From: owner-canslim-digest@lists.xmission.com (canslim-digest) To: canslim-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: canslim-digest V2 #1919 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 Monday, December 10 2001 Volume 02 : Number 1919 In this issue: Re: [CANSLIM] low volume breakouts Re: [CANSLIM] low volume breakouts Re: [CANSLIM] low volume breakouts Re: [CANSLIM] Thanks for the feedback Re: [CANSLIM] low volume breakouts Re: [CANSLIM] low volume breakouts ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 09:48:51 -0600 From: Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] low volume breakouts This is a multi-part message in MIME format. - ------=_NextPart_000_00C9_01C1815F.DFA9FBE0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable hi katherine , thank you so much for this very good information! when = bulkowski states that stocks retrace back to the b/o piont 75% of the = time is he talking about high or low volume breakouts? and where is the = best place to get a copy of his book? david ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Katherine Malm=20 To: canslim@lists.xmission.com=20 Sent: Monday, December 10, 2001 5:10 AM Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] low volume breakouts Hi David, The question you ask is a good one. Demanding controlled study proof = of a guideline like this is important, as it makes an underlying = assumption about technical patterns which may or may not trigger a buy. = I pulled out my "Encyclopedia of Chart Patterns" by Thomas Bulkowski to = answer this question. In this book, the author does statistical studies = on chart formation and there is an entire chapter devoted to the C&H. = (pp.135-152). Before I state the author's conclusions, a general overview of WON's = theory as to why volume should be high on the breakout. That is, you are = looking for the point at which demand so outweighs supply that the price = moves up and onward. In my own personal experience, low volume breakouts = seem to fall back more often than not. But these are "odds" not = specifics. SONC is a good example from recent discussions on the list. = Take a look at the daily chart from 10/3 to now. You can see that SONC = tried very hard on several days to break out of its consolidation, but = fell back and eventually gapped down. The low volume B/O's don't always = mean the stock will fail, just that it's not yet ready to move on. I = like to have the odds in my favor, so I'm always willing to wait until = there's proof of the pudding. Back to Bulkowski. In the C&H formation, the failure rate is 26%. If = you wait for an upside breakout, the failure rate falls to 10%. Stocks = retrace back to the B/O point 75% of the time (average time 12 days). = Waiting for the throwback increases the success rate another 1%. Typical = B/O volume is 180% above the prior day and stays high for the following = week. Interestingly, he says removing the high volume B/O criteria does = hurt performance, but only minimally. This is an excellent chapter on = C&H and, based on the statistical evidence, the author makes other = conclusions that lead to particular trading tactics. There are several = additional criteria that WON would require of a stock forming a C&H and = then breaking out, such as rising RS, high group RS, underlying = fundamental characteristics, etc. that are not included in the author's = study. My own conclusions, anecdotally, are that if these other criteria = are met AND you get a high volume B/O, the odds are in your favor. (No = statistical studies to back that up, however!) Katherine ----- Original Message -----=20 From: camelot.homes@charter.net=20 To: canslim@xmission.com=20 Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2001 5:44 PM Subject: [CANSLIM] low volume breakouts how often does a low volume breakout succeed past the pivot point = versus a high volume breakout past the pivot point? david - ------=_NextPart_000_00C9_01C1815F.DFA9FBE0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
hi katherine , thank you so much for = this very good=20 information! when bulkowski states that stocks retrace back to the b/o = piont 75%=20 of the time is he talking about high or low volume breakouts? and where = is the=20 best place to get a copy of his book? david
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Katherine=20 Malm
To: canslim@lists.xmission.com=
Sent: Monday, December 10, 2001 = 5:10=20 AM
Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] low = volume=20 breakouts

Hi David,
 
The question you ask is a good one. = Demanding=20 controlled study proof of a guideline like this is important, as it = makes an=20 underlying assumption about technical patterns which may or may not = trigger a=20 buy. I pulled out my "Encyclopedia of Chart Patterns" by Thomas = Bulkowski to=20 answer this question. In this book, the author does statistical = studies on=20 chart formation and there is an entire chapter devoted to the C&H. = (pp.135-152).
 
