From: canslim-owner@xmission.com To: canslim-digest@xmission.com Subject: canslim Digest V1 #48 Reply-To: canslim@xmission.com Errors-To: canslim-owner@xmission.com Precedence: canslim Digest Saturday, 18 January 1997 Volume 01 : Number 048 In this issue: Re: [CANSLIM] cup and han Re: [CANSLIM] STOPS/LIMITS Re: [CANSLIM] Value Line Re: [CANSLIM] STOPS/LIMITS Re: [CANSLIM] Institutional ownership. Re: [CANSLIM] charts Re: [CANSLIM] Views on no Re: [CANSLIM] STOPS/LIMITS Re: [CANSLIM] TLGD & VTRA Re: [CANSLIM] STOPS/LIMITS Re: [CANSLIM] STOPS/LIMITS Re: [CANSLIM] brokers [CANSLIM] Lost in Space Re: [CANSLIM] STOPS/LIMITS See the end of the digest for information on subscribing to the canslim or canslim-digest mailing lists and on how to retrieve back issues. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: patrick.wahl@unpcbbs.cts.com (Patrick Wahl) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 09:22:00 GMT Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] cup and han ST>From: "tom worley" ST>Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] cup and handle ST>I don't see even the vague resemblence of a cup, much less a handle, on any ST>of the three mentioned (AMAT, CURE, ADAC). Snap comments follow, from the ST>1/10/97 DG: I'm glad you are offering a different interpretation of these things, because it caused me to go back and review the definitions of these patterns and see if I know what the heck I am talking about. I think the different interpretations that have been placed on these charts point up the unfortunate fact that there is a fair amount of subjectivity to chart reading, not a good thing. Anyway, a couple of comments from the TASC article of the March 1995 issue on C&H patterns: "The cup forms during intermediate market correction and is usually 3-6 months long, but can be as long as 12 months or as short as 7 weeks in a bull market. The handle is usually more than one or two weeks long and should drift down on low volume... Handles may also form in new high ground.... O'Neil found that a stock should have risen by at least 30% prior to forming the pattern." (Incidentally, this article offers a better definition and better examples in the way of graphs than O'Neil does in his book.) The last statement would disqualify the semiconductor-eq. stocks, although I believe that otherwise those are cup and handle formations. Looking at CURE, I see a cup and handle, no question. The right side formed on about May 30, it then formed either a handle or the right side in November, and then another handle or a first handle, depending on how these things should be defined, in December. It drifted lower from mid-Nov to mid-Dec and then broke out to new highs. Also, during the cup formation, Jun-Sept, volume was lighter than it had been. I suspect that you are disqualifying CURE because of the price spikes that occurred in June and July. I guess this gets back to those subjective judgments again. I think to be too rigorous excludes too many stocks. ST>Altho a little sloppy, there was a very short term cup formed, but the cup ST>was it was from late Oct to early Dec, with the handle forming for most of ST>Dec, altho trending up (not preferred). Vol does not appear to have ever ST>consistently shown a 150% level, thus triggering a buy out of the base ST>(handle if you will), but an aggressive investor betting on the formation ST>to complete could have owned this one around 23 with it now over 25. Accidentally deleted first line, but above refers to ADAC. I think the cup formed from late October to January, and possibly a handle is forming now. I think the sideways move in December is still part of the right side of the cup. However, cup price action is pretty loose. ST>did a cover to cover of DG, will try to do one in the next week and see if ST>I can point out some charts to examine. I also looked for a few and believe Mastec (MASX) is a good one. Looks like a cup from May-Sept and a handle in October. ------------------------------ From: "tom worley" Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 21:27:34 -0500 Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] STOPS/LIMITS A stop loss on a NYSE/AMEX stock is placed with the floor specialist, while those firms who will take a stop loss on a NASDAQ stock as corporate policy must then take responsibility for correct execution. Where the BD is holding the order (as opposed to the broker handling it essentially manually), to protect themselves they must set up their own internal monitoring and order flow system to ensure correct execution and not be liable. This increases their costs on what will amount to very few orders, which also makes it difficult to pass that cost along to the users of stop loss on NASDAQ, thus it must be absorbed internally as a service. Any broker dealer that refused a stop loss order on a NYSE or AMEX listed stock would have received my last order, the next action he would see would be receiving the acct transfer instructions to deliver the acct out to another firm. As to the difficulty of accessing either an online or by-phone discount house, from what I pick up almost daily on the net, the majority of investors today