From: owner-canslim-digest@lists.xmission.com (canslim-digest) To: canslim-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: canslim-digest V2 #372 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 Monday, August 31 1998 Volume 02 : Number 372 In this issue: Re: [CANSLIM] NonCanslim - World Currencies/Bonds/etc... Liquidity! Aha! [CANSLIM] TMBS [CANSLIM] Top Ten Group Performances - 4 Week [CANSLIM] Recession, "M" [CANSLIM] Top Ten Group Performance - 1 Week Re: [CANSLIM] Back to where we started [CANSLIM] Expert on EMA Re: [CANSLIM] Expert on EMA Re: [CANSLIM] Recession, "M" Re: [CANSLIM] Recession, "M" [CANSLIM] Asian Market Web Site - Bloomberg [CANSLIM] Today's Wrong! Article ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1998 10:44:53 -0400 From: Al French Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] NonCanslim - World Currencies/Bonds/etc... Liquidity! Aha! Frank V. Wolynski wrote: > > Found this in a Usenet Group. > At the risk of sounding entirely dumb, who is Jeff Steinberg and > Steven Lewis? > > Frank Wolynski > ----------------------------------------------------------- [snip] > JEFF STEINBERG: Well, we're going to have to cut off at this > point. Steven, I want to thank you again for your most > informative comments. And I would hope, as this crisis plays out, > that we'll have another opportunity to speak in the near future. > MR. STEVEN LEWIS: Well, I hope we're all still around then. > Thank you. > > JEFF STEINBERG: Thanks very much. > > for more information about EIR and the LaRouche movement: > [snip] I wouldn't even believe the page numbers in the Executive Intelligence Review. Apparently, Lyndon LaRouche's movement continues even though he was jailed for fraud. Al French - - ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1998 09:49:29 -0500 (CDT) From: mckeener@ix.netcom.com Subject: [CANSLIM] TMBS Jans, thanks for your input. Not a time to buy anything now. TMBS went below its 200-day MA on above-average volume Friday. A good time to short. Regards, Mary - - ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1998 11:04:36 -0400 From: "Frank V. Wolynski" Subject: [CANSLIM] Top Ten Group Performances - 4 Week 4 Week Group Performance Tabulations: This week, the group aggregated percentage change was a whopping -1472%. This week, 4 groups advanced, 193 declined. Best 4 Week Performance: 4Wk Percentage This Week Last Week Rank Group Gain IBD Ranking IBD Ranking # 1 Retail-Drug Stores 6.1% 4 10 # 2 Utility-Electric Power 3.6% 16 63 # 3 Utility-Water Supply 1.9% 9 51 # 4 Funeral Svcs & Rel -1.6% 69 78 # 5 Medical-Drug/Diversified -3.0% 5 16 # 6 Utility-Gas Distribution -3.6% 91 135 # 7 Finance-Public Td Inv Fd -3.7% 49 105 # 8 Media-Newspapers -4.7% 48 85 # 9 Media-Books -4.8% 25 40 #10 Finance-Equity Reit -4.8% 104 144 Worst 4 Week Performance: 4Wk Percentage This Week Last Week Rank Group Gain IBD Ranking IBD Ranking #197 Banks-Money Center -31.0% 124 77 #196 Computer Softwr-Security -30.4% 146 111 #195 Computer Softwr-Internet -30.1% 1 1 #194 Retail-Consumer Elect -29.5% 47 7 #193 Retail-Discount&Variety -27.1% 116 80 #192 Telecommunctns-Cellulr -25.9% 6 4 #191 Retail-Mail Order&Direct -24.7% 85 33 #190 Banks-Foreign -24.5% 125 102 #189 Financial Services-Misc -24.5% 33 9 #188 Finance-Investment Bkrs -24.4% 54 26 FWIW, Frank Wolynski - - ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1998 11:00:55 -0400 From: "Tom Worley" Subject: [CANSLIM] Recession, "M" While I have seen several commentaries that give little weight or concern to the latest income vs spending figures, I remain worried. As I previously posted, a drop in spending below income increases levels would mark a break in the trend we have been seeing. And considering that consumer spending is about the only remaining "engine" fueling the US economy, it takes on far greater significance. For those that missed the numbers, but consider them important, this is what was released on Friday: Personal Income: Original Est +0.2% Final Est +0.3% Actual +0.5% Last month +0.3% Personal Spending: Original Est +0.1% Final Est unchanged Actual -0.2% Last Month +0.6% With the recent sharp drop in the mkts, thus eliminating the "instant wealth" created by mkt profits and thereby funding the typical deficit consumer spending we have seen for the past year or so, and the resulting shift in consumer sentiment from positive to negative (or at least much less positive, depending on which poll you follow), there is a real potential for the last "engine" which has been supporting the US economy to finally be failing. Worse, many consumers who have been relying on "the good times keep on rolling" may now find themselves in difficult times financially. Last month's personal spending results