From: owner-canslim-digest@lists.xmission.com (canslim-digest) To: canslim-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: canslim-digest V2 #503 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 Sunday, January 17 1999 Volume 02 : Number 503 In this issue: [CANSLIM] Week's performance Re: [CANSLIM] Week's performance [CANSLIM] DGO New Highs [none] [CANSLIM] Fast Stochastic and Slow Stochastic Formula Request [CANSLIM] (Fwd) New Industry Groups [CANSLIM] [Canslim] YHOO Re: [CANSLIM] [Canslim] YHOO Re: [CANSLIM] BBOX Re: [CANSLIM] [Canslim] YHOO [CANSLIM] Today's Digest (Jan 16) Re: [CANSLIM] New Era of Trading Re: [CANSLIM] More on BBOX [CANSLIM] Sector Analysis [CANSLIM] M Re: [CANSLIM] Today's Digest (Jan 16) Re: [CANSLIM] More on BBOX Re: [CANSLIM] M [CANSLIM] Shock and Dismay ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 09:18:23 -0500 From: Jeffry White Subject: [CANSLIM] Week's performance > I chose not to respond to the comment that I was being > unfair to small cap fund mgrs unless I too was working with > $100 million to invest. With the expansion of the definition > of "small cap", as well as the current liquidity (most on my > list have ADV of 100,000 or better), I find no justification > for a small cap mgr not soundly beating the R2000 and at > least staying even, if not better, than the Naz Comp index. Tom W. Obviously, I failed to consider your extraordinarily thin skin when I questioned the fairness of your criticism of small cap fund managers. Again, I've offended you. Just a simple question to a fairly emboldened comment, I thought. If my point was not obvious, let me be more direct. Last week, I took one account with a measly $700 in it (yes, just two zeroes) up five fold in one small cap stock (using options only, and more than one trade in both directions). Now, wouldn't it be unfair for criticize all small cap fund managers who didn't do as well as I last week? If I can do it, why can't they? You don't really believe that you could quietly slip 100 million into and out of a handful of stocks as easily as you're slipping a few thousand bucks into those same few issues, do you? Perhaps I missed your point, but isn't it the 100 million folks buying activity that is making you the profit on your few hundred shares? Really not trying to insult you, argue with you, or silence your participation in the group. Just found the comment kind of humorous, unexplained, and hard to understand. Respectfully, Jeff - - ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 09:38:52 -0500 From: "Tom Worley" Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Week's performance Hello, Jeffry, I hope my response has now answered your "simple question" and its no longer "unexplained, and hard to understand". While many small cap funds are not working with as much as $100 million at any time (much less trying to "slip 100 million into and out of a handful of stocks"), I do believe there are sufficient opportunities and liquidity for any small cap fund manager to be selective, if he is willing to invest the time and effort to do his job, and thus pick more of the top performing small cap stocks and easily beat the R2000 index performance. Frankly, ANY fund manager that can't be selective enough to beat any unmanaged index should be fired, assuming that "his" portfolio is supposed to be compared to a specific index. If he can't beat an unmanaged index, who needs him? Sorry if this offends you, but I have felt this way for a long time. Frankly, I am not impressed with most funds managers, and don't think they earn their salaries, bonuses, or other compensations. Tom W stkguru@netside.net ICQ # 5568838 - -----Original Message----- From: Jeffry White To: canslim@mail.xmission.com Date: Saturday, January 16, 1999 9:21 AM Subject: [CANSLIM] Week's performance > I chose not to respond to the comment that I was being > unfair to small cap fund mgrs unless I too was working with > $100 million to invest. With the expansion of the definition > of "small cap", as well as the current liquidity (most on my > list