From: owner-canslim-digest@lists.xmission.com (canslim-digest) To: canslim-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: canslim-digest V2 #1226 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 Friday, March 23 2001 Volume 02 : Number 1226 In this issue: [CANSLIM] DOW 7000? RE: [CANSLIM] DOW 7000? Re: [CANSLIM] pasting stocks into clearstation Re: [CANSLIM] DOW 7000? Re: [CANSLIM] Cross posted - now Japan savings. Re: [CANSLIM] Cross posted - now Japan savings. [CANSLIM] Watch Lists and IBD Weekend Review Re: [CANSLIM] fomc released 1/30-31 minutes Re: [CANSLIM] Watch Lists and IBD Weekend Review Re: [CANSLIM] Watch Lists and IBD Weekend Review [none] Re: [CANSLIM] Watch Lists and IBD Weekend Review ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2001 10:20:24 -0500 From: "Dave Rubin" Subject: [CANSLIM] DOW 7000? Did anyone else look at the chart of the DOW on page 1 of IBD and come to the scary realization that the DOW is still very much extended on a long-term basis? Drawing a long-term trendline from 1987 comes to around 7000 now. Even if the DOW did fall to 7000 it would represent "only" a 40% drop from its peak. This is still less than the 60% drop for the Nasdaq. Long-term charts for the Nasdaq tell a different story, with the trendline from the mid-1990 low landing at around 1600-1700 now. Combined with the overly bullish sentiment, lack of true capitulation, and continued economic uncertainty, it seems possible (though probably unlikely) that the DOW could fall much further here. Just some random food for thought... - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2001 10:40:06 -0500 From: Ed McDonough Subject: RE: [CANSLIM] DOW 7000? Now you have it Dave!! The bear can be ferocious. Love the short. Ed - -----Original Message----- From: owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com [mailto:owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com]On Behalf Of Dave Rubin Sent: Friday, March 23, 2001 10:20 AM To: canslim@lists.xmission.com Subject: [CANSLIM] DOW 7000? Did anyone else look at the chart of the DOW on page 1 of IBD and come to the scary realization that the DOW is still very much extended on a long-term basis? Drawing a long-term trendline from 1987 comes to around 7000 now. Even if the DOW did fall to 7000 it would represent "only" a 40% drop from its peak. This is still less than the 60% drop for the Nasdaq. Long-term charts for the Nasdaq tell a different story, with the trendline from the mid-1990 low landing at around 1600-1700 now. Combined with the overly bullish sentiment, lack of true capitulation, and continued economic uncertainty, it seems possible (though probably unlikely) that the DOW could fall much further here. Just some random food for thought... - - - - ------------------------------ Date: 23 Mar 2001 07:33:25 -0800 From: "Tim Fisher" Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] pasting stocks into clearstation ??? Just like I posted. Hold down the alt key and press the letter keys. At 10:54 PM 3/22/2001 -0800, you wrote: >Tim, > >how do you work your shortcut keys to paste symbols?? > >Perry Tim Fisher, 1995 President, Pacific Fishery Biologists Ore-ROCK-On Rockhounding Web Site PFB Information mailto:tim@OreRockOn.com WWW http://OreRockOn.com - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2001 07:50:51 -0800 From: Dan Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] DOW 7000? 7000 to 7500 looks to be in the realm of "reasonable" expectation. Dave Rubin wrote: > Did anyone else look at the chart of the DOW on page 1 of IBD and come to > the scary realization that the DOW is still very much extended on a > long-term basis? > > Drawing a long-term trendline from 1987 comes to around 7000 now. > > Even if the DOW did fall to 7000 it would represent "only" a 40% drop from > its peak. This is still less than the 60% drop for the Nasdaq. > > Long-term charts for the Nasdaq tell a different story, with the trendline > from the mid-1990 low landing at around 1600-1700 now. > > Combined with the overly bullish sentiment, lack of true capitulation, and > continued economic uncertainty, it seems possible (though probably unlikely) > that the DOW could fall much further here. > > Just some random food for thought... > > - - -- Dan http://www.globexplorer.com/cfviewer/start.cfm http://www.corazon.org/ - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2001 09:21:14 -0800 From: "Bill Triffet" Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Cross posted - now Japan savings. Perhaps this generation is not quite as nationalistic as in the past and may be investing outside the country as Kent put it? That would not be good for their nation as a whole. Given the global economy, I couldn't imagine hoping to retire from zero interest savings though. I thought the baby boomers here are getting hit in the pocket, I shudder to think of that group over there. - -Bill Triffet - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tom Worley" To: Sent: Friday, March 23, 