From: owner-canslim-digest@lists.xmission.com (canslim-digest) To: canslim-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: canslim-digest V2 #1101 Reply-To: canslim Sender: owner-canslim-digest@lists.xmission.com Errors-To: owner-canslim-digest@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-No-Archive: yes canslim-digest Saturday, January 27 2001 Volume 02 : Number 1101 In this issue: Re: [CANSLIM] how long till CA kills the market? Re: [CANSLIM] how long till CA kills the market? [CANSLIM] CANSLIM mutual fund Re: [CANSLIM] how long till CA kills the market? Re: [CANSLIM] CANSLIM mutual fund Re: [CANSLIM] CANSLIM mutual fund Re: [CANSLIM] CANSLIM mutual fund Re: [CANSLIM] CANSLIM mutual fund Re: [CANSLIM] CANSLIM mutual fund RE: [CANSLIM] BigEasy Investor Screen Re: [CANSLIM] Greenspan Re: [CANSLIM] CANSLIM mutual fund Re: [CANSLIM] CANSLIM mutual fund Re: [CANSLIM] how long till CA kills the market? [CANSLIM] 25 vs 50 bp?? Re: [CANSLIM] how long till CA kills the market? Re: [CANSLIM] how long till CA kills the market? [CANSLIM] From The Motley Fool RE: [CANSLIM] how long till CA kills the market? Re: [CANSLIM] how long till CA kills the market? Re: [CANSLIM] how long till CA kills the market? RE: [CANSLIM] how long till CA kills the market? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 17:13:14 +0000 (GMT) From: musicant@pacbell.net (Dan Musicant) Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] how long till CA kills the market? On Thu, 25 Jan 2001 22:47:30 -0500 (EST), you wrote: :But they are passing along rates to industry. I've talked to someone = who=20 :works w/ Boeing. He said their power costs are skyrocketing. No more=20 :flex-time. Employees must show up at 8 and leave at 5, power is off all= =20 :other times. Even during work hours, power is only 1/2. =20 : :Could effect some bottom lines Rate increases for residential customers where I am were just set at 9%. Small corporations higher at around 12%. Larger corporations considerably more. It's affecting a lot of bottom lines. - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 17:22:43 +0000 (GMT) From: musicant@pacbell.net (Dan Musicant) Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] how long till CA kills the market? On Thu, 25 Jan 2001 21:47:43 -0500, you wrote: :I don't think it will have a big impact. They are not allowed to :pass on their higher costs to consumers, so consumer spending is :not being impacted (and 25% sounds way too high). The state can :always step in and provide them with state guaranteed AAA tax :free (which is a big deal in CA) municipal bond funding for their :needed growth. And with the cuts in Fed rates, credit will also :get cheaper, also helping. : :Tom Worley They are not allowed to pass on the higher costs WITHOUT APPROVAL. They have gotten approval to pass on part of those higher costs, in varying amounts depending on the type of user. Consumer spending IS being impacted. In my view, the federal government should step up and prevent power brokering corporations from gouging CA. In some cases, electricity is selling for more than 10 times what it was a year ago on the open market, and to me it is nothing short of extortion.=20 - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 09:47:40 -0800 (PST) From: Kent Norman Subject: [CANSLIM] CANSLIM mutual fund For all the little people who can't slect and monitor the stocks during the day, seems someone should form a CANSLIM mutual fund that has the people and programs to do the picking. Kent __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices. http://auctions.yahoo.com/ - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 09:37:21 -0800 From: Bill Weliky Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] how long till CA kills the market? Dan- I'm in Sacramento area and got the same 9% increase but just heard today that they're doing an end around on us with a surcharge on top of the 9% planned by the State to fund the power purchase. Like the fuel surcharge by UPS and FedEx. I listen to CNBC and you might want to check their site, they have Bill Paul, energy consultant, on everyday and probably post his comments. This is and will continue to be the biggest problem for the economy and the mkt going forward, not a Ca only problem. Bill - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dan Musicant" To: Sent: Friday, January 26, 2001 9:09 AM Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] how long till CA kills the market? > On Fri, 26 Jan 2001 02:48:59 -0500, you wrote: > > :A few pennies off earnings is far less significant that most > :major tech corps