From: owner-canslim-digest@lists.xmission.com (canslim-digest) To: canslim-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: canslim-digest V2 #362 Reply-To: canslim Sender: owner-canslim-digest@lists.xmission.com Errors-To: owner-canslim-digest@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes canslim-digest Wednesday, August 19 1998 Volume 02 : Number 362 In this issue: Re: [CANSLIM] Did we get the follow through? Re: [CANSLIM] Did we get the follow through? Re: [CANSLIM] Did we get the follow through? Re: [CANSLIM] Did we get the follow through? [CANSLIM] "M" [CANSLIM] More noise on oils and Russia Re: [CANSLIM] Did we get the follow through? Re: [CANSLIM] "M" Re: [CANSLIM] Did we get the follow through? [CANSLIM] Some picks for bullish CANSLIMers RE: [CANSLIM] Some picks for bullish CANSLIMers [CANSLIM] Emerging leaders? Re: [CANSLIM] Some picks for bullish CANSLIMers Re: [CANSLIM] Some picks for bullish CANSLIMers RE: [CANSLIM] Some picks for bullish CANSLIMers Re: [CANSLIM] Some picks for bullish CANSLIMers Re: [CANSLIM] Connie Mack Re: [CANSLIM] Some picks for bullish CANSLIMers RE: [CANSLIM] Some picks for bullish CANSLIMers Re: [CANSLIM] Did we get the follow through? Re: [CANSLIM] Some picks for bullish CANSLIMers RE: [CANSLIM] Some picks for bullish CANSLIMers RE: [CANSLIM] Some picks for bullish CANSLIMers [CANSLIM] NonCanslim - Weird Day - Groups Moving ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 16:44:46 -0700 (PDT) From: Anindo Majumdar Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Did we get the follow through? How about YHOO, AOL, AMZN, INKT, RMBS, INTC, ALTR and any of the leading semis ? Anindo > > OK now that we have the follow thru, is there anything out there worth buying? > The charts of everything I am watching with the exception of a few "mattress > stuffers" have been ripped to shreds. I hesitate to call anything properly > "based". I will be buying some Mattress Stuffers tomorrow anyway, probably > DELL, CSCO, HD, and/or PFE. > > At 07:07 PM 8/18/98 -0400, you wrote: > >At 11:14 AM 8/18/98 -0700, you wrote: > >> > >>< >>day. > >>Same applies today, but of course we still have a bit to go before the > >>close. > >>Today seems like the best chance thus far at achieving the follow > >>through > >>day.>> > >> > >>Are you using intraday low or closing low? > >> > >>--Db > > > >Depends upon the Index used. I should have specified. > >The OTC put in a closing low on 8/4/98. (Today is day 10) > >Intraday low on 8/5/98. (Today is day 9) > >Neither were surpased by setting lower lows. > >I don't have a read on the final volume yet today, but it appeared around > >1PM that it should be able to make the higher than yesterday figure. > > > >The DOW is a bit trickier, but probably not necessary under WON's > >definition since at least one of the major indexes did complete the pattern. > > > >Or have I goofed immensely? > > > >Frank Wolynski > > > > Tim Fisher, 1995 President, Pacific Fishery Biologists > Ore-ROCK-On Rockhounding Web Site > PFB Information > mailto:tim@OreRockOn.com > WWW http://OreRockOn.com > > - > > - - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 16:52:28 -0700 (PDT) From: dbphoenix Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Did we get the follow through? <> Don't know that you've "goofed", but at the risk of getting into another argument, I'd like a little more assurance here. No harm in giving the other major averages a few more days. The window will still be open, and we'll know just how much of today's activity was just short-covering. I'd also like to see the Naz get through resistance at 1865-70. And I'm disappointed that the correction didn't seem to have accomplished much, if this is all there is to it. - --Db _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com - - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 20:27:02 -0400 From: "Frank V. Wolynski" Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Did we get the follow through? At 16:52 8/18/98 -0700, you wrote: ><definition since at least one of the major indexes did complete the >pattern. > >Or have I goofed immensely?