From: owner-canslim-digest@lists.xmission.com (canslim-digest) To: canslim-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: canslim-digest V2 #1450 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 Thursday, June 7 2001 Volume 02 : Number 1450 In this issue: Re: [CANSLIM] Distribution Days Re: [CANSLIM] Direction of M RE: [CANSLIM] Distribution Days Re: [CANSLIM] Distribution Days RE: [CANSLIM] Distribution Days ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 09:35:37 -0500 From: "David Squires" Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Distribution Days This is a multi-part message in MIME format. - ------=_NextPart_000_0046_01C0EF35.35AB5560 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Right. You must also factor volatility into your distribution counts. = With the current NASDAQ range any move of less than 10 points on = increased volume is distribution in my book. The number was different = when the NASDAQ was at 5000. 5/22 volume was very heavy and the range = was compressed making it even more important. With all that volume the = range could not expand...someone BIG was holding the market back. DSquires ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Doug Shannon=20 To: canslim@lists.xmission.com=20 Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2001 9:25 AM Subject: RE: [CANSLIM] Distribution Days I agree. 5/22 was basically flat for the day on very fast trade. = Vol. was higher than the day before and above average. =20 I see 2 distribution days on above average trade on the Nasdaq in the = last 3 weeks: 5/22 and 5/30. Doug -----Original Message----- From: owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com = [mailto:owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com]On Behalf Of David Squires Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2001 10:10 AM To: canslim@lists.xmission.com Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Distribution Days NASDAQ had an important dist. day on 5-22. Dsquires ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Doug Shannon=20 To: canslim@lists.xmission.com=20 Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2001 8:48 AM Subject: RE: [CANSLIM] Distribution Days =20 I am probably over simplifying the issue, but trying to = understand it better, and pay a little more attention. So looking for = some educating and advice from those that understand the topic better. If I essentially ignore completely down days where the volume = was less than ADV, then I find the following since April 1: NASDAQ - distribution 4/3, 4/26, 5/30 - yesterday clearly by any = definition is not distributional as volume failed to beat the prior day, = which was up. And 4/3, and possibly 4/26, seem too old to be meaningful NYSE Composite - 4/24, 4/30, 5/2, 5/22 appear distributional. = Again yesterday was not due lighter volume DOW 30 - 4/11, 6/6 distributional Russell 2000 - 4/3, 5/30 distributional S&P 500 - 4/3, 4/4, 4/30, 5/22, 5/30 distributional The questions I have: Is this approach too simplistic? Can I simply ignore down days = where volume is less than ADV? No, your analysis is quite good. I, too = would ignore down days on lighter volume. Those days are clearly not = distributional.=20 Is this summary essentially accurate? yes=20 How far back in time to you have to consider? What restarts the = counting from zero? I don't think in terms of ever re-starting the = count. I just look for at least 4+ days of distribution in any 2-3 week = period, The only time I would consider a distribution day where vol. = was less than ADV is if the price action is wide and loose. Tom Worley stkguru@netside.net AIM: TexWorley - ------=_NextPart_000_0046_01C0EF35.35AB5560 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Right. You must also factor volatility into your = distribution=20 counts. With the current NASDAQ range any move of less than 10 points on = increased volume is distribution in my book. The number was different = when the=20 NASDAQ was at 5000. 5/22 volume was very heavy and the range was = compressed=20 making it even more important. With all that volume the range could not=20 expand...someone BIG was holding the market back.
 
DSquires
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Doug=20 Shannon
To: canslim@lists.xmission.com=
Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2001 = 9:25=20 AM
Subject: RE: [CANSLIM] = Distribution=20 Days

I=20 agree.  5/22 was basically flat for the day on very fast = trade. =20 Vol. was higher than the day before and above average. =20
 
I=20 see 2 distribution days on above average trade on the Nasdaq in the = last 3=20 weeks: 5/22 and 5/30.
 
Doug
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-canslim@lists.xmis= sion.com=20 [mailto:owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com]On Behalf Of David=20 Squires
Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2001 10:10 = AM
To:=20 canslim@lists.xmission.com
Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] = Distribution=20 Days

NASDAQ had an important dist. day on = 5-22.
 
Dsquires
----- Original Message ----- =
From:=20 Doug=20 Shannon
To: canslim@lists.xmission.com= =20
Sent: Thursday, June 07, = 2001 8:48=20 AM
Subject: RE: [CANSLIM] = Distribution=20 Days

 


 
I am probably over simplifying the issue, = but trying=20 to understand it better, and pay a little more attention. So = looking for=20 some educating and advice from those that understand the topic=20 better.
 
