From: owner-canslim-digest@lists.xmission.com (canslim-digest) To: canslim-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: canslim-digest V2 #1493 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, June 15 2001 Volume 02 : Number 1493 In this issue: Re: [CANSLIM] RMCF Re: [CANSLIM] EASI Re: [CANSLIM] EASI Re: [CANSLIM] EASI Re: [CANSLIM] EASI Re: [CANSLIM] RECN Re: [CANSLIM] Weekly SCAN Re: [CANSLIM] thoughts on IGT and COCO Re: [CANSLIM] EASI ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 20:13:52 -0700 From: "Ian" Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] RMCF Tom: I never claimed this was a CANSLIM spectacular that was set to change the world. It was more of an off-topic comment on a unique chart. The big 6/13 drop was yesterday, which is unequivocally after "Monday of this week". As for the rest of the downdays, they are so insignificant that they are near invisible on the 6-month barchart I was looking at - quite a remarkable feat given the market of the past 5 months. I scan the IBD 'New Highs' list everyday, and have seen this one much more often than any other issue for the past few weeks. I checked it out around $5/share and had no interest in buying it - suffice it to say that as I watched it make daily new highs, it was in my face 'dissing' my opinion every day :) I'm sorry to have brought it up. Cheers, Ian - ----- Original Message ----- From: Tom Worley To: Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2001 5:04 PM Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] RMCF > Ian, there's a whole bunch of fuzzy math going on here. > > First, as to no down days since Jan 1, that challenged me. > Frankly, I didn't believe it. DGO's chart shows down days on Jan > 18, 22, 30, then Feb 1 and 20, then Mar 6, 8, and 12, then Apr 3, > 10, 18, and 24, then May 8, 14, 18, 25 then in June was down a > whopping $1.25 on 6/13 (not sure how you missed that one, it > really sticks out on the chart). Your problem may be that Yahoo's > chart is less sophisticated than DGO's, but still . . . . > > I checked the news article you linked, and it's a little > different. First, they herald "basic" earnings first, you are > correct, they report that as up 90%. But they also mention "net" > earnings as up a still respectable 60%. I am not even sure what > "basic" earnings represent, is this before taxes and other > expenses, e.g. gross profit?? > > I also notice they mention buying back 100K shares (of the 1 > million float). That is one way to boost, or even inflate, > earnings per share. > > On revenues, I had already noted on the DGO chart that 4 of the > prior 4 quarters showed a decline in revenues. You mention that > revenues were up in the latest (Q1) quarter by 60%. But reading > the article, I note that they have exited their retail brick and > mortar stores, selling them off to franchises (thus their retail > business now is recorded as discontinued operations), and report > that overall revenues less the retail ops was up only 12%. For > the retail ops, they report a decline from $1,999,000 to $578,000 > ( I assume this refers to the four company owned stores they > retained as a test marketing concept area). > > For a 60% growth in retail sales, they needed $8.38 million, I > see no way they achieved this. > > Tom Worley > stkguru@netside.net > AIM: TexWorley > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Ian > To: > Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2001 1:41 PM > Subject: [CANSLIM] RMCF > > > Sorry for the plethora of posts, but I have been watching RMCF on > the new > highs list for ages now. > > I am not exaggerating when I say that this stock has NOT SEEN A > SINGLE > DOWNTICK from January 1 to Monday of this week. Either flat as a > pancake, or > straight up. The most amazing 5-month chart I have ever seen :) > > They just reported 90% EPS growth on 60% revenue growth for a net > of > $0.19/share in the Q - > http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/010614/lath044.html > > Ian > > > - > -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. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 22:20:14 -0500 From: "Norman" Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] EASI This is a multi-part message in MIME format. - ------=_NextPart_000_02AC_01C0F520.2EF65CB0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Answer: Ann found this on the clearstation boards: Snowgoose posted: ""An analyst by the name of Steve Wortman at Sidoti & Co. downgraded = EASI to Neutral at 10:14 a.m. on 6/14/01. The reason for the downgrade = is "We think EASI shares are fairly valued. The recent rise in EASI = shares leaves little near-term upside potential, in our view. We are = downgrading our rating on the shares to NEUTRAL from BUY based solely on = valuation. The company's fundamentals remain intact, in our opinion." = "My comment is, yes, the shares WERE fairly valued, until you downgraded = them!"" WON wrote recently that these anal-yst perturbations in stock prices = usually go away in a few days. We'll see!? Darn good company to treat that way. Was this a price manipulation to = create a buying opportunity?? ADV is 195K norm ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Norman=20 To: canslim@lists.xmission.com=20 Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2001 8:50 PM Subject: [CANSLIM] EASI 97 99 A A A Contractor for military and private business. Any ideas why this 1 would tank today, besides just profit taking? = Looks to have broken through significant support at the 38 level. Just = announced a dividend. Consistently reporting new contracts. I don't = have quite the handle on this one that Tom does on EPIQ but I thought = their business model was good. Seems a good business to be in with Bush = so fond of defense. Small company that should be able to move quickly. = Maybe they can't compete on very large scale projects but there are = plenty of small projects and 'adjustments' that need to be made on = current projects and equipment. =20 From their website: "Engineered Support Systems engineers and manufacturers a wide range = of military support equipment and electronics equipment for various = branches of the U.S. military and commercial customers." Norm - ------=_NextPart_000_02AC_01C0F520.2EF65CB0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Answer:
 
