From: owner-canslim-digest@lists.xmission.com (canslim-digest) To: canslim-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: canslim-digest V2 #2612 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 Tuesday, July 16 2002 Volume 02 : Number 2612 In this issue: Re: [CANSLIM] Cheap? Re: [CANSLIM] Cheap? Re: [CANSLIM] Cheap? Re: [CANSLIM] Cheap? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 08:57:05 -0700 From: "zillagirl" Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Cheap? I have a question for minds that are smarter then my own. When we look at price to earnings, don't we have to consider the number of people investing in the market today over what it was in the past. I've read historically -that in the past- 10 to 15% of households were involved in the stock market. Now I've seen figures of 50% or more. If 35% more American households started putting money in the same 10,000 or so stocks that existed before-it seems like that would drive up the price, even if the business was no more profitable or productive then before.(supply and demand). Possible even keeping the price up if these households kept investing(higher P/E ratios) Hence maybe it would be unrealistic to think that the correct P/E for this point in time should be exactly in line with the correct P/Es of the past. Unless of course that extra 35% of the people got out of the market again. Kind of like saying-the babyboomers are here and our mind tells us that we need many more retirement homes- but historically, over the past 75 years, 2 retirement homes per city have been the norm so that is the figure we will stick with. If this theory sounds reasonable-it would certainly take some of the fright out of those charts. - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Hill, Ernie" To: Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2002 5:30 AM Subject: RE: [CANSLIM] Cheap? > Here is an interesting perspective on PE ratios the S&P and what is or is > not cheap. > > http://www.decisionpoint.com/ChartSpotliteFiles/020712sppe.html > > E > > -----Original Message----- > From: inderjit [mailto:inderjit@adelphia.net] > Sent: Monday, July 15, 2002 10:36 PM > To: canslim@lists.xmission.com > Subject: RE: [CANSLIM] Cheap? > > You can easily ;-) find out what a stock is worth by visiting > http://www.valuepro.net/index.shtml. AOL is worth zero, NVR 1800+ etc. > > Regards and have a profitable Tuesday. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com > [mailto:owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com] On Behalf Of zillagirl > Sent: Monday, July 15, 2002 7:51 PM > To: canslim@lists.xmission.com > Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Cheap? > > > I emailed Mr. Tom Petruno at the L.A.Times today and asked him if he > could clarify the differences in he's figure and the figure on the 2 web > sits discussed-will let you know what I find out. > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Fred Richards" > To: > Sent: Monday, July 15, 2002 3:42 PM > Subject: RE: [CANSLIM] Cheap? > > > > the latest www.decisionpoint.com report on the PE ratio for the S&P > > 500 > for > > the week ending 6/12/02 stood at a still whopping 39.60 times! > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com > > [mailto:owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com]On Behalf Of Fred Richards > > Sent: Sunday, July 14, 2002 7:55 PM > > To: canslim@lists.xmission.com > > Subject: RE: [CANSLIM] Cheap? > > > > > > As an neophyte investor, what you are missing is an doubting mind. > > > > It is the credibility of the estimates that the author is using. > > > > Does the article state what firm and/or analyst made the estimates and > > > on what basis they were made and/or the time frame? > > > > Based upon the most reliable information I have using information > > prior to the revamping of the list effective July 19, I believe, the > > S&P 500 is > still > > selling way over 19 times forward 12 month earnings. > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com > > [mailto:owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com]On Behalf Of zillagirl > > Sent: Sunday, July 14, 2002 7:25 PM > > To: canslim@lists.xmission.com > > Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Cheap? > > > > > > There is quite an extensive article in the L.A. Times today about the > > markets. In there it states that " the average stock in the S & P 500 > > > is priced at about 19 times this years expected earnings per share, by > > > many wall street estimates. That is far above the historical average > > price -to -earnings ratio of about 14." I think I like these numbers a > > > little better. What's up-am I missing something here? > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Tom Worley" > > To: > > Sent: Saturday, July 13, 2002 7:06 PM > > Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Cheap? > > > > > > > I make no investment decisions, or even select stocks for watching, > > > on > the > > > basis of their history. The market, and stock prices, moves on > > expectations. > > > Those expectations are based on projected earnings, not what they > > > did > last > > > year, or five years ago. > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Rocky Sanghvi" > > > To: > > > Sent: Saturday, July 13, 