If I essentially ignore completely down days = where the=20 volume was less than ADV, then I find the following since April=20 1:
 
NASDAQ - distribution 4/3, 4/26, 5/30 - = yesterday=20 clearly by any definition is not distributional as volume failed = to beat=20 the prior day, which was up. And 4/3, and possibly 4/26, seem = too old to=20 be meaningful
 
NYSE Composite - 4/24, 4/30, 5/2, 5/22 = appear=20 distributional. Again yesterday was not due lighter = volume
 
DOW 30 - 4/11, 6/6 = distributional
 
Russell 2000 - 4/3, 5/30 = distributional
 
S&P 500 - 4/3, 4/4, 4/30, 5/22, 5/30=20 distributional
 
The questions I have:
 
Is this approach too simplistic? Can I = simply ignore=20 down days where volume is less than ADV?  No, your=20 analysis is quite good.  I, too would ignore down days = on=20 lighter volume.  Those days are clearly not=20 distributional. 
 
Is this summary essentially accurate? =20 yes 
 
How far back in time to you have to = consider? What=20 restarts the counting from zero?  I don't think in terms = of ever=20 re-starting the count. I just look for at least 4+ = days of=20 distribution in any 2-3 week period,  The only time I = would=20 consider a distribution day where vol. was less than ADV is if = the price=20 action is wide and loose.
 
Tom Worley
stkguru@netside.net
AIM:=20 = TexWorley
- ------=_NextPart_000_0046_01C0EF35.35AB5560-- - - - -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: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 07:40:25 -0700 (PDT) From: Kent Norman Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Direction of M Relax and enjoy. The market will be around a few more years. When you are ready, the opportunities will be too. Regards Kent Norman - --- Aitchbom@aol.com wrote: > > Figures:) I Am learning CS in this market > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 a year! 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. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 10:44:42 -0400 From: "Doug Shannon" Subject: RE: [CANSLIM] Distribution Days This is a multi-part message in MIME format. - ------=_NextPart_000_0022_01C0EF3E.DBEE1D00 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Exactly. I like to look at percentages though. Anything below a .5% increase in price on higher vol. is probably distribution. I have found that the easiest way to see it by comparing today's close to the previous close. Visually, if they look like they are on top of each other than I consider that to be churning or distribution (assuming higher volume). Doug -----Original Message----- From: owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com [mailto:owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com]On Behalf Of David Squires Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2001 10:36 AM To: canslim@lists.xmission.com Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Distribution Days Right. You must also factor volatility into your distribution counts. With the current NASDAQ range any move of less than 10 points on increased volume is distribution in my book. The number was different when the NASDAQ was at 5000. 5/22 volume was very heavy and the range was compressed making it even more important. With all that volume the range could not expand...someone BIG was holding the market back. DSquires ----- Original Message ----- From: Doug Shannon To: canslim@lists.xmission.com Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2001 9:25 AM Subject: RE: [CANSLIM] Distribution Days I agree. 5/22 was basically flat for the day on very fast trade. Vol. was higher than the day before and above average. I see 2 distribution days on above average trade on the Nasdaq in the last 3 weeks: 5/22 and 5/30. Doug -----Original Message----- From: owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com [mailto:owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com]On Behalf Of David Squires Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2001 10:10 AM To: canslim@lists.xmission.com Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Distribution Days NASDAQ had an important dist. day on 5-22. Dsquires ----- Original Message ----- From: Doug Shannon To: canslim@lists.xmission.com Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2001 8:48 AM Subject: RE: [CANSLIM] Distribution Days I am probably over simplifying the issue, but trying to understand it better, and pay a little more attention. So looking for some educating and advice from those that understand the topic better. If I essentially ignore completely down days where the volume was less than ADV, then I find the following since April 1: NASDAQ - distribution 4/3, 4/26, 5/30 - yesterday clearly by any definition is not distributional as volume failed to beat the prior day, which was up. And 4/3, and possibly 4/26, seem too old to be meaningful NYSE Composite - 4/24, 4/30, 5/2, 5/22 appear distributional. Again yesterday was not due lighter volume DOW 30 - 4/11, 6/6 distributional Russell 2000 - 4/3, 5/30 distributional S&P 500 - 4/3, 4/4, 4/30, 5/22, 5/30 distributional The questions I have: Is this approach too simplistic? Can I simply ignore down days where volume is less than ADV? No, your analysis is quite good. I, too would ignore down days on lighter volume. Those days are clearly not distributional. Is this summary essentially accurate? yes How far back in time to you have to consider? What restarts the counting from zero? I don't think in terms of ever re-starting the count. I just look for at least 4+ days of distribution in any 2-3 week period, The only time I would consider a distribution day where vol. was less than ADV is if the price action is wide and loose. Tom Worley stkguru@netside.net AIM: TexWorley - ------=_NextPart_000_0022_01C0EF3E.DBEE1D00 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Exactly.  I like to look at percentages though.  = Anything below=20 a .5% increase in  price on higher vol. is probably = distribution.  I=20 have found that the easiest way to see it by comparing today's close to = the=20 previous close.  Visually, if they look like they are on top of = each other=20 than I consider that to be churning or distribution (assuming higher=20 volume).
 