have ADV of 100,000 or better), I find no justification > for a small cap mgr not soundly beating the R2000 and at > least staying even, if not better, than the Naz Comp index. Tom W. Obviously, I failed to consider your extraordinarily thin skin when I questioned the fairness of your criticism of small cap fund managers. Again, I've offended you. Just a simple question to a fairly emboldened comment, I thought. If my point was not obvious, let me be more direct. Last week, I took one account with a measly $700 in it (yes, just two zeroes) up five fold in one small cap stock (using options only, and more than one trade in both directions). Now, wouldn't it be unfair for criticize all small cap fund managers who didn't do as well as I last week? If I can do it, why can't they? You don't really believe that you could quietly slip 100 million into and out of a handful of stocks as easily as you're slipping a few thousand bucks into those same few issues, do you? Perhaps I missed your point, but isn't it the 100 million folks buying activity that is making you the profit on your few hundred shares? Really not trying to insult you, argue with you, or silence your participation in the group. Just found the comment kind of humorous, unexplained, and hard to understand. Respectfully, Jeff - - - - ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 09:53:54 -0500 From: "Tom Worley" Subject: [CANSLIM] DGO New Highs No surprise, the numbers are down sharply this week. Most of the new highs came early in the week, or on Friday (which tells me a lot of top performers never backed off that much, and were positioned to break new highs on Friday's rally, 23 in all, despite the drop of the two prior days). Overall, 277 of the stocks in the Daily Graphs books hit a new high last week, and of this number 97 meet the basic CANSLIM test of RS/ESP of 80/80 or better. Here's the survivors: PLXS, EAGL, PROX, ORCL, CGX, CLKB, CREE, ADMS, CACS, CMVT, MYG, GNSSF, INSS, GDT, TIF, ECILF, DELL, ADCT, IMTR, ARMHY, LXK, CTL, LOW, YHOO, T, SALT, VRTS, USM, SYKE, NITE, ZOMX, BEBE, AVTC, MRX, KROG, OVRL, INTC, PGR, CVD, AHO, ITII, FPIC, PLCE, NTAP, COF, CHKPF, YNR, MMS, SCOR, EWB, SUNW, HLYW, GENZ, AXTI, CDWC, FDS, SDLI, ATSI, ABE, MDCC, SAPE, FM, MXIM, VCI, MELI, PTI, AAII, ARX, UVSGA, LLTC, ISTN, SWFT, ACAI, LEVL, TCAT, MWHS, TECH, PSDI, ITP, ASND, WHIT, PRGN, SANM, FORR, MHP, SEBL, TLTN, APEX, OCLI, ALTR, COGIF, ATI, ORLY, AAS, AGN, EMC, CPN. As always, I haven't done any reviews of these so don't know if any of them may be valid buys. Nor do I guarantee against any typos. You're on your own from here. Tom W stkguru@netside.net ICQ # 5568838 - - ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 07:46:37 -0800 (PST) From: rolatzi Subject: [none] !DJ30,12/16/1998,8922.94,8675.52,8790.60, 70.31, 94.30 !DJ30,12/17/1998,8959.76,8725.21,8875.82, 71.75, 90.92 !DJ30,12/18/1998,9012.28,8789.31,8903.63, 95.15, 88.07 !DJ30,12/21/1998,9150.54,8874.28,8988.85, 77.84, 86.67 !DJ30,12/22/1998,9122.99,8909.29,9044.46, 58.51, 86.09 !DJ30,12/23/1998,9255.84,9022.58,9202.03, 58.32, 87.96 !DJ30,12/24/1998,9289.57,9146.42,9217.99, 20.21, 89.69 !DJ30,12/28/1998,9330.50,9133.54,9226.75, 45.91, 91.17 !DJ30,12/29/1998,9375.30,9152.34,9320.98, 51.15, 93.84 !DJ30,12/30/1998,9390.75,9211.30,9274.64, 48.25, 95.24 !DJ30,12/31/1998,9343.64,9106.77,9181.43, 53.40, 94.67,Compress !DJ30,01/04/1999,9393.84,9089.00,9184.27, 89.41, 93.94 !DJ30,01/05/1999,9389.46,9137.66,9311.19, 79.86, 95.13 !DJ30,01/06/1999,9608.05,9315.42,9544.97, 10.34, 99.86 !DJ30,01/07/1999,9616.29,9369.12,9537.76, 88.29,103.76,Reversal !DJ30,01/08/1999,9759.44,9447.91,9643.32,103.25,108.78 !DJ30,01/11/1999,9751.46,9446.36,9619.89, 98.72,112.65 !DJ30,01/12/1999,9680.40,9394.87,9474.68, 95.68,113.41 !DJ30,01/13/1999,9485.24,9134.06,9349.56,109.06,111.67,Compress !DJ30,01/14/1999,9359.08,9087.72,9120.93, 92.77,105.92 !DJ30,01/15/1999,9381.74,9124.02,9340.55, 80.77,104.05 !NYA ,12/16/1998,564.31,559.95,562.89, 7.36, 6.49 !NYA ,12/17/1998,570.16,562.84,570.15, 7.44, 6.44 !NYA ,12/18/1998,572.54,568.77,572.07, 8.42, 