From: owner-canslim-digest@lists.xmission.com (canslim-digest) To: canslim-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: canslim-digest V2 #3308 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, May 12 2003 Volume 02 : Number 3308 In this issue: RE: [CANSLIM] SHFL RE: [CANSLIM] SHFL RE: [CANSLIM] SHFL Re: [CANSLIM] SHFL RE: [CANSLIM] SHFL [CANSLIM] Institutional Ownership RE: [CANSLIM] Institutional Ownership ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 11 May 2003 19:28:03 -0500 From: "Katherine Malm" Subject: RE: [CANSLIM] SHFL Hi Tomas, Roger, jans, I thought it would be appropriate to comment on some of the figures Tomas gave in his reply, as he mentions numbers from our site. - -On fundamentals: Our CANSLIM Evaluator (CE) is divided into 2 separate figures, one for fundamentals (i.e. the drivers of technical action) and one for technicals (the price/volume action). For SHFL, the total of 15.69 is derived from a technical score of 6.47 (out of 7 possible) and a fundamental score of 9.22 (out of 11 possible). That's nothing to sneeze at, but I wouldn't want to mislead anybody into thinking that all 15.69 points were derived from fundamentals alone. Part of our reasoning for having these two separate components is to be sure that a stock has a good combination of *both* fundamental and technical attributes at the same time. That helps avoid stocks that are strong one way or the other, but not in tandem. In comparison to the other 44 stocks in the industry, SHFL rates first in fundamentals, a hair better than PENN. It ranks 5th in overall technical condition. It's rare to find stocks that get a "perfect" fundamental score. In SHFL's case, it looses some points due to the slight deceleration in sales and earnings growth rates and due to the net shares sold by institutions which both Roger and Tomas mentioned. - -On the chart: It is true that SHFL originally set up in a cup with handle pattern back in March. It appeared on one of our watchlists 3/31 and set up with the pivot as you described: http://www.cwhcharts.com/katherine/SHFL033103.JPG However, it did not breakout at that time. You can see a close up of the action shortly after. While it tried to break free, it did not do so on volume, so effectively, the right side of the cup continued to form: http://www.cwhcharts.com/katherine/SHFLSincePivot0303.JPG In general, I don't much like the volume on the right side of the continuation of the cup. It looks wedge-like to me and I think SHFL may need to spend some time in the current handle to properly shake out that lousy action in the base. It might be a bit easier to see in a weekly chart: http://www.cwhcharts.com/katherine/SHFL050903Wkly.JPG (Note: current pivot is at 24.85) - -General comments: When I first took a look at SHFL this morning, I truly expected to see the industry action rolling over. As jans mentioned, this group has been strong in the last couple of years and the odds of an industry staying at the top after such a long time is rather low. However, when I took a look at the industry action as a whole and at the charts of the stocks within the industry, I noticed that for the most part, most of the stocks have been oscillating sideways for quite a while. That *could* very well indicate a shoring up for another move up. Looking at the chart of the industry technicals and rank as a whole, there's certainly evidence that the group is turning back *up* rather than rolling over and heading down: http://www.cwhcharts.com/katherine/LeisureGaming050903.JPG The popularity of gambling escapes me, so I can't say that this group has ever interested me enough to dive into the details, but technically and fundamentally, there seems to be some promise in the group. Here's one last look at the distribution of the group across the CE Zone Map: http://www.cwhcharts.com/katherine/LeisureGamingMap050903.JPG This shows that there are quite a few stocks with good CANSLIM characteristics, i.e. a good combo of both fundamentals and technical, as the number of stocks in the green zone area are pretty impressive. Katherine - -----Original Message----- From: owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com [mailto:owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com]On Behalf Of Tomas Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2003 1:52 PM To: canslim@lists.xmission.com Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] SHFL Roger, Jans, I believe Roger is looking at the institutional ownership activities for the stock when he commented about the institional thing. http://moneycentral.msn.com/investor/invsub/ownership/ownership.asp?Symbol=s