From: owner-canslim-digest@lists.xmission.com (canslim-digest) To: canslim-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: canslim-digest V2 #2805 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 Thursday, August 15 2002 Volume 02 : Number 2805 In this issue: Re: [CANSLIM] UCBH Re: [CANSLIM] UCBH Re: [CANSLIM] UCBH Re: [CANSLIM] UCBH re: [CANSLIM] Today's IBD "Would you buy this stock?" [CANSLIM] CEO / CFO certifications re: [CANSLIM] Today's IBD "Would you buy this stock?" ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 14:36:03 -0700 From: "NANCY POLCARO" Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] UCBH - ------=_NextPart_001_0000_01C24469.15375D80 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Charley-can you explain to me why 17% growth will equal $56.00 and why i= t will change if the P/E changes?? Thank You Nancy =20 =20 - ----- Original Message ----- From: Ann Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 10:37 AM To: canslim@lists.xmission.com Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] UCBH =20 Thanks, Ed and Charley. =20 - ----- Original Message ----- =20 From: Ed McDonough =20 To: canslim@lists.xmission.com =20 Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 1:34 PM Subject: RE: [CANSLIM] UCBH Charley, =20 56 sounds good to me. =20 That would be another 30%. Not to shabby. =20 By the way, it doesn=E2=80=99t matter what industry the stock is in if it= goes up. =20 =20 As long as it goes up, I win. =20 Play the game to win. =20 Ed =20 - -----Original Message----- From: owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com [mailto:owner-canslim@lists.xmissi= on.com] On Behalf Of Chazmoore@aol.com Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 1:20 PM To: canslim@lists.xmission.com Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] UCBH =20 Ed and Ann: =20 Perhaps you are right Ed. You certainly are as we look back. In June 2000= the stock was at $14.; in June 2001 it was at $28.; in June 2002 it was = at $37. I would say that qualifies as a growth stock. =20 It is hard to say what the future holds but they are forecasting 17% grow= th in 2003, and if they meet that goal (assuming a P/E of 25) the price s= hould rise to $56. Note that their current P/E of 25 represents a five ye= ar high. =20 The point I was making is that the company seems to be nearing the end of= this truly remarkable growth (for a bank). =20 Thanks for bringing up the subject. =20 Charley - ------=_NextPart_001_0000_01C24469.15375D80 Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Charley-can you explain to me why 17% gro= wth will equal  $56.00 and why it will change if the P/E changes?? T= hank You Nancy 
 
----- Origin= al Message -----
From: Ann
<= B>Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 10:37 AM
To: canslim@lists.xmission.com
Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] UCBH
 
=
Thanks, Ed and C= harley.
 
----- Or= iginal Message -----
From: Ed McDonough
To: canslim@lists.xmission.com
=
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 1= :34 PM
Subject: RE: [CANSLIM= ] UCBH

= Charley,

 

56 sounds good to me.

 

That would be another 30%.  Not to shabby.

 <= /o:p>

B= y the way, it doesn=E2=80=99t matter what industry the stock is in if it = goes up. 

 <= /o:p>

A= s long as it goes up, I win.

 

Play the game to win.

 

Ed

 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com [mailto:ow= ner-canslim@lists.xmission.com] On B= ehalf Of Chazmoore@aol.com
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 1:20 PM
To: canslim@lists.xmission.com
Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] UCBH<= /P>

 

= Ed and Ann:
Perhaps you are right Ed. You certainly are as we look ba= ck. In June 2000 the stock was at $14.; in June 2001 it was at $28.; in J= une 2002 it was at $37. I would say that qualifies as a growth stock.
It is hard to say what the future holds but they are forecasting 17%= growth in 2003, and if they meet that goal (assuming a P/E of 25) the pr= ice should rise to $56. Note that their current P/E of 25 represents a fi= ve year high.

The point I was making is that the company seems to= be nearing the end of this truly remarkable growth (for a bank).
Thanks for bringing up the subject.