2001 2:55 AM Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Cross posted - now Japan savings. > Hi Bill, > > I have heard stories that the Japanese have a distrust of their > banks, and often hoard money at home, or put it into gold or > other valuables that do not pay interest. So they may be used to > not getting any income from their savings. I believe the everyday > citizen has become more of a stock market investor than was the > case ten years ago, as well. > > Tom Worley > stkguru@netside.net > ICQ # 5568838 > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Bill Triffet > To: > Sent: Friday, March 23, 2001 1:20 AM > Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Cross posted - now Japan savings. > > > This post got me to thinking: What about Japan and their super > low (or zero) > interest rates now? I was under the impression that this is a > country where > the average citizen puts most of their monies into bank savings. > If their > prime lending rate is at zero, what are the banks paying to its > customers? > > -Bill Triffet - 100% cash now. > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Dan" > To: > Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2001 9:38 PM > Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Cross posted from another list > > > > Tom, > > > > Thanks for the overview. I was mixing the Fed and the FOMC > together, > > not keeping or appreciating their different roles. > > > > As for savings, I doubt an educational program would have much > of a > > payoff. People just seem to spend at their comfort level with > debt. I > > do not really understand it any more as those days are far in > my past. > > What we need is a "war on debt", patterned after the successful > and > > economically sound "war on drugs". (:-))= > > > > Actually the poor saving habits of the citizenry that you > mentioned and > > I have read of of late surprised me a bit, as with all the > money being > > pumped into the market for the last few years, and evidently > still going > > in, although at a slower rate I assume, I just thought that > there was a > > higher rate of savings. > > > > Thanks for the response and the thoughts > > > > Dan > > > > Tom Worley wrote: > > > > > Hi Dan, > > > > > > The function of FOMC is to control the economy, and all > aspects > > > related to it. This is not the same as the Federal Reserve's > > > responsibilities for liquidity. While Greenspan is > two-hatted, > > > he has a different mission in each area. > > > > > > The Federal Reserve, not FOMC, establishes margin > requirements on > > > stocks. Because of the high volatility on most dot com > stocks, > > > over the past two years most firms increased the margin > > > requirements for them above the minimums set by the Fed > Reserve. > > > I suspect this action was sufficient for the Fed Reserve to > feel > > > it did not need to intervene further. > > > > > > One thing that was most clear last Tuesday is that Mr. G > > > recognizes that his role is to manage the economy, not the > stock > > > market. Had he been attempting to control the stock market, > and > > > re-establish the wealth effect, then he would have insisted > on a > > > cut of at least 75 BP, and maybe even a full %. Of course, > had he > > > done a full %, and maybe even 75 BP, the airhead commentators > > > would have focused on how bad things must be, and only the > Feds > > > realize it. > > > > > > Frankly, I am at a loss to come up with any suggestions on > how to > > > improve the personal spending habits, and savings habits, of > > > citizens in a free country. Perhaps a public education > program, > > > such as has been done on the issue of smoking or drug abuse. > The > > > citizens of the USA are among the worst for saving money in > the > > > world. Presently the rate is negative. It's one reason I > maintain > > > a long term position in a company selling software to > bankruptcy > > > trustees. Bankruptcy is a solid growth industry, that only > gets > > > better in bad economic times. But it did well even in the > good > > > times. However, this is not the function or responsibility of > > > FOMC. Had they raised rates to "punish" those abusing their > > > credit, they would also have punished corporations and > > > individuals using credit responsibly. And, of course, they > would > > > have stifled economic growth years ago, contrary to their > mandate > > > to manage. > > > > > > The process is usually self correcting, either thru personal > > > bankruptcy, or thru outrage at the interest rates being paid > on > > > credit cards. We saw both about three years ago, when rates > were > > > around 17 or 18%. People just started cutting up the cards, > and > > > paying off the balances. We still see this today at financial > > > sites like Motley Fool, where they exhort people to pay off > high > > > interest debt before thinking about investing. After all, > it's a > > > guaranteed return even now of about 12%, and that's pretty > > > attractive. > > > > > > Mr. G