From: owner-canslim-digest@lists.xmission.com (canslim-digest) To: canslim-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: canslim-digest V2 #2806 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, August 15 2002 Volume 02 : Number 2806 In this issue: Re: [CANSLIM] Today's IBD "Would you buy this stock?" Re: [CANSLIM] UCBH Fw: [CANSLIM] CECO ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 18:58:50 -0500 From: "Katherine Malm" Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Today's IBD "Would you buy this stock?" Hi Jack, You're quite right. Thanks for pointing out my error. In this particular case, one would then need to enter intraday as the stock passed the pivot on extrapolated volume 150%+ or would have to wait for a slight pullback on lower volume in subsequent days and take a second chance entry if they wanted to avoid the 5% extension beyond pivot. Katherine - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jack Tencza" To: Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 6:55 PM Subject: re: [CANSLIM] Today's IBD "Would you buy this stock?" | Katherine,this(Investor Quiz)looks like a daily chart. | Jack | --- Katherine Malm wrote: | > Hi Kelly, | > | > One more thing I intended to include was a comment | > on your original question about the length of the | > handle. WON recommends that the handle be *at least* | > 1 wk (5 trading days), but the length of the handle | > will actually vary depending on the market and the | > characteristics of the base itself. One of the | > articles I have in my file on handles states "Don't | > be surprised if a good stock's handle stretches | > seven, eight, even more than 10 straight weeks." | > (From "Very Short Handles Bear High Risks" 11/29/01) | > | > Katherine | > | > ----- Original Message ----- | > From: Katherine Malm | > To: canslim@lists.xmission.com | > Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 4:30 PM | > Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Today's IBD "Would you buy | > this stock?" | > | > | > Hi Charley and Kelly, | > | > A couple of things related to the MTON chart: | > | > To your point about the breakout being beyond the 5% | > limit of the pivot---this is a weekly chart, so what | > you are seeing is the closing price at the end of | > the week, not necessarily on the day it broke out on | > volume. You'll have to look back at a daily from | > 4/01 to see it more specifically. | > | > To the point about the handle droop--While 12-15% is | > the "norm", in Bear markets, that droop can be as | > much as 30% according to WON. My recollection of the | > 4/01 time period is that we were just beginning a | > rally and so it wouldn't seem out of character for | > the handle to be as deep as it was (by my estimation | > looking at the chart, about 25%). As long as the | > handle forms on diminishing volume, is in the upper | > half of the cup formation and above the 200 day MA, | > it's valid. | > | > Katherine | > ----- Original Message ----- | > From: Chazmoore@aol.com | > To: canslim@lists.xmission.com | > Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 4:07 PM | > Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Today's IBD "Would you buy | > this stock?" | > | > | > Kelly: Good for you. While I don't think there is | > anything wrong with a 2 week handle, WON does state | > it should not droop more than 15%-20%. I didn't | > study it as close as you did, but my reaction to the | > question was NO. It looked to me like the breakout | > far exceeded 5% and we are instructed not to chase | > it past 5%. Charley | > ----- Original Message ----- | > From: Kelly Short | > To: canslim@lists.xmission.com | > Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 3:56 PM | > Subject: [CANSLIM] Today's IBD "Would you buy | > this stock?" | > | > | > In today's "Would you buy this stock?" Metro One | > Telecom is featured. The chart shows a CwH formation | > and the answer to the quiz is "Yes," you should have | > bought this stock. But is this the most beautiful | > CwH formation there is? The handle continues for 14 | > days before the BO. Doesn't WON recommend 3 - 7 | > days? During this time, it dips 50% from the top of | > the right side. Seems that I remember WON suggesting | > a CwH formation should correct around 20%. Thoughts | > anyone? | > | > | > | -------------------------------------------------------------------------- - -- | > | > | > | > | > | | | ===== | Jack | | __________________________________________________ | Do You Yahoo!? | HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs | http://www.hotjobs.com | | - | -To subscribe/unsubscribe, email "majordomo@xmission.com" | -In the email body, write "subscribe canslim" or | -"unsubscribe canslim". Do not use quotes in your email. - - - -To subscribe/unsubscribe, email "majordomo@xmission.com" - -In the email body, write "subscribe canslim" or - -"unsubscribe canslim". Do not use quotes in your email. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 20:46:19 -0400 From: "Ann" Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] UCBH Tom, Thanks for your thoughts on inst ownership. Re chart, I, too, thought it was a double-bottom, but with a handle. My HTMMIS notes (or maybe I've added to them fr. other sources) say that when the W does not have a handle, the pivot is .10 above the midpoint; but when there *is* a handle, the pivot is .10 above the high of the handle. That's how I got 42.19, since 42.09 was the high of the handle. Ann - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tom Worley" To: Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 6:50 PM Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] UCBH : Ann, several comments, I already addressed "institutional ownership" in : another email just posted, but would add to that I have never seen a stock : with true institutional ownership of 91%, unless the float was a very small : percent of the total issue (and I would doubt it even then). Institutional : investors want liquidity even more than us retail investors. If I see this : ownership reported this high, I would immediately suspect wrong data, either : because of a split, new issue, duplicate counting, or some other cause. : Mutual fund ownership is high (DGO says 31% of the float of 18.6 million : shares), and nr of funds owning has been growing (reported at 143 for June : 02, up from 140 the prior qtr and 119 a year ago). So institutional : ownership is going to be high, but no where near 91%. : : Second, you don't mention the chart pattern that you see. What I get is a : double bottom, with the pivot occurring 7/29 as it passed 10 cents higher : than the mid point of the "W" at a price of 40.05. The more cautious might : have wanted to wait for 7/30 to see if it followed thru. Ironically, that : would have put you into the stock just in time to catch the nearly 8% : correction (good example of why this "M" suggests only buying a partial : position, if you insist on buying at all). : : As for the fraud lawsuit loss, I must assume any mental, emotional or : financial factors are already priced into the stock. The only issue it would : have for me is what, if anything, it tells me about the ethics or honestly : of management. DGO says Management owns 5% (vice Yahoo's 1%). : : ----- Original Message ----- : From: "Ann" : To: "CANSLIM Listserv" : Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 8:59 AM : Subject: [CANSLIM] UCBH : : : I am trying to do DD, using Yahoo. : : Looking at chart, I believe that it broke out on 8/12 (pp 42.19). It is now : at 42.40, which is well within the 2-3% limit that WON advises using (above : breakout) in this M. : : On 8/14, it hit a new 52-wk high (42.73). : : I was trying to do my due diligence, and came across some puzzling pieces of : info: : : Insiders only own 1%, whereas institutions own 91%. Is that worrisome? : : Also, they just lost a big fraud lawsuit! : : Sales growth is down, but less so thatn the rest of the industry. : EPS quarterly growth is up 28%; annual 23% (if I am doing this right!). : Pretax profit margin is 30%; after tax 18%. : : ROE is 20%. : : To me the company looks good, the industry is doing well. : : How significant is that court case? : : (I'm going for a walk. Hopefully I won't miss my big chance!) : : Ann : : : - : -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: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 21:04:59 -0400 From: "Ann" Subject: Fw: [CANSLIM] CECO This is a multi-part message in MIME format. - ------=_NextPart_000_00D4_01C2449F.6A58F9A0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I guess it did break out today, but not with much vol. - ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Katherine Malm=20 To: canslim@lists.xmission.com=20 Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2002 2:44 PM Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] CECO Hi Scott, No. The rule of undercutting the base is from the prior base *before* = the stock began it's 25%+ rise. In this case, imagine the V you see more = recently as part of the flat base which began 4/23. In other words, the = low you see on 7/22 never undercut the low of the previous base which = ran approx. Sept-Dec '01. Until the stock truly "fails" an area of = consolidation (and in this case it has not), you don't reset the base = count.