From: owner-canslim-digest@lists.xmission.com (canslim-digest) To: canslim-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: canslim-digest V2 #2334 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 Saturday, April 20 2002 Volume 02 : Number 2334 In this issue: Re: [CANSLIM] Institutional Ownership Re: [CANSLIM] DFXI again RE: [CANSLIM] Institutional Ownership Re: [CANSLIM] Institutional Ownership Re: [CANSLIM] Institutional Ownership ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2002 09:55:29 -0500 From: "Katherine Malm" Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Institutional Ownership This is a multi-part message in MIME format. - ------=_NextPart_000_0065_01C1E851.811AD960 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Morning Ira, Yes, the A/D ranking is weighted so that more recent periods in the 13 = weeks used are weighted more heavily. At one time, I tried to get a more = specific description from DailyGraphs Support, but they were unwilling = to give away the double-secret-formula, so we don't really know *how* it = is weighted. One thing I've learned with A/D is that it's very useful = for buying, but because it is a weighted moving average, its lousy for = selling. In other words, a stock could easily be going through a = blow-off top or other form of topping action and the darned A/D ranking = will sit there with an A or B the whole time. Makes sense, its a lagging = indicator that describes 13 weeks past action. I think what you've described as a preference is actually very = CANSLIMish. If you find a stock with all the CANSLIM evidence early = enough, the rising price and rising AvgVol are giving clues that = institutions are likely accumulating it. The SEC reporting lags so much = that by the time you see it in the % institutional ownership numbers, = much of it has already happened. Folks like Ian and Tom are good at = spotting this. I generally don't notice it until the stock has moved out = of the initial round of buying because my radar doesn't look below = certain price points. Mark Boucher of TradingMarkets.com is very good at = this as well, preferring to catch stocks that have nearer 10% ownership. = You've got to have really good radar and chart reading skills to find = these, but as you can see from Ian and Tom's returns over the last = couple of years, its radar worth developing. Katherine ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Ira Post=20 To: canslim@lists.xmission.com=20 Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2002 9:39 AM Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Institutional Ownership Good morning Katherine, Thanks for the clarification. One question. Is the A/D rating = weighted to give more empahsis on current purchases and sales? Another point on institutional ownership - although it's not a CANSLIM = approach. When I find a company that's recently gone public and looks = very good fundamentally, I look at the lack of insititutional ownership = as an advantage. This is because it won't take these institutions very = long to find out about the company and when they buy in, the price will = soar. This was part of my thinking with AMGP. Ira ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Katherine Malm=20 To: canslim@lists.xmission.com=20 Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2002 10:07 AM Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Institutional Ownership Hi Ira, Just a point of clarification on the A/D rating vs. Institutional = Ownership-- The A/D rating is a weighted ranking on the recent price/volume = action of the stock. IBD looks for accumulation (up days on volume = higher than the previous day) of large blocks of stock vs distribution = (down days on volume higher than the day before) of large blocks and = then creates a ranking A-E. In that sense, you are right, that when = large blocks are being accumulated more than they are distributed, the = stock would rank very high. This is a proxy for current institutional = price/volume action but does not address, in general, what % of the = shares in float are *owned* by institutions. For example, 2 stocks could = have an A/D rating of A, yet one could be 10% owned by institutions = while the other could be 80% owned by institutions. On institutional ownership, Matt-- I've noticed large discrepancies like this in the Yahoo/MarketGuide = data and the DGO data before. As a cautionary approach, if you see a = high number like 80-90% as you saw for ANSS, it's probably an error in = their data (I think their shares outstanding in the calculation aren't = updated to reflect share buy backs, primary offers, etc). Sure enough, = DGO has banks owning 14% and funds owning 30% of the float for a total = institutional ownership of 44% of the 13.4m shares in the float. The = remaining 1m shares outstanding are owned by management (7% of = outstanding). Though that's what I'd consider the higher end of the = "acceptable" range, I never let that keep me away from a stock if I feel = it has everything else going for it, especially when the float is rather = small. Katherine ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Ira Post=20 To: canslim@lists.xmission.com=20 Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2002 2:57 AM Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Institutional Ownership I think you got that information from Yahoo. If you go to the IBD = site and do a stock check-up, you'll find an Accumulation/Distribution = (Acc/Dis) Rating of B-. I think the discrepancy has to do with IBD's = more recent monitoring of this information and their taking into account = of more recent institutional buying or selling. WON feels this is very important. However, IBD's stock check-up = gives this stock an overall rating of A+. So I wouldn't worry about it = the B- in this area. The significance lies in the fact that = institutions control large blocks of money and when they move into or = out of a stock it influences the price significantly. Ira ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Matt & Alicia Leverette=20 To: canslim@lists.xmission.com=20 Sent: Friday, April 19, 2002 9:35 PM Subject: [CANSLIM] Institutional Ownership Hi, I have been considering ANSS. It is rated a 98 on IBD Stock = Checkup and it's chart looks pretty good to me. Also, I have noticed = other stocks within it's group have been doing well of late. My question has to do with Institutional Ownership. ANSS is at = 81% (89% of Float). I know this is high, but how important of a factor = is this. I would love some thoughts. Matt - ------=_NextPart_000_0065_01C1E851.811AD960 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Morning Ira,
 
