From: owner-canslim-digest@lists.xmission.com (canslim-digest) To: canslim-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: canslim-digest V2 #258 Reply-To: canslim Sender: owner-canslim-digest@lists.xmission.com Errors-To: owner-canslim-digest@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes canslim-digest Thursday, May 28 1998 Volume 02 : Number 258 In this issue: Re: [CANSLIM] Re: M and Support [CANSLIM] "M", Frank [CANSLIM] Current Economic and "M" (noise) Re: [CANSLIM] "M", Frank Re: [CANSLIM] "M", Frank Re: [CANSLIM] Current Economic and "M" (noise) Re: [CANSLIM] Re: M and Support--Luke Re: [CANSLIM] "M", Frank--Jeffry Re: [CANSLIM] Current Economic and "M" (noise)--Jeffry [CANSLIM] Tardy Post on IGEN Re: [CANSLIM] Tardy Post on IGEN--Al Re: [CANSLIM] Market Close Re: [CANSLIM] Market Close--Frank [CANSLIM] Charts Re: [CANSLIM] Charts RE: [CANSLIM] NASDAQ Stocks with Greatest % Rise in Volume RE: [CANSLIM] CANSLIM, "M", and DG alternatives (Part One) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 27 May 1998 23:27:25 -0500 From: Luke Lang Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Re: M and Support Db, Why do you say NASDAQ has "considerable" support at 1700? Is it due to the peak there during early Oct. '97? Thanks for your explanation. Luke Lang dbphoenix wrote: > > < to the > down side before I'm going to get excited. >> > > FWIW, there is considerable support for the NASDAQ at the 1700 level. > There is support for the NYSE at 558, then again at 548. For the Dow, > 8796 (after that, 8700). > > --Db > > _________________________________________________________ > DO YOU YAHOO!? > Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com > > - - - ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 28 May 1998 06:39:20 -0400 From: Jeffry White <"postwhit@sover.net"@sover.net> Subject: [CANSLIM] "M", Frank > Date: Wed, 27 May 1998 18:57:25 -0400 > From: "Frank V. Wolynski" > Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] "M" > > Jeffry are you looking for any signal from the volume on a day like today? > Just curious if price alone was enough in your experience or observations. > By the way, I have no idea what volume was today. > > Frank Wolynski Yesterday showed an increase in volume over the prior day on the NASDAQ and NYSE, and it is of significance in my efforts. WON, as I read in the book, simply takes a low in an index and counts for a follow through day (1% on volume, 3-10 days off the low) for confirmation of a new uptrend on the tail of a correction/consolidation/bear market. So volume, and a day like we saw Wednesday is no more a "signal" than any other low in the down-spin, as I interpret WON's "Market Direction". However, the computer models I have seen in action for the past two years (and the results of backtesting for the past 20 years) appear to validate that reversal/compression lows with increased volume over the prior day's action provide the most historically reliable signals for "follow through days" which will succeed in flagging the beginning of a new up-leg in the market. If you think about it, it would make sense to have a reverse indicator of a "distribution day", which requires an increase in volume over the prior day, wouldn't it? So, in my manual/visual world of attempting to have WON's "M" tell me the story, I will view a day like Wednesday with much more hopeful/optimism that a 1% on volume day is on the horizon. Now, Frank, can you spot us a paragraph on which "middle of the pack" Industry Groups are possible candidates for a break from the pack toward leadership, should we have a new up-leg coming? Thanks, Jeffry - - ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 28 May 1998 07:06:08 -0400 From: Jeffry White <"postwhit@sover.net"@sover.net> Subject: [CANSLIM] Current Economic and "M" (noise) Tom, you wrote, and I have a couple of questions: > Today's reversal is most impressive, however I heard that it was > almost entirely due to a single buy side computer program kicking in. > If true, that diminishes its value and significance somewhat to me. I > would prefer a "sentiment" change that we have finally "seen the > bottom". First, how will you validate what you heard and why would it diminish the value and significance of the reversal? I mean, I hear ya, but what is the value to you in trying to validate such a thing, why not let the "M" tell you by rally failure or follow through day? Second, what do you mean when you say you would prefer a "sentiment" change? Do you mean that if the chorus was singing, "we're at the bottom" you'd interpret that to be bullish (kind of the opposite of the contrarian nature of sentiment indicator use)? Or are you simply saying that when the sentiment gets decidedly