From: owner-canslim-digest@lists.xmission.com (canslim-digest) To: canslim-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: canslim-digest V2 #1275 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, April 13 2001 Volume 02 : Number 1275 In this issue: Re: [CANSLIM] 52 wk highs vs 26 wk highs [CANSLIM] tech stocks: who wasn't broken [CANSLIM] Will rally continue--EPIQ Re: [CANSLIM] Funds Ownership Re: [CANSLIM] Funds Ownership Re: [CANSLIM] 52 wk highs vs 26 wk highs Re: [CANSLIM] 52 wk highs vs 26 wk highs Re: [CANSLIM] tech stocks: who wasn't broken Re: [CANSLIM] Funds Ownership ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 05:51:19 -0400 From: "Tom Worley" Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] 52 wk highs vs 26 wk highs This is a multi-part message in MIME format. - ------=_NextPart_000_0027_01C0C3DD.C3A60500 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Nothing in CANSLIM requires you to buy a stock at a new high, it's just = a good practice because then there is no overhead resistance for at = least the past 12 months. And the "N"ew high fulfills the requirement = for something new in caNslim. I have said it many times before, there is a lot of institutional money = that wants to be in the biggest, best big cap tech stocks. Even MOT held = up well, esp for having its first loss in many years, and missing = estimates to the downside at that.=20 I don't think the key to any buying decision on the beaten down techs = depends on either the 26 or 52 week high. Rather it depends on the trend = of the RS, up/down ratio, EPS, and earnings forecasts. Also critical is = what the company says about its expectations for the rest of the year. Assuming the bottom was truly reached either March 22 or April 4, I = would look for stocks that bottomed earlier, showed strength at the end, = and potential leadership in the future. On the other hand, we have seen = apparent bottoms several times in the past year, followed by decent = rallies, only to soon head even lower.=20 While undoubtedly there were a lot of stocks sold for losses in the = second half of 2000, and 1st qtr of 2001 (including to pay taxes), I am = equally sure there are still a lot of stocks being held that were bot a = year or more ago, and have substantial losses at present prices. A lot = of this is likely in tax sheltered accts, where there was no tax = advantage to taking the loss by year's end. So yes, there will be = sellers that are just trying to break even. But there will also be = sellers who bot at or near the lows, and are taking profits. So there = will be two different sources of resistance all the way back up. I admit to being tempted to take some money and buy half a dozen of the = biggest tech names, and just put them away for a year or two. So far, I = have not seriously considered doing so, in part because I don't want to = tie up capital for what is likely to be long term. It's definitely not = CANSLIM, but you can still apply some of the rules by looking for = earnings growth, and comparing the stock to others in its group. But I = would also recommend waiting until after they report the latest = quarterly earnings, and review what the company says about the future. =20 Finally, one thing you did not mention is reviewing the chart for a base = of some kind. If we have really started a new bull, and we won't know = for sure for many months, then I doubt you will get much more than a one = or two week base, unless it bottomed quite early.=20 Good luck, Tom Worley stkguru@netside.net ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Norman=20 To: canslim@lists.xmission.com=20 Sent: Friday, April 13, 2001 1:12 AM Subject: [CANSLIM] 52 wk highs vs 26 wk highs Now that we have had a few days of 'upward mobility' I am seriously = considering dipping my toes in the pool. During my weekly scan I = noticed some techs either approaching or passing significant resistance = levels. Note that I didn't say reaching new highs. Since their highs, = set last spring/early summer, were considered 'overvalued' many may not = return to those levels anytime soon (CSCO, MOT), if ever (LU). =20 In light of this, I am in a quandary. Should I ignore the techs that = are below their 52 week highs? Or, consider it a breakout when they = hit, say a 26 week high, and surpass a significant resistance level = (i.e. VSEA, BRKS, LTXX)? Will those who bought in early 2000 or Summer = 2000 still be waiting in the wings to supply the 'selling pressure' = above these resistance levels? That doesn't seem reasonable. If there = are some folks out there who are the type that will hold so that they = can sell and 'break even' then I suspect that most would have already = given up and dumped the techs; it's been a long Winter. Could someone = with bear market experience shed some light on this? The semis seem to again be leading the tech rally. They have a low = GRS but that could quickly change and many 26 week-pivots be passed in = the meantime. Norman Boyd Port Lavaca (Port of the Cow), TX theboyd@tisd.net - ------=_NextPart_000_0027_01C0C3DD.C3A60500 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Nothing in CANSLIM requires you to buy a stock at a = new high,=20 it's just a good practice because then there is no overhead resistance = for at=20 least the past 12 months. And the "N"ew high fulfills the requirement = for=20 something new in caNslim.
 