Yes, the A/D ranking is weighted so that more recent periods in the = 13=20 weeks used are weighted more heavily. At one time, I tried to get a = more=20 specific description from DailyGraphs Support, but they were = unwilling=20 to give away the double-secret-formula, so we don't really know *how* it = is=20 weighted. One thing I've learned with A/D is that it's very useful for = buying,=20 but because it is a weighted moving average, its lousy for selling. In = other=20 words, a stock could easily be going through a blow-off top or other = form of=20 topping action and the darned A/D ranking will sit there with an A or B = the=20 whole time. Makes sense, its a lagging indicator that describes 13 weeks = past=20 action.
 
I think what you've described as a preference is actually very = CANSLIMish.=20 If you find a stock with all the CANSLIM evidence early enough, the = rising price=20 and rising AvgVol are giving clues that institutions are likely = accumulating it.=20 The SEC reporting lags so much that by the time you see it in the %=20 institutional ownership numbers, much of it has already happened. Folks = like Ian=20 and Tom are good at spotting this. I generally don't notice it until the = stock=20 has moved out of the initial round of buying because my radar doesn't = look below=20 certain price points. Mark Boucher of TradingMarkets.com is very good at = this as=20 well, preferring to catch stocks that have nearer 10% ownership. You've = got to=20 have really good radar and chart reading skills to find these, but as = you can=20 see from Ian and Tom's returns over the last couple of years, its radar = worth=20 developing.
 
Katherine
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Ira = Post
To: canslim@lists.xmission.com=
Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2002 = 9:39=20 AM
Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] = Institutional=20 Ownership

Good morning Katherine,
 
Thanks for the clarification.  = One=20 question.  Is the A/D rating weighted to give more empahsis on = current=20 purchases and sales?
 
Another point on institutional = ownership -=20 although it's not a CANSLIM approach.  When I find a company = that's=20 recently gone public and looks very good fundamentally, I look at the = lack of=20 insititutional ownership as an advantage.  This is because it = won't take=20 these institutions very long to find out about the company and when = they buy=20 in, the price will soar.  This was part of my thinking with=20 AMGP.
 
Ira
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Katherine=20 Malm
Sent: Saturday, April 20, = 2002 10:07=20 AM
Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] = Institutional=20 Ownership

Hi Ira,
 
Just a point of clarification on the A/D rating vs. = Institutional=20 Ownership--
 
The A/D rating is a weighted ranking on the recent price/volume = action=20 of the stock. IBD looks for accumulation (up days on volume higher = than the=20 previous day) of large blocks of stock vs distribution (down days on = volume=20 higher than the day before) of large blocks and then creates a = ranking A-E.=20 In that sense, you are right, that when large blocks are being = accumulated=20 more than they are distributed, the stock would rank very = high. This is=20 a proxy for current institutional price/volume action but does = not=20 address, in general, what % of the shares in float are *owned* by=20 institutions. For example, 2 stocks could have an A/D rating of = A, yet=20 one could be 10% owned by institutions while the other could be 80% = owned by=20 institutions.
 