was sharply criticized when he tried to "jawbone" the > > > bubble out of dot coms and techs stocks with his famous > > > "euphoria" comment. Kinda funny now that the commentators > > > criticize him for failing to control the bubble, when that is > not > > > even his responsibility. Where's the media's responsibility > in > > > all this, they were the ones telling new investors to put > money > > > into the market and make a profit, to listen to some, it was > > > practically assured. Two years ago, at the height of the dot > com > > > bubble, I don't recall any analysts or market commentators > > > warning that these companies were all start ups, limited > > > management experience, no earnings and only minor revenues > (look > > > at ETYS for just one monstrous example, went public with a > market > > > cap greater than ToysRUs, and now bankrupt). But it's easier > for > > > the media to blame a govt employee, than to accept any social > > > responsibility for themselves. > > > > > > The stock market is first and foremost a "free market". It > should > > > not, and cannot, be controlled by an individual or a govt > agency. > > > It must correct itself. Part of that process is ongoing, but > so > > > long as we are wedded to vested interests (media commentators > are > > > there to shock and attract viewers in order to sell > advertising > > > time, wirehouse analysts are there to generate activity and > > > protect the interests of the wirehouse, wirehouses > downgrading a > > > stock to a "hold" when what they really mean is "dump that > dog as > > > fast as you can enter the sell order"), even reasonably > respected > > > journals such as WSJ or IBD must still sell ad space to > survive. > > > I remember the early days of IBD (then Investors Daily) when > > > there was virtually no ads, and never an ad from a company > that > > > might be a competitor (e.g. stock screening services, > investment > > > letters, brokerage houses, etc). It's quite different now > that > > > they have built up a subscriber base, and must generate > revenues > > > to cover costs. > > > > > > It's a harsh world in the stock market, but there will always > be > > > investors (including institutional money managers) who are > > > willing to park money in a speculative stock in the belief / > > > expectation that it will make a profit "someday" (e.g. > Amazon, > > > how many years now have we been promised profits?). The > beauty of > > > CANSLIM is that you can combine what a company is really > > > achieving (fundamentals) with what the market is thinking > > > (momentum) and make money off the combination. > > > > > > Let's not blame Mr. G for what is going on right now. He, and > > > FOMC, are after all only human, and they are trying to > anticipate > > > and project what will happen economically many months in the > > > future. There are many factors far beyond their control, > > > including consumer spending and debt levels, but also things > like > > > oil production quotas and pricing, that are beyond both their > > > control and predictability. > > > > > > Tom Worley > > > stkguru@netside.net > > > ICQ # 5568838 > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: Dan > > > To: > > > Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2001 11:36 PM > > > Subject: [CANSLIM] Cross posted from another list > > > > > > I wish I was more knowledgeable of Economics to be able to > better > > > put > > > this in some frame of reference generally . Specifically, > about > > > midway > > > down the column, he speaks of three areas of failures by the > Fed. > > > One I > > > wonder about is the failure to squelch the internet, tech, > > > bubble. This > > > seems to me, to be outside the purview and responsibilities > of > > > the Fed. > > > > > > Anyone have thoughts about the article? > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------- > > > http://www.thestreet.com/p/comment/galbraith/1354492.html > > > > > > It's Too Late Now > > > By James K. Galbraith > > > Special to TheStreet.com > > > 3/21/01 12:41 PM ET > > > > > > Let me confess to minor sympathy for Brother Greenspan. There > was > > > nothing he could have done Tuesday to stop the onrushing > slump. > > > The > > > pathetic action he took was merely a shrug, a sigh of > resignation > > > and > > > impotence. > > > > > > If you doubt this, ask yourself: Suppose the cut had been 75 > > > basis > > > points? Do you think that would have sparked a rally? Do you > > > really > > > believe that the distance separating a slump from a rally was > 25 > > > lousy basis points? Or rather, to be precise, that it was the > > > difference between 25 basis points now and the same 25 basis > > > points > > > in two or three weeks? Of course not. > > > > > > Next, suppose the cuts had been, say, 100 basis points or > more. > > > Would > > > the markets have shouted hallelujah then? Would such a cut > have > > > jump- > > > started consumer confidence? Would it have revived the tech > > > sector? > > > Or