negative, it would become a contrary indicator for you and lend some support to the possiblity that the reversal may lead to a move to new high ground in the "M"? > > I remain cautious, and am sitting on cash for the most part. > > Tom W > Can you explain the details of how you made the change from Tuesday's comments that you had been contemplating being fully invested by this week's end, to now "remaining" cautious and sitting for the most part in cash? Finally, will you be counting for a "follow through day"? I seem to recall you finding comfort from that type of index behavior back in January of this year, but I'd appreciate hearing your thoughts on that indicator of "M". Thanks, Jeffry. BTW, since I can't work this week and late last, I've been tuning into CNBC periodically during the trading day. Why would anybody who can watch that "slapstick" comedy routine mourne the passing of Seinfeld? On Friday, bulls, bulls, bulls and the down day was spun as nothing more than early holiday malaise (even though historically it is a strong day). Then, fanfaire and parades on Tuesday morning (Maria was about to wet her pants on the open from the floor), more bulls, bulls, bulls. Whoops!!! Reversal!!!! Wednesday, bears, bears, bears...."we've been in a correction for the past month and a half" (the only thing I agree with since I began watching following surgery). "We're moving to cash, we've been in cash, we see a double bottom forming between now and October, it's over, we're done, kaput". Whoops, reversal..."Impressive, dipsters, small investor's the hero, buy programs, floods of cash, DOW 10,000!!!!!!!! No rhyme or reason, alot like Dan Rather's sensationalism of the CBS Evening News which prompted me to turn him off 10 years ago or more. No shame, no accountability, no justifications, transparent sensationalistic "noise"....pitiful, but high comedy at it's finest. Very entertaining, however. :) - - ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 28 May 1998 07:20:59 -0400 From: "Frank V. Wolynski" Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] "M", Frank At 06:39 5/28/98 -0400, Jeffry White wrote: >> Date: Wed, 27 May 1998 18:57:25 -0400 >> From: "Frank V. Wolynski" >> Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] "M" >> >> Jeffry are you looking for any signal from the volume on a day like today? >> Just curious if price alone was enough in your experience or observations. >> By the way, I have no idea what volume was today. >> >> Frank Wolynski > > >Yesterday showed an increase in volume over the prior day on the NASDAQ >and NYSE, and it is of significance in my efforts. > >WON, as I read in the book, simply takes a low in an index and counts >for a follow through day (1% on volume, 3-10 days off the low) for >confirmation of a new uptrend on the tail of a >correction/consolidation/bear market. So volume, and a day like we saw >Wednesday is no more a "signal" than any other low in the down-spin, as >I interpret WON's "Market Direction". > >However, the computer models I have seen in action for the past two >years (and the results of backtesting for the past 20 years) appear to >validate that reversal/compression lows with increased volume over the >prior day's action provide the most historically reliable signals for >"follow through days" which will succeed in flagging the beginning of a >new up-leg in the market. If you think about it, it would make sense to >have a reverse indicator of a "distribution day", which requires an >increase in volume over the prior day, wouldn't it? > >So, in my manual/visual world of attempting to have WON's "M" tell me >the story, I will view a day like Wednesday with much more >hopeful/optimism that a 1% on volume day is on the horizon. > >Now, Frank, can you spot us a paragraph on which "middle of the pack" >Industry Groups are possible candidates for a break from the pack toward >leadership, should we have a new up-leg coming? > >Thanks, Jeffry > There is nothing in my group analysis to warrant intermediate term optimism. Most of the group indexes are caught between their 50 and 200day MOV. Not a fun place to try to apply technical analysis. I haven't found anything in the group indexes that looks like a decent base yet. If I spot something, I'll post it. Best of luck all, Frank Wolynski - - ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 28 May 1998 07:20:59 -0400 From: "Frank V. Wolynski" Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] "M", Frank At 06:39 5/28/98 -0400, Jeffry White wrote: >> Date: Wed, 27 May 1998 18:57:25 -0400 >> From: "Frank V. Wolynski" >> Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] "M" >> >> Jeffry are you looking for any signal from the volume on a day like today? >> Just curious