>> > >Don't know that you've "goofed", but at the risk of getting into >another argument, I'd like a little more assurance here. No harm in >giving the other major averages a few more days. The window will >still be open, and we'll know just how much of today's activity was >just short-covering. I'd also like to see the Naz get through >resistance at 1865-70. And I'm disappointed that the correction >didn't seem to have accomplished much, if this is all there is to it. > >--Db My gut agrees 100%. I've been anticipating a short covering rally. Like Tim, everything I've been looking at is really broken or seems of the 'Usual Suspect' category, IE, Oils and Semi's. I don't like the Pollution Group much, but you gotta admire SRCL's chart, considering what the market has been signaling. Don't know the fundies. Frank Wolynski (Still sidelined for now.) - - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 17:32:07 -0700 From: Tim Fisher Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Did we get the follow through? Um, lessee, none of them are even remotely CANSLIM? At 04:44 PM 8/18/98 -0700, you wrote: >How about YHOO, AOL, AMZN, INKT, RMBS, INTC, ALTR and any of the leading >semis ? > >Anindo >> >> OK now that we have the follow thru, is there anything out there worth buying? >> The charts of everything I am watching with the exception of a few "mattress >> stuffers" have been ripped to shreds. I hesitate to call anything properly >> "based". I will be buying some Mattress Stuffers tomorrow anyway, probably >> DELL, CSCO, HD, and/or PFE. >> Tim Fisher, 1995 President, Pacific Fishery Biologists Ore-ROCK-On Rockhounding Web Site PFB Information mailto:tim@OreRockOn.com WWW http://OreRockOn.com - - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 20:54:11 -0400 From: Jeffry White <"postwhit@sover.net"@sover.net> Subject: [CANSLIM] "M" I use the intraday low. Today we followed through off lows in all major indices within the 3-10 day window, day 9 in the OTC, day 5 in the SP, NYSE and DOW. I'll be looking around to see whether something other than soap, utilities, etc. are moving. But I'll be also be looking to see where we are on the sentiment side with Thursday's numbers. Need to see how this thing behaves before rushing out on margin and then some (options). Oh for the day when I can just play the indices directly... My view is you've got to place the follow through in context with sentiment and developing leadership candidates. Also you need to keep an eye on breadth. Could be a move of short duration, failing as we create the middle of Mr. Woodward's "W" or hit some resistance at some EMA something-or-other. Alot like what we saw back in November and December of last year. What matters is the quality and impressiveness of the emerging leaders, sentiment as we start to move and breadth, IMO. Thanks for looking into the two 1% on "heavy volume" thing, Dan. I found it unusual when I read it and don't think it's WON, don't think it's CANSLIM, and don't thing it's necessary to a fair reading of Market Direction. A paintbar study would be most helpful for me if you could run it back through 1997. Jeff - - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 23:04:50 -0400 From: "Tom Worley" Subject: [CANSLIM] More noise on oils and Russia Hate to keep sounding pessimistic, but couldn't help but notice that today (after some real strength in both the Asian, European and US mkts) Venezuela once again crashed. The high of the day (3977) was only 10 pts above the 12 month low, and the low was about a 3% drop for the day, finishing at down 118 pts (-2.98%) at 3855 (the prior 12 month low was 3967). The promised production cuts by producer nations have failed to put a dent in the glut of cheap oil, and there is evidence of continued crude inventory accumulation by US refiners at cheap prices. Russia is also yet to find a bottom, their junk bonds are still dropping (tho a nice play for high risk day traders, could have bot today at 31 and sold at 36, with yields in the 34% range if you want to gamble on holding to maturity a few years out). Their index dropped another 10.9 pts (-5.2%) to close 197.37. And to think just a few weeks ago I was watching them break 300 to the downside - over 33% drop in just several weeks! Now that's a correction we can rank as bearish! Don't overlook the heavy weight the Russian mkt places on the German exchange, one of the most important mkts in the European community. While Germany recovered 2% today, France recovered 3.5% by comparison. The hot spots (Japan, Russia, Venezuela, S. Africa, just to name a few) are still regional, unfortunately the regions pretty much cover the globe. Tom W - - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 21:48:41 -0800 From: "Patrick Wahl" Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Did we get the follow through? From: Anindo Majumdar Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Did we get the follow through? > How about YHOO, AOL, AMZN, INKT, RMBS, INTC, ALTR and any of the leading > semis ? Isn't "leading semis" one of those oxymoron terms? That group has been dead for many months. - - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 21:48:41 -0800 From: "Patrick Wahl" Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] "M" > Thanks for looking into the two 1% on "heavy volume" thing, Dan. I > found it unusual when I read it and don't think it's WON, don't think > it's CANSLIM, and don't thing it's necessary