Before I state the author's = conclusions, a=20 general overview of WON's theory as to why volume should be high on = the=20 breakout. That is, you are looking for the point at which demand so = outweighs=20 supply that the price moves up and onward. In my own personal = experience, low=20 volume breakouts seem to fall back more often than not. But these are = "odds"=20 not specifics. SONC is a good example from recent discussions on = the=20 list. Take a look at the daily chart from 10/3 to now. You can see = that SONC=20 tried very hard on several days to break out of its consolidation, but = fell=20 back and eventually gapped down. The low volume B/O's don't always = mean the=20 stock will fail, just that it's not yet ready to move on. I like to = have the=20 odds in my favor, so I'm always willing to wait until there's proof of = the=20 pudding.
 
Back to Bulkowski. In the C&H = formation, the=20 failure rate is 26%. If you wait for an upside breakout, the failure = rate=20 falls to 10%. Stocks retrace back to the B/O point 75% of the time = (average=20 time 12 days). Waiting for the throwback increases the success rate = another=20 1%. Typical B/O volume is 180% above the prior day and stays high for = the=20 following week. Interestingly, he says removing the high volume B/O = criteria=20 does hurt performance, but only minimally. This is an excellent = chapter on=20 C&H and, based on the statistical evidence,  the author makes = other=20 conclusions that lead to particular trading tactics. There are several = additional criteria that WON would require of a stock forming a = C&H and=20 then breaking out, such as rising RS, high group RS, underlying = fundamental=20 characteristics, etc. that are not included in the author's study. My = own=20 conclusions, anecdotally, are that if these other criteria are met AND = you get=20 a high volume B/O, the odds are in your favor. (No statistical studies = to back=20 that up, however!)
 
Katherine
 
 
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 camelot.homes@charter.net =
Sent: Sunday, December 09, = 2001 5:44=20 PM
Subject: [CANSLIM] low volume = breakouts

how often does a low volume = breakout=20 succeed  past the pivot point versus  a high volume = breakout past=20 the pivot point? = david
- ------=_NextPart_000_00C9_01C1815F.DFA9FBE0-- - - - -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, 10 Dec 2001 10:54:07 EST From: Spencer48@aol.com Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] low volume breakouts Katherine: Thank you very much for your time and efforts in looking up this material. However, would you tell me what you mean by "throwback"? Also, when was the book published, and-if it was published years ago-why do you think Bulkowski's statistical study on CANSLIM is still valid today? jans In a message dated 12/10/2001 7:16:48 AM Eastern Standard Time, kmalm@earthlink.net writes: << Waiting for the throwback increases the success rate another 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: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 10:25:43 -0600 From: "Katherine Malm" Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] low volume breakouts This is a multi-part message in MIME format. - ------=_NextPart_000_000F_01C18165.063B15A0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable David, >>when bulkowski states that stocks retrace back to the b/o piont 75% of = the time is he talking about high or low volume breakouts?=20 He doesn't distinguish between high and low volume B/O's when he makes = this assessment. When I first read this, I was actually quite surprised = at the frequency with which pullbacks to the pivot occurred. It = certainly makes the case for waiting if there is any question about = volume on the initial B/O, doesn't it? >>and where is the best place to get a copy of his book?=20 At the place of where I practice my vice second only to Starbucks, of = course! http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0471295256/qid=3D1008001201/sr=3D8= - -1/ref=3Dsr_8_3_1/104-6796348-6536711 Glad you found the info useful, Katherine ----- Original Message -----=20 From: camelot.homes@charter.net=20 To: canslim@lists.xmission.com=20 Sent: Monday, December 10, 2001 9:48 AM Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] low volume breakouts hi katherine , thank you so much for this very good information! when = bulkowski states that stocks retrace back to the b/o piont 75% of the = time is he talking about high or low volume breakouts? and where is the = best place to get a copy of his book? david ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Katherine Malm=20 To: canslim@lists.xmission.com=20 Sent: Monday, December 10, 2001 5:10 AM Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] low volume breakouts Hi David, The question you ask is a good one. Demanding controlled study proof = of a guideline like this is important, as it makes an underlying = assumption about technical patterns which may or may not trigger a buy. = I pulled out my "Encyclopedia of Chart Patterns" by Thomas Bulkowski to = answer this question. In this book, the author does statistical studies = on chart formation and there is an entire chapter devoted to the C&H. = (pp.135-152). Before I state the author's conclusions, a general overview of WON's = theory as to why volume should be high on the breakout. That is, you are = looking for the point at which demand so outweighs supply that the price = moves up and onward. In my own personal experience, low volume breakouts = seem to fall back more often than not. But these are "odds" not = specifics. SONC is a good example from recent discussions on the list. = Take a look at the daily chart from 10/3 to now. You can see that SONC = tried very hard on several days to break out of its consolidation, but = fell back and eventually gapped down. The low volume B/O's don't always = mean the stock will fail, just that it's not yet ready to move on. I = like to have the odds in my favor, so I'm always willing to wait until = there's proof of the pudding. Back to Bulkowski. In the C&H formation, the failure rate is 26%. If = you wait for an upside breakout, the failure rate falls to 10%. Stocks = retrace back to the B/O point 75% of the time (average time 12 days). = Waiting for the throwback increases the success rate another 1%. Typical = B/O volume is 180% above the prior day and stays high for the following = week. Interestingly, he says removing the high volume B/O criteria does = hurt performance, but only minimally. This is an excellent chapter on = C&H and, based on the statistical evidence, the author makes other = conclusions that lead to particular trading tactics. There are several = additional criteria that WON would require of a stock forming a C&H and = then breaking out, such as rising RS, high group RS, underlying = fundamental characteristics, etc. that are not included in the author's = study. My own conclusions, anecdotally, are that if these other criteria = are met AND you get a high volume B/O, the odds are in your favor. (No = statistical studies to back that up, however!) Katherine ----- Original Message -----=20 From: camelot.homes@charter.net=20 To: canslim@xmission.com=20 Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2001 5:44 PM Subject: [CANSLIM] low volume breakouts how often does a low volume breakout succeed past the pivot point = versus a high volume breakout past the pivot point? david - ------=_NextPart_000_000F_01C18165.063B15A0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
David,
 