Ann found this on the clearstation boards:
 
Snowgoose posted:
 
""An analyst by the name of Steve Wortman at Sidoti & Co. = downgraded=20 EASI to Neutral at 10:14 a.m. on 6/14/01. The reason for the downgrade = is "We=20 think EASI shares are fairly valued. The recent rise in EASI shares = leaves=20 little near-term upside potential, in our view. We are downgrading our = rating on=20 the shares to NEUTRAL from BUY based solely on valuation. The company's=20 fundamentals remain intact, in our opinion." "My comment is, yes, the = shares=20 WERE fairly valued, until you downgraded them!""
 
WON wrote recently that these anal-yst perturbations in stock = prices=20 usually go away in a few days.  We'll see!?
 
Darn good company to treat that way.  Was this a price = manipulation to=20 create a buying opportunity??  ADV is 195K
 
norm
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Norman
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2001 = 8:50=20 PM
Subject: [CANSLIM] EASI

97 99 A A A
 
Contractor for military and private business.
 
Any ideas why this 1 would tank today, besides just profit = taking? =20 Looks to have broken through significant support at the 38 = level.  Just=20 announced a dividend.  Consistently reporting new = contracts.  I=20 don't have quite the handle on this one that Tom does on EPIQ but I = thought=20 their business model was good.  Seems a good business to be in = with Bush=20 so fond of defense.   Small company that should be able to = move=20 quickly.  Maybe they can't compete on very large scale projects = but there=20 are plenty of small projects and 'adjustments' that need to be made on = current=20 projects and equipment. 
 
From their website:
 
"Engineered Support Systems engineers and manufacturers a wide = range of=20 military support equipment and electronics equipment for various = branches of=20 the U.S. military and commercial customers."
 