think that commissions are a rip off and either want to trade stocks for free or for next to nothing. Running a back-office such as mine is neither easy nor cheap. Because of my experience, I am well aware of all the mechanics it takes to successfully execute a correct trade. And we pay Bear Stearns to clear our trades and hold all assets a significant percentage of our commissions generated, plus regular charges and fees. I suspect that the discount firms are being overloaded by all the investors seeking a free lunch or at least the cheapest one in town, and I say you get (ultimately) what you pay for. They are not going to rapidly increase their staff, order takers, order entry clerks, back office staff, telephone lines and computer access ports, etc any faster than they have too cuz IT COSTS MONEY. And if they up their minimum commission by only a few dollars, X% of their clients will switch, just to save those few dollars. The trend I have seen is for them to offer a new, higher quality, service level which costs more. Thus the ones that are willing to pay will have better access, more research available, etc. Ultimately these discount houses are offering near full-service operations at commission rates approaching full service wire houses. Evolution, I love it. tom w - ---------- > From: lukelang@svlhp8.scs.philips.com > To: canslim@xmission.com > Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] STOPS/LIMITS > Date: Friday, January 17, 1997 3:51 PM > > Both E-trade and Kennedy & Cabot provide stoploss on NASDAQ stocks. > Maybe Tom can provide some insight on why some don't while almost > all provide it on NYSE stocks. ------------------------------ From: "tom worley" Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 21:11:19 -0500 Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Value Line Closest I have come to looking at Value Line in several years is throwing their mailed ads in the trash. Didn't detect any change in their conservative philosophy so saw no reason to spend money when I was already happy with O'Neills data. As to the cost of DG, I agree, the weekly edition is steep. When I was a broker I paid about $75/month for the services we got (the cost was split amongst all the brokers). A cheaper approach to the weekly is either bi-weekly at $297 or $591 for both vol, plus $78 shipping, or monthly at $195 or $390 for both plus $36 shipping. On the other hand, for those who have never even looked at a DG, I still recommend paying for the trial edition at $14. You can also try persuading your main library to subscribe, or find a few other investors locally to share the costs. Or you can try to team up with other CANSLIMers and one gets the books, then overnights it to another after a couple of days. In the meantime you can swap info over the net with whoever has the book. I just feel that there is so much CANSLIM based data that is only found quickly in a single source, and that is O'Neill's pubs. tom w - ---------- > From: Brian Annis > To: canslim@xmission.com > Subject: [CANSLIM] Value Line > Date: Friday, January 17, 1997 3:45 PM > > Are you including the expanded edition in this assessment? ------------------------------ From: "tom worley" Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 21:49:44 -0500 Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] STOPS/LIMITS As a little education for all, if you are not happy with the BD you are using, why do you feel you must sell before you can change? An ACAT (Automated Customer Account Transfer, used to be called a 412) now takes (thanks to T+3 settlement) a total of 8 business days. It is considerably faster than having the stocks transferred and shipped to you. If you need to sell a position during the 8 days, there are ways as well, depending on the receiving firm and your finances. I would never, on principle, give a broker, or brokerage house, one more commission if I was unhappy with them. BTW, if your broker was giving you discounted commissions and knows you are closing the acct, expect to be charged full freight if you decide to just sell. It's his last chance to make money off you, and he doesn't feel obligated to render you good service or favored treatment, so if you are going to sell so that you can go elsewhere, tell him you need the money to buy a house or car or get married or divorced or whatever, let him believe you will be putting the money back in shortly, there's plenty of time to tell him not to call you after you have the money in your hand. - ---------- > From: Hemant Rotithor > To: canslim@xmission.com > Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] STOPS/LIMITS > Date: Friday, January 17, 1997 4:39 PM > > I have used Etrade for a few years and will get out as soon as I am able > to sell all the current securities. > ------------------------------ From: "tom worley" Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 21:40:10 -0500 Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Institutional ownership. "Institutional Ownership" is a generic term. O'Neill actually breaks it down into three categories: funds, banks, and insurance companies. I don't think any of these categories accounts for the true "money manager" who often times has his client accts at a broker dealer under the client name even tho he controls the portfolio. In DG, O'Neill only lists funds and banks, which are usually the more significant. The difficulty of assessing institutional ownership is that funds, and possibly banks and ins cos as well, only report their holdings on a qtr'ly basis, so a DG shortly after the end of a calendar qtr will give a reasonably accurate picture, one approaching the end of a qtr can be very misleading either way. If you watch DG regularly, watch for a sharp change in the holdings around the end of a qtr, this may give you a hint what the funds at least are doing. tom w - ---------- > From: Simon Dong > To: canslim@xmission.com > Subject: [CANSLIM] Institutional ownership. > Date: Friday, January 17, 1997 3:59 PM > > > I've been wondering exactly what is qualified as institutional ownership. I > ------------------------------ From: "tom worley" Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 22:09:22 -0500 Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] charts WRONG! My msg count went off the boards at 51 CANSLIM MSGS!!! For those interested, we had 20 different group members participating with Zoran, Craig and Johan at the high end. This group has COME ALIVE!! I love it, even tho my ISP timed me out some time ago. I'm trying to be a little selective in reposting (and trying to remember to snip out the non pertinent parts). Think I slipped back into the classroom on a few, but they seemed worthy of group wide interest and education). Is there a correlation in activity here and the mkt closing solidly over 6800?? Another couple of days and we are looking at 7000 at this rate. Guess I was off by a few weeks, but I won't apologize, my wife always referred to me as the "late tom worley" due to my making it by scant seconds wherever we had to be. Seriously, I am delighted to see so much broad based comments flowing in, this is what I wanted to see in this group (scary tho if we doubled the size of the group, and more of our "mature" lurkers start joining in as we are starting to see already). There is a synergy with this group that I have not found elsewhere, and a group large or small working on a common theme and with a common purpose can be very powerful. I doubt any of us have the time or energy to spot every potential CANSLIM opportunity out there, much less understand the industry or worse still, the specific company. But with the collective background and interest and effort, properly focused, I can only imagine. Well done (Bravo Zulu) (that's Navy signal flags) and Splice the Main Brace (which is an old square rigger term for breaking out the rum) (yeah, I know, I'm showing my age and nautical background, but I used to like to sail, so what). tom w - ---------- > From: David F. Cameron > To: canslim@xmission.com > Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] charts > Date: Friday, January 17, 1997 5:06 PM > > BTW, glad to see so much participation! Tom will have 20+ > messages from this group when he checks in. > > ------------------------------ From: "tom worley" Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 21:51:36 -0500 Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Views on no Sounds like a real caring business attitude, kinda rare these days, then again maybe just a good marketing strategy?? tom w - ---------- > From: Patrick Wahl > To: canslim@xmission.com > Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Views on no > Date: Thursday, January 16, 1997 7:47 PM > > Just FYI, the DG breaks the subscription price down that way because the > subscription price is taxable, but the postage is not, so instead of > lumping the whole thing together as they used to (more tax) they break > it down into two components. ------------------------------ From: "tom worley" Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 22:30:20 -0500 Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] STOPS/LIMITS Zoran, I'm hurt! Don't condemn all full service brokers, there really are some good ones out there, and I like to think I was one. Not all brokers are salesmen, some are true, old style, connections between the investors and the securities community. Some, and I believe I was one, really have your best interests at heart. Sadly, I have seen the big name wire houses get away with the same practices smaller firms are condemned for. If you are willing to make your own decisions, then a full svc firm's broker should be willing to give you some deep discounts on commissions while still giving you full svc (e.g. calling you when there is breaking news). If not, find another firm or broker. I do agree that, over time, net brokers will get better. But the sheer cost of executing and clearing a trade will prevent some of what you are hoping for. When's the last time you did a trade at a discount house without already depositing money or stocks into the acct? Were they willing to extend you credit without assets in the acct? How long has it been since you could call up your broker and say "what do you think about XYZ stock" and have the broker do the homework for you? If you have the time to do