are affected in any given quarter by foreign > :exchange rate changes. And corps affected by higher electrical > :rates still have some limited means to either pass along those > :costs or offset them with earnings efficiencies. They will also > :be the loudest voices, with the most effective lobbyists, to be > :heard in Sacramento supporting a state bailout, most likely with > :new state guaranteed bond issues. > : > :Tom Worley > > A bond or state bailout of the utilities will cost the taxpayers of CA > and it's being opposed by consumer advocates as being just another way > that the profiteering power brokers are fleecing the people of CA. And > although the power companies are controlled in their passing rising > costs on to consumers, some increases have occurred. Where I am in N. > California, our electricity rates were just approved for a 9% increase > effective immediately, less than the 30% requested by Pacific Gas and > Electric, who just managed to protect their parent company from any > loses of it will incur in a clandestine manuever with the cooperation of > federal regulators, protecting the parent company's very substantial > profit picture. A look at the balance sheet of power brokering > corporations such as Enron (based in Houston, TX - head man, Kenneth > Lay, a good friend of G W Bush) makes it clear who the winners are and > losers are in this "crisis." 3rd quarter profits 2000 up 35% over > previous 3rd quarter in the case of Enron. Reregulation is afoot in CA > and it won't take long, but it will be a long time before the problem is > solved. Meantime, corporations will think twice before developing in CA, > and some are already heading elsewhere. > > Dan in San Fran > > > - > > - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 12:53:15 -0500 From: asosis@ca.ibm.com Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] CANSLIM mutual fund Sounds interesting. Can you clarify your idea? Kent Norman @lists.xmission.com on 01/26/2001 12:47:40 PM Please respond to canslim@lists.xmission.com Sent by: owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com To: CANSLIM cc: Subject: [CANSLIM] CANSLIM mutual fund For all the little people who can't slect and monitor the stocks during the day, seems someone should form a CANSLIM mutual fund that has the people and programs to do the picking. Kent __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices. http://auctions.yahoo.com/ - - - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 13:20:10 -0500 From: "Charles Layne" Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] CANSLIM mutual fund - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kent Norman" To: "CANSLIM" Sent: Friday, January 26, 2001 12:47 PM Subject: [CANSLIM] CANSLIM mutual fund > For all the little people who can't slect and monitor > the stocks during the day, seems someone should form a > CANSLIM mutual fund that has the people and programs > to do the picking. I thought WON had a mutual fund, or that there is a mutual fund related to O'Neill's methodology. Charles Layne - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 12:41:55 -0600 From: "walter nusbaum" Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] CANSLIM mutual fund Charles, WON's fund closed a few years ago. It was managed by three-time U.S. Investing Championships Winner, David Ryan. The performance was poor, if I recall correctly. Best wishes, Walt - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Charles Layne" To: Sent: Friday, January 26, 2001 12:20 PM Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] CANSLIM mutual fund > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Kent Norman" > To: "CANSLIM" > Sent: Friday, January 26, 2001 12:47 PM > Subject: [CANSLIM] CANSLIM mutual fund > > > > For all the little people who can't slect and monitor > > the stocks during the day, seems someone should form a > > CANSLIM mutual fund that has the people and programs > > to do the picking. > > I thought WON had a mutual fund, or that there is a mutual fund related to > O'Neill's methodology. > > Charles Layne > > > > - > - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 12:12:43 -0800 (PST) From: Kent Norman Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] CANSLIM mutual fund Earlier threads indicate the need to do extensive screening for candidates, then constant monitoring for the correct entry point. Since the big institutions have the software and hardware available, they could make a fund that applies the principles. From a previous post, I see someone already tried that... and it flopped. Makes me think that perhaps