From: owner-canslim-digest@lists.xmission.com (canslim-digest) To: canslim-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: canslim-digest V2 #435 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 Saturday, November 7 1998 Volume 02 : Number 435 In this issue: Re: [CANSLIM] ACC/Dis Numbers Re: [CANSLIM] internet related issues [CANSLIM] Amen Re: [CANSLIM] Amen Re: [CANSLIM] internet related issues [CANSLIM] internet related issues Re: [CANSLIM] internet related issues [CANSLIM] Internet Related Issues [CANSLIM] General Thoughts and Internet [CANSLIM] General Thoughts and Internet Re: [CANSLIM] Internet Related Issues [CANSLIM] DGO's new highs Re: [CANSLIM] Internet Related Issues Re: [CANSLIM] General Thoughts and Internet Re: [CANSLIM] DGO's new highs Re: [CANSLIM] General Thoughts and Internet [CANSLIM] back to lurking.. Re: [CANSLIM] DGO's new highs Re: [CANSLIM] back to lurking.. Re: [CANSLIM] back to lurking.. Re: [CANSLIM] back to lurking.. Re: [CANSLIM] back to lurking.. [CANSLIM] IBD Industry Groups - 1 Week Performance [CANSLIM] IBD Industry Groups - 4 Week Performance Re: [CANSLIM] Internet Related Issues ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1998 23:22:58 -0800 (PST) From: dbphoenix Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] ACC/Dis Numbers Lookin' good. A/B above 62%. Thanks. - --Db _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com - - ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 07 Nov 1998 10:55:23 +0100 From: Johan Van Houtven Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] internet related issues Tom, ELNK is not CS, but MSPG has a few elements to be considered CSish IMO. Can we honestly ignore the hottest growth area in the world, i.e. the internet. A strict CANSLIMer shouldn't buy these stocks, but he should be following the internet group(s), and looking for the co's that might become CS stocks one day. One would then be prepared to buy the right stocks with the best 'N', and 'E' and 'R' when the time comes. WON says you should read about the New America co's. It is part of CANSLIM. But I agree that that does not mean that you should throw all CS principles overboard and go out and buy every New America co right away. So in a way it is allowable to at least mention some of these companies on a CS board. Unless the CS board states that only stocks can be mentioned when they have all necessary CS elements and technically look ready to pop, so one can place them on a watchlist. People are not talking penny stocks or hyped promotion stocks here. Thank God. That would be completely besides the purpose of the CS mailing list IMO. But I or one am very glad that Frank Wolinsky has posted his opinions and other information about MSPG in the past. Helps a foreigner as me to get a feel for what is brewing re: hot new co's in the USA. Remember I can't get IBD, so I'm pretty happy when people mention co's like MSPG, BRCM (Thx, David Squires), etc. Just my thoughts of course. Worth what you payed for them... At 09:06 PM 06-11-98 -0500, you wrote: >Sadly, this too used to be a CANSLIM board, where discussing a stock >that didn't meet at least the most basic of CANSLIM criteria of RS/EPS >of 80/80 was kinda frowned upon. Ooooopppppsss, there I go again, >getting CANSLIMish. Sorry, guys. It's just that I like to pull up a >Daily Graphs stock of some company being discussed, and find that it >meets at least some of the seven CANSLIM elements. > >Tom W > >-----Original Message----- >From: dbphoenix >To: canslim@lists.xmission.com >Date: Friday, November 06, 1998 1:49 PM >Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] internet related issues > > > ><point >in time. ELNK is purely a technical trade. It has almost zero CANSLIM >characteristics. MSPG has much better CANSLIM features. > >(I'm surprised you would be interested in ELNK since the fundies are >crap, >except for the accelerating revenues. I thought your rules re: >fundamentals >very strict. Something that I respect a lot.)