On institutional ownership, Matt--
I've noticed large discrepancies like this in the = Yahoo/MarketGuide=20 data and the DGO data before. As a cautionary approach, if you see a = high=20 number like 80-90% as you saw for ANSS, it's probably an error in = their data=20 (I think their shares outstanding in the calculation aren't updated = to=20 reflect share buy backs, primary offers, etc). Sure enough, DGO has = banks=20 owning 14% and funds owning 30% of the float for a total = institutional=20 ownership of 44% of the 13.4m shares in the float. The remaining 1m = shares=20 outstanding are owned by management (7% of outstanding). Though = that's=20 what I'd consider the higher end of the "acceptable" range, I = never let=20 that keep me away from a stock if I feel it has everything else = going for=20 it, especially when the float is rather small.
 
Katherine
----- Original Message ----- =
From:=20 Ira = Post
To: canslim@lists.xmission.com= =20
Sent: Saturday, April 20, = 2002 2:57=20 AM
Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] = Institutional=20 Ownership

I think you got that information = from=20 Yahoo.  If you go to the IBD site and do a stock check-up, = you'll=20 find an Accumulation/Distribution (Acc/Dis) Rating = of=20 B-.  I think the discrepancy has to do with IBD's more recent = monitoring of this information and their taking into account of = more=20 recent institutional buying or selling.
 
WON feels this is very important.  = However,=20 IBD's stock check-up gives this stock an overall rating of = A+. =20 So I wouldn't worry about it the B- in this area.  The = significance=20 lies in the fact that institutions control large blocks of money = and when=20 they move into or out of a stock it influences the price=20 significantly.
 
Ira
----- Original Message ----- =
From:=20 Matt=20 & Alicia Leverette
To: canslim@lists.xmission.com= =20
Sent: Friday, April 19, = 2002 9:35=20 PM
Subject: [CANSLIM] = Institutional=20 Ownership

Hi,
 
I have been considering = ANSS.  It is=20 rated a 98 on IBD Stock Checkup and it's chart looks pretty good = to=20 me.  Also, I have noticed other stocks within it's group = have been=20 doing well of late.
 
My question has to do with = Institutional=20 Ownership.  ANSS is at 81% (89% of Float).  I know = this is=20 high, but how important of a factor is this.
 
I would love some = thoughts.
 
