my descending order is no better (could be a lot worse) than > anyone > else's. However, you are asking a question that I answered 2 days > ago, > at least from my perspective. This is from my note on 8/4 to Yien: > > > <<Good, that's a bunch of information that you can't use. Now, for > some > you > can. There are only 3 numbers which matter, when all the dust is > settled. > They are NOT p/e, d/e, current ratio, PEG, profit margin or > inventory > turnover. > > THEY ARE: Price paid for shares, Price received for shares, Time > held. > > Now, MILSCAN (Canslim to some of you) is a very interesting > approach, > and > can possibly, with strong position and money management systems, > help > you to > buy low and sell high in a timely timeframe. > > Here's how I think of these factors, in descending order of > importance: > > <<M is for the market and the market trend. We are at an > inflection > point > here, so it's lookout below, or perhaps lookout above. > > N is for new highs in the stock, breaking out above the pivot point > > L is for an relative strength rating of 70 or better > > A is for annual earnings growth (this is for additional comfort) > > C is for current quarterly earnings (this is for additional > comfort) > > I is for institutional sponsorship (this is a timing issue--I > think I > trust > the chart over this, for some reason) > > S is for supply of stock (looking for a relatively low no. of > shares--here I > want to exclude the over-issued monsters like CSCO and INTC where > it > will > take a ton of momentum to move the billions of shares outstanding). > > In closing, using TA and FA together is a good idea, but when in > conflict, > trust the TA. Remember, out of 7000 stocks we are looking for 1 or > 2 > names > a week on which to carefully place our hopes. >> > > DMC > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Jeff Henderson <mailto:JHend746@cox.net> > To: canslim@lists.xmission.com > Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2003 11:40 AM > Subject: RE: [CANSLIM] filter > > Sorry about the misunderstanding I was using the CANSLIM acronym. > I'll > explain my filter again. First off I use MSN as my filter source. > Here > is my filter that I use: current earnings per share (the same > quarter a > year ago)>=70%, annual earnings per share over the past 5 years, >= > 24% > compounded, shares outstanding<25,000,000, relative strength> 80%. > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com > [mailto:owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com] On Behalf Of DMC197807 > === message truncated === - - - -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 Subject): RE: [CANSLIM] filter "Katherine Malm"
Top of Thread: RE: [CANSLIM] filter "Katherine Malm"
Next in Thread: RE: [CANSLIM] filter "Katherine Malm"
Articles sorted by: [Date]
[Author]
[Subject]