hfl I cannot comment on the RS lines from Jans' input since I don't have much experience reading the RS line. The fundies for SHFL looks good. 15.69 out of 18 (very good) for the CS evaluator. The zone is green 4-4. The institional ownership looks too high ~98%. Anyone want to correct me on this opinion? Looking at the chart, left side of the cup starts at 11/4/02 and right side of the cup is at 3/21/03 at $21.98. Handle is from 3/22 to 4/29. Handle trended down, which is good. BO is on 4/30 with not as much volume as I would have liked. But big volume two days later. If you agreen with the CwH dates, then the stock is a little extended. Just my $.02 tomas - --- Spencer48@aol.com wrote: > Roger, > > What gives you the clue that "...institutions > seem to be getting out." > The number of funds invested in SHFL, according to > Daily Graphs Online, from > June/02 to March/03 is 81->98 (although in Dec. it > was 99). Is this the only > signal that you see? > > In my opinion I wouldn't invest in SHFL for > these reasons: 1) I believe > strength of the Leisure/Gaming Equip. industry is > beginning to end; its power > was shown in the past few months and now-in my > opinion-it's going to > dissipate. The stocks in this group are already > surfeited and ready to > digest their gains. The up and coming industries, I > believe, will have to do > with Technology and Medical stocks. > > Also, specifically to SHFL, notice the four > weakly peaks it has made > since May/01. Around 25 seems to be the resistance > point. And the > RelativeStrengthLine does not indicate that the > stock is strong enough to > break the resistance. I conclude this because: > Notice that the previous > peak's RSL was in strong divergence from its prior > resistance peak (in early > Nov./02). > > However, in last week's price peak (at the > resistance) RSL is either > below or just barely above (it is certainly not > showing the kind of strength > the previous RSL showed at Nov/02's resistance > point). > > jans > > > > In a message dated 5/10/2003 8:10:07 PM Eastern > Daylight Time, > roger@tawacentral.net writes: > > << The fundies look good, with one exception: > institutions seem to be getting > out. > >> > > - > -To subscribe/unsubscribe, email > "majordomo@xmission.com" > -In the email body, write "subscribe canslim" or > -"unsubscribe canslim". Do not use quotes in your email. __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. http://search.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. - - - -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: Sun, 11 May 2003 19:46:57 -0500 From: "Katherine Malm" Subject: RE: [CANSLIM] SHFL Hi Roger, Just a note on using MSN or Yahoo data with regard to Institutional Ownership numbers. While it is useful in taking a peek at the numbers and the roster of owners, I have found that the reporting is somewhat slow and that it will differ from other sources. For example, DGO shows that the number of mutual funds has dropped slightly over the last quarter. That slight drop would also be apparent via the negative net shares you would have noted in our CANSLIM Evaluator. All in all, I place Institutional ownership at the bottom of the heap with respect to all the other desirable CANSLIM characteristics. That is for 2 reasons: First, data on institutional ownership is notoriously unrealiable and lags the real buying and selling action tremendously (due to reporting requirements) and second, because in truth, the action of institutions is already visible in the price/volume action of the stock. In other words, all else being equal, I would not use this particular measurement as a go/no go decision parameter. To be complete, a measurement of "I" would have to be included in a preponderance of evidence approach to evaluating one stock against another, but I see it as only one of many characteristics, not as a deal breaker. Katherine - -----Original Message----- From: owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com [mailto:owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com]On Behalf Of Roger Tawa Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2003 5:36 PM To: canslim@lists.xmission.com Subject: RE: [CANSLIM] SHFL Hi Jans, Thanks for your comments, I'm just starting out and it is always very helpful to get some insight from the more experienced canslim folks. It seemed to me that institutions were "getting out" because the "net shares purchased mrq" in the canslim evaluator was -1016. however, after reading your comments I checked out msn, and they too seem to say that net position change is positive. I