6.40 !NYA ,12/21/1998,581.01,571.79,577.70, 7.45, 6.45 !NYA ,12/22/1998,580.82,574.13,578.75, 7.45, 6.49 !NYA ,12/23/1998,589.58,578.66,588.95, 6.88, 6.68 !NYA ,12/24/1998,589.94,587.82,589.07, 2.47, 6.84 !NYA ,12/28/1998,591.05,587.18,589.01, 5.33, 6.97,Reversal !NYA ,12/29/1998,597.05,587.32,597.05, 5.89, 7.20 !NYA ,12/30/1998,597.86,593.68,594.27, 6.00, 7.35,Reversal !NYA ,12/31/1998,597.82,592.70,595.81, 7.55, 7.49 !NYA ,01/04/1999,602.83,590.47,594.12, 8.85, 7.57,Reversal !NYA ,01/05/1999,600.24,594.00,599.91, 7.81, 7.72 !NYA ,01/06/1999,611.05,599.88,611.01, 7.84, 8.02 !NYA ,01/07/1999,611.01,604.47,609.19, 8.59, 8.24,Compress !NYA ,01/08/1999,612.20,605.86,611.06, 9.42, 8.45 !NYA ,01/11/1999,611.06,600.06,604.04, 8.17, 8.50 !NYA ,01/12/1999,604.04,593.61,594.59, 7.96, 8.36 !NYA ,01/13/1999,595.50,579.76,590.72, 9.34, 8.15,Compress !NYA ,01/14/1999,591.56,579.71,581.07, 7.97, 7.77 !NYA ,01/15/1999,593.40,581.07,593.39, 7.98, 7.61 !COMP,12/16/1998,2027.10,1996.80,2009.30, 0.85, 42.05,Reversal !COMP,12/17/1998,2043.80,2014.70,2043.80, 0.80, 42.46 !COMP,12/18/1998,2086.10,2055.80,2086.10, 0.91, 43.43 !COMP,12/21/1998,2143.80,2104.10,2138.00, 0.96, 45.07 !COMP,12/22/1998,2144.60,2105.50,2120.90, 0.91, 46.15 !COMP,12/23/1998,2172.50,2134.20,2172.50, 0.97, 47.88 Symbol,Date, Hi, Lo, Close, Vol MACD, Action !COMP,12/24/1998,2171.30,2162.60,2163.00, 0.45, 49.15 !COMP,12/28/1998,2190.10,2163.00,2180.30, 0.87, 50.47 !COMP,12/29/1998,2186.10,2161.80,2181.70, 0.92, 51.55 !COMP,12/30/1998,2196.60,2160.90,2166.90, 0.93, 52.15,Reversal !COMP,12/31/1998,2200.60,2165.70,2192.60, 0.89, 52.97 !COMP,01/04/1999,2233.50,2192.60,2208.00, 0.94, 53.83 !COMP,01/05/1999,2251.70,2206.40,2251.20, 0.95, 55.18 !COMP,01/06/1999,2320.90,2286.10,2320.80, 1.26, 57.42 !COMP,01/07/1999,2333.70,2284.20,2326.00, 1.21, 59.38 !COMP,01/08/1999,2369.50,2314.90,2344.40, 1.29, 61.31 !COMP,01/11/1999,2384.70,2348.20,2384.50, 1.15, 63.55 !COMP,01/12/1999,2396.30,2320.20,2320.70, 1.11, 64.34 !COMP,01/13/1999,2353.30,2205.60,2316.80, 1.20, 64.81,Compress !COMP,01/14/1999,2338.20,2276.30,2276.80, 1.02, 64.37 !COMP,01/15/1999,2348.72,2276.82,2348.20, 1.01, 64.98 _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com - - ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 12:45:06 -0600 From: "mdor" Subject: [CANSLIM] Fast Stochastic and Slow Stochastic Formula Request Hello Group: I have periodically requested information on formulas for a number of indicators. I am currently preparing myself to program the Slow Stochastic and Fast Stochastic in my visual basic program. However, I can only find one formula between the slow and fast stochastic indicator. Could someone shed some light on the difference between the slow stochastic and the fast stochastic? Also, could you provide the formulas for both stochastics so that I can compare them and analyze them for my program? If you have technical analysis programs that provide the formulas in your help section of the program, I would appreciate this information. Thanks so much for your time and effort. Michael Doroshenko - - ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 13:53:33 -0700 From: "Jeff Salisbury" Subject: [CANSLIM] (Fwd) New Industry Groups - --- Forwarded mail from "George W. Gregory" Delivered-To: jeff@csd.sdl.usu.edu X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express for Macintosh - 4.01 (295) Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 13:16:21 -0800 Subject: New Industry Groups From: "George W. Gregory" To: owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com X-Priority: 3 In answer to Johan wondering why the new additions are Internet related, I believe you all know the answer. Since developing the industry group list was one of my last projects before I left WON, I felt that this is where the growth will be. Don't be terribly surprised to find more changes of this kind in the future. The manufacturing industries are not real growth situations. In fact, if anyone has ideas for new industries, let me know. I may be able to pass it on. Our objective was to change the