From: owner-canslim-digest@lists.xmission.com (canslim-digest) To: canslim-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: canslim-digest V2 #2316 Reply-To: canslim Sender: owner-canslim-digest@lists.xmission.com Errors-To: owner-canslim-digest@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-No-Archive: yes canslim-digest Tuesday, April 16 2002 Volume 02 : Number 2316 In this issue: Re: [CANSLIM] Bear Rally? Re: [CANSLIM] Validity of Earnings Reports Re: [CANSLIM] Validity of Earnings Reports Re: [CANSLIM] Bear Rally? RE: [CANSLIM] Bear Rally? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 10:11:21 -0700 From: Ian Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Bear Rally? This is a multi-part message in MIME format. - --Boundary_(ID_pUG7iPHtxybIxA99JL+QAQ) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT "I'd like a little rationality" I would argue that over the last couple of months, we have seen the most 'rational' market in quite a while. No panic-induced broad-based selloffs, and no extended, buy every-tech manic short squeeze runs. We have seen a dramatic divergence across tech (check out semi gear makers AMAT, and NVLS charts and compare to telco gear makers LU and NT) that has been rational with regards to direction of demand for the products. The companies with the worst corporate performance are at/below 9/21 valuations, and the companies with relatively strong corporate performance are 300%+ above 9/21 valuations. Companies with strong EPS and revenue growth are being rewarded. And the most rational part, IMHO, is that the bulk of companies 'in the middle' are drifiting aimlessly, as they should be. Ian ----- Original Message ----- From: Mona Guarino To: canslim@lists.xmission.com Sent: Sunday, April 14, 2002 12:58 PM Subject: RE: [CANSLIM] Bear Rally? Ira, thanks for the Twinkies metaphor. I, for one, have not recovered nearly enough from the stomach ache from over eating the Twinkies to be much tempted by tech stocks. It's less that I want a bull market at this point and more that I'd like a little rationality. Maybe this is simply inexperience and there is nothing different about the current market, but it seems that bad news, good news, or no news can all bring down a stock; hard to have much confidence in your own due diligence when you're new at it and you can't seem to trust pundits, accountants, or analysists or even the #s themselves for much of anything. -- Mona -----Original Message----- From: owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com [mailto:owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com]On Behalf Of Ira Post Sent: Sunday, April 14, 2002 9:43 AM To: canslim@lists.xmission.com Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Bear Rally? Mona and Katherine, Very good points on market direction. We'd all love to have another bull market, but we haven't sufficiently absorbed the last one. P/E's are still very high. I think a sideways move for a number of years is a very likely transition to whatever comes next. I also agree that tech stocks will recover somewhat, but not lead the market like they did in the nineties. Tech stocks are often like Hostess Twinkies. They're so attractive, but usually lack substance. One has to be very careful to use good due diligence on the financials on tech stocks like on every other stock. Ira - --Boundary_(ID_pUG7iPHtxybIxA99JL+QAQ) Content-type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
"I'd like a little rationality"
 
I would argue that over the last couple of months, we have seen the most 'rational' market in quite a while. No panic-induced broad-based selloffs, and no extended, buy every-tech manic short squeeze runs. We have seen a dramatic divergence across tech (check out semi gear makers AMAT, and NVLS charts and compare to telco gear makers LU and NT) that has been rational with regards to direction of demand for the products. The companies with the worst corporate performance are at/below 9/21 valuations, and the companies with relatively strong corporate performance are 300%+ above 9/21 valuations. Companies with strong EPS and revenue growth are being rewarded. And the most rational part, IMHO, is that the bulk of companies 'in the middle' are drifiting aimlessly, as they should be.
 
Ian
 
 
 
 
----- Original Message -----
From: Mona Guarino
To: canslim@lists.xmission.com
Sent: Sunday, April 14, 2002 12:58 PM
Subject: RE: [CANSLIM] Bear Rally?

Ira, thanks for the Twinkies metaphor. I, for one, have not recovered nearly enough from the stomach ache from over eating the Twinkies to be much tempted by tech stocks.
 