>>when bulkowski states that = stocks retrace=20 back to the b/o piont 75% of the time is he talking about high or low = volume=20 breakouts?
 
He doesn't distinguish between high and = low volume=20 B/O's when he makes this assessment. When I first read this, I was = actually=20 quite surprised at the frequency with which pullbacks to the pivot = occurred. It=20 certainly makes the case for waiting if there is any question about = volume on=20 the initial B/O, doesn't it?
 
>>and where is the best place to = get a copy=20 of his book?
At the place of where I practice my = vice second=20 only to Starbucks, of course!
 
http://www.amazon.com/exec= /obidos/ASIN/0471295256/qid=3D1008001201/sr=3D8-1/ref=3Dsr_8_3_1/104-6796= 348-6536711
 
Glad you found the info = useful,
Katherine
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 camelot.homes@charter.net =
To: canslim@lists.xmission.com=
Sent: Monday, December 10, 2001 = 9:48=20 AM
Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] low = volume=20 breakouts

hi katherine , thank you so much for = this very=20 good information! when bulkowski states that stocks retrace back to = the b/o=20 piont 75% of the time is he talking about high or low volume = breakouts? and=20 where is the best place to get a copy of his book? david
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Katherine=20 Malm
Sent: Monday, December 10, = 2001 5:10=20 AM
Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] low = volume=20 breakouts

Hi David,
 
The question you ask is a good one. = Demanding=20 controlled study proof of a guideline like this is important, as it = makes an=20 underlying assumption about technical patterns which may or may not = trigger=20 a buy. I pulled out my "Encyclopedia of Chart Patterns" by Thomas = Bulkowski=20 to answer this question. In this book, the author does statistical = studies=20 on chart formation and there is an entire chapter devoted to the = C&H.=20 (pp.135-152).
 
Before I state the author's = conclusions, a=20 general overview of WON's theory as to why volume should be high on = the=20 breakout. That is, you are looking for the point at which demand so=20 outweighs supply that the price moves up and onward. In my own = personal=20 experience, low volume breakouts seem to fall back more often than = not. But=20 these are "odds" not specifics. SONC is a good example from = recent=20 discussions on the list. Take a look at the daily chart from 10/3 to = now.=20 You can see that SONC tried very hard on several days to break out = of its=20 consolidation, but fell back and eventually gapped down. The low = volume=20 B/O's don't always mean the stock will fail, just that it's not yet = ready to=20 move on. I like to have the odds in my favor, so I'm always willing = to wait=20 until there's proof of the pudding.
 
