From: owner-canslim-digest@lists.xmission.com (canslim-digest) To: canslim-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: canslim-digest V2 #1317 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 Wednesday, April 25 2001 Volume 02 : Number 1317 In this issue: Re: [CANSLIM] was "q for Tim and Earl", now buying before earnings Re: [CANSLIM] ADVP anyone? [CANSLIM] Freetrades.com (Off Topic?) Re: [CANSLIM] was "q for Tim and Earl", now buying before earnings Re: [CANSLIM] was "q for Tim and Earl", now buying before earnings Re: [CANSLIM] was "q for Tim and Earl", now buying before earnings Re: [CANSLIM] was "q for Tim and Earl", now buying before earnings Re: [CANSLIM] was "q for Tim and Earl", now buying before earnings Re: [CANSLIM] was "q for Tim and Earl", now buying before earnings ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 17:03:19 -0600 From: esetser Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] was "q for Tim and Earl", now buying before earnings Ah, so we have a difference in definitions! I define the period of the base as the period from the previous high to the handle or new high. I believe this is consistent with today's Investor's Corner (previously posted) which defines a base as corrections up to 60%. At 06:06 PM 4/25/01 -0400, you wrote: >Sorry, David, the decline from 2/7 to 2/22 is too steep for me to >count that as any part of a base. It's around 20%, which if it >was an index, would be called a bear market. > >If you only look from 2/7 to 4/18, and compress the graph with >weekly charts rather than daily, then there is more of a base >formation. But I still find the chart fits better (using daily >charts) into a LLUR formation. > >Tom Worley >stkguru@netside.net > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: David Squires >To: >Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2001 5:45 PM >Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] was "q for Tim and Earl", now buying >before earnings > > >>>I continue to see MDC as a LLUR. The base you mention at 3/28 >was > too short and insignificant in the overall pattern for me to >call > it a base.<< > > >IMO, the base starts on 2/7 and ends on 4/18 with the attempted >breakout of >a high handle (the other handle had too much volume). That's long >enough to >qualify as an O'Neil base...flat base. The stock has a tendency >to from >tails but five tails in the last 6 days is pretty significant. >There is >(was) clearly a big seller at 44ish. Given that, the stock has >held up >reasonable well. If it breaks 44 it's off to the >races...otherwise support >is 39ish. Many of the stocks in this group are acting very good. > >Good Trading, >Dave >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Tom Worley" >To: >Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2001 4:20 PM >Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] was "q for Tim and Earl", now buying >before earnings > > >> Hi Spencer, >> >> I continue to see MDC as a LLUR. The base you mention at 3/28 >was >> too short and insignificant in the overall pattern for me to >call >> it a base. >> >> I do note that it rarely breaks the 50 DMA, and because of that >> would likely use that as the lower trendline rather than a >> straight line across the lows (but watching price and volume >> closely when it is falling, and be ready to act quickly). >> >> I don't attach as much significance to the lack of price gains >in >> the past five days, but would take it as a warning sign to >watch. >> It is important with a LLUR to recognize when / if it changes >its >> character and ceases to be a LLUR, however briefly. That is a >> sell signal that screams at you, because the whole basis for >> buying it is the LLUR pattern. >> >> "M" is very unstable right now, and affects LLUR stocks just >like >> any others. >> >> Tom Worley >> stkguru@netside.net >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: >> To: >> Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2001 1:49 PM >> Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] was "q for Tim and Earl", now buying >> before earnings >> >> >> Anna, >> >> This is how I see MDC: I believe it is in an primary LLUR >. >> I believe >> someone also said that it showed a basing formation. I >wouldn't >> have caught >> that (I see one now where the BO was around 3/28 at $39. >> However, I imagine >> stocks can have more than one formation, and the LLUR seems to >be >> the main >> one). I do see the LLUR. It is pretty obvious, and its up >> trendline has >> been pretty darn accurate at 9-11 points since last June. >> >> Notice, though, that it isn't rising so much over the last >5 >> days-even >> though volume has exploded. To me, this indicates churning (no >> demand). It >> is also important to note that during this temporary bull that >we >> are having, >> it hasn't popped up strongly. I believe it will now fall to >the >> down >> trendline. In the past, after it hits the trendline, it >bounces >> up, and then >> falls again (testing the low-but at a higher price level). I >> would buy >> following the 2nd fall, buying at the down trendline break on >> high volume. >> Also, I would probably use short moving averages to confirm-all >> of them being >> on a daily basis (eg. the daily penetrating the 4 penetrating >the >> 10). >> >> Thank you for presenting an interesting case study. >> >> Any other responses on how MDC is viewed? >> >> jans >> >> >> - >> -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: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 16:08:16 -0700 From: "Bill Triffet" Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] ADVP anyone? Ah yes, "base on base" was the term I was looking for. I see what you mean about the volatility. Very short bases that are not very "quiet". I think today is a new high with pretty good volume. Might pick up a small position on a p/b but I'm not in a big hurry. - -Bill Triffet - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tom Worley" To: Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2001 3:12 PM Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] ADVP anyone? > Looks to me like it is trying to follow a pattern of "base on > base". As long as you bot in a base, and were patient, you made > money. Right now, it appears to be in a consolidation of gains > over the past months, but unlike prior periods, it is showing a > lot of volatility instead of settling into a tight base. This > would concern me. > > If you were a gambler, you could try and pick it up on a pullback > around the 55 range, and keep a tight stop on it. Otherwise, I > would at least wait for it to break a new high on good volume. > > Tom Worley > stkguru@netside.net > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Bill Triffet > To: canslim > Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2001 2:44 PM > Subject: [CANSLIM] ADVP anyone? > > > Just looking at ADVP today and can't make a good definition of > the chart. > Would one consider this just a continuation of the 3/23 b/o or > perhaps > present another place to buy or add to? Note: It's up 7% intraday > as I write > this. > > As my luck would have it (or lack of good patience), I picked it > up right at > the start of the handle formation back in Feb. I thought it read > as a weak > double b and thought It could move up from there. I of course was > bumped out > as the handle sloped down. I see now looking back that it was > forming a > handle which broke out on 3/23. Is this how others would look at > it? > > Still only dabbling in a small position of MDC. > > -Bill Triffet > > - > -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: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 18:04:56 -0500 From: canslim Subject: [CANSLIM] Freetrades.com (Off Topic?) anyone ever used http://freetrades.com ? I don't know anything about it I just was typing in random web addresses. Looks cool to me. bjdownes - - - -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: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 17:11:47 -0600 From: esetser Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] was "q for Tim and Earl", now buying before earnings Hmm, I don't remember the 25% number. Okay, back to HTMMIS, here's what it says: While discussing CWH patterns, here are some excerpts: "The usual (in italics) percentage correction from the absolute peak to the low point of the price pattern varies from 12% or 15% to 33%." "It is normal for growth stocks to create a cup pattern during intermediate general market declines and correct 1 1/2 to 2 times the market averages, sometimes up to 2 1/2 times." "Coming out of a major bear market, some patterns that have decreased 50% to 60% or more can succeed. The percent decline is, in these cases, a function of the severity of the bear market and the extent of the stock's prior price runup." It seems WON has seen the market in similar situations as we have now, and does see successes in bases up to 60% "or more". Based on this, the Investor's Corner article looks consistent with HTMMIS. At 06:27 PM 4/25/01 -0400, you wrote: >Hi Spencer, > >Note that WON did not write this article, David Saito-Chung wrote >it. So his quotes of what WON would / might have said may not be >wholly accurate. > >I do recall WON indicating, in discussing a cup and handle >formation, that the bottom of the cup ideally is no more that 25% >decline of the prior leg up. So David's suggestion that a stock >that has dropped up to 60% would limit it to very few stocks >(those who's "prior leg up" were an undeterred 25% of the leg up >> 60% of the high). I will let some of the mathematicians figure >out the actual equation, but seems to me that represents an >unusually long and unconsolidated "leg up" to meet that criteria. > >I don't know if this might be an attempt to encourage more of us >to consider the mightily fallen techs, where a 60% decline from >the high is no big deal (after all, Naz was down something like >66%, so what's 60%, that is still outperformance, right??). But >any stock down 60% from its high represents a stock with >tremendous overhead resistance, especially if the prior rise was >on volume. > >And, once again, we are feted with a chart example (I am not >picking on you, Spencer, just IBD) that is 7 (SEVEN!!!) YEARS >OLD. Come on, can't we come up with something more current?? Are >there no other examples than can be found in the past five years, >or three years? How about (excuse me for wishing) last year, when >my short term memory was still working?? > >Tom Worley >stkguru@netside.