to a fair reading of Market > Direction. A paintbar study would be most helpful for me if you could > run it back through 1997. I could put a chart of this up on my page if you are interested, but I need an exact definition of how to define the paint bars. Something like - IF low is at lowest in 50 days, followed by two days within a 9 day window where price is up one percent on a close to close basis, with volume 10 percent greater than a 20 day volume average. I just picked some numbers out of a hat, but if you think this would be useful, let me know, fill in the definition, and I'll try to code something where it will plot the occurrences of these situations. I might not be able to get to it for a few days. - - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 21:48:41 -0800 From: "Patrick Wahl" Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Did we get the follow through? > OK now that we have the follow thru, is there anything out there worth buying? > The charts of everything I am watching with the exception of a few "mattress > stuffers" have been ripped to shreds. I hesitate to call anything properly > "based". I will be buying some Mattress Stuffers tomorrow anyway, probably > DELL, CSCO, HD, and/or PFE. Take a look at the charts of SEIC and Consolidated Graphics (CGX) and see if either one looks interesting. - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 00:13:38 -0400 From: "Tom Worley" Subject: [CANSLIM] Some picks for bullish CANSLIMers For a variety of reasons (tired of reading about all the shorting opportunities; my lack of time/ability to get my home page up and running; my call on a bottom in the market a week ago; a growing interest in the new leadership and stocks worth buying; a willingness on the part of some members to perceive me as either non-CANSLIM or only interested in low priced stocks; a lack of sharing by those members that are purportedly pure CANSLIM and willing to "teach" yet never share their methodology or picks; a hope we can return this group to a true CANSLIM discussion site before it is closed down for good; yada yada yada) I will break my silence and offer a few CANSLIM style stocks for those few remaining members that are not looking for shorting opportunities or willing to consider "value investing", but rather joined this site to learn and share more about WON's version of CANSLIM. Please understand this is a sampling from my current "watch" list, which has been expanding rather quickly in the past few days. By no means am I warranting that any stock listed here is a current buy, only that it deserves to be "watched". And I also certify that I do not currently own a single share of these stocks, I am not listing any that I do own. Thus I have no vested interest in what you do with this post or the stocks listed herein. All data is taken from Daily Graphs Online as of 8/18, there has been no further research or analysis, including Technical Analysis. That is all up to you. Symbol RS EPS A/D Time u/d Funds Mgmt CPRT 92 91 B A 1.7 22% 37% AVTC 97 91 A A 0.9 39% 26% CBIZ 98 96 B A 2.0 15% 35% MDC 97 96 A A 1.6 42% 36% INSUA 97 75 B A 1.0 24% ---- SAH 98 88 A A 2.7 17% 1% USCS 93 93 A A 1.9 22% ---- TSFW 98 98 B A 1.9 16% 49% HWLD 95 96 A A 3.4 19% 70% This is not an all inclusive list, rather intended to be a sampler to show that those that continue to believe this is a continuing bull market, albeit a bearish correction coming to an end, can find solid CANSLIM stocks to discuss. Those that wish to exclude me from my right of free speech in this group need only attack me personally, and I will once again resume my vow of silence. On the other hand, for the remaining CANSLIMers in the group, bear in mind that I have only looked at stocks in the low teens to the low 20s in price, I do suspect equally quality picks/watch stocks can be found in higher priced arenas. Hope this sets this group back on a serious CANSLIM style discussion group. Tom W - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 05:16:09 -0400 From: "Richard Jenkins" Subject: RE: [CANSLIM] Some picks for bullish CANSLIMers > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com > [mailto:owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com]On Behalf Of Tom Worley > Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 1998 12:14 AM > To: canslim@xmission.com > Subject: [CANSLIM] Some picks for bullish CANSLIMers > > > > Hope this sets this group back on a serious CANSLIM style discussion > group. > > Tom W > Welcome back, TOM. Your comments are a very welcome addition to the group! I, too, have found vertually nothing of interest here lately and was considering moving on, until your post. - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 06:26:49 -0400 From: Jeffry White <"postwhit@sover.net"@sover.net> Subject: [CANSLIM] Emerging leaders? A few I happened to notice which may fit the mold of emerging leadership stocks on yesterday's follow through: CGX EMC TAN SEIC Jeff - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 06:58:46 -0400 From: "Frank V. Wolynski" Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Some picks for bullish CANSLIMers At 00:13 8/19/98 -0400, you wrote: >For a variety of reasons (tired of reading about all the shorting >opportunities; ...SNIPED... > but rather joined this site to learn and share more about WON's version of >CANSLIM. > ...SNIPED... > >Hope this sets this group back on a serious CANSLIM style discussion >group. > >Tom W > Not desiring to pick an argument, but shorting is very much a part of canslim as I remember reading it in HTMMIS. If I personally have deviated from CANSLIM an intolerable amount, please say so directly and clearly. If not, or my deviations have been tolerable, your silence will also send the appropriate message. This group gets off the subject on many occassions and I find my freedom of selecting 'next message' quite sufficient to get back to the matter at hand. Personally I enjoy the different perspectives, and interpretations of market/stock phenomena. I don't enjoy the personal attacks, however, 'next message' isn't quite as effective in getting past those. Best Regards, Frank Wolynski - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 07:36:49 -0400 From: "Tom Worley" Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Some picks for bullish CANSLIMers Frank, I'm not attacking anyone in particular, but just desirous of getting this group back to being a CANSLIM site, not a general investment discussion site, before it's too late and we lose it. There are plenty of places on the net where general investment stuff can be discussed, but very few that are established and intended to be pure CANSLIM. This was once one of them. As to shorting being "very much" a part of CANSLIM, if you can point me to the pages in HTMMIS, I'll go back and reread it. But as my aging memory serves me, WON does not advocate shorting as a general practice, nor does he advocate shorting in a bull mkt, and we have yet to enter into a bear mkt, despite some painful corrections. You can argue that some sectors have been in a bear mkt, but overall we are still in a bull mkt. Tom W - -----Original Message----- From: Frank V. Wolynski To: canslim@lists.xmission.com Date: Wednesday, August 19, 1998 7:03 AM Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Some picks for bullish CANSLIMers >At 00:13 8/19/98 -0400, you wrote: >>For a variety of reasons (tired of reading about all the shorting >>opportunities; >...SNIPED... >> but rather joined this site to learn and share more about WON's version of >>CANSLIM. >> >...SNIPED... >> >>Hope this sets this group back on a serious CANSLIM style discussion >>group. >> >>Tom W >> > >Not desiring to pick an argument, but shorting is very much a part of >canslim as I remember reading it in HTMMIS. If I personally have deviated >from CANSLIM an intolerable amount, please say so directly and clearly. If >not, or my deviations have been tolerable, your silence will also send the >appropriate message. > >This group gets off the subject on many occassions and I find my freedom of >selecting 'next message' quite sufficient to get back to the matter at hand. > >Personally I enjoy the different perspectives, and interpretations of >market/stock phenomena. I don't enjoy the personal attacks, however, 'next >message' isn't quite as effective in getting past those. > >Best Regards, >Frank Wolynski > > >- > - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 06:01:22 -0600 From: "Dan Sutton" Subject: RE: [CANSLIM] Some picks for bullish CANSLIMers I agree with Frank in that the different perspectives presented on this list are what make it an educational tool. There are very few things in this world that should be viewed from only one, precise perspective. Even O'Neill has had trouble investing and making money using precise methods that he developed. HGS, shorting and all the other deviations from a pure CANSLIM method do in fact warrant being read and analyzed. I think that posting of penny stock information could be considered non-CANSLIM as well, yet there have been or two of those that were worthy of further review. Disagreement is a normal learning tool and can certainly be handled in a professional manner without the need for flaming. If a particular note disagrees with your understanding, belief or interpretation of the method then delete it and get on with life. The only post's I see that are not worthy of the bandwidth being wasted on them are the ridiculous and childish personal attacks that some people here feel the need to display publicly. I