>> > >Everybody acknowledges that none of these stocks are CANSLIM stocks, >but the discussion continues, just the discussion of technical >analysis, daytrading, and various other off-topic subjects continues. >So I'm not uncomfortable following them or discussing them. The only >forum I know of that has fairly rigid standards is the HGS board, so >I'm much more careful what I say there. Johan - - ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 07 Nov 1998 07:07:56 -0500 From: Jeffry White <"postwhit@sover.net"@sover.net> Subject: [CANSLIM] Amen > Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1998 21:06:51 -0500 > From: "Tom Worley" > Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] internet related issues > > Sadly, this too used to be a CANSLIM board, where discussing a stock > that didn't meet at least the most basic of CANSLIM criteria of RS/EPS > of 80/80 was kinda frowned upon. Ooooopppppsss, there I go again, > getting CANSLIMish. Sorry, guys. It's just that I like to pull up a > Daily Graphs stock of some company being discussed, and find that it > meets at least some of the seven CANSLIM elements. > > Tom W > A big "Amen" (or whatever the word is) to that comment, Tom W. Regards. Jeff - - ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1998 06:25:20 -0800 (PST) From: TM Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Amen Jeffry, It looks like the IBD took your postings since July and incorporated them into The Big Picture Commentary on the General Market Sectors page (Nov. 9, paper). IBD seemed to hedge at each moment, although you never wavered. Thank you for keeping us informed; I look forward to your comments and analyze them closely. TM - ---Jeffry White <"postwhit@sover.net"@sover.net> wrote: > > > Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1998 21:06:51 -0500 > > From: "Tom Worley" > > Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] internet related issues > > > > Sadly, this too used to be a CANSLIM board, where discussing a stock > > that didn't meet at least the most basic of CANSLIM criteria of RS/EPS > > of 80/80 was kinda frowned upon. Ooooopppppsss, there I go again, > > getting CANSLIMish. Sorry, guys. It's just that I like to pull up a > > Daily Graphs stock of some company being discussed, and find that it > > meets at least some of the seven CANSLIM elements. > > > > Tom W > > > > A big "Amen" (or whatever the word is) to that comment, Tom W. > > Regards. > > Jeff > > - > > _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com - - ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1998 06:54:00 -0800 (PST) From: dbphoenix Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] internet related issues <> I realize this was addressed to Tom, but it was also posted to the group, so I'd like to add my three cents. Asking that people who subscribe to a CANSLIM forum limit their contributions to discussion of CANSLIM and CANSLIM stocks does not mean that those same people are precluded from buying any other stock, any more than contributors to the (for example) LU board are precluded from discussing or buying any other stock--it's just that the LU board doesn't necessarily want to know or hear about it. If individual contributors want to e-mail each other privately about some other stock, fine. But to use the forum for that purpose creates an unfocused forum. And if the forum has no focus, it has less utility. Everyone agrees that the internet and internet stocks cannot and should not be ignored. But everyone agrees as well that they are not CANSLIM stocks. Therefore, it's appropriate to expect that anyone who wants to discuss them -- or daytrading -- or low-priced stocks -- or bottom fishing -- or shorting -- or option strategies -- or exotic technical indicators -- can go off-topic into their own subgroups to do it. Not only would this clean out the mailboxes, it would enable people to focus better on exactly what it is they are interested in. A list of these groups could be posted every weekend and anyone who wants to join one of them could say so to the larger group and be given the list of participants, privately, by one of the members of whatever the group might be. Telling someone that their stock is not a CANSLIM stock is not the same thing as telling them that their sister does it behind the gym at lunchtime. It would never occur to any member of this group to post information or questions about MSPG on the CAT board, so why is it OK for someone to bring up KMAG (or whatever) in a CANSLIM forum? An undisciplined, unfocused forum makes it that much more difficult for anyone