do see the 4 weekly peaks that you mention. I see what you mean by the resistance at 25. there also 3 weekly troughs in the same period, and these are rising. Does this mean anything? What do you mean that the rsline was "in strong divergence from its prior resistance peak"? I am looking at the charts on cwhcharts.com, and the rsline's peaks seem to coincide with the price peaks. Also, the rsline last week seemed to be at or making a new high. ================================================= Roger Tawa http://tawacentral.net/ [One thing about paradigms: shift happens.] [When you stop, you're done.] -----Original Message----- From: owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com [mailto:owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Spencer48@aol.com Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2003 12:13 PM To: canslim@lists.xmission.com Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] SHFL Roger, What gives you the clue that "...institutions seem to be getting out." The number of funds invested in SHFL, according to Daily Graphs Online, from June/02 to March/03 is 81->98 (although in Dec. it was 99). Is this the only signal that you see? In my opinion I wouldn't invest in SHFL for these reasons: 1) I believe strength of the Leisure/Gaming Equip. industry is beginning to end; its power was shown in the past few months and now-in my opinion-it's going to dissipate. The stocks in this group are already surfeited and ready to digest their gains. The up and coming industries, I believe, will have to do with Technology and Medical stocks. Also, specifically to SHFL, notice the four weakly peaks it has made since May/01. Around 25 seems to be the resistance point. And the RelativeStrengthLine does not indicate that the stock is strong enough to break the resistance. I conclude this because: Notice that the previous peak's RSL was in strong divergence from its prior resistance peak (in early Nov./02). However, in last week's price peak (at the resistance) RSL is either below or just barely above (it is certainly not showing the kind of strength the previous RSL showed at Nov/02's resistance point). jans In a message dated 5/10/2003 8:10:07 PM Eastern Daylight Time, roger@tawacentral.net writes: << The fundies look good, with one exception: institutions seem to be getting out. >> - - - -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: Sun, 11 May 2003 20:12:54 -0700 (PDT) From: Tomas Subject: RE: [CANSLIM] SHFL Katherine, As always, I like to read your email a few times b/c it has so much valuable information. One question, you mention about not putting too much weight on institional activities. How much weight do you put on the insider trading? I see quite a few CANSLIM stocks that has been going up being sold by insiders. If you see about 10% of stocks own by insiders sold in the last 6 months, do you think twice before considering this stock? tomas - --- Katherine Malm wrote: > > Hi Tomas, Roger, jans, > > I thought it would be appropriate to comment on some > of the figures Tomas > gave in his reply, as he mentions numbers from our > site. > > -On fundamentals: Our CANSLIM Evaluator (CE) is > divided into 2 separate > figures, one for fundamentals (i.e. the drivers of > technical action) and one > for technicals (the price/volume action). For SHFL, > the total of 15.69 is > derived from a technical score of 6.47 (out of 7 > possible) and a fundamental > score of 9.22 (out of 11 possible). That's nothing > to sneeze at, but I > wouldn't want to mislead anybody into thinking that > all 15.69 points were > derived from fundamentals alone. Part of our > reasoning for having these two > separate components is to be sure that a stock has a > good combination of > *both* fundamental and technical attributes at the > same time. That helps > avoid stocks that are strong one way or the other, > but not in tandem. In > comparison to the other 44 stocks in the industry, > SHFL rates first in > fundamentals, a hair better than PENN. It ranks 5th > in overall technical > condition. It's rare to find stocks that get a > "perfect" fundamental score. > In SHFL's case, it looses some points due to the > slight deceleration in > sales and earnings growth rates and due to the net > shares sold by > institutions which both Roger and Tomas mentioned. > > -On the chart: It is true that SHFL originally set > up in a cup with handle > pattern back in March. It appeared on one of our > watchlists 3/31 and set up > with the pivot as you described: > > http://www.cwhcharts.com/katherine/SHFL033103.JPG > > However, it did not breakout at that time. You