the problem is not just on my part. Perhaps the CANSLIM method is unworkable in this day and age. Maybe it worked in the past? Kent - --- asosis@ca.ibm.com wrote: > > Sounds interesting. Can you clarify your idea? > > > > > > Kent Norman > @lists.xmission.com on > 01/26/2001 > 12:47:40 PM > > Please respond to canslim@lists.xmission.com > > Sent by: owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com > > > To: CANSLIM > cc: > Subject: [CANSLIM] CANSLIM mutual fund > > > For all the little people who can't slect and > monitor > the stocks during the day, seems someone should form > a > CANSLIM mutual fund that has the people and programs > to do the picking. > > Kent > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Auctions - Buy the things you want at great > prices. > http://auctions.yahoo.com/ > > - > > > > > > > - > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices. http://auctions.yahoo.com/ - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 13:34:57 -0700 From: "Patrick Wahl" Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] CANSLIM mutual fund On 26 Jan 01, at 12:12, Kent Norman wrote: > Earlier threads indicate the need to do extensive > screening for candidates, then constant monitoring for > the correct entry point. > > Since the big institutions have the software and > hardware available, they could make a fund that > applies the principles. Big funds can't enter a position at a breakout point in the size they need to, so they aren't going to be practicing CANSLIM the way we little people do. - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 16:51:43 -0500 From: "Ann Hollingworth" Subject: RE: [CANSLIM] BigEasy Investor Screen I tried the SuperModel links, and was told they had expired. Has anyone been able to link up? Maybe it's the Microsoft problems from the hackers. Ann - -----Original Message----- From: owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com [mailto:owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com]On Behalf Of May Ed Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2001 9:59 AM To: canslim@lists.xmission.com Subject: [CANSLIM] BigEasy Investor Screen Here's some screens I created for finding CANSLIM candidates using BigEasy Investor charting software (www.bigeasyinvestor.com). If you've never used BigEasy you really should check it out. I've been a TC2000 user for the past year and I'm really thinking of dumping my TC2K data subscription in favor of using BigEasy. It's completely free and I can't find much TC2000 can do that this software can't do--at least for my purposes. Anyway, I hope this doesn't come off as spam, I'm not affliated with BigEasy or anything. Just an introduction to the software for those unfamiliar with it. Here are links to some screens I created with the software that you can import. One is called CANSLIM Base Setups and the other is called CANSLIM Breakouts. Both use the same fundamental criteria to screen (EPS chg last qtr > 25%, profit margin > 5%, ROI > 10%) as well as some minimums for price (> 15), volume (>100K), and RS (>75). The Base Setup picks up stocks within 15% of 52wk high. The Breakout screen picks up stocks at NHs on 150% 1-month volume. Base Setups - http://www.msnusers.com/MoneyCentralSupermodels/msgattachments/1745 Breakouts - http://www.msnusers.com/MoneyCentralSupermodels/msgattachments/1746 These were posted on Jon Markman's SuperModels board, where I sometimes post. You should be able to access them directly from these links. Please let me know what you think and what improvements might be made. Looking forward to your responses. Ed __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices. http://auctions.yahoo.com/ - - - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 18:28:51 -0500 From: "Tom Worley" Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Greenspan What struck me on this point was the clear and direct wording Mr. G used, so unlike his usual vague and cautious wording. He also stated that the "economy has slowed sharply", while the Feds naturally would want to say that it had slowed gradually. That's what they tried for throughout most of 2000 without success, then seem to have achieved at least the target levels all of a sudden in several months. I think the half pt cut earlier this month orchestrated by phone conference was a recognition that the cumulative cuts had been too great, and immediate action was needed. A second half pt cut at the meeting next week would be a signal that this downward trend in the economy must be quickly reversed, and stabilized for the future, with a quick tax cut pumping money in