Back to Bulkowski. In the C&H = formation,=20 the failure rate is 26%. If you wait for an upside breakout, the = failure=20 rate falls to 10%. Stocks retrace back to the B/O point 75% of the = time=20 (average time 12 days). Waiting for the throwback increases the = success rate=20 another 1%. Typical B/O volume is 180% above the prior day and stays = high=20 for the following week. Interestingly, he says removing the high = volume B/O=20 criteria does hurt performance, but only minimally. This is an = excellent=20 chapter on C&H and, based on the statistical evidence,  the = author=20 makes other conclusions that lead to particular trading tactics. = There are=20 several additional criteria that WON would require of a stock = forming a=20 C&H and then breaking out, such as rising RS, high group RS, = underlying=20 fundamental characteristics, etc. that are not included in the = author's=20 study. My own conclusions, anecdotally, are that if these other = criteria are=20 met AND you get a high volume B/O, the odds are in your favor. (No=20 statistical studies to back that up, however!)
 
Katherine
 
 
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 camelot.homes@charter.net=20
Sent: Sunday, December 09, = 2001 5:44=20 PM
Subject: [CANSLIM] low = volume=20 breakouts

how often does a low volume = breakout=20 succeed  past the pivot point versus  a high volume = breakout=20 past the pivot point?=20 david
- ------=_NextPart_000_000F_01C18165.063B15A0-- - - - -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, 10 Dec 2001 10:28:20 -0600 From: Jerry Weiss Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Thanks for the feedback This is a multi-part message in MIME format. - ------=_NextPart_000_00CD_01C18165.63D3F600 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Thank you. Keep up the good work. Happy Holidays, Jerry Weiss ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Tom Worley=20 To: CANSLIM=20 Sent: Monday, December 10, 2001 3:42 AM Subject: [CANSLIM] Thanks for the feedback It would appear I considerably underestimated the interest in my WWW. = To respond to a few questions and comments expressed, I spend about 5-6 = hours a week typically in compiling this. The commentary I usually = accumulate throughout the week a few minutes at a time. Sometimes one = story (paragraph) is composed of information from a half dozen or more = stories. The watchlist wannabes takes the most time, usually about 3 = hours on the weekend, to review upwards of 250-300 charts. In part, this = process evolved out of criticism that I was dominating the list with = non-CANSLIM emails. So now I put all my "soap box" opinions into a = single post (well, I try anyway). For those that do not use the list of stocks, don't feel guilty, as I = also do not use other's lists normally. This list started out as my = personal way of monitoring how technically quality CANSLIM stocks were = shaping up (both RS and EPS of 80 or better and price at or within 5% of = their high and also in the DG books). Because I am reviewing for "M", I = disregard my personal biases and look at all stocks. Originally I just = printed the list and made margin notes. Eventually I started sharing = those margin notes with the group. Now I guess it's a regular feature, = and just add them into the WWW already started. But I do not use my own = list for finding stocks I will buy. For that, I use daily lists reviewed = throughout the week as stocks hit new highs. My idea in presenting the = list is just to give some ideas for watching to those members that have = not yet developed their own source for CANSLIM ideas. I would be happy = to know that no one has use for this list, it would mean everyone has = their own method. But I know that is not likely or realistic, there are = newcomers to CANSLIM every day. Several members suggested I boil the list down into a short list of 2 = to 10 stocks. To do that would require that I do the due diligence. = Since my stocks of choice are both low priced and usually thinly traded, = they rarely make it into the DG books by the time I own them. Thus the = stocks I review rarely produce anything I choose to own. And my review = is essentially limited to looking at a chart for the prior 6 months. = Occasionally I will notice something (earnings forecast, for instance) = that will cause me either to include, or omit, a stock, or add a comment = (such as low price or volume). But the list is intended to be generic, = without my personal biases, so that members that choose to use it can = pick and choose what suits them. As for my personal biases being helpful or educational, I don't think = so. While I have made investments in the past in banks, biotechs, REITs = and drug companies I won't do so again. This is a simple function of my = ignorance. I learned that I cannot understand these type companies, = therefore I cannot intelligently assess their performance and future = from a fundies perspective. Thus, I avoid them. I like tech stocks, as I = see them representing the best of entrepreneurial enterprise and growth. = Where my knowledge may be lacking, I turn to my sons (both computer = techs) or to my IT staff at work for better understanding. I don't like = commodities type companies, even tho I did once make good money on = Bethlehem Steel, bot on CANSLIM basis. Sad to see it in bankruptcy = today, they produced steel for many great buildings including the Empire = State Building. I also typically avoid foreign companies, as that would = introduce more variables (currency rate changes, another economy, = another politics, etc) altho I will occasionally venture into a few = (right now my VR fund has TTIL up 57%, bought as a totally non-CANSLIM = stock at the time, and kept buying while it underperformed). If I do buy = a foreign stock, it is usually either European, or Israeli based. I = avoid Canadian stocks, not because there are not good ones there, but = because their regulators permit too many scams and frauds. Because I am = buying small companies not closely followed by analysts, I just don't = have the time to investigate each one and be sure it is legitimate. Hope this answers everyone, Tom Worley stkguru@netside.net AIM: TexWorley - ------=_NextPart_000_00CD_01C18165.63D3F600 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Thank you.
Keep up the good work.
 