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: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 19:11:07 -0400 From: "Tom Worley" Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] was "q for Tim and Earl", now buying before earnings Earl, don't confuse my "DGO List" with anything else. My list is solely intended to identify stocks that meet basic CS requirements, are within 5% of or at their 12 month high, and in my opinion offer a chart pattern that makes them worth watching (not buying). The only chart service I use for this is DGO, and their presentation (depending on the index increments used) may well differ from another service. Were I to look at MDC only at BigCharts, or marketwatch, or freerealtime, I might form an entirely different opinion of what the chart represents. But I only consult DGO, and my opinion is as stated. I encourage investors to find, and then consistently use, a charting service with which they are comfortable. Everyone is welcome to what they see, the key is that they are consistent. Tom Worley stkguru@netside.net - ----- Original Message ----- From: esetser To: Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2001 7:00 PM Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] was "q for Tim and Earl", now buying before earnings OK Tom, now you've really got me confused. I see MDC with a 9 week base starting on 2/7 and ended on 4/12. (I based the breakout on CLOSING above the pivot in this case.) Do you not consider this period a base? I find it confusing that you quote 2 - 4 week bases in your weekly list, but then you complain that this 9 weeks was too short? I must be seeing something different here. At 05:20 PM 4/25/01 -0400, you wrote: >Hi Spencer, > >I continue to see MDC as a LLUR. The base you mention at 3/28 was >too short and insignificant in the overall pattern for me to call >it a base. > >I do note that it rarely breaks the 50 DMA, and because of that >would likely use that as the lower trendline rather than a >straight line across the lows (but watching price and volume >closely when it is falling, and be ready to act quickly). > >I don't attach as much significance to the lack of price gains in >the past five days, but would take it as a warning sign to watch. >It is important with a LLUR to recognize when / if it changes its >character and ceases to be a LLUR, however briefly. That is a >sell signal that screams at you, because the whole basis for >buying it is the LLUR pattern. > >"M" is very unstable right now, and affects LLUR stocks just like >any others. > >Tom Worley >stkguru@netside.net > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: >To: >Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2001 1:49 PM >Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] was "q for Tim and Earl", now buying >before earnings > > >Anna, > > This is how I see MDC: I believe it is in an primary LLUR . >I believe >someone also said that it showed a basing formation. I wouldn't >have caught >that (I see one now where the BO was around 3/28 at $39. >However, I imagine >stocks can have more than one formation, and the LLUR seems to be >the main >one). I do see the LLUR. It is pretty obvious, and its up >trendline has >been pretty darn accurate at 9-11 points since last June. > > Notice, though, that it isn't rising so much over the last 5 >days-even >though volume has exploded. To me, this indicates churning (no >demand). It >is also important to note that during this temporary bull that we >are having, >it hasn't popped up strongly. I believe it will now fall to the >down >trendline. In the past, after it hits the trendline, it bounces >up, and then >falls again (testing the low-but at a higher price level). I >would buy >following the 2nd fall, buying at the down trendline break on >high volume. >Also, I would probably use short moving averages to confirm-all >of them being >on a daily basis (eg. the daily penetrating the 4 penetrating the >10). > > Thank you for presenting an interesting case study. > > Any other responses on how MDC is viewed? > >jans > > >- >-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: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 18:11:52 -0500 From: "David Squires" Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] was "q for Tim and Earl", now buying before earnings Hi Tom, My definition came from Kevin Marder. He is much closer to the O'Neil organization than I am so I am willing to take his word for it until it costs me money. I will concede O'neil's most recent book says 8-12% but this is simply not a practical number in today's volatile markets. If you want to wait for such a base I hope you don't hold your breadth too long!! :-) BTW, hopefully May 31st will solve much bickering on CANSLIM...WON's much awaited new addition of HTMMIS graces