right now to help reverse the trend. Tom Worley stkguru@netside.net ICQ # 5568838 - ----- Original Message ----- From: Patrick Wahl To: Sent: Friday, January 26, 2001 10:41 AM Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Greenspan Alan said yesterday that growth is probably zero right this minute, so I would also guess at a half point cut. I have also started noticing many lay off announcements the last week or two, another indication of weakness. On 25 Jan 01, at 19:59, Dave Cameron wrote: > OK... if Tom thinks that a 50 basis point cut > is in the immediate offing, I will be humble > enough to admit that my read on it could > very well be wrong. Tom has a better track > record on interpreting the inscrutable Mr.G. > > > --- Tom Worley wrote: > > I was not able to listen to Mr. G live, had a real > > stressful day. > > But the little I have had time to read tonight is > > suggesting to > > me both his support for large (and likely retroactive) > > tax cuts > > (for immediate infusion of cash into the hands of > > spenders) as > > well as a 50 bp cut next Wednesday (for the longer term > > implications). > > > > Tom Worley > > stkguru@netside.net > > ICQ # 5568838 > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Dave Cameron > > To: > > Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2001 2:58 PM > > Subject: [CANSLIM] Greenspan > > > > > > Yes, Greenspan has a lot of power. To me, it is evident > > that we won't get a .50% rate cut; but we probably will > > get > > a 0.25% one. He's jawboning a bit in agreeing with Bush > > that a tax cut would be more beneficial. > > > > > > > > __________________________________________________ > > Do You Yahoo!? > > Yahoo! Auctions - Buy the things you want at great > > prices. > > http://auctions.yahoo.com/ > > > > - > > > > > > > > - > > > > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices. > http://auctions.yahoo.com/ > > - > - - - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 18:44:47 -0500 From: "Tom Worley" Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] CANSLIM mutual fund You recall correctly, Walt, performance was very poor. Ryan made a number of mistakes, including sitting out one entire leg of a bull market. The fund was not allowed to short (probably a good thing considering his decision making at the time), but was allowed to be as much as 50% cash, and that's where he kept it while the market ran. I thought at the time he was trying to predict where the market was going, rather than letting the market tell him. The fund holders both lost money, and lost potential profits, as a result. I took my clients out with minor gains or losses as I saw the fund underperform at the same time as my CANSLIM clients were doing very well with individual stocks. Made no sense, so we bailed. Tom Worley stkguru@netside.net ICQ # 5568838 - ----- Original Message ----- From: walter nusbaum To: Sent: Friday, January 26, 2001 1:41 PM Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] CANSLIM mutual fund Charles, WON's fund closed a few years ago. It was managed by three-time U.S. Investing Championships Winner, David Ryan. The performance was poor, if I recall correctly. Best wishes, Walt - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Charles Layne" To: Sent: Friday, January 26, 2001 12:20 PM Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] CANSLIM mutual fund > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Kent Norman" > To: "CANSLIM" > Sent: Friday, January 26, 2001 12:47 PM > Subject: [CANSLIM] CANSLIM mutual fund > > > > For all the little people who can't slect and monitor > > the stocks during the day, seems someone should form a > > CANSLIM mutual fund that has the people and programs > > to do the picking. > > I thought WON had a mutual fund, or that there is a mutual fund related to > O'Neill's methodology. > > Charles Layne > > > > - > - - - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 19:20:31 -0500 From: "Tom Worley" Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] CANSLIM mutual fund 'Fraid I must disagree with you on this Patrick. About 1992 or so, when the firm where I worked was an active institutional client of O'Neil's institutional service (which included live faxes when he added to or deleted a stock on his "watch list"), I had the opportunity to see a list of the then top 50 (by performance for the prior 3 years) mutual growth funds. Of the 50, 42 were O'Neil institutional clients, paying as much as $100,000 or more per year for his services. They had little trouble then, when liquidity and trading volume was far lower, in taking down