From: owner-canslim-digest@lists.xmission.com (canslim-digest) To: canslim-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: canslim-digest V2 #2369 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 Monday, April 29 2002 Volume 02 : Number 2369 In this issue: RE: [CANSLIM] Earnings Re: [CANSLIM] Earnings Re: [CANSLIM] Earnings Re: [CANSLIM] Earnings Re: [CANSLIM] How are you choosing your stocks? RE: [CANSLIM] Earnings Re: [CANSLIM] Earnings Re: [CANSLIM] Earnings Re: [CANSLIM] Earnings [CANSLIM] Earnings ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 08:30:37 -0500 From: "Fred Richards" Subject: RE: [CANSLIM] Earnings Tom, I know that you want this to get better . . . but sometimes we have to face facts. From the King report of 4/29/2002. GDP came in higher than expected because the deflator, which was expected to be 1.5%, came in at only 0.8%. Fooling with the deflator (and CPI) to overstate GDP and understate inflation is a government staple. The market ignored the ridiculous government misrepresentation. FFR - -----Original Message----- From: owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com [mailto:owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com]On Behalf Of Tom Worley Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 7:57 AM To: canslim@lists.xmission.com Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Earnings I disagree, Fred, everyone expects lousy year over year comparisons. The market is driven by expectorations, not past history, and right now the market wants to know that things will get better in the future. Tom Worley stkguru@bellsouth.net AIM: TexWorley - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Fred Richards" To: Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 8:44 AM Subject: RE: [CANSLIM] Earnings One of the reasons so many S&P 500 companies have beaten their earning estimates is that they reduced them significantly in recent months. The real criteria is how are they performing versus the previous quarter last year. Fred - -----Original Message----- From: owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com [mailto:owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com]On Behalf Of Ian Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 12:04 AM To: canslim@lists.xmission.com Subject: [CANSLIM] Earnings Hi all: I thought I would weigh in with one observation that arises from my personal methodology: I start all of my daily mining by going through all the 'Ups' earnings reports in IBD. I list the companies with strong revenue and EPS growth in a little notebook of mine - filtering out most cyclicals, extreme high historical valuations, and unusually low RS. For the last few quarters, I have seen fairly slim picking. But in the last 2 weeks, the number of entries in my book has swelled in comparison to both Q4 2001 and Q1 2001. I also note that a full 80%+ of S&P 500 companies have beaten earnings estimates this Q. I have no idea what this will mean for either the mega-cap indexes , or the micro/smallcaps that tend to inhabit my universe - but it tells me that earnings, if not 'M', are unequivocally on the upswing. As an off-topic aside, several years ago I read an interview with a successful investor who has been in the US equity markets for decades. He made the comment that he now times economic cycles based on the earnings of EK - when Kodak's earnings start to tick up, then the economy is on the upswing. I don't know if it is still relevant in the age of digital photography, but I did find myself making a mental note last week when EK came out with their pronouncement that Q1 2002 was their EPS bottom. Finally, my universe of stocks finally took a hit Wed-Fri last week, (not enough to lose all of the big gains of Mon-Tues, but it was the first sign of panic selling since early February). I did end up lightening up a lot of positions and raising cash - as it appears that even some of the strong smallcaps are starting to be sucked into the selling. Ian - - - -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: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 09:40:01 -0400 From: "Tom Worley" Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Earnings thank my spell checker for that, and my haste in accepting a change. Please amend it to "expectations", altho the first version may not be all that wrong. Tom Worley stkguru@bellsouth.net AIM: TexWorley - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Fred Richards" To: Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 9:22 AM Subject: RE: [CANSLIM] Earnings Sorry, I don't know what an expectoration is? Smiling. FFR - -----Original Message----- From: owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com [mailto:owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com]On Behalf Of Tom Worley Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 7:57 AM To: canslim@lists.xmission.com Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Earnings I disagree, Fred, everyone expects lousy year over year comparisons. The market is driven by expectorations, not