Matt
- ------=_NextPart_000_0065_01C1E851.811AD960-- - - - -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: Sat, 20 Apr 2002 11:36:02 EDT From: E2moskow@aol.com Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] DFXI again - --part1_30.2589227d.29f2e4e2_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Fred: At what point (percentage), do you get out, and at what point do you make your re-entry.------------------>Morris - --part1_30.2589227d.29f2e4e2_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Fred:
    At what point (percentage), do you get out, and at what point do you make your re-entry.------------------>Morris - --part1_30.2589227d.29f2e4e2_boundary-- - - - -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: Sat, 20 Apr 2002 12:34:24 -0400 From: "Duke Miller" Subject: RE: [CANSLIM] Institutional Ownership This is a multi-part message in MIME format. - ------=_NextPart_000_0023_01C1E867.B7081400 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit What about the Sponsorship ratings that are listed in the minigraphs? Their definition is: "Based on change in number of funds owning stock recently and sponsors performance rating. A is highest, E lowest." Anybody explain what this means or how it's derived? Duke - -----Original Message----- From: owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com [mailto:owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Katherine Malm Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2002 10:55 AM To: canslim@lists.xmission.com Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Institutional Ownership Morning Ira, Yes, the A/D ranking is weighted so that more recent periods in the 13 weeks used are weighted more heavily. At one time, I tried to get a more specific description from DailyGraphs Support, but they were unwilling to give away the double-secret-formula, so we don't really know *how* it is weighted. One thing I've learned with A/D is that it's very useful for buying, but because it is a weighted moving average, its lousy for selling. In other words, a stock could easily be going through a blow-off top or other form of topping action and the darned A/D ranking will sit there with an A or B the whole time. Makes sense, its a lagging indicator that describes 13 weeks past action. I think what you've described as a preference is actually very CANSLIMish. If you find a stock with all the CANSLIM evidence early enough, the rising price and rising AvgVol are giving clues that institutions are likely accumulating it. The SEC reporting lags so much that by the time you see it in the % institutional ownership numbers, much of it has already happened. Folks like Ian and Tom are good at spotting this. I generally don't notice it until the stock has moved out of the initial round of buying because my radar doesn't look below certain price points. Mark Boucher of TradingMarkets.com is very good at this as well, preferring to catch stocks that have nearer 10% ownership. You've got to have really good radar and chart reading skills to find these, but as you can see from Ian and Tom's returns over the last couple of years, its radar worth developing. Katherine - ----- Original Message ----- From: Ira Post To: canslim@lists.xmission.com Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2002 9:39 AM Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Institutional Ownership Good morning Katherine, Thanks for the clarification. One question. Is the A/D rating weighted to give more empahsis on current purchases and sales? Another point on institutional ownership - although it's not a CANSLIM approach. When I find a company that's recently gone public and looks very good fundamentally, I look at the lack of insititutional ownership as an advantage. This is because it won't take these institutions very long to find out about the company and when they buy in, the price will soar. This was part of my thinking with AMGP. Ira - ----- Original Message ----- From: Katherine Malm To: canslim@lists.xmission.com Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2002 10:07 AM Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Institutional Ownership Hi Ira, Just a point of clarification on the A/D rating vs. Institutional Ownership-- The A/D rating is a weighted ranking on the recent price/volume action of the stock. IBD looks for accumulation (up days on volume higher than the previous day) of large blocks of stock vs distribution (down days on volume higher than the day before) of large blocks and then creates a ranking A-E. In that sense, you are right, that when large blocks are being accumulated more than they are distributed, the stock would rank very high. This is a proxy for current institutional price/volume action but does not address, in general, what % of the shares in float are *owned* by institutions. For example, 2 stocks could have an A/D rating of A, yet one could be 10% owned by institutions while the other could be 80% owned by institutions. On institutional ownership, Matt-- I've noticed large discrepancies like this in the Yahoo/MarketGuide data and the DGO data before. As a cautionary approach, if you see a high number like 80-90% as you saw for ANSS, it's probably an error in their data (I think their shares outstanding in the calculation aren't updated to reflect share buy backs, primary offers, etc). Sure enough, DGO has banks owning 14% and funds owning 30% of the float for a total institutional ownership of 44% of the 13.4m shares in the float. The remaining 1m shares outstanding are owned by management (7% of outstanding). Though that's what I'd consider the higher end of the "acceptable" range, I never let that keep me away from a stock if I feel it has everything else going for it, especially when the float is rather small. Katherine - ----- Original Message ----- From: Ira Post To: canslim@lists.xmission.com Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2002 2:57 AM Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Institutional Ownership I think you got that information from Yahoo. If you go to the IBD site and do a stock check-up, you'll find an Accumulation/Distribution (Acc/Dis) Rating of B-. I think the discrepancy has to do with IBD's more recent monitoring of this information and their taking into account of more recent institutional buying or selling. WON feels this is very important. However, IBD's stock check-up gives this stock an overall rating of A+. So I wouldn't worry about it the B- in this area. The significance lies in the fact that institutions control large blocks of money and when they move into or out of a stock it influences the price significantly. Ira - ----- Original Message ----- From: Matt & Alicia Leverette To: canslim@lists.xmission.com Sent: Friday, April 19, 2002 9:35 PM Subject: [CANSLIM] Institutional Ownership Hi, I have been considering ANSS. It is rated a 98 on IBD Stock Checkup and it's chart looks pretty good to me. Also, I have noticed other stocks within it's group have been doing well of late. My question has to do with Institutional Ownership. ANSS is at 81% (89% of Float). I know this is high, but how important of a factor is this. I would love some thoughts. Matt - ------=_NextPart_000_0023_01C1E867.B7081400 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message
What about the = Sponsorship=20 ratings that are listed in the minigraphs?  Their definition = is: =20 "Based on change in number of funds owning stock recently and sponsors=20 performance rating.  A is highest, E lowest."
 