quarter million share positions in CANSLIM style stocks. Because I was getting the "picks" at the same time as the big boys, I often did succeed in front-running them for my clients and then rode the wave when they stepped in hours to a day or so later. From watching the trading action, I often could see several other funds follow the first, as the managers talked to their friends at competing funds, or other managers at the same family of funds. More recently (12/29/00), one of my little microcaps with no liquidity to speak of (was averaging 9,600 shares / day until two weeks ago) did a private placement with institutions. Warburg Pinkus Emerging Growth took down in a block 550,000 shares of the total of 900,000. At the then ADV, it would take them nearly three months to exit the position, apparently they were not worried (and it's up over 50% since then). Has had great CS qualities for several years, my fourth trip into it, all profitable, up 115% net presently and holding. So there's more than one way for a fund to get into a CS stock. Finally, with today's volume and liquidity, it is not at all difficult for a fund to buy a quarter to half million shares in a single block on most mid to large cap stocks. In fact, it is often the block purchase by a fund that triggers the breakout action we are all seeking. What I see as most damaging to today's investing climate for CANSLIMers is the increased volatility. I don't have a good answer for that, since expanding your stop loss protection is hazardous to your capital. Otherwise, I see little difference from the late '80s to today in the opportunities for individual CANSLIMers. I do believe that the combination of internet access for online trading, day traders, and increased awareness of both CANSLIM and other momentum based strategies has directly contributed to this increased volatility. By the same token, the internet provides vastly more information to the individual investor, as well as more stock screening and picking tools, and sites that suggest / tell you what you should buy, than ever before in our history. We would not be here otherwise. Regards, Tom Worley stkguru@netside.net ICQ # 5568838 - ----- Original Message ----- From: Patrick Wahl To: Sent: Friday, January 26, 2001 3:34 PM Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] CANSLIM mutual fund On 26 Jan 01, at 12:12, Kent Norman wrote: > Earlier threads indicate the need to do extensive > screening for candidates, then constant monitoring for > the correct entry point. > > Since the big institutions have the software and > hardware available, they could make a fund that > applies the principles. Big funds can't enter a position at a breakout point in the size they need to, so they aren't going to be practicing CANSLIM the way we little people do. - - - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 19:02:37 -0700 From: esetser Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] how long till CA kills the market? There was a chart on natural gas prices in the IBD a couple of days ago. It showed that natural gas prices have increased from just over $1 on 2/99 to about $10 on 1/10/00. That is almost a 10X factor, and is probably the reason costs have increased that level. This isn't a price for California, it's a free market price. The real note in the article was that the price had plummeted 30% to $6.94 in a very short time. Maybe some of the price increases can be reduced. At 05:22 PM 1/26/01 +0000, you wrote: >On Thu, 25 Jan 2001 21:47:43 -0500, you wrote: > >:I don't think it will have a big impact. They are not allowed to >:pass on their higher costs to consumers, so consumer spending is >:not being impacted (and 25% sounds way too high). The state can >:always step in and provide them with state guaranteed AAA tax >:free (which is a big deal in CA) municipal bond funding for their >:needed growth. And with the cuts in Fed rates, credit will also >:get cheaper, also helping. >: >:Tom Worley > >They are not allowed to pass on the higher costs WITHOUT APPROVAL. They >have gotten approval to pass on part of those higher costs, in varying >amounts depending on the type of user. Consumer spending IS being >impacted. > >In my view, the federal government should step up and prevent power >brokering corporations from gouging CA. In some cases, electricity is >selling for more than 10 times what it was a year ago on the open >market, and to me it is nothing short of extortion. > > >- > > > - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 22:38:38 -0500 From: "Tom Worley" Subject: [CANSLIM] 25 vs 50 bp?? Infobeat reports that "A