Charley

- ------=_NextPart_001_0000_01C24469.15375D80-- - - - -To subscribe/unsubscribe, email "majordomo@xmission.com" - -In the email body, write "subscribe canslim" or - -"unsubscribe canslim". Do not use quotes in your email. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 17:47:41 EDT From: Chazmoore@aol.com Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] UCBH - --part1_138.12f620ef.2a8d7b7d_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Nancy: The Price Earnings Ratio is simply the stock price divided by the earnings. Therefore, if you know P/E ratio, and the Earnings, you can multiply and determine the price. From DGO we note the estimated earnings for 2003 to be $2.25 per share. The current P/E is 25. Therefore 25 X 2.25 = $56.25, the estimated price of the stock at the end of fiscal year 2003. Also from DGO we note the 5 year range of the P/E has been 5 to 24 so we can conclude the P/E is at a 5 year high, and historically, has not exceeded that amount. As you can see the $56 is just an educated guess based on available information. There is no rule which says the P/E cannot go to 50, and there is no rule that says earnings cannot double the estimate. However, if you want a ball park figure this is not bad. Charley - --part1_138.12f620ef.2a8d7b7d_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Nancy: The Price Earnings Ratio is simply the stock price divided by the earnings. Therefore, if you know P/E ratio, and the Earnings, you can multiply and determine the price.

From DGO we note the estimated earnings for 2003 to be $2.25 per share.
The current P/E is 25.
Therefore 25 X 2.25 = $56.25, the estimated price of the stock at the end of fiscal year 2003.
Also from DGO we note the 5 year range of the P/E has been 5 to 24 so we can conclude the P/E is at a 5 year high, and historically, has not exceeded that amount.

As you can see the $56 is just an educated guess based on available information. There is no rule which says the P/E cannot go to 50, and there is no rule that says earnings cannot double the estimate. However, if you want a ball park figure this is not bad.

Charley - --part1_138.12f620ef.2a8d7b7d_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: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 18:39:13 -0400 From: "Tom Worley" Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] UCBH This is a multi-part message in MIME format. - ------=_NextPart_000_0050_01C2448B.0D23FB40 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_001_0051_01C2448B.0D23FB40" - ------=_NextPart_001_0051_01C2448B.0D23FB40 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Institutional ownership includes, in addition to mutual funds, pension = funds, insurance companies, some banks (buying for their own account), = venture capital funds, etc. There are also some individual investors = that usually get counted, a certain Saudi Arabian prince comes to mind, = who will buy $50 to $250 million worth of stock at a time, easily the = size of a mutual fund order. A bank is not always an "institutional investor" (unless buying for its = own account) as it is often used as custodian, or even agent, for other = institutional accounts as well as many retail accounts. My employer is a = bank, and also custodian for its securities clients. As such, its = collective holdings of some securities would easily be large enough to = count as "institutional" in size, yet they are not because the end owner = is a retail client of the bank, often making his or her own investment = decisions. WON does not count bank holdings for this reason, as it is difficult to = distinguish bank holdings as "proxy owner" from own holdings, same as a = broker dealer holding in street name for its clients. - ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Gene Ricci=20 To: canslim@lists.xmission.com=20 Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 11:25 AM Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] UCBH Ann, my data source shows growth at 18, not too shabby for a bank... Charley... I'm awaiting a definitive answer from IBD on institutional = ownership. I've asked them what they count and what they don't count = because of the significant differences in the 'numbers' from different = data suppliers. My second question to them is 'why aren't banks and = pension funds, etc. counted in their numbers.=20 In the Q&A below, IBD switches between calling it institutional = ownership and mutual funds... if a bank isn't an institution why doesn't = IBD just call it funds?=20 What is a level of institutional ownership you consider when = buying a stock? If too many shares are already owned by institutional = investors, can that hurt a stock's chances of rising?=20 =20 Answer=20 It is hard to tell how much institutional ownership is too much. = Therefore, you should place less weight on this factor. Rather, focus on = the quality of ownership. You want to see at least a few of the better = performing mutual funds owning the stock you are considering buying. In = some cases, however, if too many shares are owned by institutional = investors, this could be bad. That's because it represents large = potential selling if anything goes wrong with the company or the general = market. =20 ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Chazmoore@aol.com=20 To: canslim@lists.xmission.com=20 Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 8:58 AM Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] UCBH Ann: I will give you my thoughts to get you started.=20 Fundamentally, the stock looks sound. You say they lost a fraud suit = but for the time being the market has not reacted negatively. You didn't = say when, but if it wasn't yesterday, I wouldn't put much weight on it. = The market tends to respond very quickly to negative news.=20 You didn't state your investment goals, but in my opinion this is not = a growth stock. For one thing if institutions own 91% now, there simply = isn't enough stock available to new buyers to move the price = significantly. That does not mean they cannot enjoy good steady slow = growth. The funds own 31%; WON recommends staying below 25%.=20 The real positive for this stock is the Group RS rating, and the Price = RS.=20 The negative is the very weak market.=20 Charley=20 - ------=_NextPart_001_0051_01C2448B.0D23FB40 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Institutional ownership includes, in addition to = mutual=20 funds, pension funds, insurance companies, some banks (buying for their = own=20 account), venture capital funds, etc.  There are also some = individual=20 investors that usually get counted, a certain Saudi Arabian prince comes = to=20 mind, who will buy $50 to $250 million worth of stock at a time, easily = the size=20 of a mutual fund order.
 