if price alone was enough in your experience or observations. >> By the way, I have no idea what volume was today. >> >> Frank Wolynski > > >Yesterday showed an increase in volume over the prior day on the NASDAQ >and NYSE, and it is of significance in my efforts. > >WON, as I read in the book, simply takes a low in an index and counts >for a follow through day (1% on volume, 3-10 days off the low) for >confirmation of a new uptrend on the tail of a >correction/consolidation/bear market. So volume, and a day like we saw >Wednesday is no more a "signal" than any other low in the down-spin, as >I interpret WON's "Market Direction". > >However, the computer models I have seen in action for the past two >years (and the results of backtesting for the past 20 years) appear to >validate that reversal/compression lows with increased volume over the >prior day's action provide the most historically reliable signals for >"follow through days" which will succeed in flagging the beginning of a >new up-leg in the market. If you think about it, it would make sense to >have a reverse indicator of a "distribution day", which requires an >increase in volume over the prior day, wouldn't it? > >So, in my manual/visual world of attempting to have WON's "M" tell me >the story, I will view a day like Wednesday with much more >hopeful/optimism that a 1% on volume day is on the horizon. > >Now, Frank, can you spot us a paragraph on which "middle of the pack" >Industry Groups are possible candidates for a break from the pack toward >leadership, should we have a new up-leg coming? > >Thanks, Jeffry > There is nothing in my group analysis to warrant intermediate term optimism. Most of the group indexes are caught between their 50 and 200day MOV. Not a fun place to try to apply technical analysis. I haven't found anything in the group indexes that looks like a decent base yet. If I spot something, I'll post it. Best of luck all, Frank Wolynski - - ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 28 May 1998 07:54:38 -0400 From: "Tom Worley" Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Current Economic and "M" (noise) My main problem with the reversal, if truly driven primarily by a computer program, is that just the opposite can also happen without warning. And, should we go higher today, is that much more likely, since they are used for investing, they are used for trading. I agree that bullish/bearish sentiment is an excellent contrarian indicator, the more bearish the better, and usually suggests not only loads more money sitting on the sidelines waiting to rush in and "chase" the mkts, but also often shows far less premium and inflated value in stocks. Buying into the mkt just as the bull/bear sentiment changes in favor of bullish can mean not only a breakout but a lot of fresh money behind you. My intentions to be fully invested this week were made on the basis of how the indexes had performed over the past several weeks, the lack of volume, and mostly the degree of oversold conditions I was seeing. If the mkt showed me strength and increasing vol on Monday, I was looking to start inching my way back in with the cash I have been keeping on the sidelines. However, with Asia continuing to deteriorate, conflicts in Indonesia, and the apparent ripple effect along with other factors starting to take S. America apart, I held off doing anything. On Wednesday morning, the global markets were the worst I can recall seeing in a very long time, virtually every exchange was down in both Asia and Europe by well over a percentage point, many down several points. The sheer universality of the downdraft was sufficient to tell me it was too early to step back in. Yes, I will be counting days and watching for a 1% up day on volume for a "follow thru" signal. There's a good chance I will do nothing, other than possibly taking my profits on EDAC, in the meantime. And I am not encouraged about the significance of yesterday's reversal so far looking at global markets and futures trading. We seen to be in a consistent downtrend for the past hour or more. The reversal in the US market yesterday doesn't appear to have inspired any world wide ripple. Glad we can agree on CNBC, great entertainment if you can avoid taking them seriously. Kinda like a soap opera, except not as close to "real life", or reality of any kind. Tom W - -----Original Message----- From: Jeffry White <"postwhit@sover.net"@sover.net> To: canslim@mail.xmission.com Date: Thursday, May 28, 1998 7:05 AM Subject: [CANSLIM] Current Economic and "M" (noise) >> Today's reversal is most impressive, however I heard that it was >> almost entirely due to a single buy side computer program kicking in. >> If true, that diminishes its value and significance