From: owner-canslim-digest@lists.xmission.com (canslim-digest) To: canslim-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: canslim-digest V2 #1266 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 Tuesday, April 10 2001 Volume 02 : Number 1266 In this issue: Re: [CANSLIM] CANSLIM candidates at a market bottom Re: [CANSLIM] CANSLIM candidates at a market bottom Re: [CANSLIM] CANSLIM candidates at a market bottom [CANSLIM] HGS Watch List [CANSLIM] WBB (was Fw: Some chart errors? [T2001040700FT]) Re: [CANSLIM] CANSLIM candidates at a market bottom Re: [CANSLIM] HGS Watch List Re: [CANSLIM] CANSLIM candidates at a market bottom Re: [CANSLIM] CANSLIM candidates at a market bottom ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2001 22:16:39 -0700 From: DougC Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] CANSLIM candidates at a market bottom Thank You Tom Exactly the kind of input I needed. I had a feeling I was limiting myself too much by using GRS of 60 as my cutoff point. And yes I was influenced by WON on that number. But in the real world I know that unknown small cap stocks in emerging groups have to come from somewhere below 60 before they get above that. So you have affirmed for me the need to not use GRS as an initial scan. And I also have been questioning the accurateness of the placement of certain stocks DGO has in certain groups. i.e DGO has only recently placed VSEA in it's correct group, Elec-Semiconductor Equip. , along with stocks like NVLS and AMAT. Prior to that it was in the semiconductor manufacturer group with stocks like Micron. And you also cleared up some questions I had about using ROE separately and not using SMR as a parameter. I had a lack of understanding of what SMR was. I had seen a suggestion before of using EPS of 72 from a commentator on Trading Markets but was uncertain of whether I should stick with WON"s generic cutoff of 80 or use 72. Again my lack of experience had me leaning towards WON's number. But I will take your suggestion and lower that parameter. A parameter you didn't mention but one I've been wondering about quite a bit is FUNDs. My upper limit of 16 I think is OK. Maybe a little high but I'm going to keep that for now. My question is about a lower limit. I've been ignoring stocks with 0 FUNDS. However, last week you and another member were discussing USLB. When I looked at it on DGO my jaw dropped and I felt intense jealousy that I too didn't pick it. ;). I couldnt believe the numbers when I saw them. .7 mil float. GR 46%. ES 21. EPS 99. SMR A, ROE 15, Debt 8, '01Est +26%. RS 99 GRS 78. Nice basing pattern. Great quarterly earnings. But guess what. I had been eleminating it from my scans because of 0 funds. So what's your suggestion about FUNDS. If you see a great stock like that with 0 funds do you sit and wait until it gets up to 1 or 2% or do you go ahead and jump in when the chart and M warrant it? Thanks again for your feedback. It's been very helpful. At 02:17 AM 4/8/01 -0400, you wrote: >Hi Doug, > >I would like to suggest a slight variation in your approach. You >used the GRS (Group Relative Strength) in your first scan. This >eliminates a lot of strong stocks that happen to be classified in >weak groups. It would eliminate my favorite, EPIQ, as just one >example, which has gained over 300% in a year, and has a GRS of >only 25. Sometimes stocks are not classified in the right group >for them, sometimes the group has a load of deadbeats, but still >a few gems. I realize that WON, and many in this group, place a >lot of importance on group ranking. I certainly look at it, but >that alone would not stop me from buying an otherwise good >looking stock. > >By scanning for RS >= 80, the list dropped from 2855 to 892 >Next scan for EPS >= 80, the list dropped to 364 (at EPS 70 it >was 566) >Third scan was on SMR (defined below) for >= C, this left 355 >stocks > >Using SMR gives you a scan for sales growth as well as ROE, thus >eliminating your Scan 3 and Scan 5, at least in part, and allows >you to concentrate on other aspects of the chart itself. > >I have often found that one bad year of earnings below prior year >will knock the EPS down into the 70s or even 60s. But if the >recent two years or so, and the last 4 quarters, show >accelerating earnings, I will frequently consider a stock with an >EPS of 70 or better (hence my testing above to see how many more >stocks this would have presented). > >I have left the attached file as a text, tab delimited, with the >final sorting by RS, then EPS, then GRS. There are a total of 355 >stocks, all with original CANSLIM data. > >hope it's of use to some members for ideas. > >SALES + PROFIT MARGINS + ROE (SMR) RATING: >One of the five Investor's Business Daily SmartSelectT Corporate >Ratings, this data item combines into one simple A to E rating >(an 'A' rating is the highest mark and represents the top 20% of >all stocks), four fundamental factors used by analysts: > >Sales growth rate over the last three quarters, >Pre-tax profit margins; >After-tax profit margins; >Return on equity (ROE). >Sales growth and after-tax margins are computed with quarterly >figures, while return on equity and pre-tax margins are computed >with annual figures. All four factors take into account >acceleration (rate of increase). > >Tom Worley >stkguru@netside.net >ICQ # 5568838 > >----- Original Message ----- >From: DougC >To: >Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2001 5:44 PM >Subject: [CANSLIM] CANSLIM candidates at a market bottom > >If we are at or near a market bottom in any of the averages I >don't think >it's going to make much difference to a CANSLIM follower anytime >soon. Even >if we get a rip roaring followtru this week. I went through the >2855 in >this weeks DGOindex with six succesive scans. > >1st Scan GRS>60 EPS>80 RS>80 >Result 283 stocks > >2nd Scan Fund <16 Debt < 50 >Result 66 stocks > >3rd Scan GwthRate > 15 Last Qtr > 15 >Result 33 stocks > >4th Scan Earnings Stability < 25 >Result 23 stocks > >5th Scan ROE >17 >Result 13 stocks > >6th Scan '01 Annual Earnings Est. >15% >Result 6 stocks > >The six stocks are: >ALSI CHIC NVR NYCB SHFL WAG > >Not much to get me too excited. I think I'll try swing trading >for the next >three to six months. With options. Using only 10% of my funds of >course. At >least it will give me something to do. ;) > >- >-To subscribe/unsubscribe, email "majordomo@xmission.com" >-In the email body, write "subscribe canslim" or >-"unsubscribe canslim". Do not use quotes in your email. Doug Chiurato dzc@qwest.net - - - -To subscribe/unsubscribe, email "majordomo@xmission.com" - -In the email body, write "subscribe canslim" or - -"unsubscribe canslim". Do not use quotes in your email. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 05:27:39 -0400 From: "Tom Worley" Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] CANSLIM candidates at a market bottom Hi Doug, Please keep in mind that there is a vast difference in criteria for scanning for possibles, compared to final candidates for a watch list (or for buying). I prefer for scanning to pick up all "possible" watch list candidates for human review, thus tend to set my criteria lower than what I am looking for. On EPS of 70, for example, I would not buy or consider a stock like that if when I examine the chart I see its annual earnings have grown sequentially. It's not growing fast enough. But a stock that had earnings drop in 1998, then accelerate again in 1999 and 2000 might be of interest despite an EPS of 70. And it's not just small caps you want to pick up by not using GRS in the first scan. Using SMR ensures that they at least have growing sales, and the presumption follows that earnings are also growing because of the high EPS. As for funds ownership, some is always desirable, means their analysis also says the stock has potential, and they have professionals doing that for a living. I think the first time I bot EPIQ it had no (or negligible) funds ownership. They only started buying it after it had already gained about 60% in 6 weeks, just before I sold a week later. And I sold half a pt off its then high, which held for some time after that and allowed me back in a 2nd time for the next run. I am not bashful about being smarter than the funds managers, so long as I am confident of what I am doing. And what is reported on funds ownership is not always accurate. They don't report new purchases immediately, but you can often suspect they have bot from trading volume. And their ownership is not always counted, I know that Warburg Pincus Emerging Growth Fund bought a split adjusted 825,000 shares of EPIQ 12/31/00, which is almost 20% of the float shown. Yet DGO shows funds owning 5%, probably because those shares are restricted and thus not part of the float. But knowing that that fund had made such a commanding purchase in a private placement helped give me confidence to hold on to all my shares until I could sell the first half for over 100% profit, and still hold half for over a triple. USLB was on my watch list about six weeks before its first mention here. If I had been paying closer attention, I would have owned it from 5 dollars. The lack of funds didn't stop me, just lack of time to watch it properly. Tom Worley stkguru@netside.net - ----- Original Message ----- From: DougC To: Sent: Monday, April 09, 2001 1:16 AM Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] CANSLIM candidates at a market bottom Thank You Tom Exactly the kind of input I needed. I had a feeling I was limiting myself too much by using GRS of 60 as my cutoff point. And yes I was influenced by WON on that number. But in the real world I know that unknown small cap stocks in emerging groups have to come from somewhere below 60 before they get above that. So you have affirmed for me the need to not use GRS as an initial scan. And I also have been questioning the accurateness of the placement of certain stocks DGO has in certain groups. i.e DGO has only recently placed VSEA in it's correct group, Elec-Semiconductor Equip. , along with stocks like NVLS and AMAT. Prior to that it was in the semiconductor manufacturer group with stocks like Micron. And you also cleared up some questions I had about using ROE separately and not using SMR as a parameter. I had a lack of understanding of what SMR was. I had seen a suggestion before of using EPS of 72 from a commentator on Trading Markets but was uncertain of whether I should stick with WON"s generic cutoff of 80 or use 72. Again my lack of experience had me leaning towards WON's number. But I will take your suggestion and lower that parameter. A parameter you didn't mention but one I've been wondering about quite a bit is FUNDs. My upper limit of 16 I think is OK. Maybe a little high but I'm going to keep that for now. My question is about a lower limit. I've been ignoring stocks with 0 FUNDS. However, last week you and another member were discussing USLB. When I looked at it on DGO my jaw dropped and I felt intense jealousy that I too didn't pick it. ;). I couldnt believe the numbers when I saw them. .7 mil float. GR 46%. ES 21. EPS 99. SMR A, ROE 15, Debt 8, '01Est +26%. RS 99 GRS 78. Nice basing pattern. Great quarterly earnings. But guess what. I had been eleminating it from my scans because of 0 funds. So what's your suggestion about