past history, and right now the market wants to know that things will get better in the future. Tom Worley stkguru@bellsouth.net AIM: TexWorley - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Fred Richards" To: Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 8:44 AM Subject: RE: [CANSLIM] Earnings One of the reasons so many S&P 500 companies have beaten their earning estimates is that they reduced them significantly in recent months. The real criteria is how are they performing versus the previous quarter last year. Fred - -----Original Message----- From: owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com [mailto:owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com]On Behalf Of Ian Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 12:04 AM To: canslim@lists.xmission.com Subject: [CANSLIM] Earnings Hi all: I thought I would weigh in with one observation that arises from my personal methodology: I start all of my daily mining by going through all the 'Ups' earnings reports in IBD. I list the companies with strong revenue and EPS growth in a little notebook of mine - filtering out most cyclicals, extreme high historical valuations, and unusually low RS. For the last few quarters, I have seen fairly slim picking. But in the last 2 weeks, the number of entries in my book has swelled in comparison to both Q4 2001 and Q1 2001. I also note that a full 80%+ of S&P 500 companies have beaten earnings estimates this Q. I have no idea what this will mean for either the mega-cap indexes , or the micro/smallcaps that tend to inhabit my universe - but it tells me that earnings, if not 'M', are unequivocally on the upswing. As an off-topic aside, several years ago I read an interview with a successful investor who has been in the US equity markets for decades. He made the comment that he now times economic cycles based on the earnings of EK - when Kodak's earnings start to tick up, then the economy is on the upswing. I don't know if it is still relevant in the age of digital photography, but I did find myself making a mental note last week when EK came out with their pronouncement that Q1 2002 was their EPS bottom. Finally, my universe of stocks finally took a hit Wed-Fri last week, (not enough to lose all of the big gains of Mon-Tues, but it was the first sign of panic selling since early February). I did end up lightening up a lot of positions and raising cash - as it appears that even some of the strong smallcaps are starting to be sucked into the selling. Ian - - - -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: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 09:43:41 -0400 From: "Tom Worley" Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Earnings GDP for the Q1 was up for a variety of reasons, one of which was that consumer sales remained strong, but a second, and more significant one, was that inventory reductions slowed appreciably. Tom Worley stkguru@bellsouth.net AIM: TexWorley - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Fred Richards" To: Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 9:30 AM Subject: RE: [CANSLIM] Earnings Tom, I know that you want this to get better . . . but sometimes we have to face facts. From the King report of 4/29/2002. GDP came in higher than expected because the deflator, which was expected to be 1.5%, came in at only 0.8%. Fooling with the deflator (and CPI) to overstate GDP and understate inflation is a government staple. The market ignored the ridiculous government misrepresentation. FFR - -----Original Message----- From: owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com [mailto:owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com]On Behalf Of Tom Worley Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 7:57 AM To: canslim@lists.xmission.com Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Earnings I disagree, Fred, everyone expects lousy year over year comparisons. The market is driven by expectorations, not past history, and right now the market wants to know that things will get better in the future. Tom Worley stkguru@bellsouth.net AIM: TexWorley - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Fred Richards" To: Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 8:44 AM Subject: RE: [CANSLIM] Earnings One of the reasons so many S&P 500 companies have beaten their earning estimates is that they reduced them significantly in recent months. The real criteria is how are they performing versus the previous quarter last year. Fred - -----Original Message----- From: owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com [mailto:owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com]On Behalf Of Ian Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 12:04 AM To: canslim@lists.xmission.com Subject: [CANSLIM] Earnings Hi all: I thought I would weigh in with one observation that arises from my personal methodology: I start all of my daily mining by going through all the 'Ups' earnings reports in IBD. I list the companies with strong revenue and EPS growth in a little notebook of mine - filtering out most cyclicals, extreme high historical valuations, and unusually low RS. For the last few quarters, I have seen fairly slim picking. But in the last 2 weeks, the number of entries in my book has swelled in comparison to both Q4 2001 and Q1 2001. I also note that a full 80%+ of S&P 500 companies have beaten earnings estimates this Q. I have no idea what this will mean for either the mega-cap indexes , or the micro/smallcaps that tend to inhabit my universe - but it tells me that earnings, if not 'M', are unequivocally on the upswing. As an off-topic aside, several years ago I read an interview with a successful investor who has been in the US equity markets for decades. He made the comment that he now times economic cycles based on the earnings of EK - when Kodak's earnings start to tick up, then the economy is on the upswing. I don't know if it is still relevant in the age of digital photography, but I did find myself making a mental note last week when EK came out with their pronouncement that Q1 2002 was their EPS bottom. Finally, my universe of stocks finally took a hit Wed-Fri last week, (not enough to lose all of the big gains of Mon-Tues, but it was the first sign of panic selling since early February). I did end up lightening up a lot of positions and raising cash - as it appears that even some of the strong smallcaps are starting to be sucked into the selling. Ian - - - -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: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 07:14:32 -0700 From: DanC Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Earnings Context helps Fred Richards wrote: > Sorry, I don't know what an expectoration is? > > Smiling. > > FFR > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com > [mailto:owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com]On Behalf Of Tom Worley > Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 7:57 AM > To: canslim@lists.xmission.com > Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Earnings > > I disagree, Fred, everyone expects lousy year over year comparisons. The > market is driven by expectorations, not past history, and right now the > market wants to know that things will get better in the future. > > Tom Worley > stkguru@bellsouth.net > AIM: TexWorley > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Fred Richards" > To: > Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 8:44 AM > Subject: RE: [CANSLIM] Earnings > > One of the reasons so many S&P 500 companies have beaten their earning > estimates is that they reduced them significantly in recent months. The > real criteria is how are they performing versus the previous quarter last > year. > > Fred > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com > [mailto:owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com]On Behalf Of Ian > Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 12:04 AM > To: canslim@lists.xmission.com > Subject: [CANSLIM] Earnings > > Hi all: > > I thought I would weigh in with one observation that arises from my personal > methodology: I start all of my daily mining by going through all the 'Ups' > earnings reports in IBD. I list the companies with strong revenue and EPS > growth in a little notebook of mine - filtering out most cyclicals, extreme > high historical valuations, and unusually low RS. For the last few quarters, > I have seen fairly slim picking. But in the last 2 weeks, the number of > entries in my book has swelled in comparison to both Q4 2001 and Q1 2001. > > I also note that a full 80%+ of S&P 500 companies have beaten earnings > estimates this Q. > > I have no idea what this will mean for either the mega-cap indexes , or the > micro/smallcaps that tend to inhabit my universe - but it tells me that > earnings, if not 'M', are unequivocally on the upswing. > > As an off-topic aside, several years ago I read an interview with a > successful investor who has been in the US equity markets for decades. He > made the comment that he now times economic cycles based on the earnings of > EK - when Kodak's earnings start to tick up, then the economy is on the > upswing. I don't know if it is still relevant in the age of digital > photography, but I did find myself making a mental note last week when EK > came out with their pronouncement that Q1 2002 was their EPS bottom. > > Finally, my universe of stocks finally took a hit Wed-Fri last week, (not > enough to lose all of the big gains of Mon-Tues, but it was the first sign > of panic selling since early February). I did end up lightening up a lot of > positions and raising cash - as it appears that even some of the strong > smallcaps are starting to be sucked into the selling. > > Ian > > - > -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: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 09:59:48 -0500 From: "Katherine Malm" Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] How are you choosing your stocks? This is a multi-part message in MIME format. - ------=_NextPart_000_0057_01C1EF64.9926A7E0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Dimitri, Each