* Another way to look at is, while the V you see in July is a = little scary, imagine what might've happened if the market had been = healthier at the time. Would CECO have continued to build the rest of = the flat base? Maybe. Would it have staged a break out with some oomph = behind it on 6/25? Maybe. What will happen next? Don't know. Could firm = up, finish the consolidation which began in April and break out for = good. OR....could fail from here. Can't tell until Mr. Market sings and = the price/volume tells the story. That's why it's imperative to wait for = a valid breakout before jumping in, it reduces the risk. I'll stick by my original assessment that what you see right now is an = odd base that began 4/23. Katherine * The idea behind "failing" an area of consolidation is that the gains = of the prior 25% advance have now been erased. That's why you look at = the low of the previous base for base count. ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Scott Gettis=20 To: canslim@lists.xmission.com=20 Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2002 1:29 PM Subject: [CANSLIM] CECO Katherine, Shouldn't the base count be reset on CECO since the b/o from a flat = base on 6/24 failed and the curent base undercuts the lows of the flat = base. --Scott -----Original Message----- From: owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com = [mailto:owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com]On Behalf Of Katherine Malm Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2002 8:19 AM To: canslim@lists.xmission.com Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] XRAY and CECO HI Mike, I can tell my response wasn't clear. Let me try again with some = examples and articles. In general, it's important to distinguish between a "healthy rising = stock" and a "base." On one hand, you will have a stock, like CECO, = which has been rising over time. Each time is rises for a while, then it = pauses to consolidate. That pause is the "base." Each time the stock = reaches a new high and then consolidates, it will demonstrate its = ability to absorb the gains from the previous rise of >=3D25%. That = pattern that you see along the rising trend line is what you want to see = in a stock. The problem is, after the stock has done this 3 or 4 times, = it becomes well-known and obvious, and so it is rare that it can = continue tracing out this same rising behavior for too much longer. What = will normally happen is that the stock will often fail in the next = breakout and/or correct so deeply that it undercuts the low of the = previous base. That "resets the base count" and you then start over with = counting bases, assuming of course, that the stock *can* recover. WON = suggests that if the correction is more than 80% that the stock is too = badly damaged that it may not recover in any reasonable time period. = (IBM and WMT come to mind....look back at a 10 year chart of each of = them and notice what happened after they corrected so deeply. They = essentially went into years of sideways movement.) Sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words, so thought it easier = to write up some notes. See notes on the "Healthy Rising Stock" at: http://WallStreet-LLC.com/canslim/HealthyRisingStock.JPG Now, far different than the healthy rising stock is the *type* of = base that it forms while consolidating. There are many, though there are = some that are more common, more reliable, and far easier to spot than = others. I'd rank the ascending base as the most difficult to master. See = my handwritten notes on types of bases at: http://WallStreet-LLC.com/canslim/TypesOfBases.JPG Just to be complete, I've also uploaded quite a few resources = related to both rising stocks (base counting) and ascending bases. I = figured it was far easier to do that than to reinvent the wheel and = describe the ascending base in detail. See them at: Counting bases: http://WallStreet-LLC.com/canslim/CountingBasesHowTo.doc http://WallStreet-LLC.com/canslim/DeepCorrResetBCount.JPG http://WallStreet-LLC.com/canslim/CountBasesB4Buy.JPG http://WallStreet-LLC.com/canslim/MktWashoutNewBases.JPG Ascending bases: http://WallStreet-LLC.com/canslim/AscendingBaseRally.JPG http://WallStreet-LLC.com/canslim/FindAscendingBases.doc http://WallStreet-LLC.com/canslim/BuyPointABase.doc In summary, there is no such thing as a "long term ascending base" = as the concept confuses a healthy rising stock pattern over a longer = time period with the ascending base pattern, which is a particular kind = of consolidation (>=3D6wks).