It's less that I want a bull market at this point and more that I'd like a little rationality. Maybe this is simply inexperience and there is nothing different about the current market, but it seems that bad news, good news, or no news can all bring down a stock; hard to have much confidence in your own due diligence when you're new at it and you can't seem to trust pundits, accountants, or analysists or even the #s themselves for much of anything.
 
-- Mona
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com [mailto:owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com]On Behalf Of Ira Post
Sent: Sunday, April 14, 2002 9:43 AM
To: canslim@lists.xmission.com
Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Bear Rally?

Mona and Katherine,
 
Very good points on market direction.  We'd all love to have another bull market, but we haven't sufficiently absorbed the last one.  P/E's are still very high.  I think a sideways move for a number of years is a very likely transition to whatever comes next.  I also agree that tech stocks will recover somewhat, but not lead the market like they did in the nineties.
 
Tech stocks are often like Hostess Twinkies.  They're so attractive, but usually lack substance.  One has to be very careful to use good due diligence on the financials on tech stocks like on every other stock.
 
Ira
- --Boundary_(ID_pUG7iPHtxybIxA99JL+QAQ)-- - - - -To subscribe/unsubscribe, email "majordomo@xmission.com" - -In the email body, write "subscribe canslim" or - -"unsubscribe canslim". Do not use quotes in your email. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 10:21:09 -0700 From: Ian Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Validity of Earnings Reports This is a multi-part message in MIME format. - --Boundary_(ID_qlLbtRCWyhrryD7Jf562zA) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT "I preferred stocks showing consistent top and bottom line growth both sequentially and year to year" Tom: Isn't the 'requirement' for sequential growth a recent artifact of the tech bubble? It seems to me that both CANSLIM and growth investing had always allowed for business seasonality - as long as the y-o-y numbers were solidly up for each season, it was still considered a growth stock that could command a premium valuation. Do you think this has changed? Do you think that the 'blessed' stocks now demand sequential growth too? Thanks, Ian ----- Original Message ----- From: Tom Worley To: canslim@lists.xmission.com Sent: Sunday, April 14, 2002 6:11 PM Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Validity of Earnings Reports Ira, I don't think you can protect yourself from a company that is deliberately falsifying their financials, or using creative accounting to cover up real issues. you would have to not only have an accounting degree, but go in and do an independent audit, which is not practical. Best you can do is look for consistency (and inconsistencies) in the 10Q and 10K reports. Read Management's discussion. Question or dig deeper into anything that doesn't make logical sense. Look for any changes in accounting procedures from prior periods. Even before Enron, I preferred stocks showing consistent top and bottom line growth both sequentially and year to year. Now, that is even more important to me. If they are fudging, at least they are doing it consistently. Tom Worley stkguru@bellsouth.net AIM: TexWorley ----- Original Message ----- From: Ira Post To: canslim@lists.xmission.com Sent: Sunday, April 14, 2002 9:06 PM Subject: [CANSLIM] Validity of Earnings Reports This has become a huge issue in the last year. I'm bringing it up to this list because earnings growth is such an important part of CANSLIM. What do you do to protect yourselves from companies that fudge their real earnings? - --Boundary_(ID_qlLbtRCWyhrryD7Jf562zA) Content-type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
"I preferred stocks showing consistent top and bottom line growth both sequentially and year to year"
 
Tom:
 
Isn't the 'requirement' for sequential growth a recent artifact of the tech bubble? It seems to me that both CANSLIM and growth investing had always allowed for business seasonality - as long as the y-o-y numbers were solidly up for each season, it was still considered a growth stock that could command a premium valuation. Do you think this has changed? Do you think that the 'blessed' stocks now demand sequential growth too?
 
Thanks,
 
Ian
 
 
----- Original Message -----
From: Tom Worley
To: canslim@lists.xmission.com
Sent: Sunday, April 14, 2002 6:11 PM
Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Validity of Earnings Reports

Ira, I don't think you can protect yourself from a company that is deliberately falsifying their financials, or using creative accounting to cover up real issues.
 
you would have to not only have an accounting degree, but go in and do an independent audit, which is not practical.
 