somewhat to me. I >> would prefer a "sentiment" change that we have finally "seen the >> bottom". > >First, how will you validate what you heard and why would it diminish >the value and significance of the reversal? > >Second, what do you mean when you say you would prefer a "sentiment" >change>> >> I remain cautious, and am sitting on cash for the most part. >> >> Tom W >> > >Can you explain the details of how you made the change from Tuesday's >comments that you had been contemplating being fully invested by this >week's end, to now "remaining" cautious and sitting for the most part in >cash? > >Finally, will you be counting for a "follow through day"? I seem to >recall you finding comfort from that type of index behavior back in >January of this year, but I'd appreciate hearing your thoughts on that >indicator of "M". > >CNBC periodically during the trading day. Why would anybody who can >watch that "slapstick" comedy routine mourne the passing of Seinfeld? > - - ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 28 May 1998 06:10:54 -0700 (PDT) From: dbphoenix Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Re: M and Support--Luke <> Whether support is weak or strong depends on how many instanced of support line up at a particular level. For example, if a moving average, a trendline, and horizontal price support all coincide at a particular level, that support is stronger than if it represents nothing more than a previous price peak that lasted a day or two. If whatever horizontal support there is has been tested more than once both as resistance and as support, that's even better. First, the 1700 area provided a base in February. It was a short base, to be sure, but the longest we've had (except for the one at the most recent top). This level was tested and found to provide support in early March. Second, 1700 represents a 50% retracement of this leg that began at 1450. Third, the 200d is just under 1700 (1686). Regardless of what anyone thinks of TA, the 200d MA is extremely important to even those professional money managers who don't much follow technical analysis. _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com - - ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 28 May 1998 06:18:25 -0700 (PDT) From: dbphoenix Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] "M", Frank--Jeffry <> On the other hand, it may be just as important to determine when and where the volume came in--on the downside or on the upside? In other words, if the heaviest volume occurs on the downside, the day might be considered negative even though it wound up technically positive. I'm not referring to yesterday in particular, but harking back to the false signals we received last winter (even IBD got caught with its pants down on that one). Lighter volume to the upside could be nothing more than a dead cat bounce. Since the NAZ has violated strong support and there's no support nearby, it's sort of hanging out there in the middle of nowhere. The prudent investor will wait until it makes up its mind what it wants to do. - --Db _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com - - ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 28 May 1998 06:20:23 -0700 (PDT) From: dbphoenix Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Current Economic and "M" (noise)--Jeffry <> As a group, we men have an almost pathological need, not only to be right, but to be right before anybody else. I have to admire those talking heads who have the courage of their convictions (even if they're dead wrong) and stick to them no matter what. Those who are constantly shifting from one foot to the other for the sake of getting airtime are hardly worth paying attention to. This is why my TV is in another room. - --Db _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com - - ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 28 May 1998 10:21:48 -0400 From: Connie Mack Rea Subject: [CANSLIM] Tardy Post on IGEN Members-- I had thought I had posted this. Most of the comment is still relevant. Evening Al-- Hard to imagine a more civil question civilly put. Remember that I am primarily a trader and try to take out a part of a point to a few points from a stock; consequently, the six week down draft is pretty much irrelevant. My EMA would have got me out quickly and not put me back in until Friday. The OBV/MF criteria provide the rough scan criteria; the EMA tells me when to enter and when to get out; the MACD and SloSto are mainly confirming indicators for the EMA. I suppose it would be okay to say that the indicators--the EMA, MACD, and SloSto--in a sense override the down draft. However, the OBV/MF are also overriding in that they show the positive divergence [PD] that is requisite for