may just be a one time blip caused by GM's strike, and employment does remain very strong. However, consumers have been doing the same thing as Congress has done for decades, deficit spending. Consumers however have far greater personal accountability. Looking at the latest list of those stocks in the DG books that hit a new high last week, it is the shortest yet since DG started this report, only 66 total and only 24 that meet WON's basic criteria of RS/EPS of 80/80 or better. Included are TSFW, OMC, MNMD, KRON, PHM, KR, EAGL, OXE, IPG, JKHY, VOD, SAI, WPI, ESI, ARTNA, CSCO, TAN, NE, DELL, LLY, WMT, RAD, WAG, and BEI. Note the predominance of NYSE issues, the absence of tech issues (aside from the apparently unstoppable CSCO and DELL), and the general absence of NASDAQ stocks in general. Do not underestimate the extent of damage done this past week, any more than you should underestimate the power of the institutionals, which continue to fuel the rise of CSCO and DELL despite the lack of participation by the tech sector in general. The extent of undercutting on every index achieved on Thu and Fri is significant. While I still hold a bullish attitude, I am far more likely to cash out on any rally than ever in nearly a decade. Tom W - - ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1998 11:31:19 -0400 From: "Frank V. Wolynski" Subject: [CANSLIM] Top Ten Group Performance - 1 Week 1 Week Group Performance Tabulations: Anyone have any stocks on their watch list in the Transportation-Rail Group? How about infrastructure companies in that group as well? You should care less what I or anyone, (no matter how much of a Guru they are perceived to be) else thinks or values the market at fundamentally. What it has been doing, is going down, and as of Fridays close was continuing to do so. Best 1 Week Performance: 1Wk Percentage This Week Last Week Rank Group Gain IBD Ranking IBD Ranking 0000,8080,0000# 1 Retail-Drug Stores .4% 4 10 # 2 Utility-Electric Power .2% 16 63 # 3 Utility-Water Supply .1% 9 51 # 4 Medical-Drug/Diversified .0% 5 16 ffff,0000,0000# 5 Electrical-Connectors - .4% 164 182 # 6 Real Estate Operations - .9% 102 96 # 7 Food-Meat Products -1.1% 151 29 # 8 Media-Newspapers -1.4% 48 85 # 9 Insurance-Acc & Health -1.4% 159 161 #10 Transportation-Rail -1.7% 155 173 0000,0000,ffffCan you imagine 4 Rows of Green and 193 rows of Red in my complete printout? My daily reports are no better! ffff,0000,0000 Worst 1 Week Performance: 1Wk Percentage This Week Last Week Rank Group Gain IBD Ranking IBD Ranking ffff,0000,0000#197 Computer Softwr-Internet - -31.2% 1 1 #196 Retail-Consumer Elect -20.4% 47 7 #195 Computer Softwr-Security -16.5% 146 111 #194 Finance-Investment Bkrs -15.5% 54 26 #193 Banks-Money Center -13.9% 124 77 #192 Financial Services-Misc -13.7% 33 9 #191 Retail-Apparel/Shoe -13.5% 26 24 #190 Telecommunications-Svcs -13.5% 17 15 #189 Computer Softwr-Educ/Entr -13.2% 89 92 #188 Computer-Local Networks -12.9% 42 21 FWIW, Frank Wolynski - - ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1998 09:21:39 -0400 From: Kom Tukovinit Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Back to where we started Hi, What I notice is the following: DJ30: has broken the trend line started in 11/94 (brief resistence) Nasdaq: has broken the trend line started in 4/97 (brief resistence), and is now resting on the trend line started in 12/94 Russell 2000: has broken the trend line started in 12/94 (brief resistence) S&P 500: has broken the trend line strated in 4/97 (brief resistence), and is now approaching the trend line started in 12/94. If either the Nasdaq and S&P 500 follows the DJ30, then I most likely will think that the slope of the bull market is changing or we are in the beginning of the bear market. Hey, what about that 4-year bull market theory? Now is the time for bear market, eh? kom - - ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1998 13:34:03 -0500 From: "Michael Doroshenko" Subject: [CANSLIM] Expert on EMA Hello Group: I have been studying EMAs for the last couple of weeks and have written a program that charts this indicator. I am very puzzled at how it is charting. Is it true that an EMA chart will look different for each plotting period that is specified? I know that the EMA must start first with an SMA for a set period and then the EMA derives from that SMA. If I first plot an EMA for a one-month period, I first have to create an SMA for a month's worth of observations. In essence, I am calculating my SMA for the previous month to start the calculation of the EMA for the current month. I than can calculate and plot my EMA for the current month. But if I plot an EMA for a period of two months worth of observations, I must first create my SMA for the