would we have inferred that the news reaching the Fed is > worse > > > than we knew? > > > > > > The point is, it's too late. > > > > > > This slump has three deep causes. The first is the build-up > of > > > private debts, mainly households, to new highs. The second > was > > > the > > > tech bubble, fueled in part by capital inflow, funneled into > one > > > narrow sector of the markets. Third, let's be candid, was the > > > last > > > administration's single-minded pursuit of public debt > > > reduction -- a > > > goal achievable in a growing economy only if private debts > are > > > going > > > up very fast. > > > > > > The Fed failed to take any steps to control these > developments. > > > It > > > failed to discourage excessive household borrowing, > particularly > > > unsecured credits. It failed miserably to squelch the Nasdaq > > > bubble, > > > which it could have done on its own authority by raising the > > > margin > > > requirement. It went along with the debt reduction charade -- > > > until > > > just as cravenly switching over to the tax reduction charade > last > > > month. And it attacked the debt pile-up at the most > vulnerable > > > point > > > in 1999-2000, by jacking up interest rates in what it said -- > > > incredibly -- was a defense against inflation! > > > > > > When households reach historic limits of debt carriage -- and > > > interest rates rise -- they tend to stop borrowing. When a > stock > > > bubble pops, the firms feeding on it run out of money after a > > > while. > > > These things have happened. Now, they must run their course. > > > > > > We will need to wait until cars and appliances age, until > people > > > have > > > weddings, children, divorces, or deaths in the family, and > decide > > > to > > > move to new houses. Only then -- a year or more from now -- > will > > > the > > > urge to borrow return. Then, a cut in interest rates might do > > > something. > > > > > > In the meantime, hold on to your hats. > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------- > -- > > > -- > > > James K. Galbraith is author of Created Unequal: The Crisis > in > > > American Pay (Free Press, 1998) and director of the > University of > > > Texas Inequality Project. A professor at the University of > Texas > > > at > > > Austin and senior scholar at the Levy Economics Institute, he > > > worked > > > for many years on the staff of the House Banking Committee, > where > > > he > > > conducted oversight of the Federal Reserve. He welcomes your > > > feedback > > > and invites you to send it to James K. Galbraith . > > > > > > -- > > > Dan > > > > > > http://www.globexplorer.com/cfviewer/start.cfm > > > > > > http://www.corazon.org/ > > > > > > - > > > > > > - > > > > -- > > Dan > > > > http://www.globexplorer.com/cfviewer/start.cfm > > > > http://www.corazon.org/ > > > > > > > > - > > > > > - > > > > - > - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2001 09:23:42 -0800 From: "Bill Triffet" Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Cross posted - now Japan savings. That could very well be though not the best thing for a struggling economy. - -Bill Triffet - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kent Norman" To: Sent: Friday, March 23, 2001 4:49 AM Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Cross posted - now Japan savings. > Perhaps they are invested out of the country? > Kent Norman > > --- Bill Triffet wrote: > > This post got me to thinking: What about Japan and > > their super low (or zero) > > interest rates now? I was under the impression that > > this is a country where > > the average citizen puts most of their monies into > > bank savings. If their > > prime lending rate is at zero, what are the banks > > paying to its customers? > > > > -Bill Triffet - 100% cash now. > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Dan" > > To: > > Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2001 9:38 PM > > Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Cross posted from another > > list > > > > > > > Tom, > > > > > > Thanks for the overview. I was mixing the Fed and > > the FOMC together, > > > not keeping or appreciating their different roles. > > > > > > As for savings, I doubt an educational program > > would have much of a > > > payoff. People just seem to spend at their > > comfort level with debt. I > > > do not really understand it any more as those days > > are far in my past. > > > What we need is a "war on debt", patterned after > > the successful and > > > economically sound "war on drugs". (:-))= > > > > > > Actually the poor saving habits of the citizenry > > that you mentioned and > > > I have read of of late surprised me a bit, as with > > all the money being > > > pumped into the market for the last few years, and > > evidently still going > > > in, although at a slower rate I assume, I just > > thought that there was a > > > higher rate of savings. > > > > > > Thanks for the response and the thoughts > > > > > > Dan > > > > > > Tom Worley wrote: > > > > > > > Hi Dan, > > > > > > > > The function of FOMC is to control the economy, > > and all aspects > > > > related to it. This is not the same as the > > Federal Reserve's > > > > responsibilities for liquidity. While Greenspan > > is two-hatted, > > > > he has a different mission in each area. > > > > > > > > The Federal Reserve, not FOMC, establishes > > margin requirements on > > > > stocks. Because of the high volatility on most > > dot com stocks, > > > > over the past two years most firms increased the > > margin > > > > requirements for them above the minimums set by > > the Fed Reserve. > > > > I suspect this action was sufficient for the Fed > > Reserve to feel > > > > it did not need to intervene further. > > > > > > > > One thing that was most clear last Tuesday is > > that Mr. G > > > > recognizes that his role is to manage the > > economy, not the stock > > > > market. Had he been attempting to control the > > stock market, and > > > > re-establish the wealth effect, then he would > > have insisted on a > > > > cut of at least 75 BP, and maybe even a full %. > > Of course, had he > > > > done a full %, and maybe even 75 BP, the airhead > > commentators > > > > would have focused on how bad things must be, > > and only the Feds > > > > realize it. > > > > > > > > Frankly, I am at a loss to come up with any > > suggestions on how to > > > > improve the personal spending habits, and > > savings habits, of > > > > citizens in a free country. Perhaps a public > > education program, > > > > such as has been done on the issue of smoking or > > drug abuse. The > > > > citizens of the USA are among the worst for > > saving money in the > > > > world. Presently the rate is negative. It's one > > reason I maintain > > > > a long term position in a company selling > > software to bankruptcy > > > > trustees. Bankruptcy is a solid growth industry, > > that only gets > > > > better in bad economic times. But it did well > > even in the good > > > > times. However, this is not the function or > > responsibility of > > > > FOMC. Had they raised rates to "punish" those > > abusing their > > > > credit, they would also have punished > > corporations and > > > > individuals using credit responsibly. And, of > > course, they would > > > > have stifled economic growth years ago, contrary > > to their mandate > > > > to manage. > > > > > > > > The process is usually self correcting, either > > thru personal > > > > bankruptcy, or thru outrage at the interest > > rates being paid on > > > > credit cards. We saw both about three years ago, > > when rates were > > > > around 17 or 18%. People just started cutting up > > the cards, and > > > > paying off the balances. We still see this today > > at financial > > > > sites like Motley Fool, where they exhort people > > to pay off high > > > > interest debt before thinking about investing. > > After all, it's a > > > > guaranteed return even now of about 12%, and > > that's pretty > > > > attractive. > > > > > > > > Mr. G was sharply criticized when he tried to > > "jawbone" the > > > > bubble out of dot coms and techs stocks with his > > famous > > > > "euphoria" comment. Kinda funny now that the > > commentators > > > > criticize him for failing to control the bubble, > > when that is not > > > > even his responsibility. Where's the media's > > responsibility in > > > > all this, they were the ones telling new > > investors to put money > > > > into the market and make a profit, to listen to > > some, it was > > > > practically assured. Two years ago, at the > > height of the dot com > > > > bubble, I don't recall any analysts or market > > commentators > > > > warning that these companies were all start ups, > > limited > > > > management experience, no earnings and only > > minor revenues (look > > > > at ETYS for just one monstrous example, went > > public with a market > > > > cap greater than ToysRUs, and now bankrupt). But > > it's easier for > > > > the media to blame a govt employee, than to > > accept any social > > > > responsibility for themselves. > > > > > > > > The stock market is first and foremost a "free > > market". It should > > > > not, and cannot, be controlled by an individual > > or a govt agency. > > > > It must correct itself. Part of that process is > > ongoing, but so > > > > long as we are wedded to vested interests (media > > commentators are > > > > there to shock and attract viewers in order to > > sell advertising > > > > time, wirehouse analysts are there to generate > > activity and > > > > protect the interests of the wirehouse, > > wirehouses downgrading a > > > > stock to a "hold" when what they really mean is > > "dump that dog as > > > > fast as you can enter the sell order"), even > > reasonably respected > > > > journals such as WSJ or IBD must still sell ad > > space to survive. > > > > I remember the early days of IBD (then Investors > > Daily) when > > > > there was virtually no ads, and never an ad from > > a company that > > > > might be a competitor (e.g. stock