I have said it many times before, there is a lot of=20 institutional money that wants to be in the biggest, best big cap tech = stocks.=20 Even MOT held up well, esp for having its first loss in many years, and = missing=20 estimates to the downside at that.
 
I don't think the key to any buying decision on the = beaten=20 down techs depends on either the 26 or 52 week high. Rather it depends = on the=20 trend of the RS, up/down ratio, EPS, and earnings forecasts. Also = critical is=20 what the company says about its expectations for the rest of the=20 year.
 
Assuming the bottom was truly reached either March = 22 or=20 April 4, I would look for stocks that bottomed earlier, showed strength = at the=20 end, and potential leadership in the future. On the other hand, we have = seen=20 apparent bottoms several times in the past year, followed by decent = rallies,=20 only to soon head even lower.
 
While undoubtedly there were a lot of stocks sold = for losses=20 in the second half of 2000, and 1st qtr of 2001 (including to pay = taxes), I am=20 equally sure there are still a lot of stocks being held that were bot a = year or=20 more ago, and have substantial losses at present prices. A lot of this = is likely=20 in tax sheltered accts, where there was no tax advantage to taking the = loss by=20 year's end. So yes, there will be sellers that are just trying to break = even.=20 But there will also be sellers who bot at or near the lows, and are = taking=20 profits. So there will be two different sources of resistance all the = way back=20 up.
 
I admit to being tempted to take some money and buy = half a=20 dozen of the biggest tech names, and just put them away for a year or = two. =20 So far, I have not seriously considered doing so, in part because I = don't want=20 to tie up capital for what is likely to be long term. It's definitely = not=20 CANSLIM, but you can still apply some of the rules by looking for = earnings=20 growth, and comparing the stock to others in its group.  But I = would also=20 recommend waiting until after they report the latest quarterly earnings, = and=20 review what the company says about the future. 
 
Finally, one thing you did not mention is reviewing = the chart=20 for a base of some kind.  If we have really started a new bull, and = we=20 won't know for sure for many months, then I doubt you will get much more = than a=20 one or two week base, unless it bottomed quite early.
 
Good luck,
 
Tom Worley
stkguru@netside.net
 
 
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Norman
To: canslim@lists.xmission.com =
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2001 = 1:12=20 AM
Subject: [CANSLIM] 52 wk highs = vs 26 wk=20 highs

Now that we have had a few days of 'upward mobility' I am = seriously=20 considering dipping my toes in the pool.   During my weekly = scan I=20 noticed some techs either approaching or passing significant = resistance=20 levels.  Note that I didn't say reaching new highs.  Since = their=20 highs, set last spring/early summer, were considered 'overvalued' many = may not=20 return to those levels anytime soon (CSCO, MOT), if ever (LU).  =
 
In light of this, I am in a quandary.  Should I ignore the = techs=20 that are below their 52 week highs?  Or, consider it a breakout = when they=20 hit, say a 26 week high, and surpass a significant resistance level = (i.e.=20 VSEA, BRKS, LTXX)?  Will those who bought in early 2000 or Summer = 2000=20 still be waiting in the wings to supply the 'selling pressure' above = these=20 resistance levels?  That doesn't seem reasonable.  If there = are some=20 folks out there who are the type that will hold so that they can sell = and=20 'break even' then I suspect that most would have already given up and = dumped=20 the techs; it's been a long Winter.  Could someone with bear = market=20 experience shed some light on this?
 
The semis seem to again be leading the tech rally.  They = have a low=20 GRS but that could quickly change and many 26 week-pivots be passed in = the=20 meantime.
 