trying to learn whatever strategy it may be and become successful with it (it also makes it difficult for anyone who's trying to maintain discipline and focus to find anyone to talk to). The difficulties that newbies have in this regard may be the primary reason why such an extraordinary number of people have no clue as to what CS is all about. They genuinely believe that it's all about mechanical selection, new highs, cups with handles, and relative strength, when it's really about gorillas (full-grown or not). Poor WON keeps trying to get that across, and yet it just doesn't sink in. One aspect of HGS which I particularly like is its provision for investing in what it calls "mattress stuffers", a type of bottom-fishing value play. In fact it's one of the few remaining differences between HGS and CS. It's able to incorporate this sub-strategy into the overall strategy because rules have been developed for it and they are not to be confused with the rules that apply to any other part of the strategy. By the same token, provision is made for those who want to "get in early", not daytraders, but those who want to, for example, buy off the bottom of the cup rather that wait for the handle breakout. But CS doesn't have these provisions. Once upon a time I thought that it might be possible for a forum such as this to develop its own rules for this and drag CS kicking and screaming into the millenium. But trying to do so has always been a Pandora's box, and with HGS standing there ready to go, there's little point in making the effort. This forum will be whatever its participants want it to be. But it would be nice if there were a forum somewhere online that was devoted strictly to CS and CS stocks. - --Db _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com - - ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1998 09:15:35 -0600 (CST) From: mckeener@ix.netcom.com Subject: [CANSLIM] internet related issues Db, Well said, Db. Honestly, for quite some time I was going nuts trying to follow every stock near breaking out, breaking out and broken. I wanted the stars and in the process of spreading myself so thin, I missed all of them while becoming more frantic and obsessed. I believed in CS but thought I could make it work better for me by broadening it. Its beauty is simplicity, discipline, patience and eventually, profits. Mary - - ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1998 10:26:56 -0500 From: "Tom Worley" Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] internet related issues Sadly, db, this group/forum was so focused on CANSLIM and CANSLIM stocks for nearly its first two years of life. I am glad it's now returned to a mature and civil group, but would truly like to see it get back to discussing CANSLIM stocks, esp now that VIX is close to signaling a viable environment, and small caps once again are showing that their day may (finally, after three years!) be at hand. Worth noting that the Russell 2000 index was the top index last week, beating even Nasdaq. It's acting like a trend may actually be forming. And I'm feeling good about hanging onto my portfolio of small caps, for the week I was up individually 23.8%, 15.0%, 25.9%, 18.1%, 33.3%, and 4.6%. While most of these have not regained quality CS standards, they have renewed my faith in holding on once I made the initial major mistake of holding on from the highs. I'm actually starting to think the media airheads may, for once, be right in their positive comments on small caps. Tom W - -----Original Message----- From: dbphoenix To: canslim@lists.xmission.com Date: Saturday, November 07, 1998 9:53 AM Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] internet related issues Asking that people who subscribe to a CANSLIM forum limit their contributions to discussion of CANSLIM and CANSLIM stocks does not mean that those same people are precluded from buying any other stock, any more than contributors to the (for example) LU board are precluded from discussing or buying any other stock--it's just that the LU board doesn't necessarily want to know or hear about it. If individual contributors want to e-mail each other privately about some other stock, fine. But to use the forum for that purpose creates an unfocused forum. And if the forum has no focus, it has less utility. - - ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1998 09:43:43 -0600 (CST) From: mckeener@ix.netcom.com Subject: [CANSLIM] Internet Related Issues Tom, I disagree with you here, Tom. A few of the internet stocks do have some CANLSLIM characteristics. As of November 5, the IBD corporate ratings on the following were within CS parameters. EPS RS GS S+PM+ROE A/D Leader AOL 76 99 A A B Yes YHOO 84 99 A B B Yes NewHigh MSPG 76 99 A C A Mary - - ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1998 09:51:55 -0600 (CST) From: mckeener@ix.netcom.com Subject: [CANSLIM] General Thoughts and Internet Tim, You're right. "N" isn't only "new high". Never thought it was, and I didn't get the impression everybody else did either. Would you not classify the internet stocks in the "new products" category? Mary - - ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1998 09:56:43 -0600 (CST) From: mckeener@ix.netcom.com Subject: [CANSLIM] General Thoughts and Internet Joe, You're probably not the only one who hasn't waited. Appreciate your honesty. What we say and what we do are not always in sync. I don't think O'Neil says you can't buy a stock that hasn't built a base. However, base-building enables a stock to pause, rest and build strength. Mary - - ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1998 11:05:09 -0500 From: "Tom Worley" Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Internet Related Issues Sorry, Mary, YHOO is the only one on your list that appears to meet the basic WON test of 80/80 for RS/EPS, and according to DGO it's EPS is still only 76, thus failing this test. I will send an email to CustSvc asking if IBD or DGO data is correct on this. I have been favorable on both YHOO and MSPG, as well as several other internet related stocks, for several years. However, my support of them was not on CANSLIM grounds, rather on momentum, stocks infavor, stocks with accelerating sales and mkt share, etc. The ideal CANSLIM stock, the one most likely to not only make you money with the least risk but also likely to be worth holding for max value for a year or two or three (e.g. the DELLs and CSCOs and MSFT and so forth, from their early stages), are the ones that meet all seven elements of CANSLIM, AS WELL AS presenting a favorable chart (e.g. 5-8 week base, close to a new high, etc). The reality is that most stocks fail one or more of the 7 elements of CANSLIM. Thus, the trade off, esp in terms of how long you hold it, do you sell with a 20% gain, do you gamble and hold, as I have done on many, for the 60 or 70% gains, or greater? One of the dangers of CANSLIM is that stocks "in favor" will always have a high RS. And if they are in favor because their profits have finally started to grow from single digit cents per share, its easy for them to also achieve high EPS. Simply meeting these two elements (CA) doesn't make them CANSLIM. Tom W - -----Original Message----- From: mckeener@ix.netcom.com To: canslim@xmission.com Date: Saturday, November 07, 1998 10:44 AM Subject: [CANSLIM] Internet Related Issues Tom, I disagree with you here, Tom. A few of the internet stocks do have some CANLSLIM characteristics. As of November 5, the IBD corporate ratings on the following were within CS parameters. EPS RS GS S+PM+ROE A/D Leader AOL 76 99 A A B Yes YHOO 84 99 A B B Yes NewHigh MSPG 76 99 A C A Mary - - - - ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1998 11:30:05 -0500 From: "Tom Worley" Subject: [CANSLIM] DGO's new highs Apparently more members want this list than I realized, so here's the latest week. A total of 232 stocks in the DG books hit new highs last week, a substantial gain. And of these, 103 also met the basic criteria of 80/80 for RS/EPS. I have not yet reviewed any charts, but here's the list of those making the first cut: NOKA, INTV, CSGS, FNC, SDG, LIFE, CRDT, FLEX, PFGC, ADSC, STBA, CEFT, JUNO, ZQK, RESM, RX, KT, METZ, AGN, CVD, FIBC, JWB, NCOG, FSFW, THQI, WPI, KR, APCC, UFS, CLKB, HH, FMY, GOSHA, SCH, LSON, NDN, EMC, AMGN, USM, VMC. CPN, CBXC, RGIS, MVSN, LUV, URS, BOOL, OKEN, CTL, RGA, DL, STB, JKHY, NLCS, ESRX, BDY, GENZ, AUD, CTAS, JWA, JEC, MRK, MRX, PHCC, UFPI, SUNW, FRE, BSYS, SEIC, WLP, ASO, WAT, ORLY, CMS, RI, RCBK, MTD, CDWC, BBK, SWY, RVN, SNPS, WMT, CREE, LSTR, GILTF, AEH, LXK, PDX, FITB, CLX, LLY, WAG, ALSI, DY, SLR, IBM, MCCO, CLFY, BELFB, PDCO, ABH, PSDI. Obviously, some