Best you can do is look for consistency (and inconsistencies) in the 10Q and 10K reports. Read Management's discussion. Question or dig deeper into anything that doesn't make logical sense. Look for any changes in accounting procedures from prior periods.
 
Even before Enron, I preferred stocks showing consistent top and bottom line growth both sequentially and year to year. Now, that is even more important to me. If they are fudging, at least they are doing it consistently.
 
Tom Worley
stkguru@bellsouth.net
AIM: TexWorley
----- Original Message -----
From: Ira Post
To: canslim@lists.xmission.com
Sent: Sunday, April 14, 2002 9:06 PM
Subject: [CANSLIM] Validity of Earnings Reports

This has become a huge issue in the last year.  I'm bringing it up to this list because earnings growth is such an important part of CANSLIM.  What do you do to protect yourselves from companies that fudge their real earnings?
- --Boundary_(ID_qlLbtRCWyhrryD7Jf562zA)-- - - - -To subscribe/unsubscribe, email "majordomo@xmission.com" - -In the email body, write "subscribe canslim" or - -"unsubscribe canslim". Do not use quotes in your email. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 10:51:46 -0700 From: Harvey Brion Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Validity of Earnings Reports Don't want to speak for Tom, Ian. I think the year-over-year comparison is still quite valid. However, sequential growth suggests a business that does not have much seasonality associated with it, or a company that is growing so fast that the seasonality is not yet a dominant factor. -Harvey Ian wrote: > "I preferred stocks showing consistent top and bottom line growth both > sequentially and year to year" Tom: Isn't the 'requirement' for > sequential growth a recent artifact of the tech bubble? It seems to me > that both CANSLIM and growth investing had always allowed for business > seasonality - as long as the y-o-y numbers were solidly up for each > season, it was still considered a growth stock that could command a > premium valuation. Do you think this has changed? Do you think that > the 'blessed' stocks now demand sequential growth too? Thanks, Ian > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Tom Worley > To: canslim@lists.xmission.com > Sent: Sunday, April 14, 2002 6:11 PM > Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Validity of Earnings Reports > Ira, I don't think you can protect yourself from a company > that is deliberately falsifying their financials, or using > creative accounting to cover up real issues. you would have > to not only have an accounting degree, but go in and do an > independent audit, which is not practical. Best you can do > is look for consistency (and inconsistencies) in the 10Q and > 10K reports. Read Management's discussion. Question or dig > deeper into anything that doesn't make logical sense. Look > for any changes in accounting procedures from prior > periods. Even before Enron, I preferred stocks showing > consistent top and bottom line growth both sequentially and > year to year. Now, that is even more important to me. If > they are fudging, at least they are doing it > consistently. Tom Worley > stkguru@bellsouth.net > AIM: TexWorley > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Ira Post > To: canslim@lists.xmission.comSent: Sunday, April 14, 2002 > 9:06 PMSubject: [CANSLIM] Validity of Earnings Reports > This has become a huge issue in the last year. I'm > bringing it up to this list because earnings growth is such > an important part of CANSLIM. What do you do to protect > yourselves from companies that fudge their real earnings? > - - - -To subscribe/unsubscribe, email "majordomo@xmission.com" - -In the email body, write "subscribe canslim" or - -"unsubscribe canslim". Do not use quotes in your email. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 15:20:47 -0400 From: "Ira Post" Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Bear Rally? This is a multi-part message in MIME format. - ------=_NextPart_000_0012_01C1E55A.4897A680 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Ian, that's a good point regarding this kind of market actually being = somewhat rational compared to the wholesale advances of the nineties and = the wholesale declines of 2000 and 2001. This market rewards you for = picking good stocks and avoiding weak ones. =20 I'm learning alot about technical analysis and cup and handle = formations. But I always look first - very closely - at the companies = fundamentals to make sure I'm buying a solid company with strong = earnings growth at a reasonable valuation. That way, even if I don't = hit it at the right moment, it will go up sometime soon. Ira ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Ian=20 To: canslim@lists.xmission.com=20 Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2002 1:11 PM Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Bear Rally? "I'd like a little rationality" I would argue that over the last couple of months, we have seen the = most 'rational' market in quite a while. No panic-induced broad-based = selloffs, and no extended, buy every-tech manic short squeeze runs. We = have seen a dramatic divergence across tech (check out semi gear makers = AMAT, and NVLS charts and compare to telco gear makers LU and NT) that = has been rational with regards to direction of demand for the products. = The companies with the worst corporate performance are at/below 9/21 = valuations, and the companies with relatively strong corporate = performance are 300%+ above 9/21 valuations. Companies with strong EPS = and revenue growth are being rewarded. And the most rational part, IMHO, = is that the bulk of companies 'in the middle' are drifiting aimlessly, = as they should be. Ian ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Mona Guarino=20 To: canslim@lists.xmission.com=20 Sent: Sunday, April 14, 2002 12:58 PM Subject: RE: [CANSLIM] Bear Rally? Ira, thanks for the Twinkies metaphor. I, for one, have not = recovered nearly enough from the stomach ache from over eating the = Twinkies to be much tempted by tech stocks. It's less that I want a bull market at this point and more that I'd = like a little rationality. Maybe this is simply inexperience and there = is nothing different about the current market, but it seems that bad = news, good news, or no news can all bring down a stock; hard to have = much confidence in your own due diligence when you're new at it and you = can't seem to trust pundits, accountants, or analysists or even the #s = themselves for much of anything. -- Mona -----Original Message----- From: owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com = [mailto:owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com]On Behalf Of Ira Post Sent: Sunday, April 14, 2002 9:43 AM To: canslim@lists.xmission.com Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Bear Rally? Mona and Katherine, Very good points on market direction. We'd all love to have = another bull market, but we haven't sufficiently absorbed the last one. = P/E's are still very high. I think a sideways move for a number of = years is a very likely transition to whatever comes next. I also agree = that tech stocks will recover somewhat, but not lead the market like = they did in the nineties. Tech stocks are often like Hostess Twinkies. They're so = attractive, but usually lack substance. One has to be very careful to = use good due diligence on the financials on tech stocks like on every = other stock. Ira - ------=_NextPart_000_0012_01C1E55A.4897A680 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Ian, that's a good point regarding this = kind of=20 market actually being somewhat rational compared to the wholesale = advances of=20 the nineties and the wholesale declines of 2000 and 2001.  This = market=20 rewards you for picking good stocks and avoiding weak ones.  =
 