=20 CECO has been exhibiting the characteristics of a "healthy rising = stock" and is currently forming a 3rd stage base. CECO is *not* = currently forming an ascending base. It is forming a very strange base = on base (flat + C&H) as far as I can tell. I saw many odd patterns like = this at the September '01 low and many of the stocks were able to = recover from the V shaped sell off, breakout and move on. Many of the = retailers, the gaming stocks, homebuilders, security related stocks and = Aero & Defense come to mind. Katherine ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Mike Gibbons=20 To: canslim@lists.xmission.com=20 Sent: Monday, August 12, 2002 10:20 PM Subject: RE: [CANSLIM] XRAY and CECO Hi Katherine, I just opened my brand new copy of HTMMIS v 3 and found on P. = 137-138 the topic "Ascending Base". The definition is somewhat similar = to what you describe:- "Ascending Bases, like flat bases, occur midway = along a move up after a stock has broken out of a cup-with-handle or = double-bottom base. It has three pullbacks from 10% to 20% with each low = point during the sell-of in price being higher than the preceding, which = is why I call it and ascending base. Each of the pullbacks usually ocurs = due to the general market declining at that time." Looking at your annotated chart, it would seem CECO fits this = definition. It would also seem that the most recent pullback coincided = with the July selloff in the markets in agreement with the definition.=20 Maybe CECO is one to watch. Any other views? Aloha, Mike Gibbons Proactive Technologies, LLC http://www.proactech.com -----Original Message----- From: owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com = [mailto:owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com]On Behalf Of Katherine Malm Sent: Monday, August 12, 2002 3:52 PM To: canslim@lists.xmission.com Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] XRAY and CECO HI Mike, I've noticed the term "long term ascending base" coming up in = many posts lately, so thought I'd make comment on that concept. There's actually no such thing, as "ascending base" is a very = particular kind of conolidation in the stock's move. In general, a stock = will rise, then pause (base), rise, then pause, rise, then pause, and so = on. As long as the rise between consolidations is at least 25%, the next = area of consolidation is considered a new stage base. This is also the = same reason that an LLUR is not a base....it's a stock on the rise, = though with low volatility. (Sorry, Tom, just a point on which we don't = agree.) The base normally happens when the stock makes a new high, then = falls and/or refuses to continue the up move for some period of time. A = flat base for example, moves essentially sideways for at least 5 wks, = the C&H or cup without handle lasts for at least 7 wks and sports a = deeper correction as the stock retraces some of the previous move, etc. = The ascending base is just an odd consolidation in that it drifts = upward, attempting to breakout 3 times. It's a subtle pattern that's = hard to read, but shouldn't be confused with a stock that is rising = *between* consolidations.=20 I've uploaded an example on the CECO chart that shows the base, = move up, base, move up, etc. http://WallStreet-LLC.com/canslim/CECO081202.jpg Please note that I marked the chart quickly, so the circled = areas for the base are "general" and not exact for each base formation. Katherine ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Mike Gibbons=20 To: canslim@lists.xmission.com=20 Sent: Monday, August 12, 2002 7:54 PM Subject: [CANSLIM] XRAY and CECO When I brought up XRAY last week, Winston observed that the = longer term pattern was more like an ascending base. To my surprize, the = XRAY breakout hasn't failed yet, although it hasn't been strong either, = and may be in the process of forming another handle. I came across another stock today with similar chart = characteristics to XRAY - now in the handle of a Cwh formation with good = CANSLIM characteristics = (http://www.cwhcharts.com/canslim/fuzzy_canslim.php?symbol=3DCECO) = except for v. high institutional ownership - but the longer term pattern = looks like an ascending base. The CwH pattern is not ideal with the cup too short and = V-shaped, which I attribute to the market behavior in July, but perhaps = its on its way to resuming the long term ascending base pattern.=20 Comments anyone? Aloha, Mike Gibbons Proactive Technologies, LLC http://www.proactech.com - ------=_NextPart_000_00D4_01C2449F.6A58F9A0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I guess it did break out today, but not with much=20 vol.
 
