From: owner-canslim-digest@lists.xmission.com (canslim-digest) To: canslim-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: canslim-digest V2 #1277 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 Friday, April 13 2001 Volume 02 : Number 1277 In this issue: Re: [CANSLIM] Funds Ownership Re: [CANSLIM] Funds Ownership [CANSLIM] Fw: Top Companies in Top Industries [T2001041300KW] Re: [CANSLIM] Funds Ownership Re: [CANSLIM] DRI Re: [CANSLIM] DRI Re: [CANSLIM] 52 wk highs vs 26 wk highs [CANSLIM] THQI-? Re: [CANSLIM] Funds Ownership ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 21:01:08 -0500 From: "Norman" Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Funds Ownership INTERSPERSED BELOW - ----- Original Message ----- From: "esetser" To: Sent: Friday, April 13, 2001 2:11 PM Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Funds Ownership > I'm not sure you are using the correct terms here, or maybe I just > misuderstand. Here are a couple of questions. > > Did you mean A in Institutional Sponsorship Rating of the stock (given in > IBD each Tuesday) or A in the Mutual Fund 36 month performance rating? > Your answer seems to refer to the Fund rating rather than the stock rank, > but the way I read the message the first time, I would have thought you > were referring to the stock rating. SORRY FOR THE CONFUSION. I WAS SPEAKING OF SPONSORSHIP RATING. WHICH, I THOUGHT WAS BASED ON THE 3-YEAR PERFORMANCE OF THE FUNDS HOLDING THE STOCK. IS IT NOT? > > I agree that using the 3 year performance rating of a fund will give you > their history given the particulars in that period of time. One year ago, > all you needed was overweigthing in technology to have a fabulous rating. > Given the tech crash, it's less clear what characteristics lead to a high > ranking right now, but these kind of performance numbers will always favor > groups in the hottest area. THAT'S WHAT I TRIED, IN VAIN, TO SAY :-( However, I think the IBD is saying a high > performing fund, particularly a diversified growth fund, is on a roll > picking solid growth stocks, and their support for a stock you are buying > is an important piece of CANSLIM. It seems I've read that funds that > perform above average continue to do so at a better rate than those who > have recently underperformed. It may be far from perfect, but it does help > your odds. > > Back to the stock Institutional Sponsorship Rating. I have noticed that > the average ratings seem to move around quite a bit. In my recent lists, I > would say the average stock has a "D" rating, while ratings above "C" are > very unusual. I would also say a "C" rating was the clear average rating > during the bull, and I saw quite a few stocks with "B" ratings, and even > some "A" ratings. So in summary, it appears that the A-E rankings are > not split into an even 20% of stocks each, but are ranked on some scale > that is affected by market conditions. I THOUGHT SPONSORSHIP RATINGS WERE DEPENDENT UPON THE 3-YEAR PERFORMANCE OF THE FUNDS HOLDING THE STOCK?? > > Part of my point here is that there are very few stocks out there with "A" > ratings right now. From my latest leaders list (stocks above a certain > size with EPS/RS rankings at 80/80 and GRS of 75 or better, here are the > totals for each rating: > > A - 0 stocks > B - 1 stock > C - 16 stocks > D - 137 stocks > E - 8 stocks > > Given this, you can see that picking out an A stock for Sponsorship rating > would be quite difficult, and would perform a level of screening that is > probably beyond what any of us want. In fact, if you limited yourself to > stocks rated A right now, I would guess you could use this as your entire > screening process, since you would have very few candidates left. Overall, > I use this rating, along with SMR and A/D as strength indicators. That is, > after I've reduced my list to several hundred candidates using EPS, RS, and > GRS, then I combine all of these rankings to generate a composite rank that > I use to focus in on the best stocks. MAYBE I'M MAKING A MISTAKE BUT I"M NOT USEING THE SPONSORSHIP RATING IN THIS MARKET. TOO MANY QUALITY STOCKS HAVE A "D" RATING AND I HAVE LOST CONFIDANCE IN THE INDEX. THANKS FOR YOU THOUGHTS Norman Boyd Port Lavaca (Port of the Cow), TX theboyd@tisd.net > > > > At 11:13 PM 4/12/01 -0500, you wrote: > >I posed this question to the investors.com support folks. > > > >Question: > >A few of my friends and I have an ongoing 'discussion' about what > >percentage of a company's stock should be owned by funds. What is a > >good rule of thumb for a minimum %. [I really do discuss this with non > >listserv folks] > > > >Answer: > >There really isn't a minimum percentage per se. You would like to see > >at least 1 or 2 of the top performing mutual funds in the market owning > >the stock. Look for an A in the Sponsorship ranking to determine that. > > > > > >But now I have another question. If the sponsorship ranking is based on how > >well the funds did over the last 3 years then the sponsorship of stocks such > >as builders may not be so high just because the "hot" funds during that time > >period (excluding 2000) have been tech funds. Maybe with last years returns > >this is changing, but for sure this was true during 2000. So, is the fund > >sponsorship that relevant when sector rotation is so dramatic > >(techs ->builders & retail-shoe/apparel)? > > > >Norman Boyd > >Port Lavaca (Port of the Cow), TX > >theboyd@tisd.net > > > > > - > -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. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 21:02:57 -0500 From: "Norman" Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Funds Ownership Hey Tom, Stop me if I'm wrong (but be gentle :-) ), but most of the 'high flying' funds of the late '90s were technology dominated. And many were pure technology plays (i.e. Fidelity Select Electronics, Fidelity Computers, Invesco Technology, etc). By prospectus these pure tech funds may not be able to just switch sectors or go to cash. And so, it is the non-tech or 'multi-sector' funds that end up in the middle of the pack with 3-year ratings of D, C, and, if their very good, B. These days these funds may be in the top quartile and holding the 'best' stocks. But because of the mediocre performance of these funds in recent years the stocks they are holding have a mediocre or poor sponsorship rating. So I don't hold it against a non-tech stock just because the sponsorship rating is D. Does this make any sense? Norman Boyd Port Lavaca (Port of the Cow), TX theboyd@tisd.net - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tom Worley" To: Sent: Friday, April 13, 2001 4:19 AM Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Funds Ownership > Hi Norman, > > I think the idea behind considering the quality of sponsorship > (rather than percentage ownership by funds) is that a good funds > manager knows when to move the money, and knows which sector to > move it to. Thus, an "A" rated fund likely moved out of techs in > 2000, and into the home builders sector, for part of the > portfolio. > > Tom Worley > stkguru@netside.net > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Norman > To: > Sent: Friday, April 13, 2001 12:13 AM > Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Funds Ownership > > > I posed this question to the investors.com support folks. > > Question: > A few of my friends and I have an ongoing 'discussion' about what > percentage of a company's stock should be owned by funds. What > is a > good rule of thumb for a minimum %. [I really do discuss this > with non > listserv folks] > > Answer: > There really isn't a minimum percentage per se. You would like > to see > at least 1 or 2 of the top performing mutual funds in the market > owning > the stock. Look for an A in the Sponsorship ranking to determine > that. > > > But now I have another question. If the sponsorship ranking is > based on how > well the funds did over the last 3 years then the sponsorship of > stocks such > as builders may not be so high just because the "hot" funds > during that time > period (excluding 2000) have been tech funds. Maybe with last > years returns > this is changing, but for sure this was true during 2000. So, is > the fund > sponsorship that relevant when sector rotation is so dramatic > (techs ->builders & retail-shoe/apparel)? > > Norman Boyd > Port Lavaca (Port of the Cow), TX > theboyd@tisd.net > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > To: > Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2001 8:11 PM > Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Funds Ownership > > > > esetser: > > > > I got this from the IBD Web Page (Directory->Lessons on > > Buying->sponsorship): "In general, a stock should be owned by > at least a > few > > institutions. Some investors may feel tempted to go with a > small, obscure > > stock in hopes that Wall Street will discover it and send it to > the > > stratosphere. But that rarely happens. You're much better off > concentrating > > on stocks the top-performing institutions are already buying. > Signs of new > > institutional buying emerge all the time, so it's important to > watch for > > sponsorship changes every day" > > > > I couldn't find any percent of min and max. However in > HTMMIS on > page > > 39 under the section, "Is It Overowned by Institutions", it > says that, "A > > stock can also have too much sponsorship and become > overowned..... > Excessive > > ownership can be adverse since it merely represents large > potential > selling > > if anything goes wrong in the company or the general market." > Also, 3 > > paragraphs above, it says: "If a stock has no professional > sponsorship, > > chances are that its performance will be ... run of the mill. > The odds are > > that... the more than 1000 institutional investors looked at > the stock and > > passed it over. Even if they are wrong, it still takes large > buying to > > stimulate an important price increase in a security." > > > > > > > > In a message dated 4/11/2001 6:51:20 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > > esetser@covad.net writes: > > > > << Subj: [CANSLIM] Funds Ownership > > Date: 4/11/2001 6:51:20 PM Eastern Daylight Time > > From: esetser@covad.net (esetser) > > Sender: owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com > > Reply-to: canslim@lists.xmission.com > > To: canslim@xmission.com > > > > Several recent posts have reminded me about WON's suggestion > on limiting > > fund ownership. This hasn't been something I've used > directly, since it > > was not available in IBD. Now that I'm paying for DGO, maybe > I should > > reconsider using this as a secondary consideration for > purchase > decisions. > > > > So, I decided to pull out my copy of HTMMIS, and review > exactly what the > > guidelines are. Hmm, I can't find it!! I guessed I've > misplaced it in > > this mess I call an office. Could someone take a minute and > refresh me > on > > the suggested minimum and maximum fund ownership suggested by > WON in > > HTMMIS. Thanks. > > > > I don't see any reference to this limit in the 26 week > investing course. > > >> > > > > - > > -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. > > > > - > -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. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 23:36:13 -0400 From: "Tom Worley" Subject: [CANSLIM] Fw: Top Companies in Top Industries [T2001041300KW] This is a multi-part message in MIME format. - ------=_NextPart_000_00B6_01C0C472.8770B400 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable This is the response I got back to my questions on the new report. Makes = you wonder who the "senior members of our company" are. I will = definitely look at these 29 charts this weekend. Tom Worley stkguru@netside.net - ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Custserv@dailygraphs.com=20 To: stkguru@netside.net=20 Sent: Friday, April 13, 2001 9:26 PM Subject: RE: Top Companies in Top Industries [T2001041300KW] Hi Tom, =20 As usual, thank you for your comments because we do value them. This = screen was compiled by some senior members of our company. We could = have continued the screen and included all sorts of items but we needed = to draw the line somewhere. I will definitely pass on your comments so = that the individuals who created the screen will read them. =20 Best regards, =20 John Daily Graphs Online Sender : stkguru@netside.net =20 Tracking Number : T2001041300KWZ508963 =20 Pool : Daily Graphs Online =20 Sent to : "DGOnline Customer Service" = =20 Date : 4/13/01 2:47 PM =20 - -------------------------------------------------------------------------= - ----- I noted the new report, but was surprised you would cut it off at a = GRS of 93, and / or the top nine groups. Why not continue on to the top = 40 groups, or a GRS of at least 80? I am also a little surprised by the = $15 cutoff. Is the old rule of thumb of $12 no longer fashionable, or = acceptable to WON? I will again reiterate my desire for a report listing all stocks (not = just those already in the DG books) that hit a new high (or were within = 5% of the 12 month high) during the prior week and also have both RS and = EPS of 80 or better. I use the present list, but remaining wedded to the = DG books population of stocks is inhibiting and causes me to seek out = lists of stocks hitting new highs from other sources, then investigate = their RS and EPS values manually. Such a list would save me time and = labor. And I never would have tripled in a year on EPIQ had I limited my = search to your present list. This stock only made it into the DG Books = after I was already up well over 200%. Preferable that the list be as of close Friday, but I could live with = any day of the week by sacrificing some sleep. It's time for DGO to divorce DG Books, at least symbolically!! DGO is already better than DB Books, let's accelerate that = superiority. Tom Worley stkguru@netside.net =20 - ------=_NextPart_000_00B6_01C0C472.8770B400 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
This is the response I got back to my questions on = the new=20 report. Makes you wonder who the "senior members of our company" are. I = will=20 definitely look at these 29 charts this weekend.
 
Tom Worley
stkguru@netside.net
 
 
----- Original Message -----=20
From: Custserv@dailygraphs.com
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2001 9:26 PM
Subject: RE: Top Companies in Top Industries=20 [T2001041300KW]

Hi=20 Tom,
 
As = usual, thank you=20 for your comments because we do value them.  This screen was = compiled by=20 some senior members of our company.  We could have continued the = screen and=20 included all sorts of items but we needed to draw the line = somewhere.  I=20 will definitely pass on your comments so that the individuals who = created the=20 screen will read them.