I'm learning alot about technical = analysis and cup=20 and handle formations.  But I always look first - very closely - at = the=20 companies fundamentals to make sure I'm buying a solid company with = strong=20 earnings growth at a reasonable valuation.  That way, even if I = don't hit=20 it at the right moment, it will go up sometime soon.
 
Ira
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Ian =
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2002 = 1:11=20 PM
Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Bear = Rally?

"I'd like a little rationality"
 
I would argue that over the last couple of months, = we have=20 seen the most 'rational' market in quite a while. No panic-induced = broad-based=20 selloffs, and no extended, buy every-tech manic short squeeze runs. We = have=20 seen a dramatic divergence across tech (check out semi gear makers = AMAT, and=20 NVLS charts and compare to telco gear makers LU and NT) that has been = rational=20 with regards to direction of demand for the products. The companies = with the=20 worst corporate performance are at/below 9/21 valuations, and the = companies=20 with relatively strong corporate performance are 300%+ above 9/21 = valuations.=20 Companies with strong EPS and revenue growth are being rewarded. And = the most=20 rational part, IMHO, is that the bulk of companies 'in the middle' are = drifiting aimlessly, as they should be.
 
Ian
 
 
 
 
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Mona=20 Guarino
Sent: Sunday, April 14, 2002 = 12:58=20 PM
Subject: RE: [CANSLIM] Bear=20 Rally?

Ira, thanks for the Twinkies metaphor. I, = for one,=20 have not recovered nearly enough from the stomach ache from over = eating the=20 Twinkies to be much tempted by tech stocks.
 