your own research comprehensively, then you may not need this, but a decent broker who believes in both service and sales can often do it better, allowing you to get on with whatever you do for a living (e.g. your full time job). Many forget that a broker's full time job is being glued to the market. If you are a professional investor/trader, then that's fine, that's your occupation. But most investors have another occupation and cannot spend 6.5 hours a day watching the market, plus whatever they put into reviews and research. OK, I admit it, you hit a sore spot with me. While I am not a practicing broker, I have a lot of pride in the job I did. I've seen bad brokers and firms, as well as good. And, BTW, I've also seen unreasonable clients. That's what dealing with the public is all about. I've had clients lie to me, and cost me a sizable chunk out of my paycheck when they didn't pay for a trade. Yes, the broker pays when the client doesn't, and it hurts. That's what extending credit is all about. But I must have done something right, seven years in the business and never got a single customer complaint. Don't condemn brokers universally until you've been there, please. tom w - ---------- > From: Zoran Mitrovski > To: canslim@xmission.com > Cc: Zoran Mitrovski > Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] STOPS/LIMITS > Date: Friday, January 17, 1997 5:12 PM > > Folks, if brokers don't interest you, skip this one. > A modified CANSLIM -- so called CANSLIMB, says that > a good broker (B) is as imoportant as the other > letters in the method. ;^) > > > I think with time, there will be many good web-brokers that will > people complain about that one too. As for non-web-brokers, I don't > know and I'm not interested. I don't want to talk to anybody while > making my orders and I think that automation is the future anyway. > All these full-service scalpers will (should) go down in the next > few years anyway. > ------------------------------ From: "tom worley" Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 22:58:32 -0500 Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] TLGD & VTRA Small, regional profitable and growing banks have fared well as buyout candidates. Good luck, yours seems to have the right fundamentals to qualify if you have the patience. tom w - ---------- > From: Jay Cliburn > To: canslim@xmission.com > Subject: [CANSLIM] TLGD & VTRA > Date: Friday, January 17, 1997 6:54 PM > > > My current CANSLIM holding is Vectra Banking Co. > (NASDAQ: VTRA), a smallish (12 branches) bank in the > Denver/Boulder area. It's been flatline for the last > seven or so weeks on low volume, trading between an > essentially fixed bid/ask spread. Volume picked up > a little this week, but alas, no upward pressure. > Zack's lists it as a strong buy (for whatever *that's* > worth) and ranks it 1st out of 37 western banks. > >From recent IBDs: > VectraBkg (VTRA) > EPS = 98 > RS = 86 > Acc/Dis = B > Float = 2.6 million > ROE = 13% > # Funds Own = 3 > Mgt Owns = 20% > Group Rank = A > Last Qtr (96Q2) EPS = $0.36/shr > Next Qtr (96Q3) EPS est. = $0.46/shr > -- > Jay Cliburn | Space Dynamics Laboratory > Computational Sciences Division | 1747 North Research Park Way > Jay.Cliburn@sdl.usu.edu | Logan, Utah, USA 84341 > (801) 755-4317 (voice) | (801) 755-4366 (fax) ------------------------------ From: "tom worley" Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 22:43:41 -0500 Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] STOPS/LIMITS I wonder how useful this will be next week when the new rules from SEC go into effect on the 1000 most liquid NASDAQ stocks, rules designed specifically to tighten the spreads. Also what will be the effect on the INTCs of the market when ALL orders get represented to the public, vice just those the BDs put on Quotrons? tom w - ---------- > From: Dean Edwards > To: canslim@xmission.com > Subject: Fw: [CANSLIM] STOPS/LIMITS > Date: Friday, January 17, 1997 6:37 PM > > > > Datek only offers NASDAQ stocks and is therefore not an option. > > I use Datek and they have started to trade NYSE Stocks. You can get > real-time quotes for free without joining. Both NYSE and the NASDAQ > exchanges have > some kind of propriaritary rights on their quotes. So you have to sign a > form with them. You cannot trade AMEX stocks. > > I don't know if this is useful or not. But it might be of interest to a > another CANSLIMER > Quoting Peter Stern - an independent software programmer who is contracted > by Datek " > > "You can now view the Island limit book in real-time on the Web > > goto > > http://www.isld.com/iquote.htm > > (this is only interesting during the trading day) > > its a site we are working on to give smaller brokerage firms easy access to > the island limit book, but you can use it to see your orders, or to see > other orders in the middle of the market that you might want to take. > > If you see an order on the Island limit book that you want, just enter the > other side as a day limit order, in your datek online account or call up > your broker if he is on the Island network. (E-trade is not, although the > invitation is there....) Your broker will be very impressed with your > middle-of-the-market trading savy. > > If your Datek Online order is still open after a few seconds (remember to > account for internet latency) cancel your open limit order! What probably > happened was you missed that Island order! feel free to check. > > Now, remember, when your order is on Island it seen on the 600+ Island > terminals and also on NASDAQs selecnet system and is visible to all NASDAQ > brokers/market makers trading in that stock. (Your order may be > simultaneously sent on other execution channels as well) > > No other brokerage firm does this for their customers. Nobody. Why not? > Because that is not how they make their money. But thats another story. > > Its really rough right now, so cosmetic, although constructive criticism is > a waste of your time. Send other comments to peter@josh.com. please do NOT > post here. " > ------------------------------ From: "tom worley" Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 23:01:10 -0500 Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] STOPS/LIMITS Hey Denny, how about an intro?? Glad you at least stopped lurking momentarily, sounds like a good contribution to the group's interest in cheap access to trading. tom w - ---------- > From: Mendheart@aol.com > To: zmitrov@ee.rochester.edu; owner-canslim@xmission.com; canslim@xmission.com > Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] STOPS/LIMITS > Date: Friday, January 17, 1997 6:59 PM > > I've been a lurker....(sorry Tom) but wanted to throw in my two cents ------------------------------ From: "tom worley" Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 22:55:24 -0500 Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] brokers From the point that a broker shows at my window with a completed market order trade ticket, to the point that I have an execution price, is typically about 45 seconds on a market order on NYSE or AMEX to maybe a minute and a half on NASDAQ (which I do by phone). Add to this the time that you take to connect to the broker (assuming you have not given him/her a prior standing order) plus the time it takes for him to write up the ticket and get it approved (assuming he/she had not pre-written the ticket), you can add another several minutes. I would expect that, if you are talking with a live broker, then the execution time thereafter would be similiar. Your connect time would be the variant. On the other hand, if it takes you ten or fifteen minutes to enter your order, you could see a several dollar difference in a volatile stock/market. I get complaints from my brokers if the execution is a qtr pt off the price when they wrote the ticket (forget the changes that occurred in the market between their desk, the manager's office, and my shop). tom w - ---------- > From: David Peterson - FDC > To: canslim@xmission.com > Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] brokers > Date: Friday, January 17, 1997 6:18 PM > > capability to talk with a broker. I've never had to wait more > than a few minutes for my call to get through, and then a few > more minutes to speak with a broker. Once the call gets in, > they're answered on a first-come, first-served basis. They > will do market, limit, stop, or stop limit trades. I don't > know exactly how the trades get processed, so I don't know if > you are at a disadvantage trading with them versus trading > with someone else (maybe Tom can answer this?). > ------------------------------ From: Lehman Dennis Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 10:07:13 -0500 (EST) Subject: [CANSLIM] Lost in Space When I was a long term trader, the cost of a broker did not matter as much as it does using CANSLIM. So I signed up with Lombard last month while I was learning the ways of Canslim. I would log on just to use their service for information with out any problems.Until last Friday morning when I wanted to make a trade and a security alert message or something to that effect appeared on my screen. They had upgrade their system and my browers would no longer work. So I called Netscape, they told me my server would upgrade me, I called my server and they told me how to down load the file.(I been downloading for years) anyway it did not work, so I called them again, after four phone calls and a day lost in space. They decided to mail me the upgrade. I never made the trade the stock went up! thats life. I can not blame Lombard for upgrading their system and my server for not sending me a upgrade, it would not change anything. Dennis p006601b@pbfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us ------------------------------ From: Zoran Mitrovski Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 10:09:13 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] STOPS/LIMITS Tom wrote: > Zoran, I'm hurt! Don't condemn all full service brokers, there really are > some good ones out there, and I like to think I was one. Not all brokers > are salesmen, some are true, old style, connections between the investors > and the securities community. Some, and I believe I was one, really have > your best interests at heart. Tom, I didn't mean anything bad with my comments, and I deeply apologize if I hurt you in any way. As