of these will fail some of the 7 element test of CANSLIM. Just on size alone ("S"), there are some obvious candidates such as IBM, LLY, WMT, AMGN. On the other hand, in evaluating "M", always the toughest part of CANSLIM, it's nice to see some respected big cap names able to show a combined RS/EPS of 80/80. A word of caution, with all the increasing merger and acquisition activity, some of the stocks hitting new highs are doing so as a result of buyout offers. Do your homework carefully and check news for offers that are already on the table. Watch out for sudden spikes that have already taken a stock to an extended condition. Look for bases, the longer the better for the breakout, tho it's tough to not compromise on this aspect in such a sharp reversal in the mkts. Good hunting. I will hopefully wade thru two weeks of stocks hitting new highs that include ones not in the Daily Graphs books by sometime Sunday. If I see anything interesting, will post it. Tom W - - ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1998 08:36:01 -0800 (PST) From: dbphoenix Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Internet Related Issues <> I agree, unless one can make an argument for AOL being a turn-around stock. But that doesn't mean that these stocks or any other non-qualifying stocks aren't perfectly wonderful stocks that are going to make their owners buckets and buckets of money. Saying that a particular stock doesn't qualify as a CS stock isn't to imply that whoever buys it is a complete idiot. Saying that a particular stock doesn't qualify as a CS stock is the same as saying that a particular stock doesn't qualify as a midcap. How can one learn CS and CS investing if everything but penny stocks qualifies and all strategies are legitimate? - --Db _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com - - ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 07 Nov 1998 08:33:17 -0800 From: Tim Fisher Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] General Thoughts and Internet Yes, if they did actually offer a new product. If you want to treat a whole group as a new product, you're deviating from CANSLIM. E.g., are ISP's a new product? No. Is MSPG's purchase of SpryNet a new product? Definitely. Are search engines a new product? no. Is YHOO's auction a new product? Yes. I was replying to a post which gave me the impression that the poster has concluded that N = new high, and nothing else. P.S. YHOO MSPG and AOL fail in one or more CANSLIM criteria, if you use just the original seven or a stricter set. Even though I don't have five year growth for MSPG and YHOO which I don't doubt make the grade, I would be concerned as a CANSLIM adherent (notice I said that out of one side of my mouth, while on the other side I am holding AOL!) that one or more of them don't make the grade on I and debt. And I don't trust Zacks zero debt figure for YHOO. Mindspring Entr Yahoo Inc America Online TICKER MSPG YHOO AOL EXCHANGE NSDQ NSDQ NYSE TREND EPGR N/A N/A 98.95 QEPS 0/-4 655.56 900.00 333.33 QEPS -1/-5 226.98 971.43 360.00 24WK CHG% 97.41 121.65 49.96 SHARES OUT 25.79 93.68 226.89 % INSTITUT 30.81 30.60 77.35 % INSIDERS 61.26 29.70 4.30 20D AVEVOL 1,880 8,781 8,150 QEPS -2/-6 132.74 1,233 740 QEPS -3/-7 118.18 350.00 130 ROE 18.72 23.00 41.08 D/Equity 23.77 0.00 62.21 At 09:51 AM 11/7/98 -0600, you wrote: >Tim, > >Read the book!> > >You're right. "N" isn't only "new high". Never >thought it was, and I didn't get the impression >everybody else did either. Would you not classify >the internet stocks in the "new products" category? > >Mary > Tim Fisher, 1995 President, Pacific Fishery Biologists Ore-ROCK-On Rockhounding Web Site PFB Information mailto:tim@OreRockOn.com WWW http://OreRockOn.com - - ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1998 08:41:18 -0800 (PST) From: dbphoenix Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] DGO's new highs <> I suggest that one way of reducing the amount of work, given O'N's current emphasis on ROE and PM, is to use the SRP rank as a filter, beginning your research on those stocks with a rank of A (I don't think the group rank is necessary since you already have the GS number and can use that at whatever level you set; likewise, the