can > see a close up of the > action shortly after. While it tried to break free, > it did not do so on > volume, so effectively, the right side of the cup > continued to form: > > http://www.cwhcharts.com/katherine/SHFLSincePivot0303.JPG > > In general, I don't much like the volume on the > right side of the > continuation of the cup. It looks wedge-like to me > and I think SHFL may need > to spend some time in the current handle to properly > shake out that lousy > action in the base. It might be a bit easier to see > in a weekly chart: > > http://www.cwhcharts.com/katherine/SHFL050903Wkly.JPG > (Note: current pivot > is at 24.85) > > > -General comments: When I first took a look at SHFL > this morning, I truly > expected to see the industry action rolling over. As > jans mentioned, this > group has been strong in the last couple of years > and the odds of an > industry staying at the top after such a long time > is rather low. However, > when I took a look at the industry action as a whole > and at the charts of > the stocks within the industry, I noticed that for > the most part, most of > the stocks have been oscillating sideways for quite > a while. That *could* > very well indicate a shoring up for another move up. > Looking at the chart of > the industry technicals and rank as a whole, there's > certainly evidence that > the group is turning back *up* rather than rolling > over and heading down: > > http://www.cwhcharts.com/katherine/LeisureGaming050903.JPG > > The popularity of gambling escapes me, so I can't > say that this group has > ever interested me enough to dive into the details, > but technically and > fundamentally, there seems to be some promise in the > group. Here's one last > look at the distribution of the group across the CE > Zone Map: > > http://www.cwhcharts.com/katherine/LeisureGamingMap050903.JPG > > This shows that there are quite a few stocks with > good CANSLIM > characteristics, i.e. a good combo of both > fundamentals and technical, as > the number of stocks in the green zone area are > pretty impressive. > > Katherine > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com > [mailto:owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com]On Behalf > Of Tomas > Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2003 1:52 PM > To: canslim@lists.xmission.com > Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] SHFL > > > Roger, Jans, > > I believe Roger is looking at the institutional > ownership activities for the stock when he commented > about the institional thing. > > http://moneycentral.msn.com/investor/invsub/ownership/ownership.asp?Symbol=s > hfl > > I cannot comment on the RS lines from Jans' input > since I don't have much experience reading the RS > line. > > The fundies for SHFL looks good. 15.69 out of 18 > (very good) for the CS evaluator. The zone is green > 4-4. The institional ownership looks too high ~98%. > Anyone want to correct me on this opinion? > > Looking at the chart, left side of the cup starts at > 11/4/02 and right side of the cup is at 3/21/03 > at $21.98. Handle is from 3/22 to 4/29. Handle > trended down, which is good. BO is on 4/30 > with not as much volume as I would have liked. But > big volume two days later. > > If you agreen with the CwH dates, then the stock is > a > little extended. > > Just my $.02 > tomas > > > --- Spencer48@aol.com wrote: > > Roger, > > > > What gives you the clue that "...institutions > > seem to be getting out." > > The number of funds invested in SHFL, according to > > Daily Graphs Online, from > > June/02 to March/03 is 81->98 (although in Dec. it > > was 99). Is this the only > > signal that you see? > > > > In my opinion I wouldn't invest in SHFL for > > these reasons: 1) I believe > > strength of the Leisure/Gaming Equip. industry is > > beginning to end; its power > > was shown in the past few months and now-in my > > opinion-it's going to > > dissipate. The stocks in this group are already > > surfeited and ready to > > digest their gains. The up and coming industries, > I > > believe, will have to do > > with Technology and Medical stocks. > > > > Also, specifically to SHFL, notice the four > > weakly peaks it has made > > since May/01. Around 25 seems to be the > resistance > > point. And the > > RelativeStrengthLine does not indicate that the > > stock is strong enough to > > break the resistance. I conclude this because: > > Notice that the previous > > peak's RSL was in strong divergence from its prior > > resistance peak (in early > > Nov./02). > > > > However, in last week's price peak (at the > > resistance) RSL is either > > below or just barely above (it is certainly not > > showing the kind of strength > > the previous RSL showed at Nov/02's resistance > > point). > > > > jans > === message truncated === __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. http://search.