----- Original Message -----=20
From: Katherine Malm=20
Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2002 2:44 PM
Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] CECO

Hi Scott,
 
No. The rule of undercutting the base is from the prior base = *before* the=20 stock began it's 25%+ rise. In this case, imagine the V you see more = recently as=20 part of the flat base which began 4/23. In other words, the low you see = on 7/22=20 never undercut the low of the previous base which ran approx. Sept-Dec = '01.=20 Until the stock truly "fails" an area of consolidation (and in this case = it has=20 not), you don't reset the base count.* Another way to look at is, while = the V=20 you see in July is a little scary, imagine what might've happened if the = market=20 had been healthier at the time. Would CECO have continued to build the = rest of=20 the flat base? Maybe. Would it have staged a break out with some oomph = behind it=20 on 6/25? Maybe. What will happen next? Don't know. Could firm up, finish = the=20 consolidation which began in April and break out for good. OR....could = fail from=20 here. Can't tell until Mr. Market sings and the price/volume tells the = story.=20 That's why it's imperative to wait for a valid breakout before jumping = in, it=20 reduces the risk.
 
I'll stick by my original assessment that what you see right now is = an=20 odd base that began 4/23.
 
Katherine
 
* The idea behind "failing" an area of consolidation is that the = gains of=20 the prior 25% advance have now been erased. That's why you look at the = low of=20 the previous base for base count.
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Scott = Gettis=20
Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2002 = 1:29=20 PM
Subject: [CANSLIM] CECO

Katherine,
 
Shouldn't the base count be reset on CECO = since the=20 b/o from a flat base on 6/24 failed and the curent base undercuts the = lows of=20 the flat base.
 
--Scott
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-canslim@lists.xmis= sion.com=20 [mailto:owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com]On Behalf Of = Katherine=20 Malm
Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2002 8:19 AM
To:=20 canslim@lists.xmission.com
Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] XRAY and = CECO

HI = Mike,

 

I can tell my = response wasn't=20 clear. Let me try again with some examples and = articles.

 

In general, it's = important to=20 distinguish between a "healthy rising stock" and a "base." On one = hand, you=20 will have a stock, like CECO, which has been rising over time. = Each=20 time is rises for a while, then it pauses to consolidate. That pause = is the=20 "base." Each time the stock reaches a new high and then = consolidates, it=20 will demonstrate its ability to absorb the gains from the previous = rise of=20 >=3D25%. That pattern that you see along the rising trend line is = what you=20 want to see in a stock. The problem is, after the stock has done = this 3 or 4=20 times, it becomes well-known and obvious, and so it is rare that it = can=20 continue tracing out this same rising behavior for too much longer. = What=20 will normally happen is that the stock will often fail in the next = breakout=20 and/or correct so deeply that it undercuts the low of the previous = base.=20 That "resets the base count" and you then start over with counting = bases,=20 assuming of course, that the stock *can* recover. WON suggests that = if the=20 correction is more than 80% that the stock is too badly damaged that = it may=20 not recover in any reasonable time period. (IBM and WMT come to = mind....look=20 back at a 10 year chart of each of them and notice what happened = after they=20 corrected so deeply. They essentially went into years of sideways=20 movement.)

 

Sometimes a picture = is worth a=20 thousand words, so thought it easier to write up some notes. See = notes on=20 the "Healthy Rising Stock" at:

http://= WallStreet-LLC.com/canslim/HealthyRisingStock.JPG

 

Now, far different = than the=20 healthy rising stock is the *type* of base that it forms while=20 consolidating. There are many, though there are some that are more = common,=20 more reliable, and far easier to spot than others. I'd rank the = ascending=20 base as the most difficult to master. See my handwritten notes on = types of=20 bases at:

http://WallSt= reet-LLC.com/canslim/TypesOfBases.JPG

 

Just to be complete, = I've also=20 uploaded quite a few resources related to both rising stocks (base=20 counting) and ascending bases. I figured it was far easier to = do that=20 than to reinvent the wheel and describe the ascending base in = detail. See=20 them at:

 

Counting=20 bases:

http://= WallStreet-LLC.com/canslim/CountingBasesHowTo.doc

http:/= /WallStreet-LLC.com/canslim/DeepCorrResetBCount.JPG

=

http://Wal= lStreet-LLC.com/canslim/CountBasesB4Buy.JPG

http://= WallStreet-LLC.com/canslim/MktWashoutNewBases.JPG

 

Ascending = bases:

http://= WallStreet-LLC.com/canslim/AscendingBaseRally.JPG

http://= WallStreet-LLC.com/canslim/FindAscendingBases.doc

http://WallS= treet-LLC.com/canslim/BuyPointABase.doc

 

In summary, there is = no such=20 thing as a "long term ascending base" as the concept confuses a = healthy=20 rising stock pattern over a longer time period with the = ascending=20 base pattern, which is a particular kind of consolidation=20 (>=3D6wks). 

 

CECO has been = exhibiting the=20 characteristics of a "healthy rising stock" and is currently forming = a 3rd=20 stage base. CECO is *not* currently forming an ascending base. = It is=20 forming a very strange base on base (flat + C&H) as far as I can = tell. I=20 saw many odd patterns like this at the September '01 low and = many of=20 the stocks were able to recover from the V shaped sell off, breakout = and=20 move on. Many of the retailers, the gaming stocks, homebuilders, = security=20 related stocks and Aero & Defense come to mind.