us! Debate makes us better, Dave - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tom Worley" To: Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2001 5:39 PM Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] was "q for Tim and Earl", now buying before earnings > who's definition, WON's, or someone else's? > > Tom Worley > stkguru@netside.net > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: David Squires > To: > Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2001 6:31 PM > Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] was "q for Tim and Earl", now buying > before earnings > > > Hi Tom, > > Actually, one of the definitions of a flat base is a decline of > 15-20%. Most > cup and handle patterns retrace greater than 30%. The flat base > is a bull > market phenomenon usually. They happen during a simple market > correction in > the strongest stocks of that cycle. > > The weekly chart shows a real mess. The weekly flipping between > closing on > the low and then on the high shows absolutely no agreement on > price. The > overall pattern is faulty but the group is very strong and that > must be > respected. > > Regards, > Dave > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Tom Worley" > To: > Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2001 5:06 PM > Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] was "q for Tim and Earl", now buying > before earnings > > > > Sorry, David, the decline from 2/7 to 2/22 is too steep for me > to > > count that as any part of a base. It's around 20%, which if it > > was an index, would be called a bear market. > > > > If you only look from 2/7 to 4/18, and compress the graph with > > weekly charts rather than daily, then there is more of a base > > formation. But I still find the chart fits better (using daily > > charts) into a LLUR formation. > > > > Tom Worley > > stkguru@netside.net > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: David Squires > > To: > > Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2001 5:45 PM > > Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] was "q for Tim and Earl", now buying > > before earnings > > > > > > >>I continue to see MDC as a LLUR. The base you mention at 3/28 > > was > > too short and insignificant in the overall pattern for me to > > call > > it a base.<< > > > > > > IMO, the base starts on 2/7 and ends on 4/18 with the attempted > > breakout of > > a high handle (the other handle had too much volume). That's > long > > enough to > > qualify as an O'Neil base...flat base. The stock has a tendency > > to from > > tails but five tails in the last 6 days is pretty significant. > > There is > > (was) clearly a big seller at 44ish. Given that, the stock has > > held up > > reasonable well. If it breaks 44 it's off to the > > races...otherwise support > > is 39ish. Many of the stocks in this group are acting very > good. > > > > Good Trading, > > Dave > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Tom Worley" > > To: > > Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2001 4:20 PM > > Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] was "q for Tim and Earl", now buying > > before earnings > > > > > > > Hi Spencer, > > > > > > I continue to see MDC as a LLUR. The base you mention at 3/28 > > was > > > too short and insignificant in the overall pattern for me to > > call > > > it a base. > > > > > > I do note that it rarely breaks the 50 DMA, and because of > that > > > would likely use that as the lower trendline rather than a > > > straight line across the lows (but watching price and volume > > > closely when it is falling, and be ready to act quickly). > > > > > > I don't attach as much significance to the lack of price > gains > > in > > > the past five days, but would take it as a warning sign to > > watch. > > > It is important with a LLUR to recognize when / if it changes > > its > > > character and ceases to be a LLUR, however briefly. That is a > > > sell signal that screams at you, because the whole basis for > > > buying it is the LLUR pattern. > > > > > > "M" is very unstable right now, and affects LLUR stocks just > > like > > > any others. > > > > > > Tom Worley > > > stkguru@netside.net > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: > > > To: > > > Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2001 1:49 PM > > > Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] was "q for Tim and Earl", now buying > > > before earnings > > > > > > > > > Anna, > > > > > > This is how I see MDC: I believe it is in an primary > LLUR > > . > > > I believe > > > someone also said that it showed a basing formation. I > > wouldn't > > > have caught > > > that (I see one now where the BO was around 3/28 at $39. > > > However, I imagine > > > stocks can have more than one formation, and the LLUR seems > to > > be > > > the main > > > one). I do see the LLUR. It is pretty obvious, and its up > > > trendline has > > > been pretty darn accurate at 9-11 points since last June. > > > > > > Notice, though, that it isn't rising so much over the > last > > 5 > > > days-even > > > though volume has exploded. To