A/D rank is probably not important since the stocks are at new highs). Unfortunately this means looking all these stocks up in the paper, but perhaps the SRP rank will be included in the spreadsheet at some point, enabling you to sort and filter with it. - --Db _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com - - ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1998 08:45:24 -0800 (PST) From: dbphoenix Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] General Thoughts and Internet <> When applying this to service stocks, one may want to define the "product" part in terms of doing something better, faster, cheaper, more efficiently than anyone else. Cf DELL or GPS. - --Db _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com - - ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1998 11:59:14 -0500 From: "Joe Scott" Subject: [CANSLIM] back to lurking.. Thank you Mary,,, I always enjoy your candid and honest remarks,,.. I have been lurking in this group for quite a while now, and have in the past tried to contribute... The past few days I have seen some discussion about what this group has become, and what it's future might be.. Let me just mention what I have seen, and have heard from other "lurkers" like myself who seldom if at all contribute anymore,,, I see this group becoming more and more a forum for a select few intellectuals, who it looks to me for there own egos enjoy matching wits, and sparing with each other.. Most "newbies" I'm sure are completely intimidated, frustrated, and confused with the long winded volumes of information provided as an answer to some very simple questions.. Much of it I would guess is offered not to help the "newbie" but to impress the others in the group with there knowledge of the markets.. It seems to me the beauty of CANSLIM is its simplicity, not its complexity.. Anyway my thoughts again,, for what they are worth,, Ever wonder why so few contribute? or is it intentional so as not to clutter the group with unwanted contributors? ,,, joe (o o) =oOO==(_)==OOo======== - - ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1998 12:04:59 -0500 From: "Tom Worley" Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] DGO's new highs Actually, I will run each (at least those not a penny stock) thru Daily Graphs Online, with all the data right there in one snapshot it takes me only a few seconds per chart to either dismiss it or explore it further. Just gotta find the time between football games (maybe I should move the TV into my computer room) and doing the household chores. Tom W - -----Original Message----- From: dbphoenix To: canslim@lists.xmission.com Date: Saturday, November 07, 1998 11:39 AM Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] DGO's new highs <> I suggest that one way of reducing the amount of work, given O'N's current emphasis on ROE and PM, is to use the SRP rank as a filter, beginning your research on those stocks with a rank of A (I don't think the group rank is necessary since you already have the GS number and can use that at whatever level you set; likewise, the A/D rank is probably not important since the stocks are at new highs). Unfortunately this means looking all these stocks up in the paper, but perhaps the SRP rank will be included in the spreadsheet at some point, enabling you to sort and filter with it. - --Db _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com - - - - ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1998 09:20:37 -0800 (PST) From: dbphoenix Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] back to lurking.. <> If newbies are confused, perhaps it's because the group can't decide what a CANSLIM stock is. Therefore, they don't even know what to look for. As far as contributions go, anyone who has a CANSLIM stock to offer is welcome to offer it. Do you have one? Start with a minimum of EPS 70, RS 80 and SRP of A or B, price above $15, in a constructive chart pattern as defined by O'N and within 15% of a new high. You may be surprised at the warm reception you or anyone else will receive. - --Db _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com - - ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 07 Nov 1998 09:22:03 -0800 From: Tim Fisher Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] back to lurking.. Sorry