A bank is not always an "institutional investor" = (unless=20 buying for its own account) as it is often used as custodian, or even = agent, for=20 other institutional accounts as well as many retail accounts. My = employer is a=20 bank, and also custodian for its securities clients. As such, its = collective=20 holdings of some securities would easily be large enough to count as=20 "institutional" in size, yet they are not because the end owner is a = retail=20 client of the bank, often making his or her own investment=20 decisions.
 
WON does not count bank holdings for this = reason, as it is=20 difficult to distinguish bank holdings as "proxy owner" from own = holdings, same=20 as a broker dealer holding in street name for its clients.
 
----- Original Message -----=20
From: Gene Ricci =
To: canslim@lists.xmission.com=
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 11:25 AM
Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] UCBH

Ann, my data source shows growth at = 18, not too=20 shabby for a bank...
 
Charley... I'm awaiting a definitive = answer from=20 IBD on institutional ownership. I've asked them what they count and what = they=20 don't count because of the significant differences in the 'numbers' from = different data suppliers.  My second question to them is 'why = aren't=20 banks and pension funds, etc. counted in their numbers.
 
In the Q&A below, IBD switches = between=20 calling it institutional ownership and mutual funds... if a bank isn't = an=20 institution why doesn't IBD just call it funds?
 
 
What is a level of institutional ownership you = consider=20 when buying a stock? If too many shares are already owned by = institutional=20 investors, can that hurt a stock's chances of rising?
3D""=20
  Answer
  It is hard to tell how much institutional = ownership is=20 too much. Therefore, you should place less weight on this factor. = Rather,=20 focus on the quality of ownership. You want to see at least a few = of the=20 better performing mutual funds owning the stock you are = considering=20 buying. In some cases, however, if too many shares are owned by=20 institutional investors, this could be bad. That's because it = represents=20 large potential selling if anything goes wrong with the company or = the=20 general market.
 
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Chazmoore@aol.com
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 = 8:58=20 AM
Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] = UCBH

Ann: I will = give you my=20 thoughts to get you started.
Fundamentally, the stock looks sound. = You say=20 they lost a fraud suit but for the time being the market has not = reacted=20 negatively. You didn't say when, but if it wasn't yesterday, I = wouldn't put=20 much weight on it. The market tends to respond very quickly to = negative news.=20
You didn't state your investment goals, but in my opinion this is = not a=20 growth stock. For one thing if institutions own 91% now, there simply = isn't=20 enough stock available to new buyers to move the price significantly. = That=20 does not mean they cannot enjoy good steady slow growth. The funds own = 31%;=20 WON recommends staying below 25%.
The real positive for this stock = is the=20 Group RS rating, and the Price RS.
The negative is the very weak = market.=20