the scan to kick the stock out. It is unusual for a stock to go six weeks and have but one EMA signal, either buy or sell. To go that long does imply weakness, and almost uniform weakness, for my EMA is really sensitive. There is, however, another reading. Against your reading of the six month falling away is the five month building of OBV/MF strength, which is not expressed in price. Two things are happening in the stock; one is visible in price. But the other is in a sense "invisible." The invisible is the mounting strength of OBV/MF. This invisible strength is not immediately visible, but by the middle of April and thereafter there is no doubt that the significance of the price deterioration is being countered by the strength of OBV/MF. More is happening in the stock than price deterioration. The action of a stock is not just price. A part of the action is some like measles. We get a pinkness, a redness, an irritation, a breaching of the skin, a scabbing, and a healing. The healing commences, invisibly, even as the body recognizes the virus and expresses the red results. The price is analogous to the pinkness and redness, and the breach of the skin. The healing is analogous to unseen preparation as expressed in the OBV/MF. In IGEN, the healing begins early rather than late; it is not just an ordinary healing; it is a healing accompanied by powerful OBV and MF. Ordinarily we recover from measles irrespective of any medical intervention. The same with stocks. But some stocks seem to get medical help: OBV and MF. I believe that a positive OBV and MF cut short the effects of a stocks' measles; and health not only returns but often the stock seems stronger. I don't know how long IGEN would have been sick, but I do believe that the positive divergence of OBV/MF shortened that illness and promises a recovery stronger than had there been no positive divergence of OBV/MF. Sometimes a stock is sick [OBV/MF negative diversion] while at the same time the price looks healthy. IGEN looks sick but there is an underlying health [positively diverging OBV/MF]. The sickness/health metaphor informs the understanding of a stock, informs its diagnosis and prognosis. I can see that an investor might view the down draft as reason to shy away. Nothing wrong with that at all. When stock pickers say they see value or promise in a stock that otherwise looks not so valuable or so promising, they are metaphorically saying that in "sickness" they are seeing "health." I have no idea what they are seeing in either state. Were I to say what the pickers say, I'd likely mean OBV/MF positive divergence, for that is what I've chosen to look for. The Canslim investor looks for still something different. The positive divergence of OBV/MF is what my MRI reveals. You mention a "one-day close above the trendline." I'm not sure what "trendline" you mean. Too, you mention the "50-day EMA" and that you "really get hung up on the trendline." I do not actively use a 50-day EMA. I'll be glad to clarify. Thanks for the mail, Al. Connie Mack Al French wrote: > Connie- > > I read your posts with great interest because I believe TA can > be a valuable tool, but one that I have yet to master. > > It would help me, and perhaps others, if you could elaborate on > why you do not consider the consistent 6-week downtrend of IGEN to be a > significant negative for this stock. Is it that the indicators override > the trend? Or is a 1-day close above the trendline and 50-day EMA > sufficient confirmation of a reversal? Or perhaps there is something > else that I do not see? > > I agree that the indicators look great, but I really get hung up > on that trendline. > > I am sending this to you directly because I have no wish to > appear confrontational. However, if you believe this exchange would be > useful, I have no objection to your posting it to the CANSLIM group. > > Al French - - ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 28 May 1998 07:52:57 -0700 (PDT) From: dbphoenix Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Tardy Post on IGEN--Al <> I wasn't asked, but it is an open question and anyone who wants to can ignore my two cents. I do, however, want to make a couple of points. The very first thing you must do before looking at a chart is to determine your timeframe, and that depends on whether you are a daytrader, swingtrader, or short, intermediate, or long-term trader (or investor--whatever). Otherwise, you're going to be looking at the wrong indicators, the wrong patterns, the wrong trendlines, the wrong support and resistance. For a day or swing trader, there are indications that the stock might go higher. However, as I pointed out in a previous post, the indicators on the weekly chart are negative. This suggests