Reuters poll of top U.S. bond firms said 24 of 25 expected the Fed to slash rates by a half-point at a rate-setting meeting on Jan. 30-31. " So, this close to the meeting, guess we had better get at least 50 bp. And no more, or everyone will panic thinking we are even worse off that the Feds are telling us. This is really a terrible time for OPEC to cut production, what with California's energy troubles and a continuing cold winter, including in Europe. Only bright spot is that reserves appear to be slowly increasing. Tom Worley stkguru@netside.net ICQ # 5568838 - - ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 04:01:16 +0000 (GMT) From: musicant@pacbell.net (Dan Musicant) Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] how long till CA kills the market? On Fri, 26 Jan 2001 19:02:37 -0700, you wrote: :There was a chart on natural gas prices in the IBD a couple of days ago. :It showed that natural gas prices have increased from just over $1 on = 2/99 :to about $10 on 1/10/00. That is almost a 10X factor, and is probably = the :reason costs have increased that level. This isn't a price for = California, :it's a free market price. The real note in the article was that the = price :had plummeted 30% to $6.94 in a very short time. Maybe some of the = price :increases can be reduced. I heard (TV news?) that natural gas is totally deregulated, which electricity is not. While the electricity bill for residential customers in Northern CA where I live just went up 9%, I'm told that natural gas just went up 60% and could get MUCH higher. The respite you allude to above is probably due to the forcasts we're getting for warm weather in the near future, which is what is responsible for the plummeting cost of n. gas. - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 21:24:13 -0700 From: esetser Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] how long till CA kills the market? Actually, almost all of the electricity is now generated by natural gas plants. There is not much hydro, almost no nuclear or coal, and natural gas is the source du jour for almost all new plants. So my point (not really stated) is that electricity is going way up at least partially due to the natural gas price spike. At 04:01 AM 1/27/01 +0000, you wrote: >On Fri, 26 Jan 2001 19:02:37 -0700, you wrote: > >:There was a chart on natural gas prices in the IBD a couple of days ago. >:It showed that natural gas prices have increased from just over $1 on 2/99 >:to about $10 on 1/10/00. That is almost a 10X factor, and is probably the >:reason costs have increased that level. This isn't a price for California, >:it's a free market price. The real note in the article was that the price >:had plummeted 30% to $6.94 in a very short time. Maybe some of the price >:increases can be reduced. > >I heard (TV news?) that natural gas is totally deregulated, which >electricity is not. While the electricity bill for residential customers >in Northern CA where I live just went up 9%, I'm told that natural gas >just went up 60% and could get MUCH higher. The respite you allude to >above is probably due to the forcasts we're getting for warm weather in >the near future, which is what is responsible for the plummeting cost of >n. gas. > > >- > > > - - ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 09:10:25 -0500 From: "Tom Worley" Subject: [CANSLIM] From The Motley Fool "Ninety percent of the people in the stock market, professionals and amateurs alike, simply haven't done enough homework." - -William J. O'Neil Tom Worley stkguru@netside.net ICQ # 5568838 - - ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 08:45:35 -0800 (PST) From: Bob Raible Subject: RE: [CANSLIM] how long till CA kills the market? I have heard that the CA economy represents 1/6 of the US total. I believe the source was the local news media. Hope this helps - back to lurking. > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 16:37:56 -0800 (PST) > From: Kent Norman > Subject: [CANSLIM] how long till CA kills the market? > > What does the group think about how long till the CA > power problems ripple into corporate earnings and kill > the stock market? > > I have heard the CA economy is about 25% of the US > economy. Seems a bit too high to me, does anyone have > better numbers? > > Thanks > Kent > ===== Bob Raible Sunny San Jose,CA __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices. http://auctions.yahoo.com/ - - ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 08:54:09 -0800 From: Bill Weliky Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] how long till CA kills the market? The original source