don't have a problem with any intelligent posting as long as it helps me make money, the infantile bickering between "grownups" is far more irritating than any stock selection or discussion of investing ideas...no matter how far those ideas deviate from a precise definition of CANSLIM. I hope everyone from this point forward can control themselves enough to only share investing ideas. - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 08:18:35 -0400 From: "Tom Worley" Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Some picks for bullish CANSLIMers Dan, I never suggested that other topics than CANSLIM are not worthy of discussion, just that this site was established to be a CANSLIM site. Had Jeff Salisbury wished to develop it as an educational tool, or a general investment discussion site, then those non CS topics would be perfectly appropriate. I joined this group to learn more about, and improve my skills in using, CANSLIM. In any case, I took my shot at changing things back to the original goal of this site. Even shared part of my watch list, complete with CS data, something I haven't seen done here in some time. But if the group would rather go discuss other things, so be it. At least I know I made one final attempt. The members will have to decide where they want this site to go, as for me I'm going to check out some CANSLIM sites. Tom W - -----Original Message----- From: Dan Sutton To: canslim@lists.xmission.com Date: Wednesday, August 19, 1998 8:02 AM Subject: RE: [CANSLIM] Some picks for bullish CANSLIMers >I agree with Frank in that the different perspectives presented on this list >are what make it an educational tool. There are very few things in this >world that should be viewed from only one, precise perspective. Even O'Neill >has had trouble investing and making money using precise methods that he >developed. HGS, shorting and all the other deviations from a pure CANSLIM >method do in fact warrant being read and analyzed. I think that posting of >penny stock information could be considered non-CANSLIM as well, yet there >have been or two of those that were worthy of further review. Disagreement >is a normal learning tool and can certainly be handled in a professional >manner without the need for flaming. If a particular note disagrees with >your understanding, belief or interpretation of the method then delete it >and get on with life. > >The only post's I see that are not worthy of the bandwidth being wasted on >them are the ridiculous and childish personal attacks that some people here >feel the need to display publicly. I don't have a problem with any >intelligent posting as long as it helps me make money, the infantile >bickering between "grownups" is far more irritating than any stock selection >or discussion of investing ideas...no matter how far those ideas deviate >from a precise definition of CANSLIM. > >I hope everyone from this point forward can control themselves enough to >only share investing ideas. > > >- > - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 08:27:16 -0400 From: baker Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Connie Mack how do you get a hold of connie? what is his email address? please reply. frank baker Connie Mack Rea wrote: > Members-- > > Though I have not posted in a couple of months, I have not ignored the > several who still correspond privately and have not forgotten the many > others. > > Dave's post yesterday about the emphasis on market philosophy (and > psychology) and the shallowness of the talk prompted me to say what I > have been saying in private correspondence. > > Those whom I speak with I have advised to be, at minimum, half in cash, > and I have suggested that one ought to be 75 to 100% in cash. Their > position is so because they have been letting technical indicators do > the talking. Most of us have a mind fairly well integrated on one side, > the side we attend to in everyday life, but fragmented on the other > side, the side that trades and invests. > > No case is trivial for those having stayed the market too long, and even > the trivial case can result in agony; but the internal conflict on the > fragmented side is always confusing and, in the case of investing, > sinister as well as confusing for the investor. > > DB is smart enough, but doesn't know enough. His talk is academic, > philosophical, and psychological; it is much more puffery than > practical. One can talk "M" and proceed on through the table of > contents of O'Neill's work, but ultimately--from what posts I have > seen--no one thoroughly understands "M" (or "N," "O," "P," or "Q"). > > Did I not see DB say recently to "wait for the bottom" and look for an > "exhaustion" day? That is of little consolation to the investor who is > probably down 25% already. Perhaps his