 
Best=20 regards,
 
John
Daily = Graphs=20 Online
Sender=20 : stkguru@netside.net=20
Tracking Number=20 : T2001041300KWZ508963=20
Pool=20 : Daily Graphs Online=20
Sent to=20 : "DGOnline Customer Service" <custserv@dailygraphs.com> =
Date=20 : 4/13/01 2:47 PM
I noted the new report, but was surprised you = would cut it=20 off at a GRS of 93, and / or the top nine groups. Why not continue on = to the=20 top 40 groups, or a GRS of at least 80? I am also a little surprised = by the=20 $15 cutoff. Is the old rule of thumb of $12 no longer fashionable, or=20 acceptable to WON?
 
I will again reiterate my desire for a report = listing all=20 stocks (not just those already in the DG books) that hit a new high = (or were=20 within 5% of the 12 month high) during the prior week and also have = both RS=20 and EPS of 80 or better. I use the present list, but remaining wedded = to the=20 DG books population of stocks is inhibiting and causes me to seek out = lists of=20 stocks hitting new highs from other sources, then investigate their RS = and EPS=20 values manually. Such a list would save me time and labor. And I never = would=20 have tripled in a year on EPIQ had I limited my search to your present = list.=20 This stock only made it into the DG Books after I was already up well = over=20 200%.
 
Preferable that the list be as of close Friday, = but I could=20 live with any day of the week by sacrificing some sleep.
 
It's time for DGO to divorce DG Books, at least=20 symbolically!!
 
DGO is already better than DB Books, let's = accelerate that=20 superiority.
 
Tom Worley
stkguru@netside.net
 
 
- ------=_NextPart_000_00B6_01C0C472.8770B400-- - - - -To subscribe/unsubscribe, email "majordomo@xmission.com" - -In the email body, write "subscribe canslim" or - -"unsubscribe canslim". Do not use quotes in your email. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 23:48:31 -0400 From: "Tom Worley" Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Funds Ownership I agree, Norman, if a fund is extremely narrowly defined on its investment rules, then it cannot switch. You would have to read the prospectus to see how much they can invest outside of their sector, and hold in cash. But I would suspect that the best funds managers are not found at such narrowly defined funds. Tom Worley stkguru@netside.net - ----- Original Message ----- From: Norman To: Sent: Friday, April 13, 2001 10:02 PM Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Funds Ownership Hey Tom, Stop me if I'm wrong (but be gentle :-) ), but most of the 'high flying' funds of the late '90s were technology dominated. And many were pure technology plays (i.e. Fidelity Select Electronics, Fidelity Computers, Invesco Technology, etc). By prospectus these pure tech funds may not be able to just switch sectors or go to cash. And so, it is the non-tech or 'multi-sector' funds that end up in the middle of the pack with 3-year ratings of D, C, and, if their very good, B. These days these funds may be in the top quartile and holding the 'best' stocks. But because of the mediocre performance of these funds in recent years the stocks they are holding have a mediocre or poor sponsorship rating. So I don't hold it against a non-tech stock just because the sponsorship rating is D. Does this make any sense? Norman Boyd Port Lavaca (Port of the Cow), TX theboyd@tisd.net - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tom Worley" To: Sent: Friday, April 13, 2001 4:19 AM Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Funds Ownership > Hi Norman, > > I think the idea behind considering the quality of sponsorship > (rather than percentage ownership by funds) is that a good funds > manager knows when to move the money, and knows which sector to > move it to. Thus, an "A" rated fund likely moved out of techs in > 2000, and into the home builders sector, for part of the > portfolio. > > Tom Worley > stkguru@netside.net > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Norman > To: > Sent: Friday, April 13, 2001 12:13 AM > Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Funds Ownership > > > I posed this question to the investors.com support folks. > > Question: > A few of my friends and I have an ongoing 'discussion' about what > percentage of a company's stock should be owned by funds. What > is a > good rule of thumb for a minimum %. [I really do discuss this > with non > listserv folks] > > Answer: > There really isn't a minimum percentage per se. You would like > to see > at least 1 or 2 of the top performing mutual funds in the market > owning > the stock. Look for an A in the Sponsorship ranking to determine > that. > > > But now I have another question. If the sponsorship ranking is > based on how > well the funds did over the last 3 years then the sponsorship of > stocks such > as builders may not be so high just because the "hot" funds > during that time > period (excluding 2000) have been tech funds. Maybe with last > years returns > this is changing, but for sure this was true