Doug
-----Original Message-----
From:=20 owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com=20 [mailto:owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com]On Behalf Of David=20 Squires
Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2001 10:36 AM
To: = canslim@lists.xmission.com
Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] = Distribution=20 Days

Right. You must also factor volatility into your=20 distribution counts. With the current NASDAQ range any move of less = than 10=20 points on increased volume is distribution in my book. The number was=20 different when the NASDAQ was at 5000. 5/22 volume was very heavy and = the=20 range was compressed making it even more important. With all that = volume the=20 range could not expand...someone BIG was holding the market = back.
 
DSquires
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Doug=20 Shannon
Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2001 = 9:25=20 AM
Subject: RE: [CANSLIM] = Distribution=20 Days

I=20 agree.  5/22 was basically flat for the day on very fast = trade. =20 Vol. was higher than the day before and above average. =20
 
I=20 see 2 distribution days on above average trade on the Nasdaq in the = last 3=20 weeks: 5/22 and 5/30.
 
Doug
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-canslim@lists.xmis= sion.com=20 [mailto:owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com]On Behalf Of David = Squires
Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2001 10:10 = AM
To:=20 canslim@lists.xmission.com
Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] = Distribution=20 Days

NASDAQ had an important dist. day on = 5-22.
 
Dsquires
----- Original Message ----- =
From:=20 Doug Shannon
To: canslim@lists.xmission.com= =20
Sent: Thursday, June 07, = 2001 8:48=20 AM
Subject: RE: [CANSLIM] = Distribution=20 Days

 


 
I am probably over simplifying the issue, = but trying=20 to understand it better, and pay a little more attention. So = looking=20 for some educating and advice from those that understand the = topic=20 better.
 
If I essentially ignore completely down = days where=20 the volume was less than ADV, then I find the following since = April=20 1:
 
NASDAQ - distribution 4/3, 4/26, 5/30 - = yesterday=20 clearly by any definition is not distributional as volume = failed to=20 beat the prior day, which was up. And 4/3, and possibly 4/26, = seem too=20 old to be meaningful
 
NYSE Composite - 4/24, 4/30, 5/2, 5/22 = appear=20 distributional. Again yesterday was not due lighter=20 volume
 
DOW 30 - 4/11, 6/6 = distributional
 
Russell 2000 - 4/3, 5/30 = distributional
 
S&P 500 - 4/3, 4/4, 4/30, 5/22, 5/30=20 distributional
 
The questions I have:
 
Is this approach too simplistic? Can I = simply ignore=20 down days where volume is less than ADV?  No,=20 your analysis is quite good.  I, too would ignore = down days=20 on lighter volume.  Those days are clearly not=20 distributional. 
 
Is this summary essentially accurate? =20 yes 
 
How far back in time to you have to = consider? What=20 restarts the counting from zero?  I don't think in = terms of ever=20 re-starting the count. I just look for at least 4+ = days of=20 distribution in any 2-3 week period,  The only time = I would=20 consider a distribution day where vol. was less than ADV is if = the=20 price action is wide and loose.
 