broker or his accountant will > credit those academic, philosophic, and psychological musings onto the > right side of your ledger. > > If "M" is not a technical calculation, it is a tardy calculation. It is > most like the infamous and ephemeral value. I note that members are > reading technical books. Ought this reading not seem a bit ironical > amidst the circumscription of "M"? > > DB has suggested a shorting thread. Does not shorting, too, shed light > on what is ironical? Shorting is primarily a trader's delight, a > technical delight. To suggest that strictly CS investors would even > tempt themselves to shorting is unthinkable. Shorting and the > technician are inseparable; shorting is the last thing a trader learns > the intricacies of. Too, where is that CS purity so much advocated? > Others who have been more eclectic toward the market were disparaged for > their impurity. > > These impure ones whom I mentioned before--those who felt as if they > were not welcome--are awaiting DB's "bottom" and "exhaustion" day. But > they are awaiting in varying and favorable ratios of cash and equity. > And it will their technical indicators that will tell them the opportune > moment of entry. > > That which differentiates between a man who is smart enough and a man > who is smart enough and also knows enough is some like the difference > between knowledge and wisdom. The man who is both smart and knowing may > dispense with supports on which other minds rely. The smart man, on the > other hand, dispenses with nothing; he details the academically and > philosophically innocuous, and footnotes them so that he may not appear > as a solitary believer. > > Reflection on the market can not get to work unless some unevenness > exists for it to get a purchase on. What kind of gnomic purity dictates > that one never divulges what he is doing in his own account? What > perverse theories of obligation and sanctity permit him to withhold his > own prospective trades? I do not wish to see a man moving through the > site like an afreet weighted down with an epidermis of books and > footnotes, each with an affidavit confirming he is a legitimate investor > or trader. > > Until I know that a man trades at least one $100,000 account, I consider > his reluctance to tell me of his stocks in prospect and stocks that he > "will" buy with the same indifference as I do my cat who won't tell me > how he catches mice. Is this man not a Guildenstern who knows the pipes > but cannot pluck out the heart of the mystery? > > All the hoary sterile talk about "M," philosophy, and psychology are > mostly examples of semantic viscosity that are pretty sounding but are a > sure fire way to reduce capital and shun profits in a correcting > market. The electrifying market of the last few days can make your hair > stand up like a 400 volt inquisitive cat that has just changed polarity. > > Do not mistake my comment as a repudication of CS; take it rather as a > comment on the assumption that CS needs a complementary strategy to > consistently conserve capital and make money. If you think that having > come upon CS is a presumptive fact and good fortune, you will press your > arrival for more than it's worth. You may think your arrival both > miracle and sacrament; but you are about to be efficiently and assuredly > separated from your money and will have to work doubly hard to recover. > E.g., if your $50 stock goes to $25, you have lost 50%. But to recover > you will have to see the stock rise 100%. > > When I get an SOS from a member, I don't consider it germane to ask in > what language it is expressed. But it is germane to ask under what > circumstances and with what principles he has progressed to his crisis. > Some members have sent out an SOS and have been told to watch for the > bottom and an exhaustion day, which is a knock-off of the pis aller to > keep your head down and your butt covered. > > This advice should taboo every member, for you have not been told the > truth. > > Members might infer themselves in this metaphor: Not every tree would be > worse off to find itself a Stradivarius or just a banjo. But the tree > might be angered to find itself a cardboard box or a toothpick. > > Respectfully, > > Connie Mack > > - - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 05:37:38 -0700 (PDT) From: TM Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Some picks for bullish CANSLIMers "As to shorting being "very much" a part of CANSLIM, if you can point me to the pages in HTMMIS, I'll go back and reread it." I have the 2nd edition of HTMMIS right here. He talks about shorting on pages 113-114. At the satellite conference, the topic came up. WON wants to be in the market as much as possible and uses shorting as a technique. He says it's risky, especially for