 
Norm
- ------=_NextPart_000_02AC_01C0F520.2EF65CB0-- - - - -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: 14 Jun 2001 23:33:20 CDT From: Fanus Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] EASI I doubt that the drop was caused by the analyst. I was watching CNBC this= morning before I left for work and they actually talked about EASI and th= at the analyst from Sidoti downgraded it. None of the presenters have heard= about Sidoti, or of the analyst. This would be really strange if a hard = to come by downgrade by an unknown analyst be the cause for the big drop. T= he volume today was just too high and the drop just too big to be the result= of an downgrade by an unknown company in my opinion. But does it really matter why? Regardless if we know why, or not, it is = still down. One thing I learned in the last year is that it doesn't matter how = good a company is in my opinion. It only matter what the market "think" it is.= If my opinion is different than the market's, mine is wrong and I get out. = In this case I thought it should still go up. The market thought it is 15% l= ess worth than yesterday. Guess who won? I don't wait and see if I might be= right in a couple of days. Tomorrow it might be up again and prove me wr= ong yet again, but at least I will sleep better tonight knowing I have a 14% profit in the pocket. - - Fanus "Norman" wrote: > --------------------------------------------- = > Attachment:=A0 = > MIME Type:=A0multipart/alternative = > --------------------------------------------- = Answer: Ann found this on the clearstation boards: Snowgoose posted: ""An analyst by the name of Steve Wortman at Sidoti & Co. downgraded EASI= to Neutral at 10:14 a.m. on 6/14/01. The reason for the downgrade is "We thi= nk EASI shares are fairly valued. The recent rise in EASI shares leaves litt= le near-term upside potential, in our view. We are downgrading our rating on= the shares to NEUTRAL from BUY based solely on valuation. The company's fundamentals remain intact, in our opinion." "My comment is, yes, the sha= res WERE fairly valued, until you downgraded them!"" WON wrote recently that these anal-yst perturbations in stock prices usua= lly go away in a few days. We'll see!? Darn good company to treat that way. Was this a price manipulation to cr= eate a buying opportunity?? ADV is 195K norm ----- Original Message ----- = From: Norman = To: canslim@lists.xmission.com = Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2001 8:50 PM Subject: [CANSLIM] EASI 97 99 A A A Contractor for military and private business. Any ideas why this 1 would tank today, besides just profit taking? Loo= ks to have broken through significant support at the 38 level. Just announced = a dividend. Consistently reporting new contracts. I don't have quite the handle on this one that Tom does on EPIQ but I thought their business mod= el was good. Seems a good business to be in with Bush so fond of defense. = Small company that should be able to move quickly. Maybe they can't comp= ete on very large scale projects but there are plenty of small projects and 'adjustments' that need to be made on current projects and equipment. = From their website: "Engineered Support Systems engineers and manufacturers a wide range of= military support equipment and electronics equipment for various branches= of the U.S. military and commercial customers." Norm ____________________________________________________________________ Get free email and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=3D= 1 - - - -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, 15 Jun 2001 06:53:28 -0400 From: "Tom Worley" Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] EASI This is a multi-part message in MIME format. - ------=_NextPart_000_001E_01C0F567.E2B197A0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Norman, While Bush is strong on defense, and why so many defense contractors = moved up in past months with no reason, Bush also just lost the Senate. = I would expect this entire group to continue to weaken as it now will be = more difficult for him to increase defense spending, esp. after passing = a major tax cut. It's the same story on his initiative to build new energy generation = utilities. The companies that supply the equipment, or build the = utilities, all fell. Bottom line, recovery will be more difficult now. Tom Worley stkguru@netside.net AIM: TexWorley ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Norman=20 To: canslim@lists.xmission.com=20 Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2001 11:20 PM Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] EASI Answer: Ann found this on the clearstation boards: Snowgoose posted: ""An analyst by the name of Steve Wortman at Sidoti & Co. downgraded = EASI to Neutral at 10:14 a.m. on 6/14/01. The reason for the downgrade = is "We think EASI shares are fairly valued. The recent rise in EASI = shares leaves little near-term upside potential, in our view. We are = downgrading our rating on the shares to NEUTRAL from BUY based solely on = valuation. The company's fundamentals remain intact, in our opinion." = "My comment is, yes, the shares WERE fairly valued, until you downgraded = them!"" WON wrote recently that these anal-yst perturbations in stock prices = usually go away in a few days. We'll see!? Darn good company to treat that way. Was this a price manipulation to = create a buying opportunity?? ADV is 195K norm ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Norman=20 To: canslim@lists.xmission.com=20 Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2001 8:50 PM Subject: [CANSLIM] EASI 97 99 A A A Contractor for military and private business. Any ideas why this 1 would tank today, besides just profit taking? = Looks to have broken through significant support at the 38 level. Just = announced a dividend. Consistently reporting new contracts. I don't = have quite the handle on this one that Tom does on EPIQ but I thought = their business model was good. Seems a good business to be in with Bush = so fond of defense. Small company that should be able to move quickly. = Maybe they can't compete on very large scale projects but there are = plenty of small projects and 'adjustments' that need to be made on = current projects and equipment. =20 From their website: "Engineered Support Systems engineers and manufacturers a wide range = of military support equipment and electronics equipment for various = branches of the U.S. military and commercial customers." Norm - ------=_NextPart_000_001E_01C0F567.E2B197A0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Norman,
 
While Bush is strong on defense, and why so many = defense=20 contractors moved up in past months with no reason, Bush also just lost = the=20 Senate. I would expect this entire group to continue to weaken as it now = will be=20 more difficult for him to increase defense spending, esp. after passing = a major=20 tax cut.
 