Tom Worley
stkguru@netside.net
AIM:=20 = TexWorley
- ------=_NextPart_000_0022_01C0EF3E.DBEE1D00-- - - - -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: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 09:45:35 -0500 From: psych360@yahoo.com Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Distribution Days - --Apple-Mail-989959708-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=iso-8859-1 I see the close in the upper half of the range for the day. 2291.91 low + 2328.05 high - ----------- 4619.96 / 2 - ----------- 2309.98 - midpoint The close was 2313.85. = http://www.bigcharts.com/historical/default.asp?detect=3D1&symbol=3Dnasdaq= &close_date=3D 5%2F22%2F01 - -Darren On Thursday, June 7, 2001, at 09:38 AM, Doug Shannon wrote: > Tom, > =A0 > Looking at the chart, the Nasdaq made a new high intraday and then=20 > closed in the lower part of that day's range and slightly above (.35%)=20= > the previous close. Very little progress in price on higher volume=20 > especially if it is above average is a clear sign of churning which is=20= > also distribution.=A0 Also, the previous day's volume was way above=20 > average so you have to give the vol on 5/22 some extra respect because=20= > it surpassed 5/21 even though it was only by a little. > =A0 > Doug > =A0 > =A0-----Original Message----- > From: owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com [mailto:owner- > canslim@lists.xmission.com]On Behalf Of Tom Worley > Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2001 10:24 AM > To: canslim@lists.xmission.com > Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Distribution Days > > David, > =A0 > How is that distributional?=A0 The index closed up 8.26 points, and on=20= > 330,000 more shares. > =A0 > Tom Worley > stkguru@netside.net > AIM: TexWorley > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: David Squires > To: canslim@lists.xmission.com > Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2001 10:09 AM > Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Distribution Days > > NASDAQ had an important dist. day on 5-22. > =A0 > Dsquires > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Doug Shannon > To: canslim@lists.xmission.com > Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2001 8:48 AM > Subject: RE: [CANSLIM] Distribution Days > > =A0 > > > > =A0 > I am probably over simplifying the issue, but trying to understand it=20= > better, and pay a little more attention. So looking for some educating=20= > and advice from those that understand the topic better. > =A0 > If I essentially ignore completely down days where the volume was less=20= > than ADV, then I find the following since April 1: > =A0 > NASDAQ - distribution 4/3, 4/26, 5/30 - yesterday clearly by any=20 > definition is not distributional as volume failed to beat the prior=20 > day, which was up. And 4/3, and possibly 4/26, seem too old to be=20 > meaningful > =A0 > NYSE Composite - 4/24, 4/30, 5/2, 5/22 appear distributional. Again=20 > yesterday was not due lighter volume > =A0 > DOW 30 - 4/11, 6/6 distributional > =A0 > Russell 2000 - 4/3, 5/30 distributional > =A0 > S&P 500 - 4/3, 4/4, 4/30, 5/22, 5/30 distributional > =A0 > The questions I have: > =A0 > Is this approach too simplistic? Can I simply ignore down days where=20= > volume is less than ADV?=A0 No, your analysis is=A0quite good.=A0 I, = too=20 > would ignore down days on lighter volume.=A0 Those days are clearly = not=20 > distributional.=A0 > =A0 > Is this summary essentially accurate?=A0 yes=A0 > =A0 > How far back in time to you have to consider? What restarts the=20 > counting from zero?=A0=A0I don't think in terms of ever re-starting = the=20 > count.=A0I just look for=A0at least 4+ days of distribution in any=A02-3= week=20 > period,=A0 The only time I would consider a distribution day where = vol.=20 > was less than ADV is if the price action is wide and loose. > =A0 > Tom Worley > stkguru@netside.net > AIM: TexWorley > - --Apple-Mail-989959708-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/enriched; charset=iso-8859-1 I see the close in the upper half of the range for the day. 2291.91 low + 2328.05 high - ----------- 4619.96 / 2 - ----------- 2309.98 - midpoint The close was 2313.85. = http://www.bigcharts.com/historical/default.asp?detect=3D1&symbol=3Dnasdaq= &close_date=3D5%2F22%2F01 - -Darren On Thursday, June 7, 2001, at 09:38 AM, Doug Shannon wrote: = Arial0000,0000,FFFFTom, =A0 = Arial0000,0000,FFFFLooking at the chart, the Nasdaq made a new high intraday and then closed in the lower part of that day's range and slightly above (.35%) the previous close. Very little progress in price on higher volume especially if it is above average is a clear sign of churning which is also distribution.=A0 Also, the previous day's volume was way above average so you have to give the vol on 5/22 some extra respect because it surpassed 5/21 even though it was only by a = little. = Arial0000,0000,FFFF=A0 TahomaDoug =A0 Tahoma=A0-----Original Message----- From: owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com [mailto:owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com]On Behalf Of Tom Worley Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2001 10:24 AM To: canslim@lists.xmission.com Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Distribution Days David, =A0 How is that distributional?