2002 9:41 PM > > > Subject: RE: [CANSLIM] Cheap? > > > > > > > > > Lois, > > > > > > This was one of the news items on the nasdaq.com website frontpage. > > > > If > > you > > > wish to see it you need to go to nasdaq.com and scan some of the > > > older > > news > > > items. > > > This was was from the Dow Jones News Wire. > > > > > > Best Wishes > > > Rocky > > > > > > PS Tom - I am not sure why we shouldnt look at trailing earnings as > > > a > part > > > of your overall investment outlook. Yes maybe not CANSLIM (which > > > only > > looks > > > at future earnings) but if we are looking at charts and history we > > > may > as > > > well consider historical facts such as what the news item was > > > referring > > to. > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com > > > [mailto:owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com]On Behalf Of Lois > > > Sent: Saturday, July 13, 2002 9:54 AM > > > To: canslim@lists.xmission.com > > > Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Cheap? > > > > > > > > > Rocky, > > > > > > Would you be so kind as to post a link for the info below? > > > > > > TIA, > > > Lois > > > > > > Rocky Sanghvi wrote: > > > > > > > > S&P 500 Price/Earnings Ratio At 37.31, Down From 37.65 > > > > > > > > NEW YORK -(Dow Jones)- The price/earnings ratio of the Standard & > Poor's > > > 500 > > > > index at the close of trading Friday, July 12, was 37.31. > > > > Thursday, the ratio was 37.65. > > > > > > > > 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 > > > is > > > > based on the trailing four quarters. > > > > > > > > - > > > > -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. > > > - > -To subscribe/unsubscribe, email "majordomo@xmission.com" > -In the email body, write "subscribe canslim" or > -"unsubscribe canslim". Do not use quotes in your email. > > > ****************************************************************** > This email and any files transmitted with it from the ElPaso > Corporation are confidential and intended solely for the > use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. > If you have received this email in error please notify the > sender. > ****************************************************************** > > - > -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: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 12:14:18 -0400 From: "J. Lobatto" Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Cheap? I suspect some Dutchmen made the same argument several hundred years ago at the height of the tulip craze.... "only 40% of the population owns tulips, when 85% wants to. Back in the dark ages, only 10% of our fellow Dutchmen owned tulips. Clearly 40 if not 85% will be the norm from now on, so prices have to stay high....." I know, you'll argue that tulips had no real value, but did anyone else read today that Dr. Koop. com which was worth $1,000,000,000 at the height of the dot.mania was just sold to Vitacost at about $150,000(?). Ouch! I doubt even tulip prices fell that hard. Jon - ----- Original Message ----- From: "zillagirl" To: Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2002 11:57 AM Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Cheap? > I have a question for minds that are smarter then my own. When we look at > price to earnings, don't we have to consider the number of people investing > in the market today over what it was in the past. I've read > historically -that in the past- 10 to 15% of households were involved in the > stock market. Now I've seen figures of 50% or more. If 35% more > American households started putting money in the same 10,000 or so stocks > that existed before-it seems like that would drive up the price, even if the > business was no more profitable or productive then before.(supply and > demand). Possible even keeping the price up if these households kept > investing(higher P/E ratios) Hence maybe it would be unrealistic to > think that the correct P/E for this point in time should be exactly in line > with the correct P/Es of the past. Unless of course that extra 35% of the > people got out of the market again. Kind of like saying-the > babyboomers are here and our mind tells us that we need many more retirement > homes- but historically, over the past 75 years, 2 retirement homes per city > have been the norm so that is the figure we will stick with. If this > theory sounds reasonable-it would certainly take some of the fright out of > those charts. > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Hill, Ernie" > To: > Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2002 5:30 AM > Subject: RE: [CANSLIM] Cheap? > > > > Here is an interesting perspective on PE ratios the S&P and what is or is > > not cheap. > > > > http://www.decisionpoint.com/ChartSpotliteFiles/020712sppe.html > > > > E > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: inderjit [mailto:inderjit@adelphia.net] > > Sent: Monday, July 15, 2002 10:36 PM > > To: canslim@lists.xmission.com > > Subject: RE: [CANSLIM] Cheap? > > > > You can easily ;-) find out what a stock is worth by visiting > > http://www.valuepro.net/index.shtml. AOL is worth zero, NVR 1800+ etc. > > > > Regards and have a profitable Tuesday. > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com > > [mailto:owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com] On Behalf Of zillagirl > > Sent: Monday, July 15, 2002 7:51 PM > > To: canslim@lists.xmission.com > > Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Cheap? > > > > > > I emailed Mr. Tom Petruno at the L.A.Times today and asked him if he > > could clarify the differences in he's figure and the figure on the 2 web > > sits discussed-will let you know what I find out. > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Fred Richards" > > To: > > Sent: Monday, July 15, 2002 3:42 PM > > Subject: RE: [CANSLIM] Cheap? > > > > > > > the latest www.decisionpoint.com report on the PE ratio for the S&P > > > 500 > > for > > > the week ending 6/12/02 stood at a still whopping 39.60 times! > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com > > > [mailto:owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com]On Behalf Of Fred Richards > > > Sent: Sunday, July 14, 2002 7:55 PM > > > To: canslim@lists.xmission.com > > > Subject: RE: [CANSLIM] Cheap? > > > > > > > > > As an neophyte investor, what you are missing is an doubting mind. > > > > > > It is the credibility of the estimates that the author is using. > > > > > > Does the article state what firm and/or analyst made the estimates and > > > > > on what basis they were made and/or the time frame? > > > > > > Based upon the most reliable information I have using information > > > prior to the revamping of the list effective July 19, I believe, the > > > S&P 500 is > > still > > > selling way over 19 times forward 12 month earnings. > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com > > > [mailto:owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com]On Behalf Of zillagirl > > > Sent: Sunday, July 14, 2002 7:25 PM > > > To: canslim@lists.xmission.com > > > Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Cheap? > > > > > > > > > There is quite an extensive article in the L.A. Times today about the > > > markets. In there it states that " the average stock in the S & P 500 > > > > > is priced at about 19 times this years expected earnings per share, by > > > > > many wall street estimates. That is far above the historical average > > > price -to -earnings ratio of about 14." I think I like these numbers a > > > > > little better. What's up-am I missing something here? > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Tom Worley" > > > To: > > > Sent: Saturday, July 13, 2002 7:06 PM > > > Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Cheap? > > > > > > > > > > I make no investment decisions, or even select stocks for watching, > > > > on > > the > > > > basis of their history. The market, and stock prices, moves on > > > expectations. > > > > Those expectations are based on projected earnings, not what they > > > > did > > last > > > > year, or five years ago. > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > From: "Rocky Sanghvi" > > > > To: > > > > Sent: Saturday, July 13, 2002 9:41 PM > > > > Subject: RE: [CANSLIM] Cheap? > > > > > > > > > > > > Lois, > > > > > > > > This was one of the news items on the nasdaq.com website frontpage. > > > > > > If > > > you > > > > wish to see it you need to go to nasdaq.com and scan some of the > > > > older > > > news > > > > items. > > > > This was was from the Dow Jones News Wire. > > > > > > > > Best Wishes > > > > Rocky > > > > > > > > PS Tom - I am not sure why we shouldnt look at trailing earnings as > > > > a > > part > > > > of your overall investment outlook. Yes maybe not CANSLIM (which > > > > only > > > looks > > > > at future earnings) but if we are looking at charts and history we > > > > may > > as > > > > well consider historical facts such as what the news item was > > > > referring > > > to. > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com > > > > [mailto:owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com]On Behalf Of Lois > > > > Sent: Saturday, July 13, 2002 9:54 AM > > > > To: canslim@lists.xmission.com > > > > Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Cheap? > > > > > > > > > > > > Rocky, > > > > > > > > Would you be so kind as to post a link for the info below? > > > > > > > > TIA, > > > > Lois > > > > > > > > Rocky Sanghvi wrote: > > > > > > > > > > S&P 500 Price/Earnings Ratio At 37.31, Down From 37.65 > > > > > > > > > > NEW YORK -(Dow Jones)- The price/earnings ratio of the Standard & > > Poor's > > > > 500 > > > > > index at the close of trading Friday, July 12, was 37.31. > > > > > Thursday, the ratio was 37.65. > > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > is > > > > > based on the trailing four quarters. > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > -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. > > > > > > - > > -To subscribe/unsubscribe, email "majordomo@xmission.com" > > -In the email body, write "subscribe canslim" or > > -"unsubscribe canslim". Do not use quotes in your email. > > > > > > ****************************************************************** > > This email and any files transmitted with it from the ElPaso > > Corporation are confidential and intended solely for the > > use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. > > If you have received this email in error please notify the > > sender. > > ****************************************************************** > > > > - > > -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: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 09:31:40 -0700 (PDT) From: Fanus Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Cheap? Jon In your opinion then, supply and demand play no role in the prices of stocks? Or Tulips for that matter. - - Fanus - --- "J. Lobatto" wrote: > I suspect some Dutchmen made the same argument > several hundred years ago at > the height of the tulip craze.... "only 40% of the > population owns tulips, > when 85% wants to. Back in the dark ages, only 10% > of our fellow Dutchmen > owned tulips. Clearly 40 if not 85% will be the norm > from now on, so prices > have to stay high....." I know, you'll argue that > tulips had no real value, > but did anyone else read today that Dr. Koop. com > which was worth > $1,000,000,000 at the height of the dot.mania was > just sold to Vitacost at > about $150,000(?). Ouch! I doubt even tulip prices > fell that hard. > > Jon > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "zillagirl" > To: > Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2002 11:57 AM > Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Cheap? > > > > I have a question for minds that are smarter then > my own. When we look at > > price to earnings, don't we have to consider the > number of people > investing > > in the market today over what it was in the past. > I've read > > historically -that in the past- 10 to 15% of > households were involved in > the > > stock market. Now I've seen figures of 50% or > more. If 35% more > > American households started putting money in the > same 10,000 or so stocks > > that existed before-it seems like that would drive > up the price, even if > the > > business was no more profitable or productive then > before.(supply and > > demand). Possible even keeping the price up if > these households kept > > investing(higher P/E ratios) Hence maybe it > would be unrealistic to > > think that the correct P/E for this point in time > should be exactly in > line > > with the correct P/Es of the past. Unless of > course that extra 35% of the > > people got out of the market again. Kind of > like saying-the > > babyboomers are here and our mind tells us that we > need many more > retirement > > homes- but historically, over the past 75 years, 2 > retirement homes per > city > > have been the norm so that is the figure we will > stick with. If this > > theory sounds reasonable-it would certainly take > some of the fright out of > > those charts. > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Hill, Ernie" > > To: > > Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2002 5:30 AM > > Subject: RE: [CANSLIM] Cheap? > > > > > > > Here is an interesting perspective on PE ratios > the S&P and what is or > is > > > not cheap. > > > > > > > http://www.decisionpoint.com/ChartSpotliteFiles/020712sppe.html > > > > > > E > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: inderjit [mailto:inderjit@adelphia.net] > > > Sent: Monday, July 15, 2002 10:36 PM > > > To: canslim@lists.xmission.com > > > Subject: RE: [CANSLIM] Cheap? > > > > > > You can easily ;-) find out what a stock is > worth by visiting > > > http://www.valuepro.net/index.shtml. AOL is > worth zero, NVR 1800+ etc. > > > > > > Regards and have a profitable Tuesday. > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com > > > [mailto:owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com] On > Behalf Of zillagirl > > > Sent: Monday, July 15, 2002 7:51 PM > > > To: canslim@lists.xmission.com > > > Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Cheap? > > > > > > > > > I emailed Mr. Tom Petruno at the L.A.Times today > and asked him if he > > > could clarify the differences in he's figure and > the figure on the 2 web > > > sits discussed-will let you know what I find > out. > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Fred Richards" > > > To: > > > Sent: Monday, July 15, 2002 3:42 PM > > > Subject: RE: [CANSLIM] Cheap? > > > > > > > > > > the latest www.decisionpoint.com report on the > PE ratio for the S&P > > > > 500 > > > for > > > > the week ending 6/12/02 stood at a still > whopping 39.60 times! > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com > > > > [mailto:owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com]On > Behalf Of Fred Richards > > > > Sent: Sunday, July 14, 2002 7:55 PM > > > > To: canslim@lists.xmission.com > > > > Subject: RE: [CANSLIM] Cheap? > > > > > > > > > > > > As an neophyte investor, what you are missing > is an doubting mind. > > > > > > > > It is the credibility of the estimates that > the author is using. > > > > > > > > Does the article state what firm and/or > analyst made the estimates and > > > > > > > on what basis they were made and/or the time > frame? > > > > > > > > Based upon the most reliable information I > have using information > > > > prior to the revamping of the list effective > July 19, I believe, the > > > > S&P 500 is > > > still > > > > selling way over 19 times forward 12 month > earnings. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com > > > > [mailto:owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com]On > Behalf Of zillagirl > > > > Sent: Sunday, July 14, 2002 7:25 PM > > > > To: canslim@lists.xmission.com > > > > Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Cheap? > > > > > > > > > > > > There is quite an extensive article in the > L.A. Times today about the > > > > markets. In there it states that " the > average stock in the S & P 500 > > > > > > > is priced at about 19 times this years > expected earnings per share, by > > > > > > > many wall street estimates. That is far above > the historical average > > > > price -to -earnings ratio of about 14." I > think I like these numbers a > > > > > > > little better. What's up-am I missing > something here? > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > From: "Tom Worley" > > > > To: > > > > Sent: Saturday, July 13, 2002 7:06 PM > > > > Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Cheap? > > > > > > > > > > > > > I make no investment decisions, or even > select stocks for watching, > > > > > on > > > the > > > > > basis of their history. The market, and > stock prices, moves on > > > > expectations. > > > > > Those expectations are based on projected > earnings, not what they > > > > > did > > > last > === message truncated === __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Autos - Get free new car price quotes http://autos.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: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 09:35:38 -0700 From: "zillagirl" Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Cheap? first I don't think that is the same argument- second -I need something a little more concrete to reform my thoughts on, if in fact they are wrong. Thanks though - ----- Original Message ----- From: "J. Lobatto" To: Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2002 9:14 AM Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Cheap? > I suspect some Dutchmen made the same argument several hundred years ago at > the height of the tulip craze.... "only 40% of the population owns tulips, > when 85% wants to. Back in the dark ages, only 10% of our fellow Dutchmen > owned tulips. Clearly 40 if not 85% will be the norm from now on, so prices > have to stay high....." I know, you'll argue that tulips had no real value, > but did anyone else read today that Dr. Koop. com which was worth > $1,000,000,000 at the height of the dot.mania was just sold to Vitacost at > about $150,000(?). Ouch! I doubt even tulip prices fell that hard. > > Jon > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "zillagirl" > To: > Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2002 11:57 AM > Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Cheap? > > > > I have a question for minds that are smarter then my own. When we look at > > price to earnings, don't we have to consider the number of people > investing > > in the market today over what it was in the past. I've read > > historically -that in the past- 10 to 15% of households were involved in > the > > stock market. Now I've seen figures of 50% or more. If 35% more > > American households started putting money in the same 10,000 or so stocks > > that existed before-it seems like that would drive up the price, even if > the > > business was no more profitable or productive then before.(supply and > > demand). Possible even keeping the price up if these households kept > > investing(higher P/E ratios) Hence maybe it would be unrealistic to > > think that the correct P/E for this point in time should be exactly in > line > > with the correct P/Es of the past. Unless of course that extra 35% of the > > people got out of the market again. Kind of like saying-the > > babyboomers are here and our mind tells us that we need many more > retirement > > homes- but historically, over the past 75 years, 2 retirement homes per > city > > have been the norm so that is the figure we will stick with. If this > > theory sounds reasonable-it would certainly take some of the fright out of > > those charts. > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Hill, Ernie" > > To: > > Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2002 5:30 AM > > Subject: RE: [CANSLIM] Cheap? > > > > > > > Here is an interesting perspective on PE ratios the S&P and what is or > is > > > not cheap. > > > > > > http://www.decisionpoint.com/ChartSpotliteFiles/020712sppe.html > > > > > > E > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: inderjit [mailto:inderjit@adelphia.net] > > > Sent: Monday, July 15, 2002 10:36 PM > > > To: canslim@lists.xmission.com > > > Subject: RE: [CANSLIM] Cheap? > > > > > > You can easily ;-) find out what a stock is worth by visiting > > > http://www.valuepro.net/index.shtml. AOL is worth zero, NVR 1800+ etc. > > > > > > Regards and have a profitable Tuesday. > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com > > > [mailto:owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com] On Behalf Of zillagirl > > > Sent: Monday, July 15, 2002 7:51 PM > > > To: canslim@lists.xmission.com > > > Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Cheap? > > > > > > > > > I emailed Mr. Tom Petruno at the L.A.Times today and asked him if he > > > could clarify the differences in he's figure and the figure on the 2 web > > > sits discussed-will let you know what I find out. > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Fred Richards" > > > To: > > > Sent: Monday, July 