It's less that I want a bull market at = this point=20 and more that I'd like a little rationality. Maybe this is simply=20 inexperience and there is nothing different about the current = market, but it=20 seems that bad news, good news, or no news can all bring down a = stock;=20 hard to have much confidence in your own due diligence when you're = new at it=20 and you can't seem to trust pundits, accountants, or analysists or = even the=20 #s themselves for much of anything.
 
--=20 Mona
-----Original Message-----
From:=20 owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com=20 [mailto:owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com]On Behalf Of Ira=20 Post
Sent: Sunday, April 14, 2002 9:43 AM
To:=20 canslim@lists.xmission.com
Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Bear=20 Rally?

Mona and Katherine,
 
Very good points on market = direction. =20 We'd all love to have another bull market, but we haven't = sufficiently=20 absorbed the last one.  P/E's are still very high.  I = think a=20 sideways move for a number of years is a very likely transition to = whatever comes next.  I also agree that tech stocks will = recover=20 somewhat, but not lead the market like they did in the=20 nineties.
 
Tech stocks are often like = Hostess=20 Twinkies.  They're so attractive, but usually lack = substance. =20 One has to be very careful to use good due diligence on the = financials on=20 tech stocks like on every other stock.
 
Ira
- ------=_NextPart_000_0012_01C1E55A.4897A680-- - - - -To subscribe/unsubscribe, email "majordomo@xmission.com" - -In the email body, write "subscribe canslim" or - -"unsubscribe canslim". Do not use quotes in your email. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 15:29:41 -0400 From: "Duke Miller" Subject: RE: [CANSLIM] Bear Rally? This is a multi-part message in MIME format. - ------=_NextPart_000_002D_01C1E55B.8A31D1F0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit AMEN! AMEN! Duke - -----Original Message----- From: owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com [mailto:owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Ira Post Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2002 3:21 PM To: canslim@lists.xmission.com Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Bear Rally? Ian, that's a good point regarding this kind of market actually being somewhat rational compared to the wholesale advances of the nineties and the wholesale declines of 2000 and 2001. This market rewards you for picking good stocks and avoiding weak ones. I'm learning alot about technical analysis and cup and handle formations. But I always look first - very closely - at the companies fundamentals to make sure I'm buying a solid company with strong earnings growth at a reasonable valuation. That way, even if I don't hit it at the right moment, it will go up sometime soon. Ira - ----- Original Message ----- From: Ian To: canslim@lists.xmission.com Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2002 1:11 PM Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Bear Rally? "I'd like a little rationality" I would argue that over the last couple of months, we have seen the most 'rational' market in quite a while. No panic-induced broad-based selloffs, and no extended, buy every-tech manic short squeeze runs. We have seen a dramatic divergence across tech (check out semi gear makers AMAT, and NVLS charts and compare to telco gear makers LU and NT) that has been rational with regards to direction of demand for the products. The companies with the worst corporate performance are at/below 9/21 valuations, and the companies with relatively strong corporate performance are 300%+ above 9/21 valuations. Companies with strong EPS and revenue growth are being rewarded. And the most rational part, IMHO, is that the bulk of companies 'in the middle' are drifiting aimlessly, as they should be. Ian - ----- Original Message ----- From: Mona Guarino To: canslim@lists.xmission.com Sent: Sunday, April 14, 2002 12:58 PM Subject: RE: [CANSLIM] Bear Rally? Ira, thanks for the Twinkies metaphor. I, for one, have not recovered nearly enough from the stomach ache from over eating the Twinkies to be much tempted by tech stocks. It's less that I want a bull market at this point and more that I'd like a little rationality. Maybe this is simply inexperience and there is nothing different about the current market, but it seems that bad news, good news, or no news can all bring down a stock; hard to have much confidence in your own due diligence when you're new at it and you can't seem to trust pundits, accountants, or analysists or even the #s themselves for much of anything. - -- Mona - -----Original Message----- From: owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com [mailto:owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com]On Behalf Of Ira Post Sent: Sunday, April 14, 2002 9:43 AM To: canslim@lists.xmission.com Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Bear Rally? Mona and Katherine, Very good points on market direction. We'd all love to have another bull market, but we haven't sufficiently absorbed the last one. P/E's are still very high. I think a sideways move for a number of years is a very likely transition to whatever comes next. I also agree that tech stocks will recover somewhat, but not lead the market like they did in the nineties. Tech stocks are often like Hostess Twinkies. They're so attractive, but usually lack substance. One has to be very careful to use good due diligence on the financials on tech stocks like on every other stock. Ira - ------=_NextPart_000_002D_01C1E55B.8A31D1F0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message
AMEN! =20 AMEN!
 