Charley - ------=_NextPart_001_0051_01C2448B.0D23FB40-- - ------=_NextPart_000_0050_01C2448B.0D23FB40 Content-Type: image/gif; name="trnsp.gif" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Location: http://investdaily.custhelp.com/rnt/rnw/img/trnsp.gif R0lGODlhAQABAJH/AP///wAAAP///wAAACH/C0FET0JFOklSMS4wAt7tACH5BAEAAAIALAAAAAAB AAEAAAICVAEAOw== - ------=_NextPart_000_0050_01C2448B.0D23FB40-- - - - -To subscribe/unsubscribe, email "majordomo@xmission.com" - -In the email body, write "subscribe canslim" or - -"unsubscribe canslim". Do not use quotes in your email. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 18:50:55 -0400 From: "Tom Worley" Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] UCBH Ann, several comments, I already addressed "institutional ownership" in another email just posted, but would add to that I have never seen a stock with true institutional ownership of 91%, unless the float was a very small percent of the total issue (and I would doubt it even then). Institutional investors want liquidity even more than us retail investors. If I see this ownership reported this high, I would immediately suspect wrong data, either because of a split, new issue, duplicate counting, or some other cause. Mutual fund ownership is high (DGO says 31% of the float of 18.6 million shares), and nr of funds owning has been growing (reported at 143 for June 02, up from 140 the prior qtr and 119 a year ago). So institutional ownership is going to be high, but no where near 91%. Second, you don't mention the chart pattern that you see. What I get is a double bottom, with the pivot occurring 7/29 as it passed 10 cents higher than the mid point of the "W" at a price of 40.05. The more cautious might have wanted to wait for 7/30 to see if it followed thru. Ironically, that would have put you into the stock just in time to catch the nearly 8% correction (good example of why this "M" suggests only buying a partial position, if you insist on buying at all). As for the fraud lawsuit loss, I must assume any mental, emotional or financial factors are already priced into the stock. The only issue it would have for me is what, if anything, it tells me about the ethics or honestly of management. DGO says Management owns 5% (vice Yahoo's 1%). - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ann" To: "CANSLIM Listserv" Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 8:59 AM Subject: [CANSLIM] UCBH I am trying to do DD, using Yahoo. Looking at chart, I believe that it broke out on 8/12 (pp 42.19). It is now at 42.40, which is well within the 2-3% limit that WON advises using (above breakout) in this M. On 8/14, it hit a new 52-wk high (42.73). I was trying to do my due diligence, and came across some puzzling pieces of info: Insiders only own 1%, whereas institutions own 91%. Is that worrisome? Also, they just lost a big fraud lawsuit! Sales growth is down, but less so thatn the rest of the industry. EPS quarterly growth is up 28%; annual 23% (if I am doing this right!). Pretax profit margin is 30%; after tax 18%. ROE is 20%. To me the company looks good, the industry is doing well. How significant is that court case? (I'm going for a walk. Hopefully I won't miss my big chance!) Ann - - - -To subscribe/unsubscribe, email "majordomo@xmission.com" - -In the email body, write "subscribe canslim" or - -"unsubscribe canslim". Do not use quotes in your email. - - - -To subscribe/unsubscribe, email "majordomo@xmission.com" - -In the email body, write "subscribe canslim" or - -"unsubscribe canslim". Do not use quotes in your email. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 17:54:48 -0500 From: "Katherine Malm" Subject: re: [CANSLIM] Today's IBD "Would you buy this stock?" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. - ------=_NextPart_000_0423_01C24484.D9266860 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Kelly, One more thing I intended to include was a comment on your original = question about the length of the handle. WON recommends that the handle = be *at least* 1 wk (5 trading days), but the length of the handle will = actually vary depending on the market and the characteristics of the = base itself. One of the articles I have in my file on handles states = "Don't be surprised if a good stock's handle stretches seven, eight, = even more than 10 straight weeks." (From "Very Short Handles Bear High = Risks" 11/29/01) Katherine - ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Katherine Malm=20 To: canslim@lists.xmission.com=20 Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 4:30 PM Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Today's IBD "Would you buy this stock?" Hi Charley and Kelly, A couple of things related to the MTON chart: To your point about the breakout being beyond the 5% limit of the = pivot---this is a weekly chart, so what you are seeing is the closing = price at the end of the week, not necessarily on the day it broke out on = volume. You'll have to look back at a daily from 4/01 to see it more = specifically. To the point about the handle droop--While 12-15% is the "norm", in Bear = markets, that droop can be as much as 30% according to WON. My = recollection of the 4/01 time period is that we were just beginning a = rally and so it wouldn't seem out of character for the handle to be as = deep as it was (by my estimation looking at the chart, about 25%). As = long as the handle forms on diminishing volume, is in the upper half of = the cup formation and above the 200 day MA, it's valid. Katherine ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Chazmoore@aol.com=20 To: canslim@lists.xmission.com=20 Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 4:07 PM Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Today's IBD "Would you buy this stock?" Kelly: Good for you. While I don't think there is anything wrong with = a 2 week handle, WON does state it should not droop more than 15%-20%. I = didn't study it as close as you did, but my reaction to the question was = NO. It looked to me like the breakout far exceeded 5% and we are = instructed not to chase it past 5%. Charley=20 ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Kelly Short=20 To: canslim@lists.xmission.com=20 Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 3:56 PM Subject: [CANSLIM] Today's IBD "Would you buy this stock?" In today's "Would you buy this stock?" Metro One Telecom is = featured. The chart shows a CwH formation and the answer to the quiz is = "Yes," you should have bought this stock. But is this the most beautiful = CwH formation there is? The handle continues for 14 days before the BO. = Doesn't WON recommend 3 - 7 days? During this time, it dips 50% from the = top of the right side. Seems that I remember WON suggesting a CwH = formation should correct around 20%. Thoughts anyone? - -------------------------------------------------------------------------= - --- - ------=_NextPart_000_0423_01C24484.D9266860 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Kelly,
 