 

Katherine

 

 

----- Original Message ----- =
From:=20 Mike Gibbons
To: canslim@lists.xmission.com= =20
Sent: Monday, August 12, = 2002 10:20=20 PM
Subject: RE: [CANSLIM] XRAY = and=20 CECO

Hi Katherine,
 
I just opened my brand new copy of HTMMIS v 3 and found = on P.=20 137-138 the topic "Ascending Base". The definition is somewhat = similar to=20 what you describe:- "Ascending Bases, like flat bases, occur = midway along=20 a move up after a stock has broken out of a cup-with-handle or=20 double-bottom base. It has three pullbacks from 10% to 20% with = each low=20 point during the sell-of in price being higher than the preceding, = which=20 is why I call it and ascending base. Each of the pullbacks usually = ocurs=20 due to the general market declining at that = time."
 
Looking at your annotated chart, it would seem CECO fits = this=20 definition. It would also seem that the most recent pullback = coincided=20 with the July selloff in the markets in agreement with the = definition.=20
 
Maybe CECO is one to watch. Any other = views?
 
Aloha,
 
Mike = Gibbons
Proactive = Technologies,=20 LLC
http://www.proactech.com
-----Original Message-----
From:=20 owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com=20 [mailto:owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com]On Behalf Of = Katherine=20 Malm
Sent: Monday, August 12, 2002 3:52 = PM
To:=20 canslim@lists.xmission.com
Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] XRAY = and=20 CECO

HI Mike,
 
I've noticed the term "long term ascending base" coming up = in many=20 posts lately, so thought I'd make comment on that concept.
 
There's actually no such thing, as "ascending base" is a = very=20 particular kind of conolidation in the stock's move. In general, = a stock=20 will rise, then pause (base), rise, then pause, rise, then = pause, and so=20 on. As long as the rise between consolidations is at least 25%, = the next=20 area of consolidation is considered a new stage base. This is = also the=20 same reason that an LLUR is not a base....it's a stock on the = rise,=20 though with low volatility. (Sorry, Tom, just a point on which = we don't=20 agree.)
 
The base normally happens when the stock makes a new high, = then=20 falls and/or refuses to continue the up = move for some=20 period of time. A flat base for example, moves essentially = sideways for=20 at least 5 wks, the C&H or cup without handle lasts for at = least 7=20 wks and sports a deeper correction as the stock retraces some of = the=20 previous move, etc. The ascending base is just an odd = consolidation in=20 that it drifts upward, attempting to breakout 3 times. It's a = subtle=20 pattern that's hard to read, but shouldn't be confused with a = stock that=20 is rising *between* consolidations.
 
I've uploaded an example on the CECO chart that shows the = base,=20 move up, base, move up, etc.
http://WallStre= et-LLC.com/canslim/CECO081202.jpg
 
Please note that I marked the chart quickly, so the circled = areas=20 for the base are "general" and not exact for each base = formation.
 
Katherine
----- Original Message ----- =
From:=20 Mike=20 Gibbons
To: canslim@lists.xmission.com= =20
Sent: Monday, August = 12, 2002=20 7:54 PM
Subject: [CANSLIM] XRAY = and=20 CECO

When I brought up XRAY last week, = Winston=20 observed that the longer term pattern was more like an = ascending base.=20 To my surprize, the XRAY breakout hasn't failed yet, although = it=20 hasn't been strong either, and may be in the process of = forming=20 another handle.
 
I came across another stock today = with=20 similar chart characteristics to XRAY - now in the handle of a = Cwh=20 formation with good CANSLIM characteristics (http://www.cwhcharts.com/canslim/fuzzy_canslim.php?symbol=3DCECO)=20 except for v. high institutional ownership - but the = longer term=20 pattern looks like an ascending base.
 
The CwH pattern is not ideal with = the cup too=20 short and V-shaped, which I attribute to the market behavior = in July,=20 but perhaps its on its way to resuming the long term ascending = base=20 pattern.
 
Comments = anyone?
 
Aloha,
 
Mike = Gibbons
Proactive = Technologies,=20 LLC
http://www.proactech.com
=
 
- ------=_NextPart_000_00D4_01C2449F.6A58F9A0-- - - - -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 #2806 ****************************** 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.