list every 6 months, but due to demands on programmers time (Y2K, etc.) this has not been accomplished. The last real change (other than additions of stocks to existing groups) was last March. IBD intends to publish the list every 6 months, however, whether there have been changes or not. WON + Co. will changer when necessary, or when the new groups are ready. tiger49er - ---End of forwarded mail from "George W. Gregory" - - ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 07:53:44 -0500 From: "bamend" Subject: [CANSLIM] [Canslim] YHOO What's going on with this stock? - - ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 13:26:57 -0800 From: Tim Fisher Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] [Canslim] YHOO At 07:53 AM 1/16/99 -0500, you wrote: >What's going on with this stock? > Even though I don't "dabble" in the 'nets too often except for AOL and recently SDTI (I love this little guy!) my mom does and I am helping her to prepare for the inevitable correction of the ridiculous high-flyers, which seems to be under way. (BTW she had an IRR of 87% for 1998 and I only half-jokingly suggested she open up www.fishertrader.com and charge for her picks ;) Looking at the charts of her 'net stocks, YHOO, AMZN, EBAY, CMGI, there's a fairly consistent base of support for these puppies that formed between Dec 5 and Dec 19. The charts are remarkably similar for this period, although the day each one "took off" varies. These bases form strong support (IMHO) and depending on when you pulled the trigger, you could be in at the "right" time to preserve profits or the wrong time. For YHOO I'd put the support at 180-190. If it trades down through this base I'd say it was in trouble. 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, 16 Jan 1999 17:17:11 -0500 From: "Frank V. Wolynski" Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] BBOX I thought something else was odd concerning the BBOX question. It is not in the IBD Computer Networks group. It may be in Market Guides or Telescans, but it is in IBD's "Retail-Mail Order Direct" group. Still a strong group, #6. My two cents after having purchased a sizeable amount of computer, networking hardware during the past 3 years sez that BBOX is a very expensive reseller of networking/computer hardware. I get their catalogs every month and have yet to order a single item from them. Comparitively speaking they are very pricey in hardware costs. They have some specialty devices like digital/analog encoders/decoders and hardware protocol converters you don't see from the more popular outlets but it is hard to imagine there is sufficient energy in those specialty applications to warrant optimism in increased sales. Could be wrong, often am, plan accordingly. Regards, Frank Wolynski At 11:06 AM 1/15/99 -0800, you wrote: > >I saw a cup and handle, but thought that the handle failed on 1/12/99. > Anywhay the way I interpret 3,7,10 MAverages (still learning); 3 >crossed the 7 giving a first level buy that day and it has gone down >every day since. It has closed in the lower third of its range 3 days >in a row which is below its 20 day MA. I wouldn't buy right now. > >TM >> >> Hello All, >> Is BBOX on anyone's breakout watch list?? The chart looks great to >me, >> although the cup is a little deep (50%), eps and rs in the upper >80's. >> Group strength (computer networks) in the upper 90's. Earnings met >> estimates. >> Any comments?? Mark >> - - ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 17:55:49 -0500 From: "Tom Worley" Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] [Canslim] YHOO While I think it's unlikely, it's possible that some investors at the institutional level are starting to worry about a stock with a market cap even now of over $30 billion that did less than $200 million in revenue in the past 12 months. Even assuming a continuation of growth at the same rate (which is certainly possible, given its history and market positioning), it is still unlikely to break one billion in sales in 1999, and a mkt cap ratio of 30 is extremely high. I suspect