me, this indicates churning > (no > > > demand). It > > > is also important to note that during this temporary bull > that > > we > > > are having, > > > it hasn't popped up strongly. I believe it will now fall to > > the > > > down > > > trendline. In the past, after it hits the trendline, it > > bounces > > > up, and then > > > falls again (testing the low-but at a higher price level). I > > > would buy > > > following the 2nd fall, buying at the down trendline break on > > > high volume. > > > Also, I would probably use short moving averages to > confirm-all > > > of them being > > > on a daily basis (eg. the daily penetrating the 4 penetrating > > the > > > 10). > > > > > > Thank you for presenting an interesting case study. > > > > > > Any other responses on how MDC is viewed? > > > > > > jans > > > > > > > > > - > > > -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. > > > > - > -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: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 19:18:04 -0400 From: "Tom Worley" Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] was "q for Tim and Earl", now buying before earnings I'll spot you the "coming out of a major bear market" quote, Earl, that's one I had forgotten (or never read?). I really must dig out an article I saved from the Registered Representative magazine (a free pub for stock brokers) from many years ago. It was an interview with WON that influenced me and my understanding of CANSLIM applications. I still think IBD, DG/DGO, and WON (in seminars) operate in somewhat independent and sterile environments. Tom Worley stkguru@netside.net - ----- Original Message ----- From: esetser To: Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2001 7:11 PM Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] was "q for Tim and Earl", now buying before earnings Hmm, I don't remember the 25% number. Okay, back to HTMMIS, here's what it says: While discussing CWH patterns, here are some excerpts: "The usual (in italics) percentage correction from the absolute peak to the low point of the price pattern varies from 12% or 15% to 33%." "It is normal for growth stocks to create a cup pattern during intermediate general market declines and correct 1 1/2 to 2 times the market averages, sometimes up to 2 1/2 times." "Coming out of a major bear market, some patterns that have decreased 50% to 60% or more can succeed. The percent decline is, in these cases, a function of the severity of the bear market and the extent of the stock's prior price runup." It seems WON has seen the market in similar situations as we have now, and does see successes in bases up to 60% "or more". Based on this, the Investor's Corner article looks consistent with HTMMIS. At 06:27 PM 4/25/01 -0400, you wrote: >Hi Spencer, > >Note that WON did not write this article, David Saito-Chung wrote >it. So his quotes of what WON would / might have said may not be >wholly accurate. > >I do recall WON indicating, in discussing a cup and handle >formation, that the bottom of the cup ideally is no more that 25% >decline of the prior leg up. So David's suggestion that a stock >that has dropped up to 60% would limit it to very few stocks >(those who's "prior leg up" were an undeterred 25% of the leg up >> 60% of the high). I will let some of the mathematicians figure >out the actual equation, but seems to me that represents an >unusually long and unconsolidated "leg up" to meet that criteria. > >I don't know if this might be an attempt to encourage more of us >to consider the mightily fallen techs, where a 60% decline from >the high is no big deal (after all, Naz was down something like >66%, so what's 60%, that is still outperformance, right??). But >any stock down 60% from its high represents a stock with >tremendous overhead resistance, especially if the prior rise was >on volume. > >And, once again, we are feted with a chart example (I am not >picking on you, Spencer, just IBD) that is 7 (SEVEN!!!) YEARS >OLD. Come on, can't we come up with something more current?? Are >there no other examples than can be found in the past five years, >or three years? How about (excuse me for wishing) last year, when >my short term memory was still working?? > >Tom Worley >stkguru@netside.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: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 18:23:04 -0500 From: "David Squires" Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] was "q for Tim and Earl", now buying before earnings "Coming out of a major bear market, some patterns that have decreased 50% to 60% or more can succeed. The percent decline is, in these cases, a function of the severity of the bear market and the extent of the stock's prior price runup." People should remember this quote because this the historical norm we are presented with right now. Look at a stock like CHKP...a 66% drop but the way it blew through overhead supply in the most recent rally suggests it could be a leadership stock when the market finally bottoms. The point is, forget the past five years we are looking at a different environment now. DSquires - ----- Original