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: Sun, 11 May 2003 23:47:36 EDT From: Spencer48@aol.com Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] SHFL Roger: The formation you describe (and I also see)-resistance peaks with rising troughs-is called an upward triangle. It is normally bullish. However, I wouldn't put too much credence in SHFL's upward triangle formation because it is over such a long period. Rising triangles usually are some indication of bullishness when the formation is over days or weeks (at the most), not-in my experience-over years. (Although, it must be admitted-that the yearly formation does denote bullishness in the stock;however, with the stock's bullishness being over years-and who wants to wait that long?) What I mean "in strong divergence from...?" is that the RSline on Nov 1st was not surmounted (or perhaps even equalled) by the RSline of last week (when SHFL hit resistance again). To me a rising RSline at peaks and troughs in the price (compared with previous peaks and troughs in the stock's price, eg. the two downlegs or uplegs of a double bottom) denote strength. If strength is not indicated at these points, then the stock is not ready to be bought (it may be a weak stock, or the RSline may be signalling that the stock is ripe for a retracement). If it is a retracement only (eg. the Handle of a Cup and Handle), then you should see the stock as revealed in the RSline regather its strength as the Handle proceeds. In that case-assuming the overall Market is okay-the stock should generally be bought on the BreakOut. jans In a message dated 5/11/2003 7:36:48 PM Eastern Daylight Time, roger@tawacentral.net writes: << I do see the 4 weekly peaks that you mention. I see what you mean by the resistance at 25. there also 3 weekly troughs in the same period, and these are rising. Does this mean anything? What do you mean that the rsline was "in strong divergence from its prior resistance peak"? I am looking at the charts on cwhcharts.com, and the rsline's peaks seem to coincide with the price peaks. Also, the rsline last week seemed to be at or making a new high. >> - - - -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, 12 May 2003 01:00:37 -0500 From: "Katherine Malm" Subject: RE: [CANSLIM] SHFL Thanks, Tomas. I think that for the most part, insider activity is a hard nut to crack. Others are likely to give you a different point of view on this one, but I think insider activity is only significant in a couple of ways. First, insiders are going to sell, that's the nature of ownership. They'll sell to rebalance their portfolios, to send Susie to college, to buy a new house, etc. By itself, selling doesn't really mean anything. However, consistent selling at fresh lows is not a good thing. This is one time when you want to see insider selling abate. Second, I am more interested in the trend of insider buying. Say, for example there has been very little insider buying and then suddenly there's a rash of it. The change in tone can be a clue that something is going on. Similarly, buying at new 52 week highs may be an indication that insiders see something of value, despite the fresh highs. All in all, I see this as only a tertiary indicator. All else being equal, if I were trying to decide between 2 stocks, I'd use this only as a tie breaker. Here's one of my favorite insider links: http://insider.thomsonfn.com/tfn/insider.asp?linkcode=7rdcg6divt9fsuu5awkj You might also use the IBD archives to search for articles on insider trading: www.investors.com Katherine - -----Original Message----- From: owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com [mailto:owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com]On Behalf Of Tomas Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2003 9:13 PM To: canslim@lists.xmission.com Subject: RE: [CANSLIM] SHFL Katherine, As always, I like to read your email a few times b/c it has so much valuable information. One question, you mention about not putting too much weight on institional activities. How much weight do you put on the insider trading? I see quite a few CANSLIM stocks that has been going up being sold by insiders. If you see about 10% of stocks own by insiders sold in the last 6 months, do you think twice before considering this stock? tomas - --- Katherine Malm wrote: > > Hi Tomas, Roger, jans, > > I thought it would