Norman Boyd
Port Lavaca (Port of the Cow), TX
theboyd@tisd.net
<= /BODY> - ------=_NextPart_000_0027_01C0C3DD.C3A60500-- - - - -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: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 08:38:01 -0400 From: "Robert McGill" Subject: [CANSLIM] tech stocks: who wasn't broken If you are going to get back into tech stocks and are looking for one that held up I am afraid that there isn't one to be found. All of their numbers stink right now because of lack of visibility going forward. The big picture in Thurs IBD said to be patient and wait and the leaders will emerge in a few weeks from their bases. I am trying to buy some things now, tech stocks that is, that I think have a reasonable chance coming out of this and at the same time saving powder for the new leaders I expect to see emerge. ??? - - - -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: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 09:15:55 -0500 From: "Dave Massaglia" Subject: [CANSLIM] Will rally continue--EPIQ Tom, these MSN Money Central's price estimates for EPIQ using its current P/E multiple. I was looking at stocktables.com's assessment of EPIQ. Its CPM number is 4.14, in other words the stock is up 4.14 times from its 52 week low...Anything to be concerned about? Valuation using EPIQ Systems's current multiple (P/E): Fis. YR Est Low/High Price Range Avg. Est. Price % Chng for Avg 12/2001 $49.62-$49.62 $49.62 100.00% 12/2002 $63.68-$66.16 $65.33 163.33% EPIQ Systems current price: $24.81 EPIQ Systems current multiple (P/E): 82.70 EPIQ Systems average 12/2001 estimate: $0.60 EPIQ Systems low 12/2001 estimate: $0.60 EPIQ Systems high 12/2001 estimate: $0.60 EPIQ Systems average 12/2002 estimate: $0.79 EPIQ Systems low 12/2002 estimate: $0.77 EPIQ Systems high 12/2002 estimate: $0.80 >From: "Tom Worley" >Reply-To: canslim@lists.xmission.com >To: >Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Will rally continue? >Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 19:22:58 -0400 >MIME-Version: 1.0 >Received: from [198.60.22.7] by hotmail.com (3.2) with ESMTP id >MHotMailBC9F84D9003140043110C63C1607CA940; Thu Apr 12 16:27:27 2001 >Received: from domo by lists.xmission.com with local (Exim 2.12 #2)id >14nqTA-0000pm-00for canslim-gooutt@lists.xmission.com; Thu, 12 Apr 2001 >17:25:44 -0600 >Received: from [205.159.140.2] (helo=netside.net)by lists.xmission.com with >esmtp (Exim 2.12 #2)id 14nqT6-0000pZ-00for canslim@lists.xmission.com; Thu, >12 Apr 2001 17:25:40 -0600 >Received: from txw (sunny.netside.net [205.159.140.2]) by netside.net >(8.8.8/8.7.3) with SMTP id TAA06715 for ; Thu, >12 Apr 2001 19:24:24 -0400 (EDT) >From owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com Thu Apr 12 16:28:49 2001 >Message-ID: <003a01c0c3a7$dd8af4c0$0f02000a@txw> >References: <20010412182743.26073.qmail@web4304.mail.yahoo.com> >X-Priority: 3 >X-MSMail-Priority: Normal >X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 >X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 >Sender: owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com >Precedence: bulk >X-No-Archive: yes > >Kent, > >Check out EPIQ, up seven days in a row and six on above average >volume. Twice before this year it was up 5 days in a row, and >back in Jan up nine days straight. > >Tom Worley >stkguru@netside.net > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: Kent Norman >To: >Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2001 2:27 PM >Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Will rally continue? > > >Just my 2 cents... It approaches a statistical rarity >for a stock to go up more than 4 days without >interruption. > >Kent > >--- esetser wrote: > > I find this difficult to evaluate. Yes, the NASDAQ > > traded lower all day. > > However, the stocks did hold onto good gains from > > the previous day also. > > It seems to me, gains from close to close are what > > are important overall. > > I DO agree that this shows some weakness, as opposed > > to a day that advances > > all day and closes at the high. > > > > Is it unusual for the market to show so much > > volatility from close to open? > > I have noticed that the NASDAQ is showing (what I > > consider) HUGE moves > > between the closing price and the open. Yesterday > > was a great example, > > where the NASDAQ opened up 4.2% higher than the > > previous day's close. Here > > are some of the recent days numbers: > > > > Open price vs previous day closing price on Nasdaq > > > > 4/11 +4.2% > > 4/10 +1.0% > > 4/9 +1.1% > > 4/6 -1.6% > > 4/5 +4.3% > > 4/3 -1.4% > > > > This shows that the NASDAQ opened at least 1% off > > the close on 6 of the > > last 7 trading days. Is there anything this should > > be telling us? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > At 08:16 AM 4/12/01 -0600, you wrote: > > >I believe what he means is that the nasdaq gapped > > up in the > > >morning and traded lower for the rest of the day, > > so actually there > > >was selling thoughout the day, although because of > > the gap, the > > >index was still able to close above the close of > > the previous day. I > > >guess the best way to say this is - Close to Close > > it was up, Open > > >to Close it was down. > > > > > >On 11 Apr 01, at 22:48, Tom Worley wrote: > > > > > >> You must be only looking at the DOW, S&P 500, > > and/or NYSE > > >> Composite. Certainly you could not have looked at > > the Naz index, > > >> and said this. > > >> > > >> Tom Worley > > >> stkguru@netside.net > > >> > > >> > > >> ----- Original Message ----- > > >> From: > > >> To: > > >> Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2001 10:02 PM > > >> Subject: RE: [CANSLIM] Will rally continue? > > >> > > >> > > >> I believe today to be a distribution day. This is > > because it > > >> opened > > >> higher and closed lower. IBD had once mentioned > > such a day with > > >> higher > > >> volume as being a distribution day. > > >> > > >> Regards, > > >> Pritish > > >> > > >> -----Original Message----- > > >> From: bmcgillatlcom.ne > > [SMTP:bmcgillatlcom.ne@mindspring.com] > > >> Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2001 9:54 PM > > >> To: canslim > > >> Subject: [CANSLIM] Will rally continue? > > >> > > >> Just looking at a couple big cap techs, csco, > > chkp, it seems they > > >> opened > > >> and > > >> closed at their lows? Does this mean the rally > > was short-lived? > > >> > > >> > > >> - > > >> -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. > > > > > > > > > > > >- > > >-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. > > >__________________________________________________ >Do You Yahoo!? >Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. >http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ > >- >-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. _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com - - - -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: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 13:11:36 -0600 From: esetser Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Funds Ownership I'm not sure you are using the correct terms here, or maybe I just misuderstand. Here are a couple of questions. Did you mean A in Institutional Sponsorship Rating of the stock (given in IBD each Tuesday) or A in the Mutual Fund 36 month performance rating? Your answer seems to refer to the Fund rating rather than the stock rank, but the way I read the message the first time, I would have thought you were referring to the stock rating. I agree that using the 3 year performance rating of a fund will give you their history given the particulars in that period of time. One year ago, all you needed was overweigthing in technology to have a fabulous rating. Given the tech crash, it's less clear what characteristics lead to a high ranking right now, but these kind of performance numbers will always favor groups in the hottest area. However, I think the IBD is saying a high performing fund, particularly a diversified growth fund, is on a roll picking solid growth stocks, and their support for a stock you are buying is an important piece of CANSLIM. It seems I've read that funds that perform above average continue to do so at a better rate than those who have recently underperformed. It may be far from perfect, but it does help your odds. Back to the stock Institutional Sponsorship Rating. I have noticed that the average ratings seem to move around quite a bit. In my recent lists, I would say the average stock has a "D" rating, while ratings above "C" are very unusual. I would also say a "C" rating was the clear average rating during the bull, and I saw quite a few stocks with "B" ratings, and even some "A" ratings. So in summary, it appears that the A-E rankings are not split into an even 20% of stocks each, but are ranked on some scale that is affected by market conditions. Part of my point here is that there are very few stocks out there with "A" ratings right now. From my latest leaders list (stocks above a certain size with EPS/RS rankings at 80/80 and GRS of 75 or better, here are the totals for each rating: A - 0 stocks B - 1 stock C - 16 stocks D - 137 stocks E - 8 stocks Given this, you can see that picking out an A stock for Sponsorship rating would be quite difficult, and would perform a level of screening that is probably beyond what any of us want. In fact, if you limited yourself to stocks rated A right now, I would guess you could use this as your entire screening process, since you would have very few candidates left. Overall, I use this rating, along with SMR and A/D as strength indicators. That is, after I've reduced my list to several hundred candidates using EPS, RS, and GRS, then I combine all of these rankings to generate a composite rank that I use to focus in on the best stocks. At 11:13 PM 4/12/01 -0500, you wrote: >I posed this question to the investors.com support folks. > >Question: >A few of my friends and I have an ongoing 'discussion' about what >percentage of a company's stock should be owned by funds. What is a >good rule of thumb for a minimum %. [I really do discuss this with non >listserv folks] > >Answer: >There really isn't a minimum percentage per se. You would like to see >at least 1 or 2 of the top performing mutual funds in the market owning >the stock. Look for an A in the Sponsorship ranking to determine that. > > >But now I have another question. If the sponsorship ranking is based on how >well the funds did over the last 3 years then the sponsorship of stocks such >as builders may not be so high just because the "hot" funds during that time >period (excluding 2000) have been tech funds. Maybe with last years returns >this is changing, but for sure this was true during 2000. So, is the fund >sponsorship that relevant when sector rotation is so dramatic >(techs ->builders & retail-shoe/apparel)? > >Norman Boyd >Port Lavaca (Port of the Cow), TX >theboyd@tisd.