as YHOO and some of the other net stocks grow and prosper, more traditional valuation models will be applied. And most will fail those models, partially because those models are not suitable for measuring the true value to the investor's expectations for growth. As long as they had no earnings, and relatively low sales figures, most ignored models. But as they gain respectability and acceptance into such arenas as the S&P500 index, models will likely be applied more often. I think it may still be too early for this to be much of a problem for YHOO, more likely the recent slide is nothing more than some wise profit taking for the short term. I doubt the run is completely over, but profits at this point should still be protected and charts studied. Tom W stkguru@netside.net ICQ # 5568838 - -----Original Message----- From: bamend To: Canslim xmission Date: Saturday, January 16, 1999 4:01 PM Subject: [CANSLIM] [Canslim] YHOO What's going on with this stock? - - - - ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 16:59:55 -0800 From: "George W. Gregory" Subject: [CANSLIM] Today's Digest (Jan 16) WON does have the 197 industry groups funneling down to 92 sector groups and in turn funneling down to 11 sectors. However, the sector groups and the sectors themselves are only used by WON+Co., not Dailygraphs or IBD. They are used in institutional services. Secondly, when I left WON (Dec. 7th), our database consisted of over 11,000 stocks. The Industry Group Guide from last year doesn't contain many of the stocks that were issued last year, and we had been running at a rate of 500/700 new issues a year. A few of the 10,000 are BB stocks, which don't really count at all. Many more (and this list keeps growing very rapidly) are ADR's and ADS's. Common stocks that we would be interested in total almost 10,000. tiger49er - - ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 20:42:04 EST From: Eatstock@aol.com Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] New Era of Trading Charlie made a mention about new chart formations now that there is the new breed of traders (myself) which use the internet. This is something that I have been thinking about too, and has lead me to one support as to why the float is less immportant as in the past The one stock that sticks in my head is Amazon, and we all ask ourselves, why is it so high. Well, think about how many people use it, and figure that many of them say, 'This is a company I would like to own'. So lets say the market gets a million shareholders which own between 25-1000 shares. That is a lot of shares just sitting around. Now, a lot of people call this their golden egg. THE BIG ONE. They dont have their life savings in it, but they have a small stake, but dont mind loosing it for the upside potential. I believe this drives the supply and demand curve of the market and just lets the stock stagnate or increase in value. I really think it will take something catastropic to get the sucker to fall. People are using the market to get rich quick and only have small positions which they can recoupe if they loose it all. As for new chart patterns...cant really venture onto that one - - ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 17:47:56 -0800 (PST) From: TM Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] More on BBOX BBOX starred in ValueLines Expanded Edition as expected to outperform; Valueline has them under Telecom Equip. BBOX featured in Monday's IBD. 7th in MailOrder by EPS and RS. Mail order group. It closed at its high yesterday. TM _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com - - ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 15:50:32 +1300 From: "Dean Edwards" Subject: [CANSLIM] Sector Analysis Here is a useful site: It can show you in a glance, what sector is leading the market. http://www.wallstreetalert.com/sector.cgi Each stock in an industry index is drawn from the S&P 500, and here are the 24 industry sectors: 1. Aerospace & Defense 2. Automotive 3. Banks 4. Chemicals 5. Conglomerates 6. Consumer Products 7. Containers & Packaging 