people without lots of experience, and he doesn't usually talk about it with beginners. Identifying pure CANSLIM, it seems, makes up roughly the first third of HTMMIS. The rest of the book seems to be the when tos, should yous, and how tos. IMHO, HTMMIS is bigger than CANSLIM. Without sections 2 and 3, I wouldn't have a clue about what to do. As far as a learning tool, I can't even begin to say how valuable the postings are - both in content and teaching styles. TM - ---Tom Worley wrote: > > Frank, > I'm not attacking anyone in particular, but just desirous of getting > this group back to being a CANSLIM site, not a general investment > discussion site, before it's too late and we lose it. There are plenty > of places on the net where general investment stuff can be discussed, > but very few that are established and intended to be pure CANSLIM. > This was once one of them. > > As to shorting being "very much" a part of CANSLIM, if you can point > me to the pages in HTMMIS, I'll go back and reread it. But as my aging > memory serves me, WON does not advocate shorting as a general > practice, nor does he advocate shorting in a bull mkt, and we have yet > to enter into a bear mkt, despite some painful corrections. You can > argue that some sectors have been in a bear mkt, but overall we are > still in a bull mkt. > > Tom W > > -----Original Message----- > From: Frank V. Wolynski > To: canslim@lists.xmission.com > Date: Wednesday, August 19, 1998 7:03 AM > Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Some picks for bullish CANSLIMers > > > >At 00:13 8/19/98 -0400, you wrote: > >>For a variety of reasons (tired of reading about all the shorting > >>opportunities; > >...SNIPED... > >> but rather joined this site to learn and share more about WON's > version of > >>CANSLIM. > >> > >...SNIPED... > >> > >>Hope this sets this group back on a serious CANSLIM style discussion > >>group. > >> > >>Tom W > >> > > > >Not desiring to pick an argument, but shorting is very much a part of > >canslim as I remember reading it in HTMMIS. If I personally have > deviated > >from CANSLIM an intolerable amount, please say so directly and > clearly. If > >not, or my deviations have been tolerable, your silence will also > send the > >appropriate message. > > > >This group gets off the subject on many occassions and I find my > freedom of > >selecting 'next message' quite sufficient to get back to the matter > at hand. > > > >Personally I enjoy the different perspectives, and interpretations of > >market/stock phenomena. I don't enjoy the personal attacks, however, > 'next > >message' isn't quite as effective in getting past those. > > > >Best Regards, > >Frank Wolynski > > > > > >- > > > > > - > > _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 05:44:36 -0700 From: Mike Lucero Subject: RE: [CANSLIM] Some picks for bullish CANSLIMers Here are some with high EPS, RS, and GRS, greater than $20, and >200,000 ADV. EPS/RS/GRS A/D U/D Funds ATI 98/95/98 B 1.3 16 APCC 90/86/82 B 1.3 18 CAH 91/91/80 A 1.4 27 INSS 99/97/88 B 1.5 20 PWJ 85/96/89 A 1.7 13 PVN 93/97/95 B 1.2 26 SEBL 84/90/90 B 1.8 18 UIS 76/97/93 B 2.0 20 WAG 83/94/91 B 1.4 09 Mike On Tuesday, August 18, 1998 9:14 PM, Tom Worley [SMTP:stkguru@netside.net] wrote: > For a variety of reasons (tired of reading about all the shorting > opportunities; my lack of time/ability to get my home page up and > running; my call on a bottom in the market a week ago; a growing > interest in the new leadership and stocks worth buying; a willingness > on the part of some members to perceive me as either non-CANSLIM or > only interested in low priced stocks; a lack of sharing by those > members that are purportedly pure CANSLIM and willing to "teach" yet > never share their methodology or picks; a hope we can return this > group to a true CANSLIM discussion site before it is closed down for > good; yada yada yada) I will break my silence and offer a few CANSLIM > style stocks for those few remaining members that are not looking for > shorting opportunities or willing to consider "value investing", but > rather joined this site to learn and share more about WON's version of > CANSLIM. > > Please understand this is a sampling from my current "watch" list, > which has been expanding rather quickly in the past few days. By no > means am I warranting that any stock listed here is a current buy, > only that it deserves to be "watched". And I also certify that I do > not currently own a single share of these stocks, I am not listing any > that I do own. Thus I have no vested interest in what you do with this > post or the stocks listed herein. All data is taken from Daily Graphs > Online as of 8/18, there has been no further research or analysis, > including Technical Analysis. That is all up to you. > > Symbol RS EPS