person will find a minimum that feels comfortable to them, but I = think you need to start by considering what each of the criteria truly = means and then go from there. For example, RS<70 is a laggard stock. = Perhaps you start by setting the RS at 70. I have chosen to dip down and = start looking at RS>=3D60 as long as other minimum technicals are also = in place. For me, that means that the Price has to be at or above the = 200 day moving average, no less than 15% below the 50 day moving average = and that the A/D is A, B or C. In other words, I have set the scouting = bar minimum down so that if the stock is lousy technically, I won't look = at it. But if it's marginal, I will at least give it a look see. With = respect to annual and quarterly growth, ROE, D/E, cashflow etc., again, = I look at these things in total, knowing that accounting rules often = obfuscate the "real" story. For that reason, I like to skim the recent = SEC filings if a stock makes my short due diligence list, rather than = eliminating stocks entirely just because ROE is 14.6 vs 15% for example. = All in all, I'd say the smart thing to do is to let technicals lead you = to the stocks for consideration and then let fundamentals be a = sorting/elimination tool rather than a filtering tool. So, for example, = you might set the minimum fundamentals at the lower end of acceptable = for your first pass (e.g., set EPS ranking at 50, meaning it falls in = the top half), set minimum technicals as well, then flip through the = charts. Eliminate all but the best charts, i.e. those currently setting = up, then evaluate the fundamentals more closely on those that remain. = The advantage of an approach like this is that it forces you to look at = a lot of charts and provides practice in quickly evaluating a "good" vs = a "lousy" chart. Sometimes the results of your efforts are a handful of = stocks that pass through your review and this is the clearest sign that = smooth sailing in the market is not in the cards. Other times, you'll = find many stocks that look decent and then you are left with selecting = the best of the best. I'd say until corporate earnings show real and = consistent growth, you're not going to be able to set the bar at the = upper end of acceptable and find many candidates. While the market is on = the mend, you'll need to be a more creative scout and find ways to = uncover potential candidates before they become obvious to the masses. Katherine ----- Original Message -----=20 To: canslim@lists.xmission.com=20 Sent: Friday, April 26, 2002 4:35 AM Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] How are you choosing your stocks? Hey Katherine, You state many good points. So then, as a "scout" for potential stocks, one must still have minimums (which is what I thought WON was stating, my mistake). How then does one develop minimums so that a meaningful screen can be created (or can one?) Thank you Dimitri --- Katherine Malm wrote: > Hi Dimitri, >=20 > The contradiction *is* the point. Think of it this > way. Let's say that you are a scout for a > professional sports team and someone has given you > the following statistic: >=20 > The average height of world class professional > athletes is 5'7" >=20 > Let's say that as a result of that statistic that > you refuse to look at any athlete who is less than > 5'7." What does that mean? You have taken an average > and turned it into a minimum.=20 >=20 > Here's another example. Let's say that somebody > tells you that the batting average of professional > baseball players is 700 and that as a result you > refuse to look at any baseball player who has an > average of less than 700. You would say, of course > that's silly, because if I'm scouting for a team, > I'm looking for an athlete who has a well rounded > set of skills and/or has a set of skills that adds > value to the team as a whole. You may, as a result > of past studies determine that a baseball player who > has a batting average of less than 200 is > unacceptable, but you would not refuse to look at > them if they had all the requisite skills and a > batting average of 650. >=20 > The point is that you have to look at the > preponderance of evidence for the stock and not > build your screens so tightly that you eliminate > excellent candidates just because they meet some > arbitrary minimum cut offs that are based on > *averages* for past winning stocks. >=20 > Katherine > ----- Original Message -----=20 > From: Dimitri Katsaros=20 > To: canslim@lists.xmission.com=20 > Sent: Friday, April 26, 2002 12:02 AM > Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] How are you choosing your > stocks? >=20 >=20 > Katherine, >=20 > This seems quite contradictory... if one cannot > sort > according to the recommended minimums, then what > is > the point of stating them and... what is the value > of > the Daily Graphs Custom Screen Wizard? >=20 > Just learning as I go > Dimitri Katsaros - ------=_NextPart_000_0057_01C1EF64.9926A7E0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Dimitri,
 