8. Discount & Fashion Retailing 9. Electrical & Electronics 10. Food 11. Fuel 12. Health Care 13. Housing & Real Estate 14. Leisure time Industries 15. Manufacturing 16. Metals & Mining 17. Nonbank Financial 18. Office Equipment & Computers 19. Paper & Forest Products 20. Publishing & Broadcasting 21. Service industries 22. Telecommunications 23. Transportation 24. Utilities - - ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 17:39:02 +1300 From: "Dean Edwards" Subject: [CANSLIM] M I thought you might be interested in reading this article. This is an outsider's perspective on the US economy. This is a repected global investment manager from NZ. He believes the US economy is now overheating. * the star is my comments. Restraint bet Policy for Now - By Frank Pearson When Alan Greenspan, quelled financial panic last year by lowering short term interest rates, he merely bought some time for the underlying concer= ns to be addressed. This was highlighted by the past week=92s South American upset. Despite re-electing a reformist president and obtaining IMF support, Braz= il=92 s inability to pass tough budgetary legislation has essentially wasted th= e past 6 months respite. Similarly, neither Russia nor more importanly Japa= n, have picked up their act. At the same time, US consumers have started counting their chickens by spending up some of their sharemarket gains, the US savings rate going negative for the first time since the late 1920s. Speculative excess is evidenced by Internet mania. The =93tech heavy=94 N= ASDAQ composite index has used the months since October=92s interest rate cuts = to rise a 1,000 points (1400-2400). Last year, according to Goldman Sachs, t= he average internet Internet stock climbed 225%. New issue Internet stock gained an average of 38% on their first day of trading. According to the Wall Street Journal, America Online=92s capitalisation reprsents a histor= ic PE of 418. Were earnings to grow at 50% pa compounded over the next 5 yea= rs, the stock would still then be on a PE of 55. Auction house eBay with a recent market value of US$11 billion had third quarter revenue (not profits!) of only US12.9 million. Going public at US= $18 in September, by year end the stock traded at more than $240 and less tha= n a year after joining the company CEO Margaret Whitman=92s own holdings were worth $US500 million. Economic policy errors agravated the 1930s setback. Relief at the compete= nce of Greenspan and Chinese economic czar Zhu Rongji was manifest during the recent market recovery. However, the longer investors are made to wait fo= r positive reinforcement from inevitably politically tough fiscal/trade/regulatory decisions around the world, the weaker becomes th= e soothing balme of lower interest rates. *(This has not worked in Japan, I think interest rates for the bank of Ja= pan are/were at .5 percent, to try and simulate the economy) The months subsequent to the three interest rate cuts have not been encouraging. Too little too late has been the story from Brazil, Russia a= nd Japan, while too much too quickly has characterised US securities markets. Prudent investing now must assume the American equity market is an accide= nt waiting to happen. Japan is unlikely to pick up any time soon and China i= s far from sound shape. *(It has evident now, that the official Chinese statistics may not be totally accurate. Official have been cooking the books to paint a brighte= r outlook) It is time for restaint for percentages in equities especially US, and fo= r comtemplating defensive attractions. - - ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 02:08:21 -0500 From: "Frank V. Wolynski" Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Today's Digest (Jan 16) Holy Rotational Sector theory Batman, 92 Sectors? I can't even begin to imagine. Needless to say, most on this listserv would acknowledge there are a few of us that would short Amazon for a peak at those tables! I could envision having 11 sectors, although having only been exposed to the S&P & the DJ Sectors, my vision is