FUNDS. If you see a great stock like that with 0 funds do you sit and wait until it gets up to 1 or 2% or do you go ahead and jump in when the chart and M warrant it? Thanks again for your feedback. It's been very helpful. At 02:17 AM 4/8/01 -0400, you wrote: >Hi Doug, > >I would like to suggest a slight variation in your approach. You >used the GRS (Group Relative Strength) in your first scan. This >eliminates a lot of strong stocks that happen to be classified in >weak groups. It would eliminate my favorite, EPIQ, as just one >example, which has gained over 300% in a year, and has a GRS of >only 25. Sometimes stocks are not classified in the right group >for them, sometimes the group has a load of deadbeats, but still >a few gems. I realize that WON, and many in this group, place a >lot of importance on group ranking. I certainly look at it, but >that alone would not stop me from buying an otherwise good >looking stock. > >By scanning for RS >= 80, the list dropped from 2855 to 892 >Next scan for EPS >= 80, the list dropped to 364 (at EPS 70 it >was 566) >Third scan was on SMR (defined below) for >= C, this left 355 >stocks > >Using SMR gives you a scan for sales growth as well as ROE, thus >eliminating your Scan 3 and Scan 5, at least in part, and allows >you to concentrate on other aspects of the chart itself. > >I have often found that one bad year of earnings below prior year >will knock the EPS down into the 70s or even 60s. But if the >recent two years or so, and the last 4 quarters, show >accelerating earnings, I will frequently consider a stock with an >EPS of 70 or better (hence my testing above to see how many more >stocks this would have presented). > >I have left the attached file as a text, tab delimited, with the >final sorting by RS, then EPS, then GRS. There are a total of 355 >stocks, all with original CANSLIM data. > >hope it's of use to some members for ideas. > >SALES + PROFIT MARGINS + ROE (SMR) RATING: >One of the five Investor's Business Daily SmartSelectT Corporate >Ratings, this data item combines into one simple A to E rating >(an 'A' rating is the highest mark and represents the top 20% of >all stocks), four fundamental factors used by analysts: > >Sales growth rate over the last three quarters, >Pre-tax profit margins; >After-tax profit margins; >Return on equity (ROE). >Sales growth and after-tax margins are computed with quarterly >figures, while return on equity and pre-tax margins are computed >with annual figures. All four factors take into account >acceleration (rate of increase). > >Tom Worley >stkguru@netside.net >ICQ # 5568838 > >----- Original Message ----- >From: DougC >To: >Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2001 5:44 PM >Subject: [CANSLIM] CANSLIM candidates at a market bottom > >If we are at or near a market bottom in any of the averages I >don't think >it's going to make much difference to a CANSLIM follower anytime >soon. Even >if we get a rip roaring followtru this week. I went through the >2855 in >this weeks DGOindex with six succesive scans. > >1st Scan GRS>60 EPS>80 RS>80 >Result 283 stocks > >2nd Scan Fund <16 Debt < 50 >Result 66 stocks > >3rd Scan GwthRate > 15 Last Qtr > 15 >Result 33 stocks > >4th Scan Earnings Stability < 25 >Result 23 stocks > >5th Scan ROE >17 >Result 13 stocks > >6th Scan '01 Annual Earnings Est. >15% >Result 6 stocks > >The six stocks are: >ALSI CHIC NVR NYCB SHFL WAG > >Not much to get me too excited. I think I'll try swing trading >for the next >three to six months. With options. Using only 10% of my funds of >course. At >least it will give me something to do. ;) > >- >-To subscribe/unsubscribe, email "majordomo@xmission.com" >-In the email body, write "subscribe canslim" or >-"unsubscribe canslim". Do not use quotes in your email. Doug Chiurato dzc@qwest.net - - - -To subscribe/unsubscribe, email "majordomo@xmission.com" - -In the email body, write "subscribe canslim" or - -"unsubscribe canslim". Do not use quotes in your email. - - - -To subscribe/unsubscribe, email "majordomo@xmission.com" - -In the email body, write "subscribe canslim" or - -"unsubscribe canslim". Do not use quotes in your email. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 07:44:15 -0600 From: esetser Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] CANSLIM candidates at a market bottom Hmm, okay, let's call Tom's note point, and I'll be counter-point. I think you should be careful here. The CANSLIM guidelines and minimums are something we all work with and adjust in our attempt to become our own "investment guru". I believe Tom invests primarily in small cap stocks, with many of these smaller than those suggested by WON. As a part of this strategy, he personally has found lower EPS ranks (70 vs 80) okay if he screens quarterly growth very carefully. He has also reduced the importance of GRS. I think you will find many of us, if not all, have our own twists on CANSLIM. I would argue that you can take all of WONs requirements (80/80/BBB, ROE, Annual EPS, Qtr EPS, Funds,, and convince yourself there aren't any candidates. For my own screening, I use 80/80/B and a minimum stock size based on daily volume in dollars. These screens work well for me, because it cuts the stock universe down to 200 or 300 stocks to look at. If these numbers reduced me to 20 stocks, or to 2,000 stocks, then I would have to adjust them to get a reasonable number of candidates. Also, remember than WON's suggestions are based on a scientific study of the greatest stock winner's of all time. Based on this, we come up with 80/80/BBB. The EPS rank of 80 should be picking up most of the great stocks, although I'm sure some fail to make it. In