during 2000. So, is > the fund > sponsorship that relevant when sector rotation is so dramatic > (techs ->builders & retail-shoe/apparel)? > > Norman Boyd > Port Lavaca (Port of the Cow), TX > theboyd@tisd.net > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > To: > Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2001 8:11 PM > Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Funds Ownership > > > > esetser: > > > > I got this from the IBD Web Page (Directory->Lessons on > > Buying->sponsorship): "In general, a stock should be owned by > at least a > few > > institutions. Some investors may feel tempted to go with a > small, obscure > > stock in hopes that Wall Street will discover it and send it to > the > > stratosphere. But that rarely happens. You're much better off > concentrating > > on stocks the top-performing institutions are already buying. > Signs of new > > institutional buying emerge all the time, so it's important to > watch for > > sponsorship changes every day" > > > > I couldn't find any percent of min and max. However in > HTMMIS on > page > > 39 under the section, "Is It Overowned by Institutions", it > says that, "A > > stock can also have too much sponsorship and become > overowned..... > Excessive > > ownership can be adverse since it merely represents large > potential > selling > > if anything goes wrong in the company or the general market." > Also, 3 > > paragraphs above, it says: "If a stock has no professional > sponsorship, > > chances are that its performance will be ... run of the mill. > The odds are > > that... the more than 1000 institutional investors looked at > the stock and > > passed it over. Even if they are wrong, it still takes large > buying to > > stimulate an important price increase in a security." > > > > > > > > In a message dated 4/11/2001 6:51:20 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > > esetser@covad.net writes: > > > > << Subj: [CANSLIM] Funds Ownership > > Date: 4/11/2001 6:51:20 PM Eastern Daylight Time > > From: esetser@covad.net (esetser) > > Sender: owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com > > Reply-to: canslim@lists.xmission.com > > To: canslim@xmission.com > > > > Several recent posts have reminded me about WON's suggestion > on limiting > > fund ownership. This hasn't been something I've used > directly, since it > > was not available in IBD. Now that I'm paying for DGO, maybe > I should > > reconsider using this as a secondary consideration for > purchase > decisions. > > > > So, I decided to pull out my copy of HTMMIS, and review > exactly what the > > guidelines are. Hmm, I can't find it!! I guessed I've > misplaced it in > > this mess I call an office. Could someone take a minute and > refresh me > on > > the suggested minimum and maximum fund ownership suggested by > WON in > > HTMMIS. Thanks. > > > > I don't see any reference to this limit in the 26 week > investing course. > > >> > > > > - > > -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. > > > > - > -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. - - - -To subscribe/unsubscribe, email "majordomo@xmission.com" - -In the email body, write "subscribe canslim" or - -"unsubscribe canslim". Do not use quotes in your email. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 23:54:23 -0400 From: "Tom Worley" Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] DRI Altho there was volume, the size of the move does not suggest a b/o to me, thus no "failed b/o" either. It only reached 26, pivot looks like 27. Looks more to me like it may be trying to put in a handle on a shallow cup. Tom Worley stkguru@netside.net - ----- Original Message ----- From: Steve F To: Sent: Friday, April 13, 2001 9:22 PM Subject: [CANSLIM] DRI Note the chart on DRI. Looks like it tried to breakout earlier this week. Would you consider this a failed breakout or just a pullback. The 'pullback' is on considerably lower volume. How do you read the action on this stock. I bought at what I thought was the breakout, paid 25.50. I am still a far way from the 8% stop out but would love to hear some comments. Thanks Steve __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. http://personal.mail.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. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 22:11:48 -0600 From: esetser Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] DRI It looks like you bought this based on a handle that formed on 3/27. Since the breakout, it has traded on a little lower and shown good support at about 24.5. I would have been a little concerned about the high volume days mixed with low volume days on the handle itself. Since the breakout, the volume on both down days was about average while the two up days were very strong. I would watch this one closely, but I don't see any reason to panic based on its action so far. It may be forming another higher handle from here, and a breakout on that one would be a possible entry for myself, and the confirmation of some initial gains for you. At 06:22 PM 4/13/01 -0700, you wrote: > >Note the chart on DRI. Looks like it tried to >breakout earlier this week. Would you consider this >a failed breakout or just a pullback. The 'pullback' >is on considerably lower volume. How do you read the >action on this stock. I bought at what I thought was >the breakout, paid 25.50. I am still a far way from >the 8% stop out but would love to hear some comments. >Thanks >Steve > >__________________________________________________ >Do You Yahoo!? >Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. >http://personal.mail.