screening > > services, investment > > > > letters, brokerage houses, etc). It's quite > > different now that > > > > they have built up a subscriber base, and must > > generate revenues > > > > to cover costs. > > > > > > > > It's a harsh world in the stock market, but > > there > === message truncated === > > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. > http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ > > - > - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2001 12:25:01 -0500 From: "Barry Marx" Subject: [CANSLIM] Watch Lists and IBD Weekend Review Earl or anyone, Back on 1/3/2001 Earl Setser posted some good ideas for generating watch lists from IBD. In particular, the second one had to do with the Friday weekend review: > 2 - Get Friday's IBD and look through the "weekend review" list. This is a > great place for ideas, especially after weakness in the Market like now. I > generally try to draw a line where the group strength changes from "B" to > "C", and I only look at stocks above the line. (The group is sorted by > industry group strength, so the top groups are at the head of the list, etc.). Question: In order to determine the cutoff for drawing the line between groups of strength "B" vs. "C", how do you find the group strength? I see the group strength listed for the charts at the top of the page, but they are mostly group "A" stocks. Also, does anyone know what the correlation is between the group strength "A" to "E" rating, and the individual numeric (1 to 197) rating given on the Industry Groups page in Section A of IBD? Thanks, Barry - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2001 13:17:12 EST From: Spencer48@aol.com Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] fomc released 1/30-31 minutes Tom: I know you're familiar with the item that P&G (one of the biggest employers here in Cincinnati) is letting go about 3000 employees (just in Cincy alone) because of lagging sales. Also, Inventory/Sales is over 1.00 at 1.25 (I believe this is doubley treacherous because with new computer programs, I/S should be more balanced-and if it isn't then it denotes to me that the economy is VERY weak). Meanwhile, consumer spending is dropping and so is Consumer Sentiment. My point is that people aren't buying, and with Consumer Spending about 70% of economic activity, we need more than just an interest rate cut, I believe, to avert recession: We need consumers to spend to reduce the inventory surplus in order to justify the current high employment. Thus, in my opinion, we need a hefty tax cut so that people will feel wealthy again . Consumers must spend again, and they also must become more confident. The stock market plummet has reversed the wealth effect (consumers feeling more wealthy because of their capital gains in the market). The only way to reverse the reverse of the wealth effect is to let consumers keep more of their earnings-and Washington should do this quickly, while we still have a surplus (and before the number unemployed jumps leading to less of a surplus). jans >>After reading the minutes, it strengthened my opinion previously expressed that the slowdown in manufacturing activity in the Fourth Quarter was steeper than anticipated by FOMC, and resulted in an even greater inventory build up than expected. Obviously, manufacturers were also caught by surprise. I noted a number of comments regarding the wealth effect of the equity markets, and its negative impact on consumer sentiment given the decline in markets. I also noted a forecast of unemployment rising to 4.5% by year end, which should keep the ECI (Employment Cost Index) quite tame. Drat, guess I better not push too hard for a pay raise. It's frustrating that we must wait two months to read the minutes of the latest meeting, however I will go on record as expecting another rate cut between now and the May 15 meeting. There is much economically to be reported, but I would think a cut of 25 BP is far more likely than 50 BP if it occurs between meetings. If no cut before May 15, then the odds shift in favor of another 50 BP at the meeting, unless the economic reports show a sharp improvement. FOMC clearly recognized that a lot of economic activity was stirred up in January (and may have continued in February) as deep discounting was put into effect to reduce the sharp increase in inventories. So the strength of the Jan reports would seem to have been discounted. Inflation continues to be a non-event, and does not seem to be of concern for the balance of the year. All in all, interesting reading for anyone that likes macro economics, or is interested in the FOMC views as they may impact the equity markets. Tom Worley stkguru@netside.net ICQ # 5568838 << - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2001 11:16:05 -0800 From: "Perry Stanfield" Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Watch Lists and IBD Weekend Review Barry, Good question, I'm not sure I know the answer but here is what I do know....... Maybe the Group ratings