Message ----- From: "esetser" To: Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2001 6:11 PM Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] was "q for Tim and Earl", now buying before earnings > Hmm, I don't remember the 25% number. Okay, back to HTMMIS, here's what it > says: > > While discussing CWH patterns, here are some excerpts: > > "The usual (in italics) percentage correction from the absolute peak to the > low point of the price pattern varies from 12% or 15% to 33%." > > "It is normal for growth stocks to create a cup pattern during intermediate > general market declines and correct 1 1/2 to 2 times the market averages, > sometimes up to 2 1/2 times." > > "Coming out of a major bear market, some patterns that have decreased 50% > to 60% or more can succeed. The percent decline is, in these cases, a > function of the severity of the bear market and the extent of the stock's > prior price runup." > > It seems WON has seen the market in similar situations as we have now, and > does see successes in bases up to 60% "or more". Based on this, the > Investor's Corner article looks consistent with HTMMIS. > > At 06:27 PM 4/25/01 -0400, you wrote: > >Hi Spencer, > > > >Note that WON did not write this article, David Saito-Chung wrote > >it. So his quotes of what WON would / might have said may not be > >wholly accurate. > > > >I do recall WON indicating, in discussing a cup and handle > >formation, that the bottom of the cup ideally is no more that 25% > >decline of the prior leg up. So David's suggestion that a stock > >that has dropped up to 60% would limit it to very few stocks > >(those who's "prior leg up" were an undeterred 25% of the leg up > >> 60% of the high). I will let some of the mathematicians figure > >out the actual equation, but seems to me that represents an > >unusually long and unconsolidated "leg up" to meet that criteria. > > > >I don't know if this might be an attempt to encourage more of us > >to consider the mightily fallen techs, where a 60% decline from > >the high is no big deal (after all, Naz was down something like > >66%, so what's 60%, that is still outperformance, right??). But > >any stock down 60% from its high represents a stock with > >tremendous overhead resistance, especially if the prior rise was > >on volume. > > > >And, once again, we are feted with a chart example (I am not > >picking on you, Spencer, just IBD) that is 7 (SEVEN!!!) YEARS > >OLD. Come on, can't we come up with something more current?? Are > >there no other examples than can be found in the past five years, > >or three years? How about (excuse me for wishing) last year, when > >my short term memory was still working?? > > > >Tom Worley > >stkguru@netside.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: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 19:23:12 -0400 From: "Tom Worley" Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] was "q for Tim and Earl", now buying before earnings I suspect that Marder, like most of us, applies some of his own personal interpretation to CANSLIM. That, in my opinion, is one of the beauties of CANSLIM, we can each twist and distort it, and rationalize it even, and it can still work for us individually. And if 8-12% is not practical in this volatile market, then maybe it's a signal that this market is also not workable for CANSLIM?? Tom Worley stkguru@netside.net - ----- Original Message ----- From: David Squires To: Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2001 7:11 PM Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] was "q for Tim and Earl", now buying before earnings Hi Tom, My definition came from Kevin Marder. He is much closer to the O'Neil organization than I am so I am willing to take his word for it until it costs me money. I will concede O'neil's most recent book says 8-12% but this is simply not a practical number in today's volatile markets. If you want to wait for such a base I hope you don't hold your breadth too long!! :-) BTW, hopefully May 31st will solve much bickering on CANSLIM...WON's much awaited new addition of HTMMIS graces us! Debate makes us better, Dave - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tom Worley" To: Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2001 5:39 PM Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] was "q for Tim and Earl", now buying before earnings > who's definition, WON's, or someone else's? > > Tom Worley > stkguru@netside.net > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: David Squires > To: > Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2001 6:31 PM > Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] was "q for Tim and Earl", now buying > before earnings > > > Hi Tom, > > Actually, one of the definitions of a flat base is a decline of > 15-20%. Most > cup and handle patterns retrace greater than 30%. The flat base > is a bull > market phenomenon usually. They happen during a simple market > correction in > the strongest stocks of that cycle. > > The weekly chart shows a real mess. The weekly flipping between > closing on > the low and then on the high shows absolutely no agreement