From: canslim-owner@xmission.com To: canslim-digest@xmission.com Subject: canslim Digest V1 #97 Reply-To: canslim@xmission.com Errors-To: canslim-owner@xmission.com Precedence: canslim Digest Tuesday, 25 February 1997 Volume 01 : Number 097 In this issue: Re: [CANSLIM] DGs Online Re: [CANSLIM] Re: TAGS Re: [CANSLIM] Re: TAGS Re: [CANSLIM] Market Comments, 2/24/97 Re: [CANSLIM] ALAB Re: [CANSLIM] ADEX Re: [CANSLIM] learning experience Re: [CANSLIM] Market Comments, 2/24/97 re: [CANSLIM] Money Flow Accumulation / Distribution Re: [CANSLIM] ADEX [CANSLIM] AMLN Re: [CANSLIM] Re: TAGS [CANSLIM] Re: Market Comments, 2/21/97 and week ending then Re: [CANSLIM] Analysis of TAGS Recent Breakout Re: [CANSLIM] Re: TAGS, now HDCO [CANSLIM] DELL, "M", Greenspan re: [CANSLIM] ADEX Re: [CANSLIM] ADEX 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: jeff@scrooge.idec.sdl.usu.edu (Jeff Salisbury) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 13:35:11 -0600 Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] DGs Online On Feb 25, 2:05pm, Craig Griffin wrote: > Subject: [CANSLIM] DGs Online > Additionally, will there be any search or filtering functions for DG Online? > I would like to, for example, be able to limit my universe to all stocks > with a relative strength > 80. Or search for all stocks within 3% of a new > high with volume 200% of Average Daily Volume today. > > Sincerely, > Craig > > >-- End of excerpt from Craig Griffin Joseph, I want to add that I heartily agree with Craig on this point. In fact, without a solid, comprehensive filtering capability, I think the hard-copy DG are better -- it would be much easier and quicker to browse charts with hard-copy DGs than online DGS. Best Regards, Jeff Salisbury ------------------------------ From: "Mike Artobello" Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 13:42:02 -0800 Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Re: TAGS Dave, Thanks for the comments. TAGS reported 4th quarter and fiscal year 1996 earnings today. Quarterly earnings are up 95% (they reported 100%) and annual earnings are up 44%. Good numbers! TAGS closed at 17 1/2 today, up 1 1/2 points (9.38%), on very high volume of 183,000, compared to their avg daily vol of 25,600. Profits on my paper trade are up 16.67%. Not bad for my first pick. Not sure if it was just luck or skilled analysis :-) BTW, received my first issue of DG yesterday and all I can say is WOW! I already spotted a few stocks to watch. I'll post these along with my analysis later. Regards, Mike - ----------------------------------------------------------- Mike Artobello marto@ccnet.com http://www.ccnet.com/~marto/ - ----------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ From: Zoran Mitrovski Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 18:46:43 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Re: TAGS Mike A. wrote: > TAGS closed at 17 1/2 today, up 1 1/2 points (9.38%), on very high > volume of 183,000, compared to their avg daily vol of 25,600. > > Profits on my paper trade are up 16.67%. Not bad for my first pick. > Not sure if it was just luck or skilled analysis :-) Good job, Mike. Reminds me of last November when I jumped on HDCO for the first time right ahead of the earnings report. In retrospect, I admitted that I was lucky, too. TAGS may as well be _your_ baby. There is a limit to the analysis one can do. I think luck has a lot to do with all this. Only, you need to wet your feet with real money next time...for improved blood circulation during the ride. The difference is almost like the difference between web-surfing and downhill skiing. Good luck, Zoran ------------------------------ From: Luke.Lang@sv.sc.philips.com Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 16:47:47 PST Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Market Comments, 2/24/97 Tom, > The new > hi/low stats on NYSE and NASDAQ were pathetic... What did you mean by the above statement? If I remember correctly from NBR (Nightly Business Report), the NYSE new hi/low was 166/16. This appears to be a healthy ratio. The new hi recently have been above 200. Is this your concern? If not, what was your concern? I don't know how to obtain the new hi/low stats on NASDAQ. Can you provide the ticker symbol to look them up (including NYSE hi/low)? Thanks. Best regards, Luke Lang ------------------------------ From: "tom worley" Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 21:18:22 -0500 Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] ALAB Still waiting on my resident expert to evaluate the asset value and potential for takeover, however some quick comments from the latest DG: Q1 and Q2 in FY96 underperformed compared to '95, while Q3 and Q4 substantially beat '95. This makes for easier comparisons, but is there a seasonality here? Annual earnings show a decleration, cause for caution. Nice base at 18 and clean breakout on vol, but now about 10% over base. A retreat to the base would trigger an 8% stop. U/D of 1.6 nice but not overwhelming, small institutional presence (funds 7%, banks 1%), so lots