have changed for some of these stocks, but they don't look in order any more to me. For instance, Smithfield Foods SFD, in the second short column from the right, is rated Ind. Grp A today, wheras 11 stocks higher, FAST is rated a C today. So maybe the ratings have changed since last Friday. I just grunted it out on the IBD website and looked up the ratings on the checkup section. Don't know how you could do it any other way. Also, has anyone ever wondered how they pick the 28 charts out of the review list? Yes, they are all below; I found them all. The interesting thing is that the 31st stock, MHI, is featured above in the charts section, as are the other next 27 stocks listed.....so stocks 31through 59, consecutively, are featured. All of the charted stocks are A Grp RS, but ACC/Diss ranges everywhere. I thought is was a bit strange that as I found each charted stock in the review list, I saw the emerging pattern. What is it about the group that puts them together on the review list? Beats me. I like the idea of taking just the A or B Grp RS out of the list. I'd probably love to just screen for 80/80 BBB or better stocks on the list. But then, maybe that's what Tom's doing already. Hey Tom old buddy, are you listening? How many stocks would pull up on such a screen? Would someone be kind enough to forward Mr. Setser's email from January to me? Thanks everyone Perry - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Barry Marx" To: Sent: Friday, March 23, 2001 9:25 AM Subject: [CANSLIM] Watch Lists and IBD Weekend Review > Earl or anyone, > > Back on 1/3/2001 Earl Setser posted some good ideas for generating watch > lists from IBD. > In particular, the second one had to do with the Friday weekend review: > > > 2 - Get Friday's IBD and look through the "weekend review" list. This > is a > > great place for ideas, especially after weakness in the Market like > now. I > > generally try to draw a line where the group strength changes from "B" > to > > "C", and I only look at stocks above the line. (The group is sorted by > > industry group strength, so the top groups are at the head of the list, > etc.). > > Question: > In order to determine the cutoff for drawing the line between groups of > strength "B" vs. > "C", how do you find the group strength? I see the group strength listed > for the charts at the top of the page, but they are mostly group "A" stocks. > > Also, does anyone know what the correlation is between the group strength > "A" to "E" rating, and the individual numeric (1 to 197) rating given on the > Industry Groups page in Section A of IBD? > > Thanks, > Barry > > > - > - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2001 13:42:44 -0600 From: "Rich Weinhold" Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Watch Lists and IBD Weekend Review Barry I get a list of Friday's IBD stocks from a web site "the Official Canslim/ERG forum" Today had only 86 in it (only A rating's), 3/16 = 104, 3/9 = 130, 3/2 = 158. You can down load them in .txt file, and import to Excel, TC2000, Metastock, or any thing else you may have To get them go to http://www.delphi.com , In the box type Canslim, and you will find the group Also you must sign up to get name and password. I put them in my TC2000 watch list's along with other list's from the web site, works great Rich - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Barry Marx" To: Sent: Friday, March 23, 2001 11:25 AM Subject: [CANSLIM] Watch Lists and IBD Weekend Review > Earl or anyone, > > Back on 1/3/2001 Earl Setser posted some good ideas for generating watch > lists from IBD. > In particular, the second one had to do with the Friday weekend review: > > > 2 - Get Friday's IBD and look through the "weekend review" list. This > is a > > great place for ideas, especially after weakness in the Market like > now. I > > generally try to draw a line where the group strength changes from "B" > to > > "C", and I only look at stocks above the line. (The group is sorted by > > industry group strength, so the top groups are at the head of the list, > etc.). > > Question: > In order to determine the cutoff for drawing the line between groups of > strength "B" vs. > "C", how do you find the group strength? I see the group strength listed > for the charts at the top of the page, but they are mostly group "A" stocks. > > Also, does anyone know what the correlation is between the group strength > "A" to "E" rating, and the individual numeric (1 to 197) rating given on the > Industry Groups page in Section A of IBD? > > Thanks, > Barry > > > - - - ------------------------------ Date: From: Subject: [none] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2001 17:01:00 -0700 From: esetser Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Watch Lists and IBD Weekend Review OK, I think I've got it. You were referring to the 3/16 paper, right? I kept looking at todays paper, and I was totally confused. You would be better off to use the latest data if you are going to check rankings for this (as you