on > price. The > overall pattern is faulty but the group is very strong and that > must be > respected. > > Regards, > Dave > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Tom Worley" > To: > Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2001 5:06 PM > Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] was "q for Tim and Earl", now buying > before earnings > > > > Sorry, David, the decline from 2/7 to 2/22 is too steep for me > to > > count that as any part of a base. It's around 20%, which if it > > was an index, would be called a bear market. > > > > If you only look from 2/7 to 4/18, and compress the graph with > > weekly charts rather than daily, then there is more of a base > > formation. But I still find the chart fits better (using daily > > charts) into a LLUR formation. > > > > Tom Worley > > stkguru@netside.net > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: David Squires > > To: > > Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2001 5:45 PM > > Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] was "q for Tim and Earl", now buying > > before earnings > > > > > > >>I continue to see MDC as a LLUR. The base you mention at 3/28 > > was > > too short and insignificant in the overall pattern for me to > > call > > it a base.<< > > > > > > IMO, the base starts on 2/7 and ends on 4/18 with the attempted > > breakout of > > a high handle (the other handle had too much volume). That's > long > > enough to > > qualify as an O'Neil base...flat base. The stock has a tendency > > to from > > tails but five tails in the last 6 days is pretty significant. > > There is > > (was) clearly a big seller at 44ish. Given that, the stock has > > held up > > reasonable well. If it breaks 44 it's off to the > > races...otherwise support > > is 39ish. Many of the stocks in this group are acting very > good. > > > > Good Trading, > > Dave > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Tom Worley" > > To: > > Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2001 4:20 PM > > Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] was "q for Tim and Earl", now buying > > before earnings > > > > > > > Hi Spencer, > > > > > > I continue to see MDC as a LLUR. The base you mention at 3/28 > > was > > > too short and insignificant in the overall pattern for me to > > call > > > it a base. > > > > > > I do note that it rarely breaks the 50 DMA, and because of > that > > > would likely use that as the lower trendline rather than a > > > straight line across the lows (but watching price and volume > > > closely when it is falling, and be ready to act quickly). > > > > > > I don't attach as much significance to the lack of price > gains > > in > > > the past five days, but would take it as a warning sign to > > watch. > > > It is important with a LLUR to recognize when / if it changes > > its > > > character and ceases to be a LLUR, however briefly. That is a > > > sell signal that screams at you, because the whole basis for > > > buying it is the LLUR pattern. > > > > > > "M" is very unstable right now, and affects LLUR stocks just > > like > > > any others. > > > > > > Tom Worley > > > stkguru@netside.net > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: > > > To: > > > Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2001 1:49 PM > > > Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] was "q for Tim and Earl", now buying > > > before earnings > > > > > > > > > Anna, > > > > > > This is how I see MDC: I believe it is in an primary > LLUR > > . > > > I believe > > > someone also said that it showed a basing formation. I > > wouldn't > > > have caught > > > that (I see one now where the BO was around 3/28 at $39. > > > However, I imagine > > > stocks can have more than one formation, and the LLUR seems > to > > be > > > the main > > > one). I do see the LLUR. It is pretty obvious, and its up > > > trendline has > > > been pretty darn accurate at 9-11 points since last June. > > > > > > Notice, though, that it isn't rising so much over the > last > > 5 > > > days-even > > > though volume has exploded. To me, this indicates churning > (no > > > demand). It > > > is also important to note that during this temporary bull > that > > we > > > are having, > > > it hasn't popped up strongly. I believe it will now fall to > > the > > > down > > > trendline. In the past, after it hits the trendline, it > > bounces > > > up, and then > > > falls again (testing the low-but at a higher price level). I > > > would buy > > > following the 2nd fall, buying at the down trendline break on > > > high volume. > > > Also, I would probably use short moving averages to > confirm-all > > > of them being > > > on a daily basis (eg. the daily penetrating the 4 penetrating > > the > > > 10). > > > > > > Thank you for presenting an interesting case study. > > > > > > Any other responses on how MDC is viewed? > > > > > > jans > > > > > > > > > - > > > -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. > > > > - > -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 #1317 ****************************** 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.