Anybody explain = what this=20 means or how it's derived?
 
Duke
-----Original Message-----
From:=20 owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com = [mailto:owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com]=20 On Behalf Of Katherine Malm
Sent: Saturday, April 20, = 2002=20 10:55 AM
To: canslim@lists.xmission.com
Subject: = Re:=20 [CANSLIM] Institutional Ownership

Morning Ira,
 
Yes, the A/D ranking is weighted so that more recent periods in = the 13=20 weeks used are weighted more heavily. At one time, I tried to get = a more=20 specific description from DailyGraphs Support, but they were = unwilling to give away the double-secret-formula, so we don't really = know=20 *how* it is weighted. One thing I've learned with A/D is that it's = very useful=20 for buying, but because it is a weighted moving average, its lousy for = selling. In other words, a stock could easily be going through a = blow-off top=20 or other form of topping action and the darned A/D ranking will sit = there with=20 an A or B the whole time. Makes sense, its a lagging indicator that = describes=20 13 weeks past action.
 
I think what you've described as a preference is actually very=20 CANSLIMish. If you find a stock with all the CANSLIM evidence early = enough,=20 the rising price and rising AvgVol are giving clues that institutions = are=20 likely accumulating it. The SEC reporting lags so much that by the = time you=20 see it in the % institutional ownership numbers, much of it has = already=20 happened. Folks like Ian and Tom are good at spotting this. I = generally don't=20 notice it until the stock has moved out of the initial round of buying = because=20 my radar doesn't look below certain price points. Mark Boucher of=20 TradingMarkets.com is very good at this as well, preferring to catch = stocks=20 that have nearer 10% ownership. You've got to have really good radar = and chart=20 reading skills to find these, but as you can see from Ian and Tom's = returns=20 over the last couple of years, its radar worth developing.
 
Katherine
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Ira = Post
Sent: Saturday, April 20, = 2002 9:39=20 AM
Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] = Institutional=20 Ownership

Good morning = Katherine,
 
Thanks for the clarification.  = One=20 question.  Is the A/D rating weighted to give more empahsis on = current=20 purchases and sales?
 
Another point on institutional = ownership -=20 although it's not a CANSLIM approach.  When I find a company = that's=20 recently gone public and looks very good fundamentally, I look at = the lack=20 of insititutional ownership as an advantage.  This is because = it won't=20 take these institutions very long to find out about the company and = when=20 they buy in, the price will soar.  This was part of my thinking = with=20 AMGP.
 
Ira
----- Original Message ----- =
From:=20 Katherine=20 Malm
To: canslim@lists.xmission.com= =20
Sent: Saturday, April 20, = 2002 10:07=20 AM
Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] = Institutional=20 Ownership

Hi Ira,
 
Just a point of clarification on the A/D rating vs. = Institutional=20 Ownership--
 
The A/D rating is a weighted ranking on the recent = price/volume=20 action of the stock. IBD looks for accumulation (up days on volume = higher=20 than the previous day) of large blocks of stock vs distribution = (down days=20 on volume higher than the day before) of large blocks and then = creates a=20 ranking A-E. In that sense, you are right, that when large blocks = are=20 being accumulated more than they are distributed, the stock would = rank=20 very high. This is a proxy for current institutional=20 price/volume action but does not address, in general, what % of = the shares=20 in float are *owned* by institutions. For example, 2 = stocks could=20 have an A/D rating of A, yet one could be 10% owned by = institutions while=20 the other could be 80% owned by institutions.
 