It's the same story on his initiative to build new = energy=20 generation utilities. The companies that supply the equipment, or build = the=20 utilities, all fell.
 
Bottom line, recovery will be more difficult = now.
 
Tom Worley
stkguru@netside.net
AIM:=20 TexWorley
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Norman
To: canslim@lists.xmission.com =
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2001 = 11:20=20 PM
Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] = EASI

Answer:
 
Ann found this on the clearstation boards:
 
Snowgoose posted:
 
""An analyst by the name of Steve Wortman at Sidoti & Co. = downgraded=20 EASI to Neutral at 10:14 a.m. on 6/14/01. The reason for the downgrade = is "We=20 think EASI shares are fairly valued. The recent rise in EASI shares = leaves=20 little near-term upside potential, in our view. We are downgrading our = rating=20 on the shares to NEUTRAL from BUY based solely on valuation. The = company's=20 fundamentals remain intact, in our opinion." "My comment is, yes, the = shares=20 WERE fairly valued, until you downgraded them!""
 
WON wrote recently that these anal-yst perturbations in stock = prices=20 usually go away in a few days.  We'll see!?
 
Darn good company to treat that way.  Was this a price = manipulation=20 to create a buying opportunity??  ADV is 195K
 
norm
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Norman
To: canslim@lists.xmission.com =
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2001 = 8:50=20 PM
Subject: [CANSLIM] EASI

97 99 A A A
 
Contractor for military and private business.
 
Any ideas why this 1 would tank today, besides just profit=20 taking?  Looks to have broken through significant support at = the 38=20 level.  Just announced a dividend.  Consistently = reporting=20 new contracts.  I don't have quite the handle on this one that = Tom does=20 on EPIQ but I thought their business model was good.  Seems a = good=20 business to be in with Bush so fond of defense.   Small = company=20 that should be able to move quickly.  Maybe they can't compete = on very=20 large scale projects but there are plenty of small projects and=20 'adjustments' that need to be made on current projects and = equipment. =20
 
From their website:
 
"Engineered Support Systems engineers and manufacturers a wide = range of=20 military support equipment and electronics equipment for various = branches of=20 the U.S. military and commercial customers."
 