One more thing I intended to include was a comment on your original = question about the length of the handle. WON recommends that the handle = be *at=20 least* 1 wk (5 trading days), but the length of the handle will actually = vary=20 depending on the market and the characteristics of the base itself. One = of the=20 articles I have in my file on handles states "Don't be surprised if a = good=20 stock's handle stretches seven, eight, even more than 10 straight = weeks." (From=20 "Very Short Handles Bear High Risks" 11/29/01)
 
Katherine
 
----- Original Message -----=20
From: Katherine Malm=20
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 4:30 PM
Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Today's IBD "Would you buy this=20 stock?"

Hi Charley and Kelly,
 
A couple of things related to the MTON chart:
 
To your point about the breakout being beyond the 5% limit of the=20 pivot---this is a weekly chart, so what you are seeing is the closing = price at=20 the end of the week, not necessarily on the day it broke out on volume. = You'll=20 have to look back at a daily from 4/01 to see it more = specifically.
 
To the point about the handle droop--While 12-15% is the "norm", in = Bear=20 markets, that droop can be as much as 30% according to WON. My = recollection of=20 the 4/01 time period is that we were just beginning a rally and so it = wouldn't=20 seem out of character for the handle to be as deep as it was (by my = estimation=20 looking at the chart, about 25%). As long as the handle forms on = diminishing=20 volume, is in the upper half of the cup formation and above the 200 day = MA, it's=20 valid.
 
Katherine
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Chazmoore@aol.com
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 = 4:07=20 PM
Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Today's = IBD "Would=20 you buy this stock?"

Kelly: Good for you. = While I=20 don't think there is anything wrong with a 2 week handle, WON does = state it=20 should not droop more than 15%-20%. I didn't study it as close as you = did, but=20 my reaction to the question was NO. It looked to me like the breakout = far=20 exceeded 5% and we are instructed not to chase it past 5%. = Charley=20
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Kelly Short
Sent: Thursday, August 15, = 2002 3:56=20 PM
Subject: [CANSLIM] Today's = IBD "Would=20 you buy this stock?"

In=20 today's "Would you buy this stock?" Metro One Telecom is featured. = The chart=20 shows a CwH formation and the answer to the quiz is "Yes," you = should have=20 bought this stock. But is this the most beautiful CwH formation = there is?=20 The handle continues for 14 days before the BO. Doesn't WON = recommend 3 - 7=20 days? During this time, it dips 50% from the top of the right side. = Seems=20 that I remember WON suggesting a CwH formation should correct around = 20%.=20 Thoughts anyone?
 