=A0 The index closed up 8.26 points, and on 330,000 more shares. =A0 Tom Worley 1999,1999,FFFFstkguru@netside.net AIM: TexWorley - ----- Original Message ----- From: 1999,1999,FFFFDavid = Squires To: = 1999,1999,FFFFcanslim@lists.xmission.com<= /color> Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2001 10:09 AM Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Distribution Days NASDAQ had an important dist. day on 5-22. =A0 Dsquires - ----- Original Message ----- From: 1999,1999,FFFFDoug Shannon To: = 1999,1999,FFFFcanslim@lists.xmission.com<= /color> Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2001 8:48 AM Subject: RE: [CANSLIM] Distribution Days =A0 =A0 I am probably over simplifying the issue, but trying to understand it better, and pay a little more attention. So looking for some educating and advice from those that understand the topic = better. =A0 If I essentially ignore completely down days where the volume was less than ADV, then I find the following since April 1: =A0 NASDAQ - distribution 4/3, 4/26, 5/30 - yesterday clearly by any definition is not distributional as volume failed to beat the prior day, which was up. And 4/3, and possibly 4/26, seem too old to be meaningful =A0 NYSE Composite - 4/24, 4/30, 5/2, 5/22 appear distributional. Again yesterday was not due lighter volume =A0 DOW 30 - 4/11, 6/6 distributional =A0 Russell 2000 - 4/3, 5/30 distributional =A0 S&P 500 - 4/3, 4/4, 4/30, 5/22, 5/30 distributional =A0 The questions I have: =A0 Is this approach too simplistic? Can I simply ignore down days where volume is less than = ADV?Arial0000,0000,FFFF=A0= No, your analysis is=A0quite good.=A0 I, too would ignore down days on lighter volume.=A0 Those days are clearly not = distributional.=A0 =A0 Is this summary essentially = accurate?Arial0000,0000,FFFF=A0 yes=A0 =A0 How far back in time to you have to consider? What restarts the counting from = zero?Arial0000,0000,FFFF=A0= =A0I don't think in terms of ever re-starting the count.=A0I just look for=A0at= least 4+ days of distribution in any=A02-3 week period,=A0 The only time = I would consider a distribution day where vol. was less than ADV is if the price action is wide and loose. =A0 Tom Worley 1999,1999,FFFFstkguru@netside.net AIM: TexWorley = - --Apple-Mail-989959708-1-- _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://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. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 10:49:36 -0400 From: "Doug Shannon" Subject: RE: [CANSLIM] Distribution Days This is a multi-part message in MIME format. - ------=_NextPart_000_002B_01C0EF3F.8B285BF0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Tom, I use DGO as well. Its correct. The index did close up but the question is by how much. Look at the chart in DGO and you will see that 5/22's close is on top of 5/21's. Percentage wise it was only up .35%, not much to sneeze at. Doug -----Original Message----- From: owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com [mailto:owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com]On Behalf Of Tom Worley Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2001 10:36 AM To: canslim@lists.xmission.com Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Distribution Days Doug, Both you and David see 5/22 as distributional, which is confusing me. How can it be distributional, when the index not only closed up, but on slightly greater volume? Or is the data at DGO wrong? Tom Worley stkguru@netside.net AIM: TexWorley ----- Original Message ----- From: Doug Shannon To: canslim@lists.xmission.com Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2001 10:25 AM Subject: RE: [CANSLIM] Distribution Days I agree. 5/22 was basically flat for the day on very fast trade. Vol. was higher than the day before and above average. I see 2 distribution days on above average trade on the Nasdaq in the last 3 weeks: 5/22 and 5/30. Doug -----Original Message----- From: owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com [mailto:owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com]On Behalf Of David Squires Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2001 10:10 AM To: canslim@lists.xmission.com Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Distribution Days NASDAQ had an important dist. day on 5-22. Dsquires ----- Original Message ----- From: Doug Shannon To: canslim@lists.xmission.com Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2001 8:48 AM Subject: RE: [CANSLIM] Distribution Days I am probably over simplifying the issue, but trying to understand it better, and pay a little more attention. So looking for some educating and advice from those that understand the topic better. If I essentially ignore completely down days where the volume was less than ADV, then I find the following since April 1: NASDAQ - distribution 4/3, 4/26, 5/30 - yesterday clearly by any definition is not distributional as volume failed to beat the prior day, which was up. And 4/3, and possibly 4/26, seem too old to be meaningful NYSE Composite - 4/24, 4/30, 5/2, 5/22 appear distributional. Again yesterday was not due lighter volume DOW 30 - 4/11, 6/6 distributional Russell 2000 - 4/3, 5/30 distributional S&P 500 - 4/3, 4/4, 4/30, 5/22, 5/30 distributional The questions I have: Is this approach too simplistic? Can I simply ignore down days where volume is less than ADV? No, your analysis is quite good. I, too would ignore down days on lighter volume. Those days are clearly not distributional. Is this summary essentially accurate? yes How far back in time to you have to consider? What restarts the counting from zero? I don't think in terms of ever re-starting the count. I just look for at least 4+ days of distribution in any 2-3 week period, The only time I would consider a distribution day where vol. was less than ADV is if the price action is wide and loose. Tom Worley stkguru@netside.net AIM: TexWorley - ------=_NextPart_000_002B_01C0EF3F.8B285BF0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Tom,
 
I use=20 DGO as well.  Its correct.  The index did close up but the = question is=20 by how much.  Look at the chart in DGO and you will see that 5/22's = close=20 is on top of 5/21's.  Percentage wise it was only up .35%, not much = to=20 sneeze at.
 
Doug
 
-----Original Message-----
From:=20 owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com=20 [mailto:owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com]On Behalf Of Tom=20 Worley
Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2001 10:36 AM
To:=20 canslim@lists.xmission.com
Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] = Distribution=20 Days

Doug,
 
Both you and David see 5/22 as distributional, = which is=20 confusing me. How can it be distributional, when the index not only = closed up,=20 but on slightly greater volume?
 
Or is the data at DGO wrong?
 
Tom Worley
stkguru@netside.net
AIM:=20 TexWorley
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Doug=20 Shannon
Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2001 = 10:25=20 AM
Subject: RE: [CANSLIM] = Distribution=20 Days

I=20 agree.  5/22 was basically flat for the day on very fast = trade. =20 Vol. was higher than the day before and above average. =20
 
I=20 see 2 distribution days on above average trade on the Nasdaq in the = last 3=20 weeks: 5/22 and 5/30.
 
Doug
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-canslim@lists.xmis= sion.com=20 [mailto:owner-canslim@lis= ts.xmission.com]On=20 Behalf Of David Squires
Sent: Thursday, June 07, = 2001 10:10=20 AM
To: canslim@lists.xmission.com
Subject: Re: = [CANSLIM] Distribution Days

NASDAQ had an important dist. day on = 5-22.
 
Dsquires
----- Original Message ----- =
From:=20 Doug Shannon
To: canslim@lists.xmission.com= =20
Sent: Thursday, June 07, = 2001 8:48=20 AM
Subject: RE: [CANSLIM] = Distribution=20 Days

 


 
I am probably over simplifying the issue, = but trying=20 to understand it better, and pay a little more attention. So = looking=20 for some educating and advice from those that understand the = topic=20 better.
 
If I essentially ignore completely down = days where=20 the volume was less than ADV, then I find the following since = April=20 1:
 
NASDAQ - distribution 4/3, 4/26, 5/30 - = yesterday=20 clearly by any definition is not distributional as volume = failed to=20 beat the prior day, which was up. And 4/3, and possibly 4/26, = seem too=20 old to be meaningful
 
NYSE Composite - 4/24, 4/30, 5/2, 5/22 = appear=20 distributional. Again yesterday was not due lighter=20 volume
 
DOW 30 - 4/11, 6/6 = distributional
 
Russell 2000 - 4/3, 5/30 = distributional
 
S&P 500 - 4/3, 4/4, 4/30, 5/22, 5/30=20 distributional
 
The questions I have:
 
Is this approach too simplistic? Can I = simply ignore=20 down days where volume is less than ADV?  No,=20 your analysis is quite good.  I, too would ignore = down days=20 on lighter volume.  Those days are clearly not=20 distributional. 
 
Is this summary essentially accurate? =20 yes 
 
How far back in time to you have to = consider? What=20 restarts the counting from zero?  I don't think in = terms of ever=20 re-starting the count. I just look for at least 4+ = days of=20 distribution in any 2-3 week period,  The only time = I would=20 consider a distribution day where vol. was less than ADV is if = the=20 price action is wide and loose.
 
Tom Worley
stkguru@netside.net
AIM:=20 = TexWorley
- ------=_NextPart_000_002B_01C0EF3F.8B285BF0-- - - - -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 #1450 ****************************** 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.