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: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 15:34:26 EDT From: Spencer48@aol.com Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Funds Ownership Earl: I looked at "A" rated stocks (in the Tues. IDB), and noticed during the bull that "A" stocks very often had 0 funds in them. I guess that's how many of the bull stocks rated an "A" (Although this doesn't make much sense to me, I guess this is how IDB databases the "fund-ratings"). In any event, I believe if the Tues. rating is "A" or "B" in this bear, it could merely mean that there are no funds invested in the stock (ie. no sponsorship by funds). Thus, this bit of info isn't useful. However, with you, I too believe that the fund ratings are important, but they lose their significance (and gain significance) depending on how many funds are invested in the stock. DG-Online gives you this information. Therefore, combining the Tues. Fund Rating + percentage of the float held by funds will give you a helpful piece of information. Not taking into account the percent of funds invested in the stock will give you only misleading information. Jans In a message dated 4/13/2001 3:12:47 PM Eastern Daylight Time, esetser@covad.net writes: << I'm not sure you are using the correct terms here, or maybe I just misuderstand. Here are a couple of questions. Did you mean A in Institutional Sponsorship Rating of the stock (given in IBD each Tuesday) or A in the Mutual Fund 36 month performance rating? Your answer seems to refer to the Fund rating rather than the stock rank, but the way I read the message the first time, I would have thought you were referring to the stock rating. I agree that using the 3 year performance rating of a fund will give you their history given the particulars in that period of time. One year ago, all you needed was overweigthing in technology to have a fabulous rating. Given the tech crash, it's less clear what characteristics lead to a high ranking right now, but these kind of performance numbers will always favor groups in the hottest area. However, I think the IBD is saying a high performing fund, particularly a diversified growth fund, is on a roll picking solid growth stocks, and their support for a stock you are buying is an important piece of CANSLIM. It seems I've read that funds that perform above average continue to do so at a better rate than those who have recently underperformed. It may be far from perfect, but it does help your odds. Back to the stock Institutional Sponsorship Rating. I have noticed that the average ratings seem to move around quite a bit. In my recent lists, I would say the average stock has a "D" rating, while ratings above "C" are very unusual. I would also say a "C" rating was the clear average rating during the bull, and I saw quite a few stocks with "B" ratings, and even some "A" ratings. So in summary, it appears that the A-E rankings are not split into an even 20% of stocks each, but are ranked on some scale that is affected by market conditions. Part of my point here is that there are very few stocks out there with "A" ratings right now. From my latest leaders list (stocks above a certain size with EPS/RS rankings at 80/80 and GRS of 75 or better, here are the totals for each rating: A - 0 stocks B - 1 stock C - 16 stocks D - 137 stocks E - 8 stocks Given this, you can see that picking out an A stock for Sponsorship rating would be quite difficult, and would perform a level of screening that is probably beyond what any of us want. In fact, if you limited yourself to stocks rated A right now, I would guess you could use this as your entire screening process, since you would have very few candidates left. Overall, I use this rating, along with SMR and A/D as strength indicators. That is, after I've reduced my list to several hundred candidates using EPS, RS, and GRS, then I combine all of these rankings to generate a composite rank that I use to focus in on the best stocks. >> - - - -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: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 13:36:38 -0600 From: esetser Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] 52 wk highs vs 26 wk highs I'm not sure I have the experience you are looking for, but I thought I would chime in with my plan nontheless. First of all, I don't buy stocks in lower Industry Groups, period. I follow WON's approach here. However, I may take a look at the best performing industry groups over a shorter period of time to try and catch the trend sooner, say a 2 month performance by group from the bottom if this holds. And I will be watching to see which groups start to pop into the "B" ranked groups if this rally shows some legs. In the meantime, I sticking with the "B" or better groups for my candidates. As far as bases, I think you underestimate the desperation of people who must break even. I saw this in a Money article on investing the other day, "Don't give in to "Get-Even-Itis". Simply put, once we're underwater in a stock, we'd do anything - undergo a root canal