that any upmove might be short-lived, if it occurs at all. If you're interested in a couple of points or fractions of a point, the weekly chart may be irrelevant. But since you mention the trendline and the 50d, this suggests to me that you are at the very least an intermediate to short-term trader, though if you're intermediate-term, you may want to consider using an SMA rather than an EMA. Or both. Several things to note. One is that the trendline you mention has changed. The stock failed to make a lower low or a higher high. Therefore, for the time being at least, it is moving sideways and your support and resistance lines will be drawn at the highest high and lowest low in this sideways channel. Two, take care to use a variety of indicators, though don't go too crazy. Just make sure that the indicators you use are sufficiently different from each other so that confirmation means something. Bigchart's MF, for example, is figured almost exactly like OBV, so confirmation means much less than if you were to use Williams' Accumulation-Distribution or Chaikin's Oscillator. Or even the MFI. Third, don't fall in love with any particular indicator. Choosing a buypoint is very much a matter of playing the odds. The more ducks you have lined up in a row (market, group, stock, indicators, sentiment, etc., etc.), the greater your chance of success. Fourth, a breach to the upside is not necessarily cause for celebration. You'd be wise to wait to see if the price can hold there for a couple of days before planting your flag. Some people would wait for support (once resistance) to be tested, but the train may leave the station in the meantime. If you're unsure of what to do, buy a portion of your stake at the breach with a tight stop. If support is tested successfully, buy the rest. If not, at least you have a partial stake. Fifth, always remember that charts are nothing more than a pictorial representation of investor behavior. The patterns you see are solely a result of the buys and sells that investors are making. There's nothing mysterious or magical about them. And since indicators are all based on these patterns, they too have to do with investor behavior. If you don't yet fully understand how to interpret price and volume patterns, find support and resistance, and draw trendlines, you may be jumping the gun to use exotic indicators. Indicators aren't even the frosting on the cake. They are the flowers on the frosting on the cake. Make the cake first. - --Db _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com - - ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 28 May 1998 11:36:45 -0400 From: "Frank V. Wolynski" Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Market Close I think in part, they don't have a clue. The variety of opinion present in the commentators and guests infers that to a large degree, the investing community as a whole is confused, unsure, and thus opinions are all over the place. Three weeks ago, only a nutcase would have been caught make bearish statements, even about the short term. I remember the guests and commentators all touting 10,000. I also remember what they were saying in December and January! At 19:51 5/27/98 -0400, Tom Worley wrote: >What do you want from them, Frank? After all for the most part they >are simply reading a script written by someone who has to sell a story >every day. And rarely does good news sell as well as bad news. Keep >your listening public confused, and they're more likely to keep tuning >in in hopes of sorting out their confusion. > >Tom W > >-----Original Message----- >From: Frank V. Wolynski >To: canslim@lists.xmission.com ; >canslim@xmission.com >Date: Wednesday, May 27, 1998 7:01 PM >Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Market Close > > >>The variety of opinion was interesting on CNBC today. >>One who said, buy this dip, it's a bull! >>One who said, it ain't over yet. >>And another who said, buy dem bonds! >> >>I also heard, "earnings will pick up", "we have decoupled" from the >foreign >>freefalls and "scooping up the bargains!". >> >>When I refer to noise in my messages, this is the sort of thing I am >>referring to. Not the well crafted and to the point economic messages >we >>grew accustomed to from Tom. Miss those Tom! >> >>What we think isn't as important as what is happening and our ability >to >>withdraw the truth from the hype and the emotion. >> >>Frank Wolynski >> > I think in part, they don't have a clue. The variety of opinion present in the commentators and guests infers that to a large degree, the investing community as a whole is confused, unsure, and thus opinions are all over the place. Three weeks ago, only a nutcase would have been caught making bear noises, even about the