Each person will find a minimum that feels comfortable to them, but = I think=20 you need to start by considering what each of the criteria truly means = and then=20 go from there. For example, RS<70 is a laggard stock. Perhaps = you start=20 by setting the RS at 70. I have chosen to dip down and start looking at=20 RS>=3D60 as long as other minimum technicals are also in place. For = me, that=20 means that the Price has to be at or above the 200 day moving average, = no less=20 than 15% below the 50 day moving average and that the A/D is A, B or C. = In other=20 words, I have set the scouting bar minimum down so that if the stock is = lousy=20 technically, I won't look at it. But if it's marginal, I will at least = give it a=20 look see. With respect to annual and quarterly growth, ROE, D/E, = cashflow etc.,=20 again, I look at these things in total, knowing that accounting rules = often=20 obfuscate the "real" story. For that reason, I like to skim the recent = SEC=20 filings if a stock makes my short due diligence list, rather than = eliminating=20 stocks entirely just because ROE is 14.6 vs 15% for example. All in all, = I'd say=20 the smart thing to do is to let technicals lead you to the stocks for=20 consideration and then let fundamentals be a sorting/elimination=20 tool rather than a filtering tool. So, for example, you might set = the=20 minimum fundamentals at the lower end of acceptable for your first = pass=20 (e.g., set EPS ranking at 50, meaning it falls in the top half), set = minimum=20 technicals as well, then flip through the charts. Eliminate all but the = best=20 charts, i.e. those currently setting up, then evaluate the fundamentals = more=20 closely on those that remain. The advantage of an approach like this is = that it=20 forces you to look at a lot of charts and provides practice in quickly=20 evaluating a "good" vs a "lousy" chart. Sometimes the results of your = efforts=20 are a handful of stocks that pass through your review and this is the = clearest=20 sign that smooth sailing in the market is not in the cards. Other times, = you'll=20 find many stocks that look decent and then you are left with selecting = the best=20 of the best. I'd say until corporate earnings show real and consistent = growth,=20 you're not going to be able to set the bar at the upper end of = acceptable and=20 find many candidates. While the market is on the mend, you'll need to be = a more=20 creative scout and find ways to uncover potential candidates = before=20 they become obvious to the masses.
 