A/D Time u/d Funds Mgmt > > CPRT 92 91 B A 1.7 22% 37% > AVTC 97 91 A A 0.9 39% 26% > CBIZ 98 96 B A 2.0 15% 35% > MDC 97 96 A A 1.6 42% 36% > INSUA 97 75 B A 1.0 24% ---- > SAH 98 88 A A 2.7 17% 1% > USCS 93 93 A A 1.9 22% ---- > TSFW 98 98 B A 1.9 16% 49% > HWLD 95 96 A A 3.4 19% 70% > > This is not an all inclusive list, rather intended to be a sampler to > show that those that continue to believe this is a continuing bull > market, albeit a bearish correction coming to an end, can find solid > CANSLIM stocks to discuss. Those that wish to exclude me from my right > of free speech in this group need only attack me personally, and I > will once again resume my vow of silence. On the other hand, for the > remaining CANSLIMers in the group, bear in mind that I have only > looked at stocks in the low teens to the low 20s in price, I do > suspect equally quality picks/watch stocks can be found in higher > priced arenas. > > Hope this sets this group back on a serious CANSLIM style discussion > group. > > Tom W > > > > > - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 12:18:00 +0200 From: Johan Van Houtven Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Did we get the follow through? At 04:52 PM 18/08/98 -0700, you wrote: >And I'm disappointed that the correction >didn't seem to have accomplished much, if this is all there is to it. Indeed. IF we get another strong upleg and go to new heights I wonder what it will take for us to get a REAL correction. While lots of stocks have had significant corrections over the last 1 - 9 months, the indexes didn't. With the possible exception of the Russell 2000. I'm also disappointed that the correction wasn't more 'agressive'. Look at those DELL, MSFT, etc holders: "What correction?". End of rambling/noise. Note: Not that I was short or long, I would just like to witness a real serious correction. I know enough about bull markets now, I 'd like to see a bear market. Please? ;^) - -- Johan Van Houtven - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 08:11:34 -0800 From: "Patrick Wahl" Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Some picks for bullish CANSLIMers From: "Tom Worley" To: > As to shorting being "very much" a part of CANSLIM, if you can point > me to the pages in HTMMIS, I'll go back and reread it. But as my aging > memory serves me, WON does not advocate shorting as a general > practice, nor does he advocate shorting in a bull mkt, and we have yet > to enter into a bear mkt, despite some painful corrections. You can > argue that some sectors have been in a bear mkt, but overall we are > still in a bull mkt. If you haven't yet, you might want to pick up a copy of "Market Wizards" by Jack Schwager and read the interview with David Ryan. He is asked about shorting and said O'Neil finds it pretty difficult. - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 08:11:34 -0800 From: "Patrick Wahl" Subject: RE: [CANSLIM] Some picks for bullish CANSLIMers From: "Richard Jenkins" To: > Welcome back, TOM. Your comments are a very welcome addition to the group! > I, too, have found vertually nothing of interest here lately and was > considering moving on, until your post. During this time when there was nothing of interest, how many posts did you contribute? - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 08:25:59 -0800 From: "Patrick Wahl" Subject: RE: [CANSLIM] Some picks for bullish CANSLIMers From: Mike Lucero T > Here are some with high EPS, RS, and GRS, greater than $20, and >200,000 ADV. > EPS/RS/GRS A/D U/D Funds > ATI 98/95/98 B 1.3 16 > APCC 90/86/82 B 1.3 18 I liked most of these, but the chart on APCC looked a bit loose to me. - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 21:57:03 -0400 From: "Frank V. Wolynski" Subject: [CANSLIM] NonCanslim - Weird Day - Groups Moving Number of New Daily Lows not backing off much. Shouldn't they be contracting by now? SOX down almost -5%, whew. Only the Utility Index held above its 20day MOV. OTC Advance/Decline line made a new low. The stocks contained in the IBD 'Stocks with Greatest % Rise in Vol' or the 'Stocks in the News' charts were underwhelming today. Not pretty in my opinion, but you didn't ask. My AIQ scan of the surrogate groups contained an interesting anomoly tonight. Here are the Top price percentage gainers today (in order). Oil & Gas Drilling 5% Oil&Gas-Machinery/Equip 3% Food-Diary Products 3% Oil&Gas-Field Services 2% Metal Ores-Gold/Silver 2% Oil&Gas-US Explo&Prod 2% ....snipped...... approximately 29 more groups were positive today, and the remaining 4-5 Oil&Gas groups were in those 29 groups. Bottom fishers no doubt. Regards, Frank Wolynski - - ------------------------------ End of canslim-digest V2 #362 ***************************** 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.