short term. I remember the guests and commentators all touting 10,000. (We still may hit it! I don't know, neither do they!) I also remember what they were saying in December and January! As DB (or someone else on the maillist) stated earlier, he is affected by what he hears, so trys to tune it out. So am I, I can't stop the cause/effect relationship. However I am trying to get a handle on how it affects me so I can discriminate between what I know, and what I think I know and what I hear others say they know. So I inundate myself with all the data I can get, CNBC, IBD, Barrons, others opinions. If I can pigeonhole all that and make sense of it, I think I might stand a chance of not doing something stupid. I may still be wrong, I often am, but it won't be stupid! I will have a plan, stop losses in place, an exit strategy. Frank Wolynski - - ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 28 May 1998 09:00:09 -0700 (PDT) From: dbphoenix Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Market Close--Frank <> You're smart to try to make those distinctions, and if you can categorize all that information and keep the categories discrete, you're a better man than I. I can listen to this stuff only at the end of the day, and even then I pay as little attention as possible. For example, I shorted a stock this morning that had a reversal day day before yesterday and failed to close at or above the previous day's low yesterday. Every indicator I follow was negative on both daily and weekly charts. Right now it's just hanging there at my "buy" price. But if it looks like it's going to close above yesterday's high, I cover. Period. No matter what anybody says. Strength is strength, even if it's only for one day, and when you're shorting, you can't crap around with doubt and anxiety. As you say, make a plan and stick with it until the market proves you wrong, not some commentator. - --Db _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com - - ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 28 May 1998 09:40:57 -0800 From: "Patrick Wahl" Subject: [CANSLIM] Charts Phyllis and possibly one or two others mentioned that they weren't sure what a base looked like. I put a chart up of what I think a base is anyway at http://home.att.net/~pwahl. The charts should look pretty good on an 800 X 600 screen, lower resolutions and things may not be optimal. This might be somewhat helpful to new people. This was a canslim stock at the time, high EPS and RS, low # of shares, etc. - - ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 28 May 1998 16:05:55 -0400 From: William Johnson Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Charts Hello Patrick Wahl, Nice page - great charts - good lesson. Thank you, Bill Johnson (new, rookie) - -- W.R. Johnson III. mailto:wrj3rd@worldnet.att.net - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 May 1998 23:47:41 -0400 From: Larry Horn Subject: RE: [CANSLIM] NASDAQ Stocks with Greatest % Rise in Volume The first thing I noticed with this spreadsheet will be obvious to most of you but I liked seeing it anyway. Out of all of the cos only 23 had a float greater than 50 and only 12 had a float greater than 75. That just reinforces the fact that cos with large floats have a tough time making the Greatest % Rise in Volume list (or generating the heavy % demand). Sometimes it's nice to see things instead of being told things! Of the first handful of cos I looked at with the Highest % Rise in Volume, different things happened to them. Some stocks gap higher that day, some start to trend higher with a progressive increase in volume on subsequent days, some go higher that day but then the next day close slightly down for the day on even heavier volume. Some look like high tight flags except they aren't up 100% (more like 20-50%). Most were coming off a good base. I do plan on continuing the selections from "Your Weekend Review" because I like having the data. I just haven't had time as I was out of town over the weekend. Larry Horn - -----Original Message----- From: Larry Horn [SMTP:clhorn@acpub.duke.edu] Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 1998 4:45 PM To: CANSLIM (E-mail) Subject: [CANSLIM] NASDAQ Stocks with Greatest % Rise in Volume I just collected some data from IBD's NASDAQ Stocks with Greatest % Rise in Volume. I entered the data between now and when my subscription started on 2/3/98 (It also includes 1/23/98). I included only those cos with EPS and RS at least 80. I was hoping that I could use it as a starting point to see what happened to the cos after they were listed there. I was planning on looking at them on BigCharts. I haven't yet been able to examine it but I hope it helps me see pivot points better. The spreadsheet