be appropriate to comment on some > of the figures Tomas > gave in his reply, as he mentions numbers from our > site. > > -On fundamentals: Our CANSLIM Evaluator (CE) is > divided into 2 separate > figures, one for fundamentals (i.e. the drivers of > technical action) and one > for technicals (the price/volume action). For SHFL, > the total of 15.69 is > derived from a technical score of 6.47 (out of 7 > possible) and a fundamental > score of 9.22 (out of 11 possible). That's nothing > to sneeze at, but I > wouldn't want to mislead anybody into thinking that > all 15.69 points were > derived from fundamentals alone. Part of our > reasoning for having these two > separate components is to be sure that a stock has a > good combination of > *both* fundamental and technical attributes at the > same time. That helps > avoid stocks that are strong one way or the other, > but not in tandem. In > comparison to the other 44 stocks in the industry, > SHFL rates first in > fundamentals, a hair better than PENN. It ranks 5th > in overall technical > condition. It's rare to find stocks that get a > "perfect" fundamental score. > In SHFL's case, it looses some points due to the > slight deceleration in > sales and earnings growth rates and due to the net > shares sold by > institutions which both Roger and Tomas mentioned. > > -On the chart: It is true that SHFL originally set > up in a cup with handle > pattern back in March. It appeared on one of our > watchlists 3/31 and set up > with the pivot as you described: > > http://www.cwhcharts.com/katherine/SHFL033103.JPG > > However, it did not breakout at that time. You can > see a close up of the > action shortly after. While it tried to break free, > it did not do so on > volume, so effectively, the right side of the cup > continued to form: > > http://www.cwhcharts.com/katherine/SHFLSincePivot0303.JPG > > In general, I don't much like the volume on the > right side of the > continuation of the cup. It looks wedge-like to me > and I think SHFL may need > to spend some time in the current handle to properly > shake out that lousy > action in the base. It might be a bit easier to see > in a weekly chart: > > http://www.cwhcharts.com/katherine/SHFL050903Wkly.JPG > (Note: current pivot > is at 24.85) > > > -General comments: When I first took a look at SHFL > this morning, I truly > expected to see the industry action rolling over. As > jans mentioned, this > group has been strong in the last couple of years > and the odds of an > industry staying at the top after such a long time > is rather low. However, > when I took a look at the industry action as a whole > and at the charts of > the stocks within the industry, I noticed that for > the most part, most of > the stocks have been oscillating sideways for quite > a while. That *could* > very well indicate a shoring up for another move up. > Looking at the chart of > the industry technicals and rank as a whole, there's > certainly evidence that > the group is turning back *up* rather than rolling > over and heading down: > > http://www.cwhcharts.com/katherine/LeisureGaming050903.JPG > > The popularity of gambling escapes me, so I can't > say that this group has > ever interested me enough to dive into the details, > but technically and > fundamentally, there seems to be some promise in the > group. Here's one last > look at the distribution of the group across the CE > Zone Map: > > http://www.cwhcharts.com/katherine/LeisureGamingMap050903.JPG > > This shows that there are quite a few stocks with > good CANSLIM > characteristics, i.e. a good combo of both > fundamentals and technical, as > the number of stocks in the green zone area are > pretty impressive. > > Katherine > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com > [mailto:owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com]On Behalf > Of Tomas > Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2003 1:52 PM > To: canslim@lists.xmission.com > Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] SHFL > > > Roger, Jans, > > I believe Roger is looking at the institutional > ownership activities for the stock when he commented > about the institional thing. > > http://moneycentral.msn.com/investor/invsub/ownership/ownership.asp?Symbol=s > hfl > > I cannot comment on the RS lines from Jans' input > since I don't have much experience reading the RS > line. > > The fundies for SHFL looks good. 15.69 out of 18 > (very good) for the CS evaluator. The zone is green > 4-4. The institional ownership looks too high ~98%. > Anyone want to correct me on this opinion? > > Looking at the chart, left side of the