On institutional ownership, Matt--
I've noticed large discrepancies like this in the = Yahoo/MarketGuide=20 data and the DGO data before. As a cautionary approach, if you see = a high=20 number like 80-90% as you saw for ANSS, it's probably an error in = their=20 data (I think their shares outstanding in the calculation aren't = updated=20 to reflect share buy backs, primary offers, etc). Sure enough, DGO = has=20 banks owning 14% and funds owning 30% of the float for a total=20 institutional ownership of 44% of the 13.4m shares in the float. = The=20 remaining 1m shares outstanding are owned by management (7% of=20 outstanding). Though that's what I'd consider the higher = end of=20 the "acceptable" range, I never let that keep me away from a stock = if I=20 feel it has everything else going for it, especially when the = float is=20 rather small.
 
Katherine
----- Original Message ----- =
From:=20 Ira = Post=20
To: canslim@lists.xmission.com= =20
Sent: Saturday, April 20, = 2002 2:57=20 AM
Subject: Re: [CANSLIM]=20 Institutional Ownership

I think you got that = information from=20 Yahoo.  If you go to the IBD site and do a stock check-up, = you'll=20 find an Accumulation/Distribution (Acc/Dis) = Rating of=20 B-.  I think the discrepancy has to do with IBD's more = recent=20 monitoring of this information and their taking into account of = more=20 recent institutional buying or selling.
 
WON feels this is very important.  = However,=20 IBD's stock check-up gives this stock an overall rating of=20 A+.  So I wouldn't worry about it the B- in this = area.  The=20 significance lies in the fact that institutions control large = blocks of=20 money and when they move into or out of a stock it influences = the price=20 significantly.
 
Ira
----- Original Message ----- =
From:=20 Matt & Alicia = Leverette=20
To: canslim@lists.xmission.com= =20
Sent: Friday, April 19, = 2002 9:35=20 PM
Subject: [CANSLIM] = Institutional=20 Ownership

Hi,
 
I have been considering = ANSS.  It is=20 rated a 98 on IBD Stock Checkup and it's chart looks pretty = good to=20 me.  Also, I have noticed other stocks within it's group = have=20 been doing well of late.
 
My question has to do with = Institutional=20 Ownership.  ANSS is at 81% (89% of Float).  I know = this is=20 high, but how important of a factor is this.
 
I would love some = thoughts.
 