includes EPS, RS, A/D, PE, Float, and % Rise in Volume. It is ranked by % Rise in Volume now but it might be handier if you rank it by co since many cos are listed frequently. I thought others might be interested in it also. I typed the data in myself so there it wouldn't surprise me if there are some typos. You can get it at www.duke.edu/~clhorn/canslim. Just save it as ANYNAME.csv and you can open it in your spreadsheet. Enjoy. Larry Horn - - ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 28 May 1998 00:36:12 -0400 From: Larry Horn Subject: RE: [CANSLIM] CANSLIM, "M", and DG alternatives (Part One) Thanks for your insight. I printed this and another of your recent posts = for future=20 reference. Sorry this is a week after your post but I was out of town.=20 I certainly have made both errors. My CS/IBD error has been with = %Instits but I think it's justifiable. WON doesn't mention %Instit, he = says there should be a minimum of 3-10 mutual fund sponsors of good = quality and they should be increasing in # from last Q. But Ryan says, = when describing CANSLIM, that %Instit should be at least 1 or 2% and a = company should usually be sold by the time it reaches 30%. IBD ran an = article suggesting 5-15% which is what I've been trying to use. For = purchasing, it seemed like IBD's article was in line with Ryan's = comments. Even though I haven't heard of WON mentioning this, I think = I'll continue to use it given that it came from Ryan's description of = CS.=20 I guess this also gets to my second error. I have been requiring a = certain % Instit and=20 this is probably more of a CS suggestion. So maybe I can use it as a = suggestion instead=20 of a criteria. It seems more important that "I" be of good quality. It's = just so easy to check=20 %Instit and it's difficult to check quality. Oh well, no one said it = would be easy. Any=20 suggestions on how to do this other than IBD B1 would be appreciated. = HTMMIS suggests=20 Vicker's. Is it worth it? It is easy to check that # of "I" sponsors is = increasing in IBD's tables. Another huge error I've made, which I'm embarrassed to mention, but = hopefully I won't do it anymore, is that when I look at C and A I have just been looking at = IBD's EPS #=20 instead of the actual #s. I thought that using EPS > 80 would be good = enough and that I=20 wouldn't have to check the actual #s. After posting a few stocks that = had EPS > 80 and=20 having members inform me that the recent Q wasn't up enough, I began = checking and it's not too uncommon to have EPS > 80 and not have a good recent Q. Your posts have been very helpful! Thanks! Larry Horn - -----Original Message----- From: dbphoenix [SMTP:dbphoenix@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, May 21, 1998 11:21 AM To: canslim@lists.xmission.com Subject: [CANSLIM] CANSLIM, "M", and DG alternatives (Part One) When I was on AOL, I worked with a lot of newbies, not only to CS, but to investing as well. Still do. And the two most common mistakes they made (and a lot of people who should know better) were (1) to fail to distinguish between CS and IBD and (2) to fail to distinguish between what CS suggests and what CS requires. There are certain elements which CS requires. =20 Accepting that, it pays to reread the book. A great many things that CSers take as gospel turn out to be merely suggestions. Follow the=20 same exercise for all the other elements. "Wiggle room" takes on a whole new aspect. On the other hand, there are certain minimums with regard to earnings strength, earnings stability, revenues (which are hardly ever mentioned), chart patterns, etc. Find out what those are and you'll be way ahead of the game rather than slogging through the mud, trying to figure out not only where to start, but how to get over there from over here. One must also take it upon himself to assume the responsibility of staying current. It should come as no shock that O'N touts large-cap stocks since large-caps are included in HTMMIS (the idea that CS is a small-cap start-up strategy is a misconception). But beyond that, changes have been made. The five-year earnings stability record is no longer required. Revenues are now included, as are debt/equity and ROE. Rolling quarters are now a factor. Is this a betrayal? Of course not. Yes the book could use a thorough revision. But so could the Bill of Rights, according to some. And the Bible, also according to some. In the meantime, we must do the best we can with what we have and stop following the model of the Spanish Inquisitors. - --Db _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com - - ------------------------------ End of canslim-digest V2 #258 ***************************** 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.