Happy Holidays,
 
Jerry Weiss
 
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Tom = Worley=20
To: CANSLIM
Sent: Monday, December 10, 2001 = 3:42=20 AM
Subject: [CANSLIM] Thanks for = the=20 feedback

It would appear I considerably underestimated the = interest=20 in my WWW. To respond to a few questions and comments expressed, I = spend about=20 5-6 hours a week typically in compiling this. The commentary I usually = accumulate throughout the week a few minutes at a time. Sometimes one = story=20 (paragraph) is composed of information from a half dozen or more=20 stories.  The watchlist wannabes takes the most time, usually = about 3=20 hours on the weekend, to review upwards of 250-300 charts. In part, = this=20 process evolved out of criticism that I was dominating the list with=20 non-CANSLIM emails. So now I put all my "soap box" opinions into a = single post=20 (well, I try anyway).
 
For those that do not use the list of stocks, = don't feel=20 guilty, as I also do not use other's lists normally. This list started = out as=20 my personal way of monitoring how technically quality CANSLIM stocks = were=20 shaping up (both RS and EPS of 80 or better and price at or within 5% = of their=20 high and also in the DG books). Because I am reviewing for "M", I = disregard my=20 personal biases and look at all stocks. Originally I just printed the = list and=20 made margin notes. Eventually I started sharing those margin notes = with the=20 group. Now I guess it's a regular feature, and just add them into the = WWW=20 already started. But I do not use my own list for finding stocks I = will buy.=20 For that, I use daily lists reviewed throughout the week as stocks hit = new=20 highs. My idea in presenting the list is just to give some ideas for = watching=20 to those members that have not yet developed their own source for = CANSLIM=20 ideas. I would be happy to know that no one has use for this list, it = would=20 mean everyone has their own method. But I know that is not likely or=20 realistic, there are newcomers to CANSLIM every day.
 
Several members suggested I boil the list down = into a short=20 list of 2 to 10 stocks. To do that would require that I do the due = diligence.=20 Since my stocks of choice are both low priced and usually thinly = traded, they=20 rarely make it into the DG books by the time I own them. Thus the = stocks I=20 review rarely produce anything I choose to own. And my review is = essentially=20 limited to looking at a chart for the prior 6 months. Occasionally I = will=20 notice something (earnings forecast, for instance) that will cause me = either=20 to include, or omit, a stock, or add a comment (such as low price or = volume).=20 But the list is intended to be generic, without my personal biases, so = that=20 members that choose to use it can pick and choose what suits=20 them.
 