of room to grow. Debt at 149% but not sure where banks are falling these days so this may be normal. New CEO 4/96 which precedes the trend up from the old base at 13 (BTW, this is often the pattern, a new CEO to me is a positive on a stagnant stock). RS at 87 appears to be flat-lining, and 50DMA just entering base at 18 and change. If asset value is high to price, then may be worth watching for entry. Having 7 banks in non-metropolitan central and southern Alabama doesn't sound like a real attractive takeover, however. Mighty thin trading (16,000 shares a day avg) for a 6 million share float, 6.2 mil issue, also means insiders holding little actual stock, probably mostly options in the money. Will let you know on asset value. tom w - ---------- > From: CardioPhil@aol.com > To: canslim@xmission.com > Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] ALAB > Date: Friday, February 21, 1997 11:33 PM > > << Will pass this one on to my resident expert on banks (since I don't trust > my own judgement and bias) for evaluation. The CANSLIM nrs sound impressive, > if he likes it from a value/asset basis, could be a winner. >> > > Thanks, let me know. > > Phil ------------------------------ From: "tom worley" Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 21:27:02 -0500 Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] ADEX Jim, as I have mentioned before, I don't trust a "cup and handle" formation that takes this long (about 8 months) to form. May work, but I think I see what Mike is noticing (his ascending triangle) which I generally describe as a convergence. That is, if you draw a line along the recent highs (last six weeks or so) and another along the lows, you will see the lines are sharply converging. Three things likely to happen: it will go into a base, it will break up, it will break down. Meantime the 50DMA is catching up, which may give support. RS already appears to be basing, and considering how the chip equip group has been doing, I would vote for a base. But that's just a guess, I would wait and let the stock tell you what it wants to do. tom w - ---------- > From: James Adams > To: canslim@xmission.com > Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] ADEX > Date: Tuesday, February 25, 1997 7:41 AM > > ---------- > Michael A Langston wrote: > > > > uh, ok -- it's too early to be sure jim, but if i were > > thinking of going long this one soon, i'd probably keep > > an eye out for an ascending triangle here > ------------------------------ From: "tom worley" Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 21:34:00 -0500 Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] learning experience I would certainly agree that the "competitive edge" is a direct contributor to the earnings growth. The recession of several years ago caused a lot of downsizing and remachining in industry, with the result that when growth resumed, it was far more cost efficient. I picked up an item yesterday on gold stocks, several years ago it cost around $270 and ounce to produce, today that cost due to better technology is only about $200, thus making the cos more cost effective. tom w - ---------- > From: Johan Van Houtven > To: canslim@xmission.com > Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] learning experience > Date: Tuesday, February 25, 1997 9:29 AM > > I also agree with Tom (and correct me if I'm wrong Tom) that one should not > just compare this bull with earlier bull markets. --- RIGHT ON, Johan. > > Things have changed. IMO the economy is now technology driven an not any > longer based on the notion of limited resources. > > when we would be out of oil and other important resources. I browsed to the > > Has this happened? Obviously not? Why? Because of technology. They keep > finding ways to create more energy from the same amount of oil and they keep > finding better ways of finding and extracting (sorry for my bad English) oil. > ------------------------------ From: "tom worley" Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 21:52:05 -0500 Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Market Comments, 2/24/97 I don't give the ratio between the nr of highs and low much thought. In a mkt trending up, there will naturally be few lows and many highs, in a downtrend the opposite will hold as already weak stocks weaken further and set new lows. What I pay attention to is the trend, in this case, to whether new highs are going up or down. I don't have a "magic" yardstick, but I like to see at least the low 200s on NYSE and mid to upper 200s on NASDAQ. We were just starting to see that recently, which was one reason I felt the secondaries were starting to get some cash inflow and come to life. Well, that theory sure got shot in the a__! As I have mentioned I typically get my stats from the Dow News Svc, but will see if I can get you a stock type symbol that would work. tom w - ---------- > From: Luke.Lang@sv.sc.philips.com > To: canslim@xmission.com > Cc: lukelang@svlhp208.scs.philips.com > Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Market Comments, 2/24/97 > Date: Tuesday, February 25, 1997 7:47 PM > > > The new > > hi/low stats on NYSE and NASDAQ were pathetic... > > What did you mean by the above statement? If I remember correctly > from NBR (Nightly Business Report), the NYSE new hi/low was 166/16. > This appears to be a healthy ratio. The new hi recently have been > above 200. Is this your concern? If not, what was your concern? ------------------------------ From: Michael A Langston Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 22:34:02 -0500 Subject: re: [CANSLIM] Money Flow Accumulation / Distribution jim horan has crafted a very well-thought-out explanation over at delphi -- IBD apparently uses a "persistency of flow" formula that's more complicated that vanilla chaiken so many flows, so little time :) btw, a pic of HIM (butkus that is) is now available at people.delphi.com/prroosta/delphi.html mike ------------------------------ From: "James Adams" Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 22:46:39 -0500 Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] ADEX tom worley wrote: > > > Jim, as I have mentioned before, I don't trust a "cup and handle" > formation that takes this long (about 8 months) to form. What is an ideal time frame for the cup/handle pattern? > but I think I see what Mike is noticing (his ascending triangle) > which I generally describe as a convergence. That is, if you draw a > line along the recent highs (last six weeks or so) and another along > the lows, you will see the lines are sharply converging. Three things > likely to happen: it will go into a base, it will break up, it will > break down. I didn't know what "ascending triangle" meant. Thanks for the explanation. >Meantime the 50DMA is catching up, which may give > support. RS already appears to be basing, and considering how the > chip equip group has been doing, I would vote for a base. But that's > just a guess, I would wait and let the stock tell you what it wants > to do. Closed up 13/16 today on 29,000 share about -50% of ADV. I'm not sure what it is trying to tell me, but I'll watch closely. Thanks again, Jim Adams Maysville, KY USA http://www.cris.com/~jimdams/ ------------------------------ From: "James Adams" Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 22:52:17 -0500 Subject: [CANSLIM] AMLN I bought AMLN last Monday, and now I'm down .75 cents per share. However, that doesn't really bother me that much because the Mkt has been down more. It closed up 1/4 today. However, what really bothers me is that they were to release earnings on 2/14 and I called them today and they aren't releasing until until first week of March. Isn't conventional wisdom that when a company releases late like this that bad news is coming? I'm thinking about watching for a decent uptick tommorrow and getting out. What do some of the more experienced on the list think? Jim Adams Maysville, KY USA http://www.cris.com/~jimdams/ ------------------------------ From: Roady@mail.prostar.com Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 04:38:54 GMT Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Re: TAGS On Tue, 25 Feb 1997 13:42:02 -0800, you wrote: >Dave, > >Thanks for the comments. > >TAGS reported 4th quarter and fiscal year 1996 earnings today. >Quarterly earnings are up 95% (they reported 100%) and annual >earnings are up 44%. Good numbers! > >TAGS closed at 17 1/2 today, up 1 1/2 points (9.38%), on very high >volume of 183,000, compared to their avg daily vol of 25,600. > >Profits on my paper trade are up 16.67%. Not bad for my first pick. >Not sure if it was just luck or skilled analysis :-) > >BTW, received my first issue of DG yesterday and all I can say is=20 >WOW! I already spotted a few stocks to watch. I'll post these along=20 >with my analysis later. > >Regards, > >Mike=20 >----------------------------------------------------------- >Mike Artobello=20 >marto@ccnet.com=20 >http://www.ccnet.com/~marto/ >----------------------------------------------------------- > Mike, Just for your information, I subscribe to Red Chip Review, which I think is one of the more objective stock advisory services. They like TAGS too and have it in their model portfolio. So you are not alone in your acessement, nice job. Roady@prostar.com (Dale Schroeder) ------------------------------ From: "tom worley" Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 22:21:56 -0500 Subject: [CANSLIM] Re: Market Comments, 2/21/97 and week ending then I don't know if "doing a Garzarelli" is new, but I never had heard it before so I claim authorship. Feel free to spread it around, I think's it's kinda funny too, but then I'm not one of her clients! You don't want much, do ya? Tech analysis of indexes too???? Sheeesshhh!!! That's it, just encourage me, why don't you! I have never found concensus in mkt commentators, that is why I eventually learned to ignore them. They have no accountability (much like Garzarelli) and live from day to day just selling the latest horror story they can develop. If you pay attention to them, you will eventually be so confused and "whipsawed" that you