limited. Now...., how does one become an institution? :-) Thanks for clarifying, it certainly seemed an unthinkable hole existed in WON's approach, but in a simple 2 paragraph email, you have restored my faith and uncovered the gauntlet I must now transverse. Regards, Frank Wolynski wolynski@mindspring.com http://wolynski.home.mindspring.com/ At 16:59 1/16/99 -0800, you wrote: > WON does have the 197 industry groups funneling down to 92 sector groups >and in turn funneling down to 11 sectors. However, the sector groups and the >sectors themselves are only used by WON+Co., not Dailygraphs or IBD. They >are used in institutional services. > Secondly, when I left WON (Dec. 7th), our database consisted of over >11,000 stocks. The Industry Group Guide from last year doesn't contain many >of the stocks that were issued last year, and we had been running at a rate >of 500/700 new issues a year. A few of the 10,000 are BB stocks, which don't >really count at all. Many more (and this list keeps growing very rapidly) >are ADR's and ADS's. Common stocks that we would be interested in total >almost 10,000. > >tiger49er > >- > > - - ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 02:11:44 -0500 From: "Frank V. Wolynski" Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] More on BBOX The group chart looks exceptional also. My personal experience and earlier email should be viewed with skepticism, even by myself. (The toughest task of the two.) Frank Wolynski Often wrong, plan accordingly. At 17:47 1/16/99 -0800, you wrote: > >BBOX starred in ValueLines Expanded Edition as expected to outperform; > Valueline has them under Telecom Equip. > >BBOX featured in Monday's IBD. 7th in MailOrder by EPS and RS. Mail >order group. > >It closed at its high yesterday. > >TM - - ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 07:52:16 -0500 From: "Tom Worley" Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] M Hi Dean, Interestingly, the author of this article fails to note that fully two thirds of the US GDP comes from domestic spending, which continues unabated, possibly aided in part by market profits, but certainly supported to date by strong employment. Abby Cohen was on CNN a few days ago, and pointed out that exports account for only 14% of GDP. Obviously, exports to LATAM comprise a smaller percentage, and to Brazil it's only something like 1.4%. Thus a slowdown in Brazil, even a total stoppage, of our exports only has a minor hiccup in the GDP picture. Likewise, if Brazil takes down the entire region and moves all the LATAM countries (except possibly Mexico) into recession, the damage to the GDP is still only slight even if exports went to zero, which is highly unlikely. Certainly the volatility and extreme valuations placed on net stocks in the past year are a little scary to anyone trying to value them by any rational valuation models. On the other hand, they have generated enormous wealth for many, and haven't really crushed that many (so far). I suspect one of the reasons for their huge success is the high percentage of the US population involved with the internet in one way or the other (at work, at home, or both). Even the children are exposed to it at school, and can come home and tell their non-net literate parents all about the experience. Thus most everyone is exposed to a still emerging technology and retailing medium. Tom W stkguru@netside.net ICQ # 5568838 - -----Original Message----- From: Dean Edwards To: canslim@lists.xmission.com Date: Saturday, January 16, 1999 11:39 PM Subject: [CANSLIM] M I thought you might be interested in reading this article. This is an outsider's perspective on the US economy. This is a repected global investment manager from NZ. He believes the US economy is now overheating. * the star is my comments. Restraint bet Policy for Now - By Frank Pearson When Alan Greenspan, quelled financial panic last year by lowering short term interest rates, he merely bought some time for the underlying concerns to be addressed. This was highlighted by the past week=92s South American upset. Despite