you feel that way, however I must point out that these eggheads are indeed trying valiantly to both educate and inform as well as keep the group focused on its avowed purpose, CANSLIM investing. I for one as a newbie a little less that 18 months ago appreciated the detailed analyses of stocks, chart types, CANSLIM criteria, etc. which made application of this *complex* (as opposed to simple - if you want that, join Pit Bull and blindly follow their picks) stock picking methodology possible for me. I could say a lot more in defense of this group but then I would be branded a long-winded egghead. At 11:59 AM 11/7/98 -0500, you wrote: >Thank you Mary,,, I always enjoy your candid and honest remarks,,.. >I have been lurking in this group for quite a while now, and have in the >past tried to contribute... > >The past few days I have seen some discussion about what this group has >become, and what it's future might be.. >Let me just mention what I have seen, and have heard from other "lurkers" >like myself who seldom if at all contribute anymore,,, >I see this group becoming more and more a forum for a select few >intellectuals, who it looks to me for there own egos enjoy matching wits, >and sparing with each other.. >Most "newbies" I'm sure are completely intimidated, frustrated, and confused >with the long winded volumes of information provided as an answer to some >very simple questions.. Much of it I would guess is offered not to help the >"newbie" but to impress the others in the group with there knowledge of the >markets.. >It seems to me the beauty of CANSLIM is its simplicity, not its complexity.. >Anyway my thoughts again,, for what they are worth,, >Ever wonder why so few contribute? >or is it intentional so as not to clutter the group with unwanted >contributors? > > > ,,, > joe (o o) >=oOO==(_)==OOo======== > Tim Fisher, 1995 President, Pacific Fishery Biologists Ore-ROCK-On Rockhounding Web Site PFB Information mailto:tim@OreRockOn.com WWW http://OreRockOn.com - - ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1998 12:30:39 -0500 From: Bill Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] back to lurking.. Hereeeee we go again! When are the elections? At 12:22 PM -0500 11/7/98, Tim Fisher wrote: >Sorry you feel that way, however I must point out that these eggheads are >indeed trying valiantly to both educate and inform as well as keep the group >focused on its avowed purpose, CANSLIM investing. I for one as a newbie a >little less that 18 months ago appreciated the detailed analyses of stocks, >chart types, CANSLIM criteria, etc. which made application of this *complex* >(as opposed to simple - if you want that, join Pit Bull and blindly follow >their picks) stock picking methodology possible for me. I could say a lot more >in defense of this group but then I would be branded a long-winded egghead. > >At 11:59 AM 11/7/98 -0500, you wrote: >>Thank you Mary,,, I always enjoy your candid and honest remarks,,.. >>I have been lurking in this group for quite a while now, and have in the >>past tried to contribute... >> >>The past few days I have seen some discussion about what this group has >>become, and what it's future might be.. >>Let me just mention what I have seen, and have heard from other "lurkers" >>like myself who seldom if at all contribute anymore,,, >>I see this group becoming more and more a forum for a select few >>intellectuals, who it looks to me for there own egos enjoy matching wits, >>and sparing with each other.. >>Most "newbies" I'm sure are completely intimidated, frustrated, and confused >>with the long winded volumes of information provided as an answer to some >>very simple questions.. Much of it I would guess is offered not to help the >>"newbie" but to impress the others in the group with there knowledge of the >>markets.. >>It seems to me the beauty of CANSLIM is its simplicity, not its complexity.. >>Anyway my thoughts again,, for what they are worth,, >>Ever wonder why so few contribute? >>or is it intentional so as not to clutter the group with unwanted >>contributors? >> >> >> ,,, >> joe (o o) >>=oOO==(_)==OOo======== >> > >Tim Fisher, 1995 President, Pacific Fishery Biologists >Ore-ROCK-On Rockhounding Web Site >PFB Information >mailto:tim@OreRockOn.com >WWW http://OreRockOn.com > >- Bill-->> - -------- - - ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1998 12:32:54 -0500 From: "Joe Scott" Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] back to lurking.. < Subject: [CANSLIM] IBD Industry Groups - 1 Week Performance 1 Week Group Performance Tabulations: Wow! Five Computer Groups in the Top 10. 