Matt
- ------=_NextPart_000_0023_01C1E867.B7081400-- - - - -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: Sat, 20 Apr 2002 12:51:25 EDT From: Davellil5@aol.com Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Institutional Ownership Sometime ago, I contacted IBD to find out how they arrive at the Sponsor ranking. I asked them, specifically, how they combine the number of mutual funds holding a stock and the quality (performance) of those funds into a single ranking. This is like adding apples and bananas. The response was that how they do it is proprietary, secret. I pointed out that without knowing how the ranking is arrived at, we subscribers have no way of judging its value. I've found no correlation between this ranking and "steam" of any stock. Maybe, I don't have enough data to judge that correlation accurately, but I now largely ignore the Sponsor ranking. I get my own information about top holdings of any stock by institutions and mutuals, and whether they are accruing or distributing, on balance, lately. Regards, Dave - - - -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: Sat, 20 Apr 2002 13:09:00 -0400 From: "Ira Post" Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Institutional Ownership This is a multi-part message in MIME format. - ------=_NextPart_000_0022_01C1E86C.89852180 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Tom, that's an interesting point that I hadn't considered. But still, = while there may be considerable institutional ownership prior to the = initial offering, aren't most institutions going to weigh in after the = stock goes public? What do you think? Ira ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Tom Worley=20 To: canslim@lists.xmission.com=20 Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2002 10:49 AM Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Institutional Ownership Hi Ira, I would be careful about your thinking with institutional ownership of = new IPOs. Unless you get your hands on a copy of the prospectus for the = IPO offering, don't be confident that the data on institutional = ownership available on the internet is accurate. Many new companies = start life publicly with considerable institutional ownership from = venture capitalists. And since mutual funds only report quarterly, data = on their ownership is usually outdated. Tom Worley stkguru@bellsouth.net AIM: TexWorley ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Ira Post=20 To: canslim@lists.xmission.com=20 Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2002 10:39 AM Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Institutional Ownership Good morning Katherine, Thanks for the clarification. One question. Is the A/D rating = weighted to give more empahsis on current purchases and sales? Another point on institutional ownership - although it's not a CANSLIM = approach. When I find a company that's recently gone public and looks = very good fundamentally, I look at the lack of insititutional ownership = as an advantage. This is because it won't take these institutions very = long to find out about the company and when they buy in, the price will = soar. This was part of my thinking with AMGP. Ira ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Katherine Malm=20 To: canslim@lists.xmission.com=20 Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2002 10:07 AM Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Institutional Ownership Hi Ira, Just a point of clarification on the A/D rating vs. Institutional = Ownership-- The A/D rating is a weighted ranking on the recent price/volume = action of the stock. IBD looks for accumulation (up days on volume = higher than the previous day) of large blocks of stock vs distribution = (down days on volume higher than the day before) of large blocks and = then creates a ranking A-E. In that sense, you are right, that when = large blocks are being accumulated more than they are distributed, the = stock would rank very high. This is a proxy for current institutional = price/volume action but does not address, in general, what % of the = shares in float are *owned* by institutions. For example, 2 stocks could = have an A/D rating of A, yet one could be 10% owned by institutions = while the other could be 80% owned by institutions. On institutional ownership, Matt-- I've noticed large discrepancies like this in the Yahoo/MarketGuide = data and the DGO data before. As a cautionary approach, if you see a = high number like 80-90% as you saw for ANSS, it's probably an error in = their data (I think their shares outstanding in the calculation aren't = updated to reflect share buy backs, primary offers, etc). Sure enough, = DGO has banks owning 14% and funds owning 30% of the float for a total = institutional ownership of 44% of the 13.4m shares in the float. The = remaining 1m shares outstanding are owned by management (7% of = outstanding). Though that's what I'd consider the higher end of the = "acceptable" range, I never let that keep me away from a stock if I feel = it has everything else going for it, especially when the float is rather = small. Katherine ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Ira Post=20 To: canslim@lists.xmission.com=20 Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2002 2:57 AM Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Institutional Ownership I think you got that information from Yahoo. If you go to the IBD = site and do a stock check-up, you'll find an Accumulation/Distribution = (Acc/Dis) Rating of B-. I think the discrepancy has to do with IBD's = more recent monitoring of this information and their taking into account = of more recent institutional buying or selling. WON feels this is very important. However, IBD's stock check-up = gives this stock an overall rating of A+. So I wouldn't worry about it = the B- in this area. The significance lies in the fact that = institutions control large blocks of money and when they move into or = out of a stock it influences the price significantly. Ira ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Matt & Alicia Leverette=20 To: canslim@lists.xmission.com=20 Sent: Friday, April 19, 2002 9:35 PM Subject: [CANSLIM] Institutional Ownership Hi, I have been considering ANSS. It is rated a 98 on IBD Stock = Checkup and it's chart looks pretty good to me. Also, I have noticed = other stocks within it's group have been doing well of late. My question has to do with Institutional Ownership. ANSS is at = 81% (89% of Float). I know this is high, but how important of a factor = is this. I would love some thoughts. Matt - ------=_NextPart_000_0022_01C1E86C.89852180 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Tom, that's an interesting point that I = hadn't=20 considered.  But still, while there may be considerable = institutional=20 ownership prior to the initial offering, aren't most institutions going = to weigh=20 in after the stock goes public?  What do you think?
 
Ira
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Tom=20 Worley
Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2002 = 10:49=20 AM
Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] = Institutional=20 Ownership

Hi Ira,
 
I would be careful about your thinking with=20 institutional ownership of new IPOs. Unless you get your hands on a = copy of=20 the prospectus for the IPO offering, don't be confident that the data = on=20 institutional ownership available on the internet is accurate. Many = new=20 companies start life publicly with considerable institutional = ownership from=20 venture capitalists. And since mutual funds only report quarterly, = data on=20 their ownership is usually outdated.
 