without anestesia, attend an Adam Sandler film festival - rather than sell that baby until it gets back to even. This makes no sense, of course, ..." I have a friend I need to show this article. He is clinging to some pretty good tech stocks, but he got in at the worst possible time. He is sitting on 80-90% losses on some of these, but he just isn't willing to get out. He is also very near retirement, or at least he was a year ago, so he should be the last one to hang on when things are so bad. Again, I would be looking for WON approved patterns. I will be willing to take this bear market as a driver for severe drops, so I won't be discounting a stock based on the total drop percentage. However, I will be looking for a handle at or above the 50% level of the base. This means you can follow CANSLIM and buy in just above 1/2 way up the right side. For a stock that is severely depressed, say JDSU, you could start looking at JDSU at around 75 for some kind of handle. It may be that the 52 week highs will start falling (based on time) before the tech stocks move this much, so the actual range you could look at could be lower. However, I don't think you can buy anywhere below these levels, and call it a CANSLIM buy. (I have been tempted to buy some JDSU as an alternate investment approach just from a bargain perspective. I have managed to defer this decision so far, and the stock fell over 40% after I postponed any decision. It has moved up nicely since then, but is still well below the level I originally considered this. Only time will tell if I decide to commit some CANSLIM funds to a buy-cheap strategy this one time.) At 12:12 AM 4/13/01 -0500, you wrote: > Could someone with bear market experience shed some >light on this? They have a low GRS but that could quickly change and >many 26 week-pivots be passed in the meantime. Norman Boyd >Port Lavaca (Port of the Cow), TX >theboyd@tisd.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: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 12:47:58 -0700 From: Tim Fisher Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] 52 wk highs vs 26 wk highs ROFLMAO! On 12:36 PM 4/13/01, esetser Said: >As far as bases, I think you underestimate the desperation of people who >must break even. I saw this in a Money article on investing the other day, >"Don't give in to "Get-Even-Itis". Simply put, once we're underwater in a >stock, we'd do anything - undergo a root canal without anestesia, attend an >Adam Sandler film festival - rather than sell that baby until it gets back >to even. This makes no sense, of course, ..." I have a friend I need to >show this article. He is clinging to some pretty good tech stocks, but he >got in at the worst possible time. He is sitting on 80-90% losses on some >of these, but he just isn't willing to get out. He is also very near >retirement, or at least he was a year ago, so he should be the last one to >hang on when things are so bad. 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: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 15:53:23 -0400 From: "Tom Worley" Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] tech stocks: who wasn't broken Sorry Robert, I wouldn't say that "there isn't one to be found", altho unlikely that there are many that are also big cap, high liquidity, as most of those were previously trading with high multiples. I did a quick sneak peak after posting this morning at some of my favorite big cap tech stocks. Mostly I was looking to see what kind of up/down ratio they presently have (answer: 0.8 to 0.9 mostly, not bad, not great). I did notice that DELL appears to have bottomed early and formed a rough base, but have yet to look closely at it. And, of course, my favorite EPIQ is a tech stock (software - finance) and with a 330% gain in the past year has "held up" quite well, thank you very much. Unfortunately, it is way, way too extended to buy more, or I would be tempted to add to my position even tho I am already more exposed than I like. Tom Worley stkguru@netside.net - ----- Original Message ----- From: Robert McGill To: Sent: Friday, April 13, 2001 8:38 AM Subject: [CANSLIM] tech stocks: who wasn't broken If you are going to get back into tech stocks and are looking for one that held up I am afraid that there isn't one to be found. All of their numbers stink right now because of lack of visibility going forward. The big picture in Thurs IBD said to be patient and wait and the leaders will emerge in a few weeks from their bases. I am trying to buy some things now, tech stocks that is, that I think have a reasonable chance coming out of this and at the same time saving powder for the new leaders I expect to see emerge. ??? - - - -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: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 14:01:42 -0600 From: esetser Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Funds Ownership Hmm, this is very surprising to me. I must admit I haven't looked closely at this rating lately. When I saw your note, I knew you must be mistaken. Hmm, what I found was a little different than your note, but along the same general lines. Using last Tuesday's paper, I looked up every "A" rated stock (Institutional Sponsorship Rating) in DGO. What I found was several had 0% funds and all the stocks except one had 5% fund ownership or