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. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 22:14:48 -0600 From: esetser Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] 52 wk highs vs 26 wk highs Wow, now that was a surprise. I took a look a this chart and noticed that Electrical-Semi Equipment is now a "B" rated industry group. How's that for a rebound? Quite a surprise to me. At 08:59 PM 4/13/01 -0500, you wrote: > Hey Tom, Doesn't mean this will be the best sector to >grab though. stumbling in the dark here. Norman Boyd >Port Lavaca (Port of the Cow), TX >theboyd@tisd.net ----- Original Message ----- From: Tom Worley > To: canslim@lists.xmission.com Sent: Friday, April 13, 2001 4:51 AM >Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] 52 wk highs vs 26 wk highs > Nothing in CANSLIM requires you to buy a stock at a new high, it's >just a good practice because then there is no overhead resistance for at >least the past 12 months. And the "N"ew high fulfills the requirement >for something new in caNslim. I have said it many times before, there >is a lot of institutional money that wants to be in the biggest, best >big cap tech stocks. Even MOT held up well, esp for having its first >loss in many years, and missing estimates to the downside at that. > I don't think the key to any buying decision on the beaten down techs >depends on either the 26 or 52 week high. Rather it depends on the trend >of the RS, up/down ratio, EPS, and earnings forecasts. Also critical is >what the company says about its expectations for the rest of the year. > Assuming the bottom was truly reached either March 22 or April 4, I >would look for stocks that bottomed earlier, showed strength at the end, >and potential leadership in the future. On the other hand, we have seen >apparent bottoms several times in the past year, followed by decent >rallies, only to soon head even lower. While undoubtedly there >were a lot of stocks sold for losses in the second half of 2000, and 1st >qtr of 2001 (including to pay taxes), I am equally sure there are still >a lot of stocks being held that were bot a year or more ago, and have >substantial losses at present prices. A lot of this is likely in tax >sheltered accts, where there was no tax advantage to taking the loss by >year's end. So yes, there will be sellers that are just trying to break >even. But there will also be sellers who bot at or near the lows, and >are taking profits. So there will be two different sources of resistance >all the way back up. If we have really started a >new bull, and we won't know for sure for many months, then I doubt you >will get much more than a one or two week base, unless it bottomed quite >early. Good luck, Tom Worley >stkguru@netside.net ----- Original Message ----- From: > Norman To: canslim@lists.xmission.com Sent: Friday, >April 13, 2001 1:12 AM Subject: [CANSLIM] 52 wk highs vs 26 wk > highs > Could someone with bear market >experience shed some light on this? They have a low GRS >but that could quickly change and many 26 week-pivots be passed in the >meantime. Norman Boyd >Port Lavaca (Port of the Cow), TX >theboyd@tisd.net > > - - - -To subscribe/unsubscribe, email "majordomo@xmission.com" - -In the email body, write "subscribe canslim" or - -"unsubscribe canslim". Do not use quotes in your email. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 00:16:02 -0400 From: "Robert McGill" Subject: [CANSLIM] THQI-? ?????? Any thoughts? - - - -To subscribe/unsubscribe, email "majordomo@xmission.com" - -In the email body, write "subscribe canslim" or - -"unsubscribe canslim". Do not use quotes in your email. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 22:17:59 -0600 From: esetser Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Funds Ownership Yes, I agree with you comments, except the Institutional Sponsorship Rating of a stock is based on the 3 year performance rank of the funds that own it, AND on the trend of funds buying/selling the stock. So a stock that was owned by a bunch of "C" funds could still rate a "D" if the funds were net sellers of the stocks recently. At 09:01 PM 4/13/01 -0500, you wrote: >INTERSPERSED BELOW > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "esetser" >To: >Sent: Friday, April 13, 2001 2:11 PM >Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Funds Ownership > > >> I'm not sure you are using the correct terms here, or maybe I just >> misuderstand. Here are a couple of questions. >> >> Did you mean A in Institutional Sponsorship Rating of the stock (given in >> IBD each Tuesday) or A in the Mutual Fund 36 month performance rating? >> Your answer seems to refer to the Fund rating rather than the stock rank, >> but the way I read the message the first time, I would have thought you >> were referring to the stock rating. > >SORRY FOR THE CONFUSION. I WAS SPEAKING OF SPONSORSHIP RATING. WHICH, I >THOUGHT WAS BASED ON THE 3-YEAR PERFORMANCE OF THE FUNDS HOLDING THE STOCK. >IS IT NOT? > >> >> I agree that using the 3 year performance rating of a fund will give you >> their history given the particulars in that period of time. One year ago, >> all you needed was overweigthing in technology to have a fabulous rating. >> Given the tech crash, it's less clear what characteristics lead to a high >> ranking right now, but these kind of performance numbers will always favor >> groups in the hottest area. > >THAT'S WHAT I TRIED, IN VAIN, TO SAY :-( > >However, I think the IBD is saying a high >> performing fund, particularly a diversified growth fund, is on a roll >> picking solid growth stocks, and their support for a stock you are buying >> is an important piece of CANSLIM. It seems I've read that funds that >> perform above average continue to do so at a better rate than those who >> have recently underperformed. It may be far from perfect, but it does >help >> your odds. >> >> Back to the stock Institutional Sponsorship Rating. I have noticed that >> the average ratings seem to move around quite a bit. In my recent lists, >I >> would say the average stock has a "D" rating, while ratings above "C" are >> very unusual. I would also say a "C" rating was the clear average rating >> during the bull, and I saw quite a few stocks with "B" ratings, and even >> some "A" ratings. So in summary, it appears that the A-E rankings are >> not split into an even 20% of stocks each, but are ranked on some scale >> that is affected by market conditions. > >I THOUGHT SPONSORSHIP RATINGS WERE DEPENDENT UPON THE 3-YEAR PERFORMANCE OF >THE FUNDS HOLDING THE STOCK?? > >> >> Part of my point here is that there are very few stocks out there with "A" >> ratings right now. From my latest leaders list (stocks above a certain >> size with EPS/RS rankings at 80/80 and GRS of 75 or better, here are the >> totals for each rating: >> >> A - 0 stocks >> B - 1 stock >> C - 16 stocks >> D - 137 stocks >> E - 8 stocks >> >> Given this, you can see that picking out an A stock for Sponsorship rating >> would be quite difficult, and would perform a level of screening that is >> probably beyond what any of us want. In fact, if you limited yourself to >> stocks rated A right now, I would guess you could use this as your entire >> screening process, since you would have very few candidates left. >Overall, >> I use this rating, along with SMR and A/D as strength indicators. That >is, >> after I've reduced my list to several hundred candidates using EPS, RS, >and >> GRS, then I combine all of these rankings to generate a composite rank >that >> I use to focus in on the best stocks. > >MAYBE I'M MAKING A MISTAKE BUT I"M NOT USEING THE SPONSORSHIP RATING IN THIS >MARKET. TOO MANY QUALITY STOCKS HAVE A "D" RATING AND I HAVE LOST >CONFIDANCE IN THE INDEX. > >THANKS FOR YOU THOUGHTS > >Norman Boyd >Port Lavaca (Port of the Cow), TX >theboyd@tisd.net >> >> >> >> At 11:13 PM 4/12/01 -0500, you wrote: >> >I posed this question to the investors.com support folks. >> > >> >Question: >> >A few of my friends and I have an ongoing 'discussion' about what >> >percentage of a company's stock should be owned by funds. What is a >> >good rule of thumb for a minimum %. [I really do discuss this with non >> >listserv folks] >> > >> >Answer: >> >There really isn't a minimum percentage per se. You would like to see >> >at least 1 or 2 of the top performing mutual funds in the market owning >> >the stock. Look for an A in the Sponsorship ranking to determine that. >> > >> > >> >But now I have another question. If the sponsorship ranking is based on >how >> >well the funds did over the last 3 years then the sponsorship of stocks >such >> >as builders may not be so high just because the "hot" funds during that >time >> >period (excluding 2000) have been tech funds. Maybe with last years >returns >> >this is changing, but for sure this was true during 2000. So, is the >fund >> >sponsorship that relevant when sector rotation is so dramatic >> >(techs ->builders & retail-shoe/apparel)? >> > >> >Norman Boyd >> >Port Lavaca (Port of the Cow), TX >> >theboyd@tisd.net >> > >> >> >> - >> -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. > > - - - -To subscribe/unsubscribe, email "majordomo@xmission.com" - -In the email body, write "subscribe canslim" or - -"unsubscribe canslim". Do not use quotes in your email. ------------------------------ End of canslim-digest V2 #1277 ****************************** 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.