noted in your comment). Smithfield foods WAS in a "C" industry group last week. I just went to the NYSE listing from the 3/16 paper, and that's what it shows. The group "Food-Meat Products" was ranked 97 in the 3/16 paper and 16th in the 3/23 paper. WOW, now there's a group on the move!! I wonder if the bad news in Europe helped these stocks to move up during an otherwise dismal week for the market? This seems to be a case of picking a bad example with stale data. The list should ALL be in industry group rank from top to bottom. I actually think they probably use Thursdays (the previous day) group rank rather than Fridays, but I'm not sure. I agree with your comments about the charts, they seem to be a group of stocks in order from the list below, but I've never been able to pick out any rhyme or reason they pick the ones they do. They certainly aren't the top stocks each week. If you draw the line for the B/C transition, then you already have a list screened for 85/85/B. You could take the A/D in the list and mark out any stocks with C or lower ratings in just a few seconds, and have a list screened for 85/85/BxB. If you actually want to screen for SMR too, that would be more difficult, because you would have to look up each stock in the paper or online to check for that. Okay, as long as I'm on it, let me pick the line and tell you how I do it. Looking at the Industry Group list, Foreign Banks is 83 and that should show some obvious candidates. Looking at the list, I see Banco Rio La Plata. A quick check in the paper shows it is a "C". Okay, let's move up to the top of the column. American Standard is a "B" group. Okay, split the difference, Fairfield Communities is a "B", Penn Engrg is a "B", Redwood Trust is a "C", and finally, R&G Fincl is a "C". Okay, now you can draw a line below Penn Engrg, and that is the B/C line for today's paper. (Note that I used the NYSE portion of the paper to do all of the lookups except for the last stock. Once you get into the general area, it's easiest to use either the NYSE or NAS section to get closer, and it's easiest to use the one that has the most symbols in the area of the list you are looking at.) Okay, hope that helps. BTW, I am using DGO to screen now, so I haven't been using the Weekend Review lately. I am wondering how many of these stocks don't make the DGO list, so I may use the Weekend Review as a cross-check for stocks worth looking at that missed the DGO list for some unknown reason. Finally, I am 100% cash for stocks right now, and I'm a far cry from looking at anything seriously. I lost a little more than 10% overall on the last "follow-through day" in January, so I'll probably tip-toe in more slowly and with tighter stops this next time. Also, I have found that looking at charts and candidates before I'm ready to buy tends to make me "antsy" to do some buying. Rather than fight that, I haven't been watching anything but the "M" the last month or so. I'll generate some watch lists and look in earnest when "M" tells us so. In the meantime, I've been enjoying the extra time for other pursuits!! My email should be shown above, unless you really meant my "email from January". If you want it for some searching of the archives, I changed emails in mid-Jan. My previous email was esetser@bazillion.com At 11:16 AM 3/23/01 -0800, you wrote: >Barry, > >Good question, I'm not sure I know the answer but here is what I do >know....... > >Maybe the Group ratings have changed for some of these stocks, but they >don't look in order any more to me. For instance, Smithfield Foods SFD, in >the second short column from the right, is rated Ind. Grp A today, wheras >11 stocks higher, FAST is rated a C today. So maybe the ratings have >changed since last Friday. I just grunted it out on the IBD website and >looked up the ratings on the checkup section. Don't know how you could do >it any other way. > >Also, has anyone ever wondered how they pick the 28 charts out of the review >list? Yes, they are all below; I found them all. The interesting thing is >that the 31st stock, MHI, is featured above in the charts section, as are >the other next 27 stocks listed.....so stocks 31through 59, consecutively, >are featured. All of the charted stocks are A Grp RS, but ACC/Diss ranges >everywhere. I thought is was a bit strange that as I found each charted >stock in the review list, I saw the emerging pattern. What is it about the >group that puts them together on the review list? Beats me. > >I like the idea of taking just the A or B Grp RS out of the list. I'd >probably love to just screen for 80/80 BBB or better stocks on the list. >But then, maybe that's what Tom's doing already. Hey Tom old buddy, are you >listening? How many stocks would pull up on such a screen? > >Would someone be kind enough to forward Mr. Setser's email from January to >me? > > >Thanks everyone > >Perry > > - - ------------------------------ End of canslim-digest V2 #1226 ****************************** 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.