was Greenie in his testimony Thurs. - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bob Raible" To: Sent: Saturday, January 27, 2001 8:45 AM Subject: RE: [CANSLIM] how long till CA kills the market? > I have heard that the CA economy represents 1/6 of the > US total. I believe the source was the local news media. > Hope this helps - back to lurking. > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 16:37:56 -0800 (PST) > > From: Kent Norman > > Subject: [CANSLIM] how long till CA kills the market? > > > > What does the group think about how long till the CA > > power problems ripple into corporate earnings and kill > > the stock market? > > > > I have heard the CA economy is about 25% of the US > > economy. Seems a bit too high to me, does anyone have > > better numbers? > > > > Thanks > > Kent > > > > > ===== > Bob Raible > Sunny San Jose,CA > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices. > http://auctions.yahoo.com/ > > - > > - - ------------------------------ Date: 27 Jan 2001 07:29:19 -0800 From: "Tim Fisher" Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] how long till CA kills the market? Since I used to work for DOE, I know you are way off. At the bottom are the the stats from doe's site. http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epav1/elecprod.html#tab5 I know its hard to read (thus the URL) but over half is coal. Gas is about 15% of total generation. A few years ago (like 10), 75% was coal. Almost none was gas. The price of gas is located here: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oil_gas/natural_gas/info_glance/prices.html Average prices paid by utilities were up to $3.76/ccf in 2000 from $2.71 in 1999. You are reading about consumer gas prices, not averages for long term delivery contracts to generating utilities. Nice jump in long term contract prices anyway, but nothing like the spike in consumer prices. If you want to blame the economic slowdown on energy, blame natural gas companies that deliver to consumers, not suppliers that deliver to your power co. And SC was the most expensive gas in the country; CA is in the middle of the pack. Monthly consumer data is here: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/mer/contents.html _______________________________________________________________________________ | | | | | | Delivered to Consumers a,b | | |___________________________________ | | | | | | | | Commercial | | | |_______________________ | | | | | | | City | | | Share of | Wellhead | Gate | | | Total | | |Residential| Price | Volume | | | | | Delivered ___________________|___________|___________|___________|___________|___________ 2000 January....... E 2.12 3.33 6.24 R 5.49 R 66.8 February.. E 2.30 3.50 R 6.40 R 5.61 R 68.0 March..... E 2.36 3.57 R 6.78 R 5.31 64.2 April..... E 2.55 3.72 R 7.01 R 5.61 R 64.3 May....... E 2.90 4.00 R 7.88 R 5.28 R 63.6 June...... E 3.73 5.21 R 9.12 R 5.74 R 61.0 July...... E 3.70 5.13 R 9.92 R 5.74 R 59.3 August.... E 3.67 4.03 10.12 5.95 56.8 September. F 4.26 NA NA NA NA October... F 4.61 NA NA NA NA Year-to-Date Avg.d........... E 3.22 3.84 7.02 5.54 64.3 1999 Year-to-Date Avg.d........... 2.12 3.01 6.54 5.23 67.0 1998 Year-to-Date Avg.d........... 1.95 3.10 6.82 5.57 68.4 Quite a spike in consumer prices! And that is only through August! The reason for energy prices paid by non-generating utilities spiking through the roof is simple: supply and demand. There is not enough generation capacity in the country to supply the demand during peak usage periods, esp. in the winter, when the NW is not exporting much power to CA since we need it here for heating. Also, the entire continent should be tied into one giant electric grid; it is not thanks to interstate and international politics. When I was at BPA, they had plans for a Quebec to CA intertie through the Pac NW that were shot down by congress (what? selling Frenchie power to the Californians through the NW? Unacceptable!). It would have solved their problems for good (there is an incredible surplus of hydro power in NE Canada, with new generating facilities coming on line every year to export this surplus to the NE US). Betcha those plans are being dusted off today! P.S. Why do I still have these links around? I quit DOE in 95. I Dunno! Table 5. Net Generation by Energy Source and Sector, 1999 and 1998 (Billion Kilowatthours) Energy Source 1999 1998 Industry Utility Nonutility Industry Utility Nonutility Coal 1,882 1,768 114 1,874 1,807 66 Petroleum 119 87 32 127 110 17 Gas 565 296 269 549 309 240 Nuclear 728 725 3 674 674 -- Hydroelectric 307 294 14 319 304 14 Other 89 4 86 75 7 68 Total 