 
Norm
- ------=_NextPart_000_001E_01C0F567.E2B197A0-- - - - -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, 15 Jun 2001 07:11:22 -0400 From: "Tom Worley" Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] EASI I have gone thru the learning curve, which apparently CNBC still has not, of seeing a downgrade by an unknown analyst at an unknown brokerage house tank a stock, esp a small cap or thinly traded one. Over the years I have discovered that small brokerage houses usually focus their efforts (corporate financing, in house analysis, retail stock brokers, any institutional funds they handle) on a very limited number of stocks. And they usually try to find ones not well followed by other firms. With their brokers daily telling their clients and prospects why they should be buying ABCD (in this case EASI), they can build up a substantial holding in house over time. Then, when the house analyst changes his tune and says sell (that's what a downgrade to NEUTRAL means, after all why would you want to continue to hold a security with no further upside potential??), the brokers have the excuse they need to do some business and generate commissions. And if they don't follow the house's recommendation, they will likely have problems with the office manager, assuming they still have a job. So I have learned my lessons well regarding the effects of an unknown analyst downgrading at an unknown brokerage house (and yes, I too had never heard of this firm). The good news is that the ongoing Congressional hearings regarding analysts and their recommendations with regard to bias and vested interests is finally prompting SIU (Securities Investor something) to develop industry wide rules of conduct for analysts. Half a dozen or so major wire houses have already agreed to the new rules, which would prohibit the analyst performing trades on his own behalf, or pumping up a stock for the retail brokers to push just so the same house's institutional managers could unload huge blocks of the same stock ( a practice that always disgusted me, and one reason I quit). It would also prohibit an analyst's compensation being pegged to business he generates. Someday maybe we will actually see analysts having some independence from their employer, and able to act professional and "analytical". Tom Worley stkguru@netside.net AIM: TexWorley - ----- Original Message ----- From: Fanus To: Sent: Friday, June 15, 2001 12:33 AM Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] EASI I doubt that the drop was caused by the analyst. I was watching CNBC this morning before I left for work and they actually talked about EASI and that the analyst from Sidoti downgraded it. None of the presenters have heard about Sidoti, or of the analyst. This would be really strange if a hard to come by downgrade by an unknown analyst be the cause for the big drop. The volume today was just too high and the drop just too big to be the result of an downgrade by an unknown company in my opinion. But does it really matter why? Regardless if we know why, or not, it is still down. One thing I learned in the last year is that it doesn't matter how good a company is in my opinion. It only matter what the market "think" it is. If my opinion is different than the market's, mine is wrong and I get out. In this case I thought it should still go up. The market thought it is 15% less worth than yesterday. Guess who won? I don't wait and see if I might be right in a couple of days. Tomorrow it might be up again and prove me wrong yet again, but at least I will sleep better tonight knowing I have a 14% profit in the pocket. - - Fanus "Norman" wrote: > --------------------------------------------- > Attachment: > MIME Type: multipart/alternative > --------------------------------------------- Answer: Ann found this on the clearstation boards: Snowgoose posted: ""An analyst by the name of Steve Wortman at Sidoti & Co. downgraded EASI to Neutral at 10:14 a.m. on 6/14/01. The reason for the downgrade is "We think EASI shares are fairly valued. The recent rise in EASI shares leaves little near-term upside potential, in our view. We are downgrading our rating on the shares to NEUTRAL from BUY based solely on valuation. The company's fundamentals remain intact, in our opinion." "My comment is, yes, the shares WERE fairly valued, until you downgraded them!"" WON wrote recently that these anal-yst perturbations in stock prices usually go away in a few days. We'll see!? Darn good company to treat that way. Was this a price manipulation to create a buying opportunity?? ADV is 195K norm ----- Original Message ----- From: Norman To: canslim@lists.xmission.com Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2001 8:50 PM Subject: [CANSLIM] EASI 97 99 A A A Contractor for military and private business. Any ideas why this 1 would tank today, besides just profit taking? Looks to have broken through significant support at the 38 level. Just announced a dividend. Consistently reporting new contracts. I don't have quite the handle on this one that Tom does on EPIQ but I thought their business model was good. Seems a good business to be in with Bush so fond of defense. Small company that should be able to move quickly. Maybe they can't compete on very large scale projects but there are plenty of small projects and 'adjustments' that need to be made on current projects and equipment. From their website: "Engineered Support Systems engineers and manufacturers a wide range of military support equipment and electronics equipment for various branches of the U.S. military and commercial customers." Norm _________________________________________________________________ ___ Get free email and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1 - - - -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, 15 Jun 2001 07:41:28 -0400 From: "Tom Worley" Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] RECN Nice presentation, I only find a few items to mention further. DGO shows management as owning 15%. Not sure how your source comes up with "insiders" owning 68%. I don't see a large block of stock missing between the nr of shares issued and in the float, the difference is fully accounted for by the management ownership, meaning any other shares owned by "insiders" is freely tradable and thus already counted in the float. Funds only own 11%, so plenty of room for further purchasing. The debt of 209% would give me pause to ponder. Tom Worley stkguru@netside.net AIM: TexWorley - ----- Original Message ----- From: ernieh To: Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2001 10:03 PM Subject: [CANSLIM] RECN This is not a typical canslim stock because the company has not been public for very long. It was a spin off from Deloitte & Touche in December of last year. However, it is setting up much like MTON did along the Gann 1x1 line. First the vitals. Last two quarters of earnings up 111% & 100% respectively on sales growth of 58% & 49%. EPS-99, RPS-96, AAB. 68% of the company held by insiders with 46 institutions owning 32%. The float is 6.5 million shares. In the most recently reported statistics institutions were net buyers of the stock. Profit margins are a healthy 6.6% with a ROE of 33%. The stock price just touched the 1x1 line on Monday completing an "a" wave, and moved back up strong on Tuesday. It appears to have completed a "b" wave on Wednesday and is now headed back down to form the "c" wave. Because the "a" wave is long and extended the "c" wave is likely to be short and not extend below the "a" wave. I am going to place a limit order to buy at 28.25. If that order is filled I will then place a sell stop at 26. ________________________________________________________________ Sent via the EV1 webmail system at mail.ev1.