addition, history has shown that a stocks move is heavily influenced by its industry, so I think GRS is VERY important. Of course, if a stock is categorized wrong, then this rank could be misleading. I hope DGO has most of the stocks in the propor groups, and they do move stocks around all the time, based mostly on changes in the business I would guess. (Remember that Corning makes dishes!!) As far as GRS, I think we have more people in the group who emphasize it MORE than WON, rather than the other way around. One successful member picks the top groups that are gaining, and buys one leading stock in each of these groups. I use GRS as a component in my composite rankings, so stocks in the top group rise to the top of my lists if all other ranks are equal. I would be very careful of discarding GRS from you scan altogether. - - - -To subscribe/unsubscribe, email "majordomo@xmission.com" - -In the email body, write "subscribe canslim" or - -"unsubscribe canslim". Do not use quotes in your email. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 08:39:41 -0700 From: Tim Fisher Subject: [CANSLIM] HGS Watch List - --=====================_1645118==_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed I've attached my HGS watch list for the week. It's the shortest it has ever been. - --=====================_1645118==_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Pubstka.csv" Stock,HGS Group,Scan Group,ERG,E,R,G,Curr G Speed,Prev G Speed,A/D,SMR,Growth,Curr Earn,Prev Earn,Curr Sales,Prev Sales,Proj Earn,Ians Box,Group,Exchange,Price,EPS Due,Date Added NVR,2,1,297,99,99,99,1,0,B,A,70,107,58,23,14,16,1,BUILD_RES,AMEX,166,4/27/01,11-Aug MDC,2,1,294,98,97,99,1,0,B,A,55,54,49,17,9,2,2,BUILD_RES,NYSE,37,4/18/01,20-Oct TRR,,1,293,99,99,95,5,8,C,B,116,73,77,65,47,66,2,POLUTE_SERVICE,NYSE,29.91,5/10/01,30-Mar IGT,1,1,289,97,96,96,-1,2,C,A,19,113,100,46,39,40,7,LEIS_GAMES,NYSE,48.94,4/19/01,26-Jan SRCL,,1,286,94,97,95,5,8,B,B,74,30,16,46,219,27,3,POLUTE_SERVICE,NASD,45,5/4/01,23-Mar ACF,,1,284,99,95,90,1,-8,C,A,49,58,46,58,50,46,5,FIN_CONSUMER,NYSE,33.05,4/14/01,30-Mar LNCR,,1,284,90,96,98,-1,0,B,A,16,26,22,24,24,23,9,MED_OUTPAT,NASD,54.31,4/18/01,6-Oct RI,2,1,284,95,97,92,1,3,B,B,27,31,25,1,5,24,6,RET_REST,NYSE,18.8,4/11/01,23-Feb CHBS,1,1,283,98,98,87,-10,0,A,A,73,86,363,44,42,93,2,RET_CLOTHES,NASD,31.5,4/5/01,5-Jan HOTT,1,1,281,97,97,87,-10,0,A,A,93,33,55,48,50,20,3,RET_CLOTHES,NASD,26.88,5/15/01,5-Jan HSIC,1,1,281,93,97,91,-4,0,A,C,206,37,18,7,4,15,3,MEDDEN_SUPP,NASD,34.31,5/1/01,30-Mar ATK,1,1,279,85,98,96,2,-4,B,B,15,14,18,-11,-2,14,10,ELEC_MILITARY,NYSE,88.85,5/11/00,26-Jan UVV,,1,277,82,96,99,0,0,B,C,18,19,5,-4,-17,4,10,TOBACCO,NYSE,37.95,5/4/01,2-Feb FED,,1,273,94,96,83,-1,0,B,A,43,34,17,23,26,17,6,FIN_S&L,NYSE,28.7,4/26/01,2-Feb ALLY,1,4,272,77,99,96,-1,2,A,-,NA,180,700,15,2,-,7,LEIS_GAMES,NASD,19,5/5/01,9-Mar GDW,,1,269,92,94,83,-1,0,B,A,19,27,21,47,44,26,9,FIN_S&L,NYSE,62.17,4/19/01,16-Mar BWS,1,1,266,89,97,80,-2,-2,A,C,49,32,9,14,8,10,6,SHOES,NYSE,19.4,5/17/01,2-Mar PFGC,2,2,266,91,96,79,-16,0,B,C,17,24,21,23,30,20,10,RETWHL_FOOD,NASD,53.5,5/2/01,6-Apr GCO,1,1,264,92,92,80,-2,-2,C,A,20,31,44,28,26,17,9,SHOES,NYSE,24.72,5/23/01,8-Dec RE,1,2,260,89,96,75,-5,-7,C,B,18,29,13,23,8,17,9,INS_PROP,NYSE,64.6,4/24/01,30-Mar ABK,1,2,257,88,94,75,-5,-7,C,A,18,14,15,14,12,15,10,INS_PROP,NYSE,59.97,4/19/01,30-Mar SGR,,2,255,93,98,64,-2,-5,A,B,28,41,25,178,88,41,6,METAL_PROCESS,NYSE,50.15,4/3/01,9-Mar AH,1,2,253,95,93,65,9,13,B,A,79,26,22,28,27,22,3,COMM_SECURE,NYSE,18.25,5/8/01,30-Mar HECO,1,4,252,77,97,78,2,-3,B,A,NA,600,999,17,22,4,7,O&G_USEXPL,NASD,12.19,5/10/01,30-Mar SKE,1,2,252,80,94,78,2,-3,B,A,NA,394,999,307,189,76,7,O&G_USEXPL,NYSE,40.85,4/27/01,16-Mar HSE,1,4,250,77,95,78,2,-3,B,A,NA,283,188,114,85,92,7,O&G_USEXPL,NYSE,43.5,4/26/01,9-Feb BKLY,1,4,248,77,96,75,-5,-7,C,D,NA,135,733,14,4,117,7,INS_PROP,NASD,43.06,4/27/01,2-Mar SBMC,1,4,248,73,90,85,0,2,A,B,-19,100,264,19,31,94,7,BANK_NE,NASD,19.88,4/27/01,30-Mar POG,1,4,245,77,90,78,2,-3,C,A,NA,110,171,69,47,24,7,O&G_USEXPL,NYSE,23.69,4/25/01,2-Mar AAS,1,2,243,86,97,60,9,6,B,B,17,17,20,16,18,20,10,MED_WDRUG,NYSE,51.07,4/27/01,30-Mar PHCC,1,2,243,97,86,60,9,6,B,A,59,25,31,21,28,29,3,MED_WDRUG,NASD,38.75,4/20/01,6-Apr THQI,1,2,242,82,98,62,1,16,B,B,76,52,-70,49,20,27,2,COMPS_EDU,NASD,34.75,4/25/01,23-Mar - --=====================_1645118==_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Tim Fisher Ore-Rock-On and Pacific Fishery Biologists WWW Sites Tim@OreRockOn.com WWW: http://OreRockOn.com See naked fish and rocks! - --=====================_1645118==_-- - - - -To subscribe/unsubscribe, email "majordomo@xmission.com" - -In the email body, write "subscribe canslim" or - -"unsubscribe canslim". Do not use quotes in your email. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 20:00:49 -0400 From: "Tom Worley" Subject: [CANSLIM] WBB (was Fw: Some chart errors? [T2001040700FT]) Tim, Looks like DGO now agrees, the tender offer for WBB does not apply now. I left MVBI and BYS off my DGO List this past weekend as they appeared to be undergoing a buyout. Later, a fast check could not confirm this, and now DGO says they find nothing either. So they may be worth considering for a watch list, if you like banks. BYS is VERY thinly traded. Tom Worley stkguru@netside.net - ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Monday, April 09, 2001 3:48 PM Subject: RE: Some chart errors? [T2001040700FT] Sender : stkguru@netside.net Tracking Number : T2001040700FTZ498254 Pool : Daily Graphs Online Sent to : "DGOnline Customer Service" Date : 4/7/01 12:58 PM _____ Dear Mr. Worley, Thank you for your email. We will make correction regarding the