- ------=_NextPart_000_0423_01C24484.D9266860-- - - - -To subscribe/unsubscribe, email "majordomo@xmission.com" - -In the email body, write "subscribe canslim" or - -"unsubscribe canslim". Do not use quotes in your email. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 19:36:23 -0400 From: "Tom Worley" Subject: [CANSLIM] CEO / CFO certifications as per the SEC website, updated as of 7:10 PM tonight, following companies expected to report by yesterday still had not filed. No indication is shown of those that filed for the five day extension. Adolph Coors Company Advance Auto Parts, Inc. The AES Corporation Anadarko Petroleum Corporation Aon Corporation Aquila, Inc. Brightpoint, Inc. Cendant Corp Coca-Cola Enterprises Inc. Collins & Aikman Corp. Comdisco Inc. Conseco Inc. Consolidated Freightways Corp. Danaher Corporation DST Systems, Inc. Exide Technologies Foamex International Inc. Gemstar-TV Guide International Inc. Gentek Inc. Hercules Inc. Hub Group Inc. IT Group Inc. Jones Apparel Group Inc. Mariner Health Care Inc. McLeodUSA Incorporated Metaldyne Corporation MetLife Inc. Millennium Chemicals Inc. Newmont Mining Corporation NorthWestern Corporation NSTAR Perini Corp. Protective Life Corp. Qwest Communications Intl Reliant Energy Inc. Riverwood Holding Inc. Rock-Tenn Co. Sempra Energy. TXU Corp. U.S. Industries Inc. US Airways Group Inc. Weatherford International Inc. XO Communications Inc. Zions Bancorporation Tom Worley stkguru@bellsouth.net AIM: TexWorley - - - -To subscribe/unsubscribe, email "majordomo@xmission.com" - -In the email body, write "subscribe canslim" or - -"unsubscribe canslim". Do not use quotes in your email. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 16:55:26 -0700 (PDT) From: Jack Tencza Subject: re: [CANSLIM] Today's IBD "Would you buy this stock?" Katherine,this(Investor Quiz)looks like a daily chart. Jack - --- Katherine Malm wrote: > Hi Kelly, > > One more thing I intended to include was a comment > on your original question about the length of the > handle. WON recommends that the handle be *at least* > 1 wk (5 trading days), but the length of the handle > will actually vary depending on the market and the > characteristics of the base itself. One of the > articles I have in my file on handles states "Don't > be surprised if a good stock's handle stretches > seven, eight, even more than 10 straight weeks." > (From "Very Short Handles Bear High Risks" 11/29/01) > > Katherine > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Katherine Malm > To: canslim@lists.xmission.com > Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 4:30 PM > Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Today's IBD "Would you buy > this stock?" > > > Hi Charley and Kelly, > > A couple of things related to the MTON chart: > > To your point about the breakout being beyond the 5% > limit of the pivot---this is a weekly chart, so what > you are seeing is the closing price at the end of > the week, not necessarily on the day it broke out on > volume. You'll have to look back at a daily from > 4/01 to see it more specifically. > > To the point about the handle droop--While 12-15% is > the "norm", in Bear markets, that droop can be as > much as 30% according to WON. My recollection of the > 4/01 time period is that we were just beginning a > rally and so it wouldn't seem out of character for > the handle to be as deep as it was (by my estimation > looking at the chart, about 25%). As long as the > handle forms on diminishing volume, is in the upper > half of the cup formation and above the 200 day MA, > it's valid. > > Katherine > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Chazmoore@aol.com > To: canslim@lists.xmission.com > Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 4:07 PM > Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Today's IBD "Would you buy > this stock?" > > > Kelly: Good for you. While I don't think there is > anything wrong with a 2 week handle, WON does state > it should not droop more than 15%-20%. I didn't > study it as close as you did, but my reaction to the > question was NO. It looked to me like the breakout > far exceeded 5% and we are instructed not to chase > it past 5%. Charley > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Kelly Short > To: canslim@lists.xmission.com > Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 3:56 PM > Subject: [CANSLIM] Today's IBD "Would you buy > this stock?" > > > In today's "Would you buy this stock?" Metro One > Telecom is featured. The chart shows a CwH formation > and the answer to the quiz is "Yes," you should have > bought this stock. But is this the most beautiful > CwH formation there is? The handle continues for 14 > days before the BO. Doesn't WON recommend 3 - 7 > days? During this time, it dips 50% from the top of > the right side. Seems that I remember WON suggesting > a CwH formation should correct around 20%. Thoughts > anyone? > > > - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > ===== Jack __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs http://www.hotjobs.com - - - -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 #2805 ****************************** 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.