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: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 07:53:36 -0400 From: "Tom Worley" Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Weekly SCAN David, Sorry you are leaving the group, good luck with the day trading. Tom Worley stkguru@netside.net AIM: TexWorley - ----- Original Message ----- From: David Squires To: Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2001 6:19 PM Subject: [CANSLIM] Weekly SCAN Hi all, This is coming a day early as I am traveling this weekend. I took the liberty to pivot table the scans and sort them by number of hits. It really was needed this week with the drop to 50000 ADV and the inclusion of all my other scans. I think there was 3300 symbols. After consolidation it comes to 900ish. I have unsubscribed from the group for now. I am getting distracted from my intraday trading in a number of ways so this is part of a refocus for me. The exchange is wonderful fun and I will miss it. I will continue to send my scans to the group as some seem to like them. Anyone that would like to reach me in the future should send mail to dcsquires1@home.com. Tradehard! Dave Squires - - - -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, 15 Jun 2001 07:52:49 -0400 From: "Tom Worley" Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] thoughts on IGT and COCO I am hesitant to place much importance on distribution days more than two weeks old, so that factor would not compel me to sell either stock. The charts do not suggest any obvious to me that either stock is yet in trouble. Both stocks have substantial funds ownership (IGT 23% and COCO 42%), so there is always the possibility of a wave of institutional selling. Institutionals are more prone to sell for technical reasons. Both groups are still ranked high (97 and 86 GRS). Both have very strong earnings forecasts for this year, well above average. Both are on track to meet those forecasts so far (IGT year ends Sep, COCO ends June). Forecasts for year 2002 for both are decent, but no where as strong. Tom Worley stkguru@netside.net AIM: TexWorley - ----- Original Message ----- From: Doug Shannon To: Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2001 10:03 PM Subject: [CANSLIM] thoughts on IGT and COCO With "M" flashing 4-5 distribution days I count 7 distibution days on IGT in the last few weeks and 4 or 5 on COCO. Is it time to sell these two stocks? Doug - - - -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, 15 Jun 2001 08:29:12 -0400 From: "Dan Forant" Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] EASI This is a multi-part message in MIME format. - ------=_NextPart_000_0027_01C0F575.418FDD60 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable This group plus the energy group are taking a hit because of the Senate = loss. Politics aside, IMO the Senate loss is a loss for the Country, = let alone stocks. While all is not dead in the water, we lost some = momentum and a chance to really explore some new avenues of growth. DanF ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Tom Worley=20 To: canslim@lists.xmission.com=20 Sent: Friday, June 15, 2001 6:53 AM Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] EASI Hi Norman, While Bush is strong on defense, and why so many defense contractors = moved up in past months with no reason, Bush also just lost the Senate. = I would expect this entire group to continue to weaken as it now will be = more difficult for him to increase defense spending, esp. after passing = a major tax cut. It's the same story on his initiative to build new energy generation = utilities. The companies that supply the equipment, or build the = utilities, all fell. Bottom line, recovery will be more difficult now. Tom Worley stkguru@netside.net AIM: TexWorley ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Norman=20 To: canslim@lists.xmission.com=20 Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2001 11:20 PM Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] EASI Answer: Ann found this on the clearstation boards: Snowgoose posted: ""An analyst by the name of Steve Wortman at Sidoti & Co. downgraded = EASI to Neutral at 10:14 a.m. on 6/14/01. The reason for the downgrade = is "We think EASI shares are fairly valued. The recent rise in EASI = shares leaves little near-term upside potential, in our view. We are = downgrading our rating on the shares to NEUTRAL from BUY based solely on = valuation. The company's fundamentals remain intact, in our opinion." = "My comment is, yes, the shares WERE fairly valued, until you downgraded = them!"" WON wrote recently that these anal-yst perturbations in stock prices = usually go away in a few days. We'll see!? Darn good company to treat that way. Was this a price manipulation = to create a buying opportunity?? ADV is 195K norm ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Norman=20 To: canslim@lists.xmission.com=20 Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2001 8:50 PM Subject: [CANSLIM] EASI 97 99 A A A Contractor for military and private business. Any ideas why this 1 would tank today, besides just profit taking? = Looks to have broken through significant support at the 38 level. Just = announced a dividend. Consistently reporting new contracts. I don't = have quite the handle on this one that Tom does on EPIQ but I thought = their business model was good. Seems a good business to be in with Bush = so fond of defense. Small company that should be able to move quickly. = Maybe they can't compete on very large scale projects but there are = plenty of small projects and 'adjustments' that need to be made on = current projects and equipment. =20 From their website: "Engineered Support Systems engineers and manufacturers a wide = range of military support equipment and electronics equipment for = various branches of the U.S. military and commercial customers." Norm - ------=_NextPart_000_0027_01C0F575.418FDD60 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
This group plus the energy group are taking a hit = because of=20 the Senate loss. Politics aside,  IMO the Senate loss is a loss for = the=20 Country, let alone stocks. While all is not dead in the water, we lost = some=20 momentum and a chance to really explore some new avenues of = growth.
 