As for my personal biases being helpful or = educational, I=20 don't think so. While I have made investments in the past in banks, = biotechs,=20 REITs and drug companies I won't do so again. This is a simple = function of my=20 ignorance. I learned that I cannot understand these type companies, = therefore=20 I cannot intelligently assess their performance and future from a = fundies=20 perspective. Thus, I avoid them. I like tech stocks, as I see them=20 representing the best of entrepreneurial enterprise and growth. Where = my=20 knowledge may be lacking, I turn to my sons (both computer techs) or = to my IT=20 staff at work for better understanding. I don't like commodities type=20 companies, even tho I did once make good money on Bethlehem Steel, bot = on=20 CANSLIM basis. Sad to see it in bankruptcy today, they produced steel = for many=20 great buildings including the Empire State Building. I also typically = avoid=20 foreign companies, as that would introduce more variables (currency = rate=20 changes, another economy, another politics, etc) altho I will = occasionally=20 venture into a few (right now my VR fund has TTIL up 57%, bought as a = totally=20 non-CANSLIM stock at the time, and kept buying while it = underperformed). If I=20 do buy a foreign stock, it is usually either European, or Israeli = based. I=20 avoid Canadian stocks, not because there are not good ones there, but = because=20 their regulators permit too many scams and frauds. Because I am buying = small=20 companies not closely followed by analysts, I just don't have the time = to=20 investigate each one and be sure it is legitimate.
 
Hope this answers everyone,
 
Tom Worley
stkguru@netside.net
AIM:=20 TexWorley
- ------=_NextPart_000_00CD_01C18165.63D3F600-- - - - -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, 10 Dec 2001 10:41:23 -0600 From: "Katherine Malm" Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] low volume breakouts Hi jans, The copy of my book is copyrighted 2000. I have found this to be one of my most frequented references. But I'm a technical neophyte in comparison to my fundamental, economic and business knowledgebase. I like that he takes a very statistical look at each of the chart patterns. He explains why or why not he may have included certain criteria, gives average rates of success and failure, % advance or decline from each of the patterns, etc. In the case of the C&H pattern, he is not looking at all CANSLIM criteria, only the performance of an identified C&H technical pattern. He explains how these are identified for the analysis. He notes in this chapter, for example, that he was unable to include the stock's RS in his analysis, because it was not clear from WON's description to what the RS was being compared. That's why I have to add my own anecdotal evidence of this technical pattern combined with underlying CANSLIM criteria for the given candidates. I see these patterns fail most often when group RS or the stock's RS is low or declining. This seems to override the current read on the fundamentals.. Good examples of that are in early 2000. When stocks with good fundamentals started failing, they often fell out of C&H patterns. That makes sense, because the deterioration of the fundamentals is a lagging indicator. On the other hand, when a company is going through a turnaround, whether of iinternal or external origin, the turnaround in the fundamentals need to precede the technical patterns to indicate a quality candidate. You can see that currently in stocks like MCAF. Katherine - ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Monday, December 10, 2001 9:54 AM Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] low volume breakouts > Katherine: > > Thank you very much for your time and efforts in looking up this > material. > However, would you tell me what you mean by "throwback"? Also, when was > the book published, and-if it was published years ago-why do you think > Bulkowski's statistical study on CANSLIM is still valid today? > > jans > > > In a message dated 12/10/2001 7:16:48 AM Eastern Standard Time, > kmalm@earthlink.net writes: > > << Waiting for the throwback increases the success rate another 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: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 10:44:56 -0600 From: "Katherine Malm" Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] low volume breakouts jans, >>However, would you tell me what you mean by "throwback"? Sorry, forgot to address this question. He is talking about a pullback to the pivot (in WON terms). He distinguishes between a stock that returns to the B/O point over a long period of time vs. one that pulls back shortly after B/O by the time it takes to do that. I think the timeframe for the "throwback" or "pullback" is 12 days or less to qualify. That makes sense, as you would expect any late selling pressure to abate fairly quickly if the stock were to remain healthy. Katherine - ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Monday, December 10, 2001 9:54 AM Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] low volume breakouts > Katherine: > > Thank you very much for your time and efforts in looking up this > material. > However, would you tell me what you mean by "throwback"? Also, when was > the book published, and-if it was published years ago-why do you think > Bulkowski's statistical study on CANSLIM is still valid today? > > jans > > > In a message dated 12/10/2001 7:16:48 AM Eastern Standard Time, > kmalm@earthlink.net writes: > > << Waiting for the throwback increases the success rate another 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. ------------------------------ End of canslim-digest V2 #1919 ****************************** 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.