less. According to the paper, "Institutional Sponsorship Rating averages 3-year performance of all mutual funds owning the stock plus trend in recent quarters of the number of funds owning the stock". If you take that all funds average a "C" performance, then you would start with an average "C" for stocks. I'm not sure how I get that the average stock rating would be a "D" unless funds were net sellers of stocks in recent quarters? I'm confused, but I don't think this rating is giving me the data I really thought it was. It's hard to believe that there is only one stock in the universe that has more than 5% fund ownership that can achieve an "A" rating. My impression is there aren't many "B" ratings out there either. (BTW the stock was VIRL.) Maybe this explains why the rating is so difficult to find. It is not available at investors.com, DGO, or the paper except once a week. Given this data, I'm not sure I'm convinced it's worth spending the time manually adding this to my database each week. Jans, thank you very much for your observation. It is helping to explain what this ranking isn't doing at least. I think I'll fire off a note to investors.com and see if they can give us any useful information on this rating. At 03:34 PM 4/13/01 EDT, you wrote: >Earl: > > I looked at "A" rated stocks (in the Tues. IDB), and noticed during the >bull that "A" stocks very often had 0 funds in them. I guess that's how many >of the bull stocks rated an "A" (Although this doesn't make much sense to me, >I guess this is how IDB databases the "fund-ratings"). > > In any event, I believe if the Tues. rating is "A" or "B" in this bear, >it could merely mean that there are no funds invested in the stock (ie. no >sponsorship by funds). Thus, this bit of info isn't useful. > > However, with you, I too believe that the fund ratings are important, >but they lose their significance (and gain significance) depending on how >many funds are invested in the stock. DG-Online gives you this information. >Therefore, combining the Tues. Fund Rating + percentage of the float held by >funds will give you a helpful piece of information. Not taking into account >the percent of funds invested in the stock will give you only misleading >information. > >Jans > > > > > > > >In a message dated 4/13/2001 3:12:47 PM Eastern Daylight Time, >esetser@covad.net writes: > ><< I'm not sure you are using the correct terms here, or maybe I just > misuderstand. Here are a couple of questions. > > Did you mean A in Institutional Sponsorship Rating of the stock (given in > IBD each Tuesday) or A in the Mutual Fund 36 month performance rating? > Your answer seems to refer to the Fund rating rather than the stock rank, > but the way I read the message the first time, I would have thought you > were referring to the stock rating. > > I agree that using the 3 year performance rating of a fund will give you > their history given the particulars in that period of time. One year ago, > all you needed was overweigthing in technology to have a fabulous rating. > Given the tech crash, it's less clear what characteristics lead to a high > ranking right now, but these kind of performance numbers will always favor > groups in the hottest area. However, I think the IBD is saying a high > performing fund, particularly a diversified growth fund, is on a roll > picking solid growth stocks, and their support for a stock you are buying > is an important piece of CANSLIM. It seems I've read that funds that > perform above average continue to do so at a better rate than those who > have recently underperformed. It may be far from perfect, but it does help > your odds. > > Back to the stock Institutional Sponsorship Rating. I have noticed that > the average ratings seem to move around quite a bit. In my recent lists, I > would say the average stock has a "D" rating, while ratings above "C" are > very unusual. I would also say a "C" rating was the clear average rating > during the bull, and I saw quite a few stocks with "B" ratings, and even > some "A" ratings. So in summary, it appears that the A-E rankings are > not split into an even 20% of stocks each, but are ranked on some scale > that is affected by market conditions. > > Part of my point here is that there are very few stocks out there with "A" > ratings right now. From my latest leaders list (stocks above a certain > size with EPS/RS rankings at 80/80 and GRS of 75 or better, here are the > totals for each rating: > > A - 0 stocks > B - 1 stock > C - 16 stocks > D - 137 stocks > E - 8 stocks > > Given this, you can see that picking out an A stock for Sponsorship rating > would be quite difficult, and would perform a level of screening that is > probably beyond what any of us want. In fact, if you limited yourself to > stocks rated A right now, I would guess you could use this as your entire > screening process, since you would have very few candidates left. Overall, > I use this rating, along with SMR and A/D as strength indicators. That is, > after I've reduced my list to several hundred candidates using EPS, RS, and > GRS, then I combine all of these rankings to generate a composite rank that > I use to focus in on the best stocks. > > >> > >- >-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 #1275 ****************************** 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.