3,691 3,174 517 3,618 3,212 406 At 09:24 PM 1/26/2001 -0700, you wrote: >Actually, almost all of the electricity is now generated by natural gas >plants. There is not much hydro, almost no nuclear or coal, and natural >gas is the source du jour for almost all new plants. So my point (not >really stated) is that electricity is going way up at least partially due >to the natural gas price spike. > >At 04:01 AM 1/27/01 +0000, you wrote: > >On Fri, 26 Jan 2001 19:02:37 -0700, you wrote: > > > >:There was a chart on natural gas prices in the IBD a couple of days ago. > >:It showed that natural gas prices have increased from just over $1 on 2/99 > >:to about $10 on 1/10/00. That is almost a 10X factor, and is probably the > >:reason costs have increased that level. This isn't a price for California, > >:it's a free market price. The real note in the article was that the price > >:had plummeted 30% to $6.94 in a very short time. Maybe some of the price > >:increases can be reduced. > > > >I heard (TV news?) that natural gas is totally deregulated, which > >electricity is not. While the electricity bill for residential customers > >in Northern CA where I live just went up 9%, I'm told that natural gas > >just went up 60% and could get MUCH higher. The respite you allude to > >above is probably due to the forcasts we're getting for warm weather in > >the near future, which is what is responsible for the plummeting cost of > >n. gas. > > > > > >- > > > > > > > >- Tim Fisher, 1995 President, Pacific Fishery Biologists Ore-ROCK-On Rockhounding Web Site PFB Information mailto:tim@OreRockOn.com WWW http://OreRockOn.com - - ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 13:55:18 -0500 From: Doug Scoda Subject: RE: [CANSLIM] how long till CA kills the market? Being the eternal optimist, I watched Mr. Greenspan on C-SPAN Thursday evening while being questioned by our Senators. I guess I need to get a life, because I found the exchange quite interesting and worth the time. On local news here, (mainly radio) I have heard it stated that CA's economy is the 7th largest in the world and 1/6th of the total US economy. If either statement is true (I have not verified those assertions) and the electrical demand issues are not resolved for a few years (time line given by Mr. Greenspan) coupled with the just in time inventory systems adopted by many companies, I do not see a rosy picture taking shape. He also stated that the nation's natural gas situation is close to the same condition as CA's electrical problems. The one piece of data that I have to support this is that Mich Con is trying to raise natural gas prices by 75%. This apparently to cover increased costs and make up for past price controls. (they may be having trouble paying their bills) Consumers Energy is going for a 100% hike for natural gas. The more I think about the big picture and how it relates to M, energy and it's availability at reasonable costs has a very dominant effect on our economy. The ripples could be quite a problem. I started out stating that I was an optimist. This whole dissertation, is not the writing of an optimist. My question is, am I a pessimist, or is my view of the forest pretty clear? At 08:45 AM 01/27/2001 -0800, you wrote: >I have heard that the CA economy represents 1/6 of the >US total. I believe the source was the local news media. >Hope this helps - back to lurking. > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 16:37:56 -0800 (PST) > > From: Kent Norman > > Subject: [CANSLIM] how long till CA kills the market? > > > > What does the group think about how long till the CA > > power problems ripple into corporate earnings and kill > > the stock market? > > > > I have heard the CA economy is about 25% of the US > > economy. Seems a bit too high to me, does anyone have > > better numbers? > > > > Thanks > > Kent > > > > >===== >Bob Raible >Sunny San Jose,CA > >__________________________________________________ >Do You Yahoo!? >Yahoo! Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices. >http://auctions.yahoo.com/ > >- There is a coherent plan in the universe, though I don't know what it's a plan for. -- Fred Hoyle My quote of the day brought to you by: RandoSig - thanks Ron And Strive.To http://www.recommend-it.com/ezines/ ======================================== - - ------------------------------ End of canslim-digest V2 #1101 ****************************** To unsubscribe to canslim-digest, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" with "unsubscribe canslim-digest" in the body of the message. For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message.