in any business, or as among the people in general, there is a whole spectrum of characters and quality that one can deal with. My comment on (full-service) brokers was a general one and was related to the changes that I forsee happening with the fast development of the information networks both here in US and worldwide. IMHO, I see all these "old-fashioned" brokerages becoming obsolete, as the information and the access to the trading spot they kept so selfishly for themselves become more available to the public in general. In the not so distant past there was a profession called "letter writers" (that was the closest translation I could get), and since lots of people were not educated, they went to their "full-service" letter writers (good or bad, it didn't matter) if they wanted a letter to be written for them or read to them. It's just the speed of technology and information access and there's nothing that you and me can do about it. And it increases exponentially hence no prediction and vision should be labeled as "impossible" too hastily. The simplicity of the past gave profits to the brokers for merely acting as intermediaries between the client and the markets; the complexity of the future will demand much bigger intellectual involvement and quality of service in order to remain competitive and earn a buck from the service. Big paradigm shifts are ahead of us. I have a strong vision that even the yelling and screaming in the pits is going to become the thing of the past, as intelligent networks learn how to match buy offers with sell offers in a millionth of a second. > Sadly, I have seen the big name wire houses > get away with the same practices smaller firms are condemned for. If you > are willing to make your own decisions, then a full svc firm's broker > should be willing to give you some deep discounts on commissions while > still giving you full svc (e.g. calling you when there is breaking news). Even now there are Java applets that can search the web for me and dig out news that could influence my bottom line. > If not, find another firm or broker. > > I do agree that, over time, net brokers will get better. But the sheer cost > of executing and clearing a trade will prevent some of what you are hoping > for. When's the last time you did a trade at a discount house without > already depositing money or stocks into the acct? Were they willing to > extend you credit without assets in the acct? How long has it been since > you could call up your broker and say "what do you think about XYZ stock" > and have the broker do the homework for you? If you have the time to do > your own research comprehensively, then you may not need this, but a decent > broker who believes in both service and sales can often do it better, > allowing you to get on with whatever you do for a living (e.g. your full > time job). Many forget that a broker's full time job is being glued to the > market. If you are a professional investor/trader, then that's fine, that's > your occupation. But most investors have another occupation and cannot > spend 6.5 hours a day watching the market, plus whatever they put into > reviews and research. > > OK, I admit it, you hit a sore spot with me. While I am not a practicing > broker, I have a lot of pride in the job I did. I've seen bad brokers and > firms, as well as good. And, BTW, I've also seen unreasonable clients. > That's what dealing with the public is all about. I've had clients lie to > me, and cost me a sizable chunk out of my paycheck when they didn't pay for > a trade. Yes, the broker pays when the client doesn't, and it hurts. That's > what extending credit is all about. But I must have done something right, > seven years in the business and never got a single customer complaint. > > Don't condemn brokers universally until you've been there, please. Again, Tom, I didn't EVER condemn the brokers themselves. I merely think that the service (profession) in general is quietly going to fade out as the number of people taking advantage of the ever increasing information avalanche and services stemming from it rapidly increases. I also predict the same thing for car dealers as well. All sorts of intermediaries that have profited from the information and acces insufficiencies of the public in the past are in for a major paradigm shifts in their respective fields. But then again, I might be wrong... Cheers, Zoran ;^) ------------------------------ End of canslim Digest V1 #48 **************************** To subscribe to canslim Digest, send the command: subscribe canslim-digest in the body of a message to "majordomo@xmission.com". If you want to subscribe something other than the account the mail is coming from, such as a local redistribution list, then append that address to the "subscribe" command; for example, to subscribe "local-canslim": subscribe canslim-digest local-canslim@your.domain.net A non-digest (direct mail) version of this list is also available; to subscribe to that instead, replace all instances of "canslim-digest" in the commands above with "canslim". Back issues are available for anonymous FTP from ftp.xmission.com, in pub/lists/canslim/archive. These are organized by date.