Katherine
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, April 26, 2002 = 4:35=20 AM
Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] How are = you=20 choosing your stocks?

Hey Katherine,

You state many good points. So = then, as a=20 "scout" for
potential stocks, one must still have minimums = (which
is=20 what I thought WON was stating, my mistake). How
then does one = develop=20 minimums so that a meaningful
screen can be created (or can=20 one?)

Thank you
Dimitri

--- Katherine Malm <kmalm@earthlink.net> = wrote:
>=20 Hi Dimitri,
>
> The contradiction *is* the point. Think = of it=20 this
> way. Let's say that you are a scout for a
> = professional=20 sports team and someone has given you
> the following = statistic:
>=20
> The average height of world class professional
> = athletes is=20 5'7"
>
> Let's say that as a result of that statistic=20 that
> you refuse to look at any athlete who is less = than
> 5'7."=20 What does that mean? You have taken an average
> and turned it = into a=20 minimum.
>
> Here's another example. Let's say that=20 somebody
> tells you that the batting average of = professional
>=20 baseball players is 700 and that as a result you
> refuse to = look at any=20 baseball player who has an
> average of less than 700. You would = say, of=20 course
> that's silly, because if I'm scouting for a = team,
> I'm=20 looking for an athlete who has a well rounded
> set of skills = and/or has=20 a set of skills that adds
> value to the team as a whole. You = may, as a=20 result
> of past studies determine that a baseball player = who
>=20 has a batting average of less than 200 is
> unacceptable, but = you would=20 not refuse to look at
> them if they had all the requisite = skills and=20 a
> batting average of 650.
>
> The point is that = you have=20 to look at the
> preponderance of evidence for the stock and = not
>=20 build your screens so tightly that you eliminate
> excellent = candidates=20 just because they meet some
> arbitrary minimum cut offs that = are based=20 on
> *averages* for past winning stocks.
>
>=20 Katherine
>   ----- Original Message -----=20
>   From: Dimitri Katsaros
>   To: = canslim@lists.xmission.com= =20
>   Sent: Friday, April 26, 2002 12:02 = AM
>  =20 Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] How are you choosing your
> = stocks?
>=20
>
>   Katherine,
>
>   = This=20 seems quite contradictory... if one cannot
> = sort
>  =20 according to the recommended minimums, then what
>=20 is
>   the point of stating them and... what is the=20 value
> of
>   the Daily Graphs Custom Screen=20 Wizard?
>
>   Just learning as I = go
>  =20 Dimitri Katsaros - ------=_NextPart_000_0057_01C1EF64.9926A7E0-- - - - -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: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 13:58:03 -0400 From: "Duke Miller" Subject: RE: [CANSLIM] Earnings Expectoration: a euphemism for the crap that flows uncontrollably, like pea soup in the movie "The Exorcist," from the mouths of analysts who are on the take for the companies they represent! - -----Original Message----- From: owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com [mailto:owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Fred Richards Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 9:23 AM To: canslim@lists.xmission.com Subject: RE: [CANSLIM] Earnings Sorry, I don't know what an expectoration is? Smiling. FFR - -----Original Message----- From: owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com [mailto:owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com]On Behalf Of Tom Worley Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 7:57 AM To: canslim@lists.xmission.com Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Earnings I disagree, Fred, everyone expects lousy year over year comparisons. The market is driven by expectorations, not past history, and right now the market wants to know that things will get better in the future. Tom Worley stkguru@bellsouth.net AIM: TexWorley - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Fred Richards" To: Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 8:44 AM Subject: RE: [CANSLIM] Earnings One of the reasons so many S&P 500 companies have beaten their earning estimates is that they reduced them significantly in recent months. The real criteria is how are they performing versus the previous quarter last year. Fred - -----Original Message----- From: owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com [mailto:owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com]On Behalf Of Ian Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 12:04 AM To: canslim@lists.xmission.com Subject: [CANSLIM] Earnings Hi all: I thought I would weigh in with one observation that arises from my personal methodology: I start all of my daily mining by going through all the 'Ups' earnings reports in IBD. I list the companies with strong revenue and EPS growth in a little notebook of mine - filtering out most cyclicals, extreme high historical valuations, and unusually low RS. For the last few quarters, I have seen fairly slim picking. But in the last 2 weeks, the number of entries in my book has swelled in comparison to both Q4 2001 and Q1 2001. I also note that a full 80%+ of S&P 500 companies have beaten earnings estimates this Q. I have no idea what this will mean for either the mega-cap indexes , or the micro/smallcaps that tend to inhabit my universe - but it tells me that earnings, if not 'M', are unequivocally on the upswing. As an off-topic aside, several years ago I read an interview with a successful investor who has been in the US equity markets for decades. He made the comment that he now times economic cycles based on the earnings of EK - when Kodak's earnings start to tick up, then the economy is on the upswing. I don't know if it is still relevant in the age of digital photography, but I did find myself making a mental note last week when EK came out with their pronouncement that Q1 2002 was their EPS bottom. Finally, my universe of stocks finally took a hit Wed-Fri last week, (not enough to lose all of the big gains of Mon-Tues, but it was the first sign of panic selling since early February). I did end up lightening up a lot of positions and raising cash - as it appears that even some of the strong smallcaps are starting to be sucked into the