Duke
-----Original Message-----
From:=20 owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com = [mailto:owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com]=20 On Behalf Of Ira Post
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2002 = 3:21=20 PM
To: canslim@lists.xmission.com
Subject: Re: = [CANSLIM]=20 Bear Rally?

Ian, that's a good point regarding = this kind of=20 market actually being somewhat rational compared to the wholesale = advances of=20 the nineties and the wholesale declines of 2000 and 2001.  This = market=20 rewards you for picking good stocks and avoiding weak ones. =20
 
I'm learning alot about technical = analysis and=20 cup and handle formations.  But I always look first - very = closely - at=20 the companies fundamentals to make sure I'm buying a solid company = with strong=20 earnings growth at a reasonable valuation.  That way, even if I = don't hit=20 it at the right moment, it will go up sometime soon.
 
Ira
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Ian =
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2002 = 1:11=20 PM
Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Bear=20 Rally?

"I'd like a little rationality"
 
I would argue that over the last couple of = months, we have=20 seen the most 'rational' market in quite a while. No panic-induced=20 broad-based selloffs, and no extended, buy every-tech manic short = squeeze=20 runs. We have seen a dramatic divergence across tech (check out semi = gear=20 makers AMAT, and NVLS charts and compare to telco gear makers LU and = NT)=20 that has been rational with regards to direction of demand for the = products.=20 The companies with the worst corporate performance are at/below 9/21 = valuations, and the companies with relatively strong corporate = performance=20 are 300%+ above 9/21 valuations. Companies with strong EPS and = revenue=20 growth are being rewarded. And the most rational part, IMHO, is that = the=20 bulk of companies 'in the middle' are drifiting aimlessly, as they = should=20 be.
 
Ian
 
 
 
 
----- Original Message ----- =
From:=20 Mona=20 Guarino
To: canslim@lists.xmission.com= =20
Sent: Sunday, April 14, = 2002 12:58=20 PM
Subject: RE: [CANSLIM] Bear = Rally?

Ira, thanks for the Twinkies metaphor. = I, for=20 one, have not recovered nearly enough from the stomach ache from = over=20 eating the Twinkies to be much tempted by tech = stocks.
 
It's less that I want a bull market at = this point=20 and more that I'd like a little rationality. Maybe this is simply=20 inexperience and there is nothing different about the current = market, but=20 it seems that bad news, good news, or no news can all bring = down a=20 stock; hard to have much confidence in your own due diligence when = you're=20 new at it and you can't seem to trust pundits, accountants, or = analysists=20 or even the #s themselves for much of = anything.
 
-- Mona
-----Original Message-----
From:=20 owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com=20 [mailto:owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com]On Behalf Of Ira = Post
Sent: Sunday, April 14, 2002 9:43 = AM
To:=20 canslim@lists.xmission.com
Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Bear = Rally?

Mona and = Katherine,
 
Very good points on market = direction. =20 We'd all love to have another bull market, but we haven't = sufficiently=20 absorbed the last one.  P/E's are still very high.  I = think a=20 sideways move for a number of years is a very likely transition = to=20 whatever comes next.  I also agree that tech stocks will = recover=20 somewhat, but not lead the market like they did in the=20 nineties.
 
Tech stocks are often like = Hostess=20 Twinkies.  They're so attractive, but usually lack = substance. =20 One has to be very careful to use good due diligence on the = financials=20 on tech stocks like on every other stock.
 
Ira
- ------=_NextPart_000_002D_01C1E55B.8A31D1F0-- - - - -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 #2316 ****************************** 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.