15, 2002 3:42 PM > > > Subject: RE: [CANSLIM] Cheap? > > > > > > > > > > the latest www.decisionpoint.com report on the PE ratio for the S&P > > > > 500 > > > for > > > > the week ending 6/12/02 stood at a still whopping 39.60 times! > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com > > > > [mailto:owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com]On Behalf Of Fred Richards > > > > Sent: Sunday, July 14, 2002 7:55 PM > > > > To: canslim@lists.xmission.com > > > > Subject: RE: [CANSLIM] Cheap? > > > > > > > > > > > > As an neophyte investor, what you are missing is an doubting mind. > > > > > > > > It is the credibility of the estimates that the author is using. > > > > > > > > Does the article state what firm and/or analyst made the estimates and > > > > > > > on what basis they were made and/or the time frame? > > > > > > > > Based upon the most reliable information I have using information > > > > prior to the revamping of the list effective July 19, I believe, the > > > > S&P 500 is > > > still > > > > selling way over 19 times forward 12 month earnings. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com > > > > [mailto:owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com]On Behalf Of zillagirl > > > > Sent: Sunday, July 14, 2002 7:25 PM > > > > To: canslim@lists.xmission.com > > > > Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Cheap? > > > > > > > > > > > > There is quite an extensive article in the L.A. Times today about the > > > > markets. In there it states that " the average stock in the S & P 500 > > > > > > > is priced at about 19 times this years expected earnings per share, by > > > > > > > many wall street estimates. That is far above the historical average > > > > price -to -earnings ratio of about 14." I think I like these numbers a > > > > > > > little better. What's up-am I missing something here? > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > From: "Tom Worley" > > > > To: > > > > Sent: Saturday, July 13, 2002 7:06 PM > > > > Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Cheap? > > > > > > > > > > > > > I make no investment decisions, or even select stocks for watching, > > > > > on > > > the > > > > > basis of their history. The market, and stock prices, moves on > > > > expectations. > > > > > Those expectations are based on projected earnings, not what they > > > > > did > > > last > > > > > year, or five years ago. > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > > From: "Rocky Sanghvi" > > > > > To: > > > > > Sent: Saturday, July 13, 2002 9:41 PM > > > > > Subject: RE: [CANSLIM] Cheap? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lois, > > > > > > > > > > This was one of the news items on the nasdaq.com website frontpage. > > > > > > > > If > > > > you > > > > > wish to see it you need to go to nasdaq.com and scan some of the > > > > > older > > > > news > > > > > items. > > > > > This was was from the Dow Jones News Wire. > > > > > > > > > > Best Wishes > > > > > Rocky > > > > > > > > > > PS Tom - I am not sure why we shouldnt look at trailing earnings as > > > > > a > > > part > > > > > of your overall investment outlook. Yes maybe not CANSLIM (which > > > > > only > > > > looks > > > > > at future earnings) but if we are looking at charts and history we > > > > > may > > > as > > > > > well consider historical facts such as what the news item was > > > > > referring > > > > to. > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com > > > > > [mailto:owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com]On Behalf Of Lois > > > > > Sent: Saturday, July 13, 2002 9:54 AM > > > > > To: canslim@lists.xmission.com > > > > > Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Cheap? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rocky, > > > > > > > > > > Would you be so kind as to post a link for the info below? > > > > > > > > > > TIA, > > > > > Lois > > > > > > > > > > Rocky Sanghvi wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > S&P 500 Price/Earnings Ratio At 37.31, Down From 37.65 > > > > > > > > > > > > NEW YORK -(Dow Jones)- The price/earnings ratio of the Standard & > > > Poor's > > > > > 500 > > > > > > index at the close of trading Friday, July 12, was 37.31. > > > > > > Thursday, the ratio was 37.65. > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > is > > > > > > based on the trailing four quarters. > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > > -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. > > > > > > > > > - > > > -To subscribe/unsubscribe, email "majordomo@xmission.com" > > > -In the email body, write "subscribe canslim" or > > > -"unsubscribe canslim". Do not use quotes in your email. > > > > > > > > > ****************************************************************** > > > This email and any files transmitted with it from the ElPaso > > > Corporation are confidential and intended solely for the > > > use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. > > > If you have received this email in error please notify the > > > sender. > > > ****************************************************************** > > > > > > - > > > -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 #2612 ****************************** 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.