re-electing a reformist president and obtaining IMF support, Brazil=92 s inability to pass tough budgetary legislation has essentially wasted the past 6 months respite. Similarly, neither Russia nor more importanly Japan, have picked up their act. At the same time, US consumers have started counting their chickens by spending up some of their sharemarket gains, the US savings rate going negative for the first time since the late 1920s. Speculative excess is evidenced by Internet mania. The =93tech heavy=94 NASDAQ composite index has used the months since October=92s interest rate cuts to rise a 1,000 points (1400-2400). Last year, according to Goldman Sachs, the average internet Internet stock climbed 225%. New issue Internet stock gained an average of 38% on their first day of trading. According to the Wall Street Journal, America Online=92s capitalisation reprsents a historic PE of 418. Were earnings to grow at 50% pa compounded over the next 5 years, the stock would still then be on a PE of 55. Auction house eBay with a recent market value of US$11 billion had third quarter revenue (not profits!) of only US12.9 million. Going public at US$18 in September, by year end the stock traded at more than $240 and less than a year after joining the company CEO Margaret Whitman=92s own holdings were worth $US500 million. Economic policy errors agravated the 1930s setback. Relief at the competence of Greenspan and Chinese economic czar Zhu Rongji was manifest during the recent market recovery. However, the longer investors are made to wait for positive reinforcement from inevitably politically tough fiscal/trade/regulatory decisions around the world, the weaker becomes the soothing balme of lower interest rates. *(This has not worked in Japan, I think interest rates for the bank of Japan are/were at .5 percent, to try and simulate the economy) The months subsequent to the three interest rate cuts have not been encouraging. Too little too late has been the story from Brazil, Russia and Japan, while too much too quickly has characterised US securities markets. Prudent investing now must assume the American equity market is an accident waiting to happen. Japan is unlikely to pick up any time soon and China is far from sound shape. *(It has evident now, that the official Chinese statistics may not be totally accurate. Official have been cooking the books to paint a brighter outlook) It is time for restaint for percentages in equities especially US, and for comtemplating defensive attractions. - - - - ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 10:35:17 -0500 From: "Charles Cangialosi" Subject: [CANSLIM] Shock and Dismay Today I found out why it is important to keep accurate records as you go. I started on 98 tax. If a good capital loss is good news then the news was great. OK, I got hammered on a few before CANSLIM, most notably FLC, PAP, BOST and IASCA. FLC I bought 3 times I averaged down (easy folks, this was actually recommend to me by my broker). I did not know about sectors and that they could go out of favor. That one was the worst. PAP, sounded good then there was a revolution in Indonesia-end of my foreign sector career. Next was BOST, I just knew it was coming back and it was cheep. Chapter 11 or whatever they call it. Of course IASCA my little antenna company that was going to revolutionize the communications world. Then came the CANSLIM era, actually the last few months. I had two winners and 7 losers, they about offset. Hammering home the "get in at the right place or you will be stopped out instantly" scenario. I was thinking I was only loosing a little, which is essentially true, but a lot of littles equals a lot in the end. I am not upset or dissuaded. The good thing about recognizing that you act like a dumb ass is that you get to learn from mistakes and grow. No guts no glory. A hard lesson still. Charlie in Port Orange Florida, looser capital of the world. - - ------------------------------ End of canslim-digest V2 #503 ***************************** 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.