DanF
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Tom = Worley=20
Sent: Friday, June 15, 2001 = 6:53 AM
Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] = EASI

Hi Norman,
 
While Bush is strong on defense, and why so many = defense=20 contractors moved up in past months with no reason, Bush also just = lost the=20 Senate. I would expect this entire group to continue to weaken as it = now will=20 be more difficult for him to increase defense spending, esp. after = passing a=20 major tax cut.
 
It's the same story on his initiative to build new = energy=20 generation utilities. The companies that supply the equipment, or = build the=20 utilities, all fell.
 
Bottom line, recovery will be more difficult=20 now.
 
Tom Worley
stkguru@netside.net
AIM:=20 TexWorley
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Norman
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2001 = 11:20=20 PM
Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] = EASI

Answer:
 
Ann found this on the clearstation boards:
 
Snowgoose posted:
 
""An analyst by the name of Steve Wortman at Sidoti & Co.=20 downgraded EASI to Neutral at 10:14 a.m. on 6/14/01. The reason for = the=20 downgrade is "We think EASI shares are fairly valued. The recent = rise in=20 EASI shares leaves little near-term upside potential, in our view. = We are=20 downgrading our rating on the shares to NEUTRAL from BUY based = solely on=20 valuation. The company's fundamentals remain intact, in our = opinion." "My=20 comment is, yes, the shares WERE fairly valued, until you downgraded = them!""
 
WON wrote recently that these anal-yst perturbations in stock = prices=20 usually go away in a few days.  We'll see!?
 
Darn good company to treat that way.  Was this a price=20 manipulation to create a buying opportunity??  ADV is = 195K
 
norm
----- Original Message ----- =
From:=20 Norman
To: canslim@lists.xmission.com= =20
Sent: Thursday, June 14, = 2001 8:50=20 PM
Subject: [CANSLIM] = EASI

97 99 A A A
 
Contractor for military and private business.
 
Any ideas why this 1 would tank today, besides just profit=20 taking?  Looks to have broken through significant support at = the 38=20 level.  Just announced a dividend.  Consistently = reporting=20 new contracts.  I don't have quite the handle on this one = that Tom=20 does on EPIQ but I thought their business model was good.  = Seems a=20 good business to be in with Bush so fond of defense.   = Small=20 company that should be able to move quickly.  Maybe they = can't=20 compete on very large scale projects but there are plenty of small = projects and 'adjustments' that need to be made on current = projects and=20 equipment. 
 
From their website:
 
"Engineered Support Systems engineers and manufacturers a = wide range=20 of military support equipment and electronics equipment for = various=20 branches of the U.S. military and commercial customers."
 
 
=
Norm
- ------=_NextPart_000_0027_01C0F575.418FDD60-- - - - -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 #1493 ****************************** 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.