won't know WHAT to do, and indecision in the mkt is a killer. That's why I began doing my own "commentary" for myself and clients, at least then there was accountability and consistency. If I was wrong, it was consistent and my clients could play contrarian if they wished. If I was right, they made money (unless they bet against me, and a few did, I'm not perfect). This leads me to my final flame of the media, they will always find something Greenspan says to scare the listeners. You have to expect this. BTW, I should single out IBD here (esp since we have several members who get their paycheck there!). IBD is truly the only periodical written for the investor. Note the lack of advertising (maybe just a little would lighten the subscription load?) The rest of the media has to SELL a STORY, THAT DAY! If you are fortunate enough to be able to hear Greenspan directly, then you can judge for yourself. If not, then you have to try and understand the man, he is a very careful speaker, he doesn't use the media to float "trial balloons", he would not do anything to give foreign mkts advantage over the US mkt (which is why I knew his "euphoria" comment was way out of context). Listen to the words, or at least the quotes, not the spin the commentators will put on them. I damn near could have written his last presentation to Congress, he was careful to make it as difficult for the media to misinterpret as possible, but still they managed, and will continue to do so. I don't fear Greenspan, he is one of the few truly "forward looking" economic powers in this country. Will his words move the mkt, you better believe it, that's why you have to pay attention and why I mention any appearance he is making that I know of. Is that bad, IMHO, no. If he sees a problem looming ahead, he is doing the right thing and correcting it now rather than doing the typical Congress kinda thing and letting it turn into a crises before it even gets discussed by the sub-committee. Hadn't meant to get so wordy, but I do run on so. After reading this, maybe there is something here for the entire group, so will send it to CANSLIM. At least there is a little humor, and we can all use that. tom w - ---------- > From: Johan Van Houtven > To: tom worley > Subject: Re: Market Comments, 2/21/97 and week ending then > Date: Tuesday, February 25, 1997 9:29 AM > >>kept me from being > >totally stupid (e.g. doing a "Garzarelli"). > > B^) 'Doing a Garzarelli'! Is this a new saying? Hilarious! > > > I am also trying to > >develop some addl ones, such as the mutual fund cash flow and > >programs nrs. > > It's getting awesome Tom. One thing I'd like you to add: A technical view of > the DOW and NASDAQ (maybe even S&P). > > Especially (not solely) because there is no clear direction (to me) I'm > afraid people like Greeenspan might have a significant impact on the market > when they present an (important) speech. > > I wish I could ignore Greenspan. Ever since his famous 'irrational > exuberance' words I am worried whenever he is going to have a speech, like > this Wednesday (?). ------------------------------ From: "tom worley" Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 22:43:16 -0500 Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Analysis of TAGS Recent Breakout Yes, Mike, I really saved your excellent analysis on TAGS till I had the time to look at a DG and respond. Too bad their earnings came out before then, oh well. The only negative I found was that the up/down ratio was 0.9 and the small float leading to thin trading. Of course this helps when good news arrives, as it did today. On the other hand, this is a big cap, highly liquid mkt, so really surprises me that it did so well today. Maybe there is still some hope for the secondaries??? Quality base at 14, nice breakout on vol from there and continuing today on pos earnings news. Hope it continues. As to timing, I am uncomfortable buying right before earnings are released (unless I know something that the public doesn't, and that would be illegal). The recent vol increase suggests there may have been a little leakage of today's earnings news. tom w - ---------- > From: Mike Artobello > To: canslim@xmission.com > Subject: [CANSLIM] Analysis of TAGS Recent Breakout > Date: Saturday, February 22, 1997 11:41 PM > > The following is my analysis of TAGS recent breakout. I'd appreciate > some feedback. This is my first attempt at chart reading using O'Neils > methods, so please be gentle :^) ------------------------------ From: "tom worley" Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 22:36:06 -0500 Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Re: TAGS, now HDCO Speaking of HDCO, Zoran, it moved back into its logical base today on decreasing vol. Looks like the "secondary announcement selloff" is over, start watching it for the reentry point right around where they complete the secondary, this could be ready to explode again then. tom w - ---------- > From: Zoran Mitrovski > To: canslim@xmission.com > Cc: Zoran Mitrovski > Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Re: TAGS > Date: Tuesday, February 25, 1997 6:46 PM > > > Profits on my paper trade are up 16.67%. Not bad for my first pick. > > Good job, Mike. Reminds me of last November when I jumped on > HDCO for the first time right ahead of the earnings report. ------------------------------ From: "tom worley" Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 22:58:50 -0500 Subject: [CANSLIM] DELL, "M", Greenspan In case you may have missed it, DELL reported great earnings after the close, $1.01 for the Q4 against expectations of 83 cents and yr ago of 35 cents. This will lower its TRAILING PE to 26 from a current PE of 34 and follows several other mfr reports with solid nrs. I expect this to continue the recovery of the tech stocks groups, altho don't think it will help the networking sector. DELL was trading up almost two pts in after mkt action, GATE was up nearly half a pt. Don't like the reversal on CUBE today, but nice action by IBM. MU looking stronger. Internet stocks may be starting to come to life, keep an eye on them. Chips, to me, remain inconsistent. Telecoms also seem weak. I didn't see any other earnings reports that I consider "market movers", altho TAGS at 41 cents vs expectations of 35 certainly looked good. Walmart at 48 cents vs expected 47 may help stabilize the retail sector, esp after weak retail sales reported earlier today for the group. Energy and finance, our recent leadership, still appear to be weakening. Gold continues its recovery, but I still don't trust it. Stay tuned for Greenspan, starts around 10AM EST, before the Senate. If you can't listen, just watch the mkt indexes, you will know if he surprises anyone. tom w As always, just OMHO any opinions expressed, recommendations made, or advice given are strictly my own and do not represent my employer ------------------------------ From: Michael A Langston Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 23:16:21 -0500 Subject: re: [CANSLIM] ADEX >> but I think I see what Mike is noticing (his ascending triangle) >> which I generally describe as a convergence. That is, if you draw a >> line along the recent highs (last six weeks or so) and another along >> the lows, you will see the lines are sharply converging. > > didn't know what "ascending triangle" meant. Thanks for the explanation. sheesh jim, just ask! -- to embellish on tom's comments, ascending triangles have flattish tops (and tend to break out to the upside, watch volume) -- descending triangles have flattist bottoms (and tend to break to the downside) -- symmetric triangles have an apex in the middle of their range, that is, both top and bottom are sloped (and are thought to be much harder to guess b/o direction) -- but you don't really want a triangle to go all the way to a point, that often signals a b/o failure -- early last year, ascending triangles and high-tight-flags were a dime a dozen, ah, the good old days -- btw, you'll sometimes hear ascending triangles called "coils" -- FWIW, i'd say that most canslimmers oughta consider adding a tech analysis book or two to the old bookshelf -- i'd draw pix but if you saw my ascii renderings you'd probably be sorry... mike ------------------------------ From: "tom worley" Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 23:11:09 -0500 Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] ADEX Volume drying up would also suggest a base to me, but too early to tell. Let the stock tell you where it's going. I happen to like a "tight" cup and handle that has completely formed in less than six months, preferably less than three. In this tighter timeline, it suggests that any pullback was purely technical in nature, not related to any "stumbling" by the co. If a stumble was involved, then I typically expect it to take about six months to correct the "mistake" and recover, rebase, then be ready to show its future excellence. If it takes much longer than six months, my cynicism kicks in and distrusts the "fix". But that's just me. tom w - ---------- > From: James Adams > To: canslim@xmission.com > Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] ADEX > Date: Tuesday, February 25, 1997 10:46 PM > > tom worley wrote: > > > > Jim, as I have mentioned before, I don't trust a "cup and handle" > > formation that takes this long (about 8 months) to form. > > What is an ideal time frame for the cup/handle pattern? > > > but I think I see what Mike is noticing (his ascending triangle) > > which I generally describe as a convergence. That is, if you draw a > > line along the recent highs (last six weeks or so) and another along > > the lows, you will see the lines are sharply converging. Three things > > likely to happen: it will go into a base, it will break up, it will > > break down. > I didn't know what "ascending triangle" meant. Thanks for the explanation. > > Closed up 13/16 today on 29,000 share about -50% of ADV. I'm not sure what > it is trying to tell me, but I'll watch closely. > ------------------------------ End of canslim Digest V1 #97 **************************** 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.