tender offer date for WBB. We deeply appreciate your input in this matter. We were not able to find any news of buyouts for MVBI or BYS. Feel free to contact us if you have any other questions or if we can assist you in any way. Best regards, Angela Daily Graphs Online - -----Original Message----- Subject: Some chart errors? [T2001040700FTZ498254] I am informed by one group discussion member that on WBB the tender offer was WITHDRAWN on Nov 2, 2000, which is the date you show it occurring. I also noted the chart patterns of MVBI and BYS are strongly suggestive of some kind of a buyout offer, altho a quick search did not confirm this. I am not interested in them, just thought I would mention it. Neither are marked as a buyout of any kind. Tom Worley stkguru@netside.net ICQ # 5568838 - - - -To subscribe/unsubscribe, email "majordomo@xmission.com" - -In the email body, write "subscribe canslim" or - -"unsubscribe canslim". Do not use quotes in your email. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 20:41:50 -0400 From: "Tom Worley" Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] CANSLIM candidates at a market bottom Point (or is it counter point) taken, Earl. But I repeat myself, I only suggest considering EPS of 70 (rather than the recommended 80) and not using GRS, for SCANNING purposes, not for actual selection of watch candidates, much less actual buy candidates. I am a big believer in human review of charts and data, as opposed to pure computer scans. That's why I typically look at 600 to 1000 charts every week, time permitting. The idea is to ensure a sufficient population of interesting stocks for HUMAN review, as opposed to pure numerical process of elimination. If you can consciously and demonstrably argue why a stock with an EPS below 80, or a GRS below 60 (or some even higher number) should be on your watch list, or even purchased, then it must have some other characteristics that are even more powerful and compelling to offset these "negatives". By no means should GRS be disregarded, just used in a human fashion as part of an overall review of ALL qualities of a stock. Likewise, an RS of 80 should always be a goal, but many companies do not progress in a perfect and symmetrical fashion year to year on their earnings. A bump in the road, often occuring in a single quarter, can be enough to knock the EPS on its heels for a few years despite subsequent quality earnings growth and acceleration. Short of reverse engineering five years of quarterly earnings, and running some computer program, it is difficult to pick this out with a pure computer scan on EPS, but a human review often can and should be able to see this. And, of course, right now "M" still says we should be watching and learning, not buying. Regards, Tom Worley stkguru@netside.net - ----- Original Message ----- From: esetser To: Sent: Monday, April 09, 2001 9:44 AM Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] CANSLIM candidates at a market bottom Hmm, okay, let's call Tom's note point, and I'll be counter-point. I think you should be careful here. The CANSLIM guidelines and minimums are something we all work with and adjust in our attempt to become our own "investment guru". I believe Tom invests primarily in small cap stocks, with many of these smaller than those suggested by WON. As a part of this strategy, he personally has found lower EPS ranks (70 vs 80) okay if he screens quarterly growth very carefully. He has also reduced the importance of GRS. I think you will find many of us, if not all, have our own twists on CANSLIM. I would argue that you can take all of WONs requirements (80/80/BBB, ROE, Annual EPS, Qtr EPS, Funds,, and convince yourself there aren't any candidates. For my own screening, I use 80/80/B and a minimum stock size based on daily volume in dollars. These screens work well for me, because it cuts the stock universe down to 200 or 300 stocks to look at. If these numbers reduced me to 20 stocks, or to 2,000 stocks, then I would have to adjust them to get a reasonable number of candidates. Also, remember than WON's suggestions are based on a scientific study of the greatest stock winner's of all time. Based on this, we come up with 80/80/BBB. The EPS rank of 80 should be picking up most of the great stocks, although I'm sure some fail to make it. In addition, history has shown that a stocks move is heavily influenced by its industry, so I think GRS is VERY important. Of course, if a stock is categorized wrong, then this rank could be misleading. I hope DGO has most of the stocks in the propor groups, and they do move stocks around all the time, based mostly on changes in the business I would guess. (Remember that Corning makes dishes!!) As far as GRS, I think we have more people in the group who emphasize it MORE than WON, rather than the other way around. One successful member picks the top groups that are gaining, and buys one leading stock in each of these groups. I use GRS as a component in my composite rankings, so stocks in the top group rise to the top of my lists if all other ranks are equal. I would be very careful of discarding GRS from you scan altogether. - - - -To subscribe/unsubscribe, email "majordomo@xmission.com" - -In the email body, write "subscribe canslim" or - -"unsubscribe canslim". Do not use quotes in your email. - - - -To subscribe/unsubscribe, email "majordomo@xmission.com" - -In the email body, write "subscribe canslim" or - -"unsubscribe canslim". Do not use quotes in your email. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 20:47:00 -0400 From: "Tom Worley" Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] HGS Watch List Tim, HECO has a cash offer on the table. Haven't looked at the details. Tom Worley stkguru@netside.net - ----- Original Message ----- From: Tim Fisher To: Sent: Monday, April 09, 2001 11:39 AM Subject: [CANSLIM] HGS Watch List I've attached my HGS watch list for the week. It's the shortest it has ever been. - ----------------------------------------------------------------- - --------------- Tim Fisher Ore-Rock-On and Pacific Fishery Biologists WWW Sites Tim@OreRockOn.com WWW: http://OreRockOn.com See naked fish and rocks! - - - -To subscribe/unsubscribe, email "majordomo@xmission.com" - -In the email body, write "subscribe canslim" or - -"unsubscribe canslim". Do not use quotes in your email. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 21:04:45 -0700 From: DougC Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] CANSLIM candidates at a market bottom First to respond to Earls statement that Tom leans toward smallcaps in his usage of CANSLIM. Something interesting I noticed when I started using 16% Fund ownership as my upper limit is that it automatically keeps me in small caps. And as someone pointed out recently, WON's personal preference is stocks with under 5% Funds. And WON mentions in his first book an upper limit of 25mil share float as being preferable if one wants to get in early on big runs in stocks. And since having subscribed to Daily Graphs for the past year I've always been surprised that the one page example, in the front of the book, of a stock having had great price appreciation potential usually has a float of less than 10mil. I've seen one or two with .7mil like USLB has. The point I'm trying to make is...CANSLIM is about picking small cap and microcap stocks with great appreciation potential. Thursdays DGOindex will have Market Value as a rotating data item in the excel download. I'm going to filter for different levels of Market Value to see how %Fund Ownership correlates. (Be nice if DGO made that easier) GRS lower limit of 60 gives one a decent size group of stocks to look at. However, when and if we do get into another strong bull leg I can't say for sure at this time whether I will stick to stocks above GRS of 60. The bottom line is I don't won't to miss out on any strong price moves no matter what part of the GRS spectrum a stock lies in. I just keep in mind that a stock with GRS over 60 has a greater probability of price appreciation versus those with lower numbers. And of course whether a stock is advancing up into the above GRS 60 group or declining out of it is important. Good Points: The idea is to ensure a sufficient population of interesting stocks for HUMAN review, as opposed to pure numerical process of elimination. If you can consciously and demonstrably argue why a stock with an EPS below 80, or a GRS below 60 (or some even higher number) should be on your watch list, or even purchased, then it must have some other characteristics that are even more powerful and compelling to offset these "negatives" At 08:41 PM 4/9/01 -0400, you wrote: >Point (or is it counter point) taken, Earl. > >But I repeat myself, I only suggest considering EPS of 70 (rather >than the recommended 80) and not using GRS, for SCANNING >purposes, not for actual selection of watch candidates, much less >actual buy candidates. I am a big believer in human review of >charts and data, as opposed to pure computer scans. That's why I >typically look at 600 to 1000 charts every week, time permitting. >Good Points: >The idea is to ensure a sufficient population of interesting >stocks for HUMAN review, as opposed to pure numerical process of >elimination. > >If you can consciously and demonstrably argue why a stock with an >EPS below 80, or a GRS below 60 (or some even higher number) >should be on your watch list, or even purchased, then it must >have some other characteristics that are even more powerful and >compelling to offset these "negatives". > >By no means should GRS be disregarded, just used in a human >fashion as part of an overall review of ALL qualities of a stock. >Likewise, an RS of 80 should always be a goal, but many companies >do not progress in a perfect and symmetrical fashion year to year >on their earnings. A bump in the road, often occuring in a single >quarter, can be enough to knock the EPS on its heels for a few >years despite subsequent quality earnings growth and >acceleration. Short of reverse engineering five years of >quarterly earnings, and running some computer program, it is >difficult to pick this out with a pure computer scan on EPS, but >a human review often can and should be able to see this. > >And, of course, right now "M" still says we should be watching >and learning, not buying. > >Regards, > >Tom Worley >stkguru@netside.net > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: esetser >To: >Sent: Monday, April 09, 2001 9:44 AM >Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] CANSLIM candidates at a market bottom > > >Hmm, okay, let's call Tom's note point, and I'll be >counter-point. > >I think you should be careful here. The CANSLIM guidelines and >minimums >are something we all work with and adjust in our attempt to >become our own >"investment guru". I believe Tom invests primarily in small cap >stocks, >with many of these smaller than those suggested by WON. As a >part of this >strategy, he personally has found lower EPS ranks (70 vs 80) okay >if he >screens quarterly growth very carefully. He has also reduced the >importance of GRS. > >I think you will find many of us, if not all, have our own twists >on >CANSLIM. I would argue that you can take all of WONs >requirements >(80/80/BBB, ROE, Annual EPS, Qtr EPS, Funds,, and convince >yourself