cup starts at > 11/4/02 and right side of the cup is at 3/21/03 > at $21.98. Handle is from 3/22 to 4/29. Handle > trended down, which is good. BO is on 4/30 > with not as much volume as I would have liked. But > big volume two days later. > > If you agreen with the CwH dates, then the stock is > a > little extended. > > Just my $.02 > tomas > > > --- Spencer48@aol.com wrote: > > Roger, > > > > What gives you the clue that "...institutions > > seem to be getting out." > > The number of funds invested in SHFL, according to > > Daily Graphs Online, from > > June/02 to March/03 is 81->98 (although in Dec. it > > was 99). Is this the only > > signal that you see? > > > > In my opinion I wouldn't invest in SHFL for > > these reasons: 1) I believe > > strength of the Leisure/Gaming Equip. industry is > > beginning to end; its power > > was shown in the past few months and now-in my > > opinion-it's going to > > dissipate. The stocks in this group are already > > surfeited and ready to > > digest their gains. The up and coming industries, > I > > believe, will have to do > > with Technology and Medical stocks. > > > > Also, specifically to SHFL, notice the four > > weakly peaks it has made > > since May/01. Around 25 seems to be the > resistance > > point. And the > > RelativeStrengthLine does not indicate that the > > stock is strong enough to > > break the resistance. I conclude this because: > > Notice that the previous > > peak's RSL was in strong divergence from its prior > > resistance peak (in early > > Nov./02). > > > > However, in last week's price peak (at the > > resistance) RSL is either > > below or just barely above (it is certainly not > > showing the kind of strength > > the previous RSL showed at Nov/02's resistance > > point). > > > > jans > === message truncated === __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. http://search.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. - - - -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, 12 May 2003 02:02:37 -0500 From: "Duane Runnels" Subject: [CANSLIM] Institutional Ownership This is a multi-part message in MIME format. - ------=_NextPart_000_001E_01C3182A.8F6D3DA0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Katherine, While I understand "I" is not a deal breaker, is there some level of = institutional or Mutual Fund ownership that would scare you from buying = a particular stock? For instance, tonight I was looking at some = prospects, but shied away from them when I saw IO > 80%. Thanks for your perspective and thoughtful insight. - ------=_NextPart_000_001E_01C3182A.8F6D3DA0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Katherine,
 
While I understand "I" is not a = deal=20 breaker, is there some level of institutional or Mutual Fund ownership = that=20 would scare you from buying a particular stock?  For instance, = tonight I=20 was looking at some prospects, but shied away from them when I saw IO = >=20 80%.
Thanks for your perspective and = thoughtful=20 insight.
- ------=_NextPart_000_001E_01C3182A.8F6D3DA0-- - - - -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, 12 May 2003 02:23:45 -0500 From: "Katherine Malm" Subject: RE: [CANSLIM] Institutional Ownership This is a multi-part message in MIME format. - ------=_NextPart_000_000D_01C3182D.84249210 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Duane, I'll have to be honest and say "no." I've researched WON's writings on this for some time and my conclusion is that he believes that there isn't any particular percentage ownership that is "good" or "bad." My general take is that he is far more interested in the *trend* of ownership, the "quality" of ownership and the fact that there are "at least a few " institutional owners. All that is just a general indication that the underlying business is attractive enough that the big boys want in on the act. In general, WON seems to focus more on mutual fund ownership than that larger generic "institutional ownership" grouping that so many web sites feature. That makes it a tough measurement unless you have access to DGO data, where their analysts are able to break down the numbers into more meaningful sub groupings of institutional owners. Another thing to consider is that percentage ownership changes depending on how many shares are outstanding and/or in the float. Companies change their equity structure constantly either by issuing more shares in primary offerings, retiring stock, issuing more debt, etc. When it boils down to it, the price/volume action and fundamental track record is far more meaningful. While I'm much more interested in the technical and