6 Groups put in over 10 % last week. Wow again! Best 1 Week Performance: 1Wk Percentage This Week Last Week Rank Group Gain IBD Ranking IBD Ranking 0000,8080,0000# 1 Computer Softwr-Internet 19.1 4 6 # 2 Computer-Memory Devices 13.7 12 47 # 3 Computer Softwr-Enterpse 10.8 27 43 # 4 Bldg-Resident/Commrcl 10.6 63 124 # 5 Computer Softwr-Security 10.2 137 178 # 6 Retail/Whlsle-Cmptr/Cell 10.1 51 56 # 7 Computer-Graphics 9.9 181 192 # 8 Retail-Apparel/Shoe 9.6 64 72 # 9 Food-Meat Products 9.2 10 32 #10 Retail-Discount&Variety 9.0 92 128 Worst 1 Week Performance: 1Wk Percentage This Week Last Week Rank Group Gain IBD Ranking IBD Ranking 0000,8080,0000#188 Computer Softwr-Fin 0.7 94 85 #189 Agricultural Operations 0.6 126 53 #190 Leisure-Products 0.6 157 134 #191 Food-Confectionery 0.6 90 46 #192 Oil&Gas-Intl Integrated 0.6 91 83 #193 Oil&Gas-Intl Specialty 0.5 178 165 #194 Real Estate Operations 0.3 133 136 #195 Leisure-Photo Equip/Rel 0.0 81 57 ffff,0000,0000#196 Media-Cable Tv - 0.9 2 2 #197 Retail/Whlsle-Office Supl - 1.4 142 102 FWIW, Frank Wolynski - - ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 07 Nov 1998 12:42:16 -0500 From: "Frank V. Wolynski" Subject: [CANSLIM] IBD Industry Groups - 4 Week Performance 4 Week Group Performance Tabulations: 5 groups in the 4 week performers list belong to Computers in one way or another. Best 4 Week Performance: 1Wk Percentage This Week Last Week Rank Group Gain IBD Ranking IBD Ranking 0000,8080,0000# 1 Computer Softwr-Internet 63.2 4 6 # 2 Computer Softwr-Security 37.8 137 178 # 3 Computer-Memory Devices 35.6 12 47 # 4 Computer-Mini/Micro 34.0 5 5 # 5 Retail/Whlsle-Cmptr/Cell 33.3 51 56 # 6 Elec-Semiconductor Mfg 32.9 8 13 # 7 Comml Svcs-Advertising 30.9 69 92 # 8 Computer Softwr-Enterpse 30.2 27 43 # 9 Retail-Consumer Elect 30.1 118 64 #10 Telecommunctns-Cellulr 29.9 24 29 Worst 4 Week Performance: 1Wk Percentage This Week Last Week Rank Group Gain IBD Ranking IBD Ranking 0000,8080,0000#188 Finance-Public Td Inv Fd 4.9 39 24 #189 Metal Ores-Misc 4.9 119 118 #190 Food-Confectionery 3.6 90 46 #191 Oil&Gas-US Integrated 2.8 86 98 #192 Utility-Gas Distribution 2.5 22 21 #193 Oil & Gas-US Royalty Tr 2.4 93 65 #194 Food-Canned 1.3 68 51 ffff,0000,0000#195 Utility-Electric Power - 1.4 11 7 #196 Metal Ores-Gold/Silver - 1.4 47 45 #197 Oil&Gas-Intl Integrated - 2.2 91 83 FWIW, Frank Wolynski - - ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1998 11:29:49 -0800 From: "Patrick Wahl" Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Internet Related Issues From: "Tom Worley" To: > YHOO is the only one on your list that appears to meet the basic WON > test of 80/80 for RS/EPS, and according to DGO it's EPS is still only > 76, thus failing this test. I will send an email to CustSvc asking if > IBD or DGO data is correct on this. That EPS number is one place where I will fudge a bit on my picks. I have seen stocks where the earnings for 4 quarters are very strong, stronger than 95 EPS ranked stocks, but still have an EPS of 75 and these tend to be stocks that had negative numbers maybe 5 quarters ago. There seems to be something in the formula that caps an EPS number for a stock with a short earnings history at around 75. To me, 4 quarters of strong growth, 40% or more per quarter, is the same as an EPS number of 90, I don't care what the actual number says. I mean, the purpose of that number is to get a person to home in on fast growing stocks, and that is what some of these 75 EPS stocks are doing. If you want the perfect example, look at Broadcom's earnings for the last few quarters, then look at the EPS number. I don't think you'll find a faster growing stock, but the EPS number is 76. I just try not to get too dogmatic about this, try to figure out where a reasonable exception might be made, and this seems to be one place for such an exception. - - ------------------------------ End of canslim-digest V2 #435 ***************************** 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.