there >aren't any candidates. For my own screening, I use 80/80/B and a >minimum >stock size based on daily volume in dollars. These screens work >well for >me, because it cuts the stock universe down to 200 or 300 stocks >to look >at. If these numbers reduced me to 20 stocks, or to 2,000 >stocks, then I >would have to adjust them to get a reasonable number of >candidates. > >Also, remember than WON's suggestions are based on a scientific >study of >the greatest stock winner's of all time. Based on this, we come >up with >80/80/BBB. The EPS rank of 80 should be picking up most of the >great >stocks, although I'm sure some fail to make it. In addition, >history has >shown that a stocks move is heavily influenced by its industry, >so I think >GRS is VERY important. Of course, if a stock is categorized >wrong, then >this rank could be misleading. I hope DGO has most of the stocks >in the >propor groups, and they do move stocks around all the time, based >mostly on >changes in the business I would guess. (Remember that Corning >makes >dishes!!) > >As far as GRS, I think we have more people in the group who >emphasize it >MORE than WON, rather than the other way around. One successful >member >picks the top groups that are gaining, and buys one leading stock >in each >of these groups. I use GRS as a component in my composite >rankings, so >stocks in the top group rise to the top of my lists if all other >ranks are >equal. I would be very careful of discarding GRS from you scan >altogether. > > > > > >- >-To subscribe/unsubscribe, email "majordomo@xmission.com" >-In the email body, write "subscribe canslim" or >-"unsubscribe canslim". Do not use quotes in your email. > > > >- >-To subscribe/unsubscribe, email "majordomo@xmission.com" >-In the email body, write "subscribe canslim" or >-"unsubscribe canslim". Do not use quotes in your email. Doug Chiurato dzc@qwest.net - - - -To subscribe/unsubscribe, email "majordomo@xmission.com" - -In the email body, write "subscribe canslim" or - -"unsubscribe canslim". Do not use quotes in your email. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 05:24:31 -0400 From: "Tom Worley" Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] CANSLIM candidates at a market bottom Doug, Keep in mind that WON has departed pretty far from his teachings in HTMMIS. His response to questions at seminars, as well as the 26 week series, have indicated that for the past few years he has been much more a big cap player than a small cap. Small cap stocks can be tough to do following CANSLIM rules. I violated the rules many times over the past two years with EPIQ and others, just gritted my teeth and held on. Some worked, one went worthless. It happens, but overall I am still even or ahead slightly for the past 15 months. If I had followed even a 15% stop loss, I would have been shook out of most of them at least once or twice. One final point on scanning. The objective is to eliminate all that you know you don't want to waste time even looking at, not to delete one that may have a single criteria that fails the test, but many others that offset. When I was working for a broker dealer that was a client of WON's, our two acct executives spent every Sunday in the office physically looking at every single chart in the database. They each looked separately, then compared notes and whittled the list down from there. From that, they prepared their recommendations for their Monday morning (10 AM) meeting with WON. They didn't use scans for fear they might miss something. BTW, if you are watching a stock with solid CS qualities, and late on Monday afternoon see it suddenly and without warning start showing huge volume, it may mean (no guarantee, could be lots of other reasons) that WON just added it to his recommended list that is sent out electronically to his institutional accts. We used to get the list by fax by 3 PM Monday east coast time. Tom Worley stkguru@netside.net - ----- Original Message ----- From: DougC To: Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2001 12:04 AM Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] CANSLIM candidates at a market bottom First to respond to Earls statement that Tom leans toward smallcaps in his usage of CANSLIM. Something interesting I noticed when I started using 16% Fund ownership as my upper limit is that it automatically keeps me in small caps. And as someone pointed out recently, WON's personal preference is stocks with under 5% Funds. And WON mentions in his first book an upper limit of 25mil share float as being preferable if one wants to get in early on big runs in stocks. And since having subscribed to Daily Graphs for the past year I've always been surprised that the one page example, in the front of the book, of a stock having had great price appreciation potential usually has a float of less than 10mil. I've seen one or two with .7mil like USLB has. The point I'm trying to make is...CANSLIM is about picking small cap and microcap stocks with great appreciation potential. Thursdays DGOindex will have Market Value as a rotating data item in the excel download. I'm going to filter for different levels of Market Value to see how %Fund Ownership correlates. (Be nice if DGO made that easier) GRS lower limit of 60 gives one a decent size group of stocks to look at. However, when and if we do get into another strong bull leg I can't say for sure at this time whether I will stick to stocks above GRS of 60. The bottom line is I don't won't to miss out on any strong price moves no matter what part of the GRS spectrum a stock lies in. I just keep in mind that a stock with GRS over 60 has a greater probability of price