Tom Worley
stkguru@bellsouth.net
AIM:=20 TexWorley
----- Original Message -----=20
From: Ira Post =
Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2002 10:39 AM
Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Institutional Ownership

Good morning Katherine,
 
Thanks for the clarification.  = One=20 question.  Is the A/D rating weighted to give more empahsis on = current=20 purchases and sales?
 
Another point on institutional = ownership -=20 although it's not a CANSLIM approach.  When I find a company = that's=20 recently gone public and looks very good fundamentally, I look at the = lack of=20 insititutional ownership as an advantage.  This is because it = won't take=20 these institutions very long to find out about the company and when = they buy=20 in, the price will soar.  This was part of my thinking with=20 AMGP.
 
Ira
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Katherine=20 Malm
Sent: Saturday, April 20, = 2002 10:07=20 AM
Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] = Institutional=20 Ownership

Hi Ira,
 
Just a point of clarification on the A/D rating vs. = Institutional=20 Ownership--
 
The A/D rating is a weighted ranking on the recent price/volume = action=20 of the stock. IBD looks for accumulation (up days on volume higher = than the=20 previous day) of large blocks of stock vs distribution (down days on = volume=20 higher than the day before) of large blocks and then creates a = ranking A-E.=20 In that sense, you are right, that when large blocks are being = accumulated=20 more than they are distributed, the stock would rank very = high. This is=20 a proxy for current institutional price/volume action but does = not=20 address, in general, what % of the shares in float are *owned* by=20 institutions. For example, 2 stocks could have an A/D rating of = A, yet=20 one could be 10% owned by institutions while the other could be 80% = owned by=20 institutions.
 
On institutional ownership, Matt--
I've noticed large discrepancies like this in the = Yahoo/MarketGuide=20 data and the DGO data before. As a cautionary approach, if you see a = high=20 number like 80-90% as you saw for ANSS, it's probably an error in = their data=20 (I think their shares outstanding in the calculation aren't updated = to=20 reflect share buy backs, primary offers, etc). Sure enough, DGO has = banks=20 owning 14% and funds owning 30% of the float for a total = institutional=20 ownership of 44% of the 13.4m shares in the float. The remaining 1m = shares=20 outstanding are owned by management (7% of outstanding). Though = that's=20 what I'd consider the higher end of the "acceptable" range, I = never let=20 that keep me away from a stock if I feel it has everything else = going for=20 it, especially when the float is rather small.
 
Katherine
----- Original Message ----- =
From:=20 Ira = Post
To: canslim@lists.xmission.com= =20
Sent: Saturday, April 20, = 2002 2:57=20 AM
Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] = Institutional=20 Ownership

I think you got that information = from=20 Yahoo.  If you go to the IBD site and do a stock check-up, = you'll=20 find an Accumulation/Distribution (Acc/Dis) Rating = of=20 B-.  I think the discrepancy has to do with IBD's more recent = monitoring of this information and their taking into account of = more=20 recent institutional buying or selling.
 
WON feels this is very important.  = However,=20 IBD's stock check-up gives this stock an overall rating of = A+. =20 So I wouldn't worry about it the B- in this area.  The = significance=20 lies in the fact that institutions control large blocks of money = and when=20 they move into or out of a stock it influences the price=20 significantly.
 
Ira
----- Original Message ----- =
From:=20 Matt=20 & Alicia Leverette
To: canslim@lists.xmission.com= =20
Sent: Friday, April 19, = 2002 9:35=20 PM
Subject: [CANSLIM] = Institutional=20 Ownership

Hi,
 
I have been considering = ANSS.  It is=20 rated a 98 on IBD Stock Checkup and it's chart looks pretty good = to=20 me.  Also, I have noticed other stocks within it's group = have been=20 doing well of late.
 
My question has to do with = Institutional=20 Ownership.  ANSS is at 81% (89% of Float).  I know = this is=20 high, but how important of a factor is this.
 
I would love some = thoughts.
 
Matt
- ------=_NextPart_000_0022_01C1E86C.89852180-- - - - -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 #2334 ****************************** 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.