fundamental condition of the stock than I am in an iffy measurement like this, that's not true of all CANSLIMers. For example, Mark Boucher, who is a CANSLIMer at heart (though he has his own approach based on those roots), limits his candidates to those with 10-30% ownership. Maybe when you're running a billion dollar hedge fund that's a big deal, but for the rest of us, I'm not sure that it makes much difference. At the same time, while I say I don't pay much attention to percentage ownership, I *do* tend to prefer "undiscovered gems." I click my heals when I find a new company that's never crossed my radar and that I've never seen mentioned in an article. For the most part, those *tend* to have low institutional ownership, but that's not what draws me to them in the first place. Katherine -----Original Message----- From: owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com [mailto:owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com]On Behalf Of Duane Runnels Sent: Monday, May 12, 2003 1:03 AM To: canslim@lists.xmission.com Subject: [CANSLIM] Institutional Ownership Katherine, While I understand "I" is not a deal breaker, is there some level of institutional or Mutual Fund ownership that would scare you from buying a particular stock? For instance, tonight I was looking at some prospects, but shied away from them when I saw IO > 80%. Thanks for your perspective and thoughtful insight. - ------=_NextPart_000_000D_01C3182D.84249210 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Duane,
 
I'll have to be honest and say = "no." I've=20 researched WON's writings on this for some time and my conclusion is = that he=20 believes that there isn't any particular percentage ownership that is = "good" or=20 "bad." My general take is that he is far more interested in the *trend* = of=20 ownership, the "quality" of ownership and the fact that there are "at = least a=20 few " institutional owners. All that is just a general indication that = the=20 underlying business is attractive enough that the big boys want in on = the act.=20 In general, WON seems to focus more on mutual fund ownership than that = larger=20 generic "institutional ownership" grouping that so many web sites = feature. That=20 makes it a tough measurement unless you have access to DGO data, where = their=20 analysts are able to break down the numbers into more meaningful sub = groupings=20 of institutional owners.
 
Another thing to consider is that = percentage=20 ownership changes depending on how many shares are outstanding and/or in = the=20 float. Companies change their equity structure constantly either by = issuing more=20 shares in primary offerings, retiring stock, issuing more debt, etc. = When it=20 boils down to it, the price/volume action and fundamental track record = is far=20 more meaningful.
 
While I'm much more interested in = the=20 technical and fundamental condition of the stock than I am in an iffy=20 measurement like this, that's not true of all CANSLIMers. For example, = Mark=20 Boucher, who is a CANSLIMer at heart (though he has his own approach = based on=20 those roots), limits his candidates to those with 10-30% ownership. = Maybe when=20 you're running a billion dollar hedge fund that's a big deal, but for = the rest=20 of us, I'm not sure that it makes much difference.
 
At the same time, while I say I = don't pay=20 much attention to percentage ownership, I *do* tend to prefer = "undiscovered=20 gems." I click my heals when I find a new company that's never crossed = my radar=20 and that I've never seen mentioned in an article. For the most part, = those=20 *tend* to have low institutional ownership, but that's not what draws me = to them=20 in the first place.
 
Katherine
-----Original Message-----
From:=20 owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com=20 [mailto:owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com]On Behalf Of Duane=20 Runnels
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2003 1:03 AM
To:=20 canslim@lists.xmission.com
Subject: [CANSLIM] Institutional=20 Ownership

Katherine,
 
While I understand "I" is not = a deal=20 breaker, is there some level of institutional or Mutual Fund ownership = that=20 would scare you from buying a particular stock?  For instance, = tonight I=20 was looking at some prospects, but shied away from them when I saw IO = >=20 80%.
Thanks for your perspective = and=20 thoughtful insight.
- ------=_NextPart_000_000D_01C3182D.84249210-- - - - -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 #3308 ****************************** 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.