appreciation versus those with lower numbers. And of course whether a stock is advancing up into the above GRS 60 group or declining out of it is important. Good Points: The idea is to ensure a sufficient population of interesting stocks for HUMAN review, as opposed to pure numerical process of elimination. If you can consciously and demonstrably argue why a stock with an EPS below 80, or a GRS below 60 (or some even higher number) should be on your watch list, or even purchased, then it must have some other characteristics that are even more powerful and compelling to offset these "negatives" At 08:41 PM 4/9/01 -0400, you wrote: >Point (or is it counter point) taken, Earl. > >But I repeat myself, I only suggest considering EPS of 70 (rather >than the recommended 80) and not using GRS, for SCANNING >purposes, not for actual selection of watch candidates, much less >actual buy candidates. I am a big believer in human review of >charts and data, as opposed to pure computer scans. That's why I >typically look at 600 to 1000 charts every week, time permitting. >Good Points: >The idea is to ensure a sufficient population of interesting >stocks for HUMAN review, as opposed to pure numerical process of >elimination. > >If you can consciously and demonstrably argue why a stock with an >EPS below 80, or a GRS below 60 (or some even higher number) >should be on your watch list, or even purchased, then it must >have some other characteristics that are even more powerful and >compelling to offset these "negatives". > >By no means should GRS be disregarded, just used in a human >fashion as part of an overall review of ALL qualities of a stock. >Likewise, an RS of 80 should always be a goal, but many companies >do not progress in a perfect and symmetrical fashion year to year >on their earnings. A bump in the road, often occuring in a single >quarter, can be enough to knock the EPS on its heels for a few >years despite subsequent quality earnings growth and >acceleration. Short of reverse engineering five years of >quarterly earnings, and running some computer program, it is >difficult to pick this out with a pure computer scan on EPS, but >a human review often can and should be able to see this. > >And, of course, right now "M" still says we should be watching >and learning, not buying. > >Regards, > >Tom Worley >stkguru@netside.net > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: esetser >To: >Sent: Monday, April 09, 2001 9:44 AM >Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] CANSLIM candidates at a market bottom > > >Hmm, okay, let's call Tom's note point, and I'll be >counter-point. > >I think you should be careful here. The CANSLIM guidelines and >minimums >are something we all work with and adjust in our attempt to >become our own >"investment guru". I believe Tom invests primarily in small cap >stocks, >with many of these smaller than those suggested by WON. As a >part of this >strategy, he personally has found lower EPS ranks (70 vs 80) okay >if he >screens quarterly growth very carefully. He has also reduced the >importance of GRS. > >I think you will find many of us, if not all, have our own twists >on >CANSLIM. I would argue that you can take all of WONs >requirements >(80/80/BBB, ROE, Annual EPS, Qtr EPS, Funds,, and convince >yourself there >aren't any candidates. For my own screening, I use 80/80/B and a >minimum >stock size based on daily volume in dollars. These screens work >well for >me, because it cuts the stock universe down to 200 or 300 stocks >to look >at. If these numbers reduced me to 20 stocks, or to 2,000 >stocks, then I >would have to adjust them to get a reasonable number of >candidates. > >Also, remember than WON's suggestions are based on a scientific >study of >the greatest stock winner's of all time. Based on this, we come >up with >80/80/BBB. The EPS rank of 80 should be picking up most of the >great >stocks, although I'm sure some fail to make it. In addition, >history has >shown that a stocks move is heavily influenced by its industry, >so I think >GRS is VERY important. Of course, if a stock is categorized >wrong, then >this rank could be misleading. I hope DGO has most of the stocks >in the >propor groups, and they do move stocks around all the time, based >mostly on >changes in the business I would guess. (Remember that Corning >makes >dishes!!) > >As far as GRS, I think we have more people in the group who >emphasize it >MORE than WON, rather than the other way around. One successful >member >picks the top groups that are gaining, and buys one leading stock >in each >of these groups. I use GRS as a component in my composite >rankings, so >stocks in the top group rise to the top of my lists if all other >ranks are >equal. I would be very careful of discarding GRS from you scan >altogether. > > > > > >- >-To subscribe/unsubscribe, email "majordomo@xmission.com" >-In the email body, write "subscribe canslim" or >-"unsubscribe canslim". Do not use quotes in your email. > > > >- >-To subscribe/unsubscribe, email "majordomo@xmission.com" >-In the email body, write "subscribe canslim" or >-"unsubscribe canslim". Do not use quotes in your email. Doug Chiurato dzc@qwest.net - - - -To subscribe/unsubscribe, email "majordomo@xmission.com" - -In the email body, write "subscribe canslim" or - -"unsubscribe canslim". Do not use quotes in your email. - - - -To subscribe/unsubscribe, email "majordomo@xmission.com" - -In the email body, write "subscribe canslim" or - -"unsubscribe canslim". Do not use quotes in your email. ------------------------------ End of canslim-digest V2 #1266 ****************************** 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.