selling. Ian - - - -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: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 14:01:52 EDT From: Spencer48@aol.com Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Earnings Tom: Perhaps you can (and will) explain this: I understand that IBD concludes that a big part of the reason GDP was up so much in the 1st quarter is less that the economy is getting as strong as the 5.8% would indicate, but that inventory reductions were lower. Does this mean that companies are replenishing inventories to what they were duing the recession: because the strong consumer sales reveal that there will be as much (but not more) consumer demand as in the recession? IBD seems to be saying that Companies will not replenish inventory because they feel that consumer demand will not be as strong as the recent GDP indicates. Is that the correct conclusion as to why a 5.8% increase in GDP is not as good as it sounds? jans In a message dated 4/29/2002 10:08:59 AM Eastern Daylight Time, stkguru@bellsouth.net writes: << GDP for the Q1 was up for a variety of reasons, one of which was that consumer sales remained strong, but a second, and more significant one, was that inventory reductions slowed appreciably. >> - - - -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: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 14:15:15 -0400 From: "Winston Little" Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Earnings My understanding of the 5.8% GDP is: 3.1% was due to removing inventory. In other words, inventory on the shelf (goods produced some time ago) was 2.6%. While 2.6% was for REAL FINAL SALES (or newly produced goods). Until all the old inventory is gone the current activity is closer to this 2.6% for adjusted GDP. - ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 2:01 PM Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Earnings > Tom: > > Perhaps you can (and will) explain this: I understand that IBD > concludes that a big part of the reason GDP was up so much in the 1st quarter > is less that the economy is getting as strong as the 5.8% would indicate, but > that inventory reductions were lower. > > Does this mean that companies are replenishing inventories to what they > were duing the recession: because the strong consumer sales reveal that > there will be as much (but not more) consumer demand as in the recession? > > IBD seems to be saying that Companies will not replenish inventory > because they feel that consumer demand will not be as strong as the recent > GDP indicates. Is that the correct conclusion as to why a 5.8% increase in > GDP is not as good as it sounds? > > jans > > > > In a message dated 4/29/2002 10:08:59 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > stkguru@bellsouth.net writes: > > << GDP for the Q1 was up for a variety of reasons, one of which was that > consumer sales remained strong, but a second, and more significant one, was > that inventory reductions slowed appreciably. >> > > - > -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: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 15:29:19 -0500 From: "walter nusbaum" Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Earnings Tom, Another big reason for the Q1 GDP number was the humongous tax rebate that was probably largely responsible for the strength of consumer sales. Best wishes, Walt - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tom Worley" To: Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 8:43 AM Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Earnings > GDP for the Q1 was up for a variety of reasons, one of which was that > consumer sales remained strong, but a second, and more significant one, was > that inventory reductions slowed appreciably. > > Tom Worley > stkguru@bellsouth.net > AIM: TexWorley > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Fred Richards" > To: > Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 9:30 AM > Subject: RE: [CANSLIM] Earnings > > > Tom, > > I know that you want this to get better . . . but sometimes we have to face > facts. > > >From the King report of 4/29/2002. > > GDP came in higher than expected because the deflator, which was expected to > be 1.5%, came in at only 0.8%. Fooling with the deflator (and CPI) to > overstate GDP and understate inflation is a government staple. The market > ignored the ridiculous government misrepresentation. > > > FFR > (SNIP) - - - -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: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 15:52:43 -0500 From: "Fred Richards" Subject: [CANSLIM] Earnings This is a multi-part message in MIME format. - ------=_NextPart_000_0021_01C1EF95.E67CF900 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From the Dow Jones wire service today: NEW YORK -(Dow Jones)- The price/earnings ratio of the Standard & Poor's 500 index at the close of trading Monday, April 29, was 43.15. Friday, the ratio was 43.59. A year ago, the ratio was about 25.33. The lowest price/earnings ratio on the S&P 500 came in the second quarter of 1949, when the reading slipped to 5.9. Over the last decade, the low was 15.77 in the first quarter of 1995. The price/earnings ratio, known as the multiple, is a measure of the average stock price divided by the average earnings per share. The earnings data are based on the trailing four quarters. Fred Richards - ------=_NextPart_000_0021_01C1EF95.E67CF900 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From = the Dow Jones=20 wire service today:
 
NEW YORK -(Dow Jones)- The = price/earnings ratio of=20 the Standard & Poor's 500 index at the close of trading Monday, = April 29,=20 was 43.15.

Friday, the ratio was 43.59.=20

A year ago, the ratio was about 25.33.=20

The lowest price/earnings ratio on the S&P 500 came in the second = quarter=20 of 1949, when the reading slipped to 5.9.=20

Over the last decade, the low was 15.77 in the first quarter of 1995. =

The price/earnings ratio, known as the multiple, is a measure of the = average=20 stock price divided by the average earnings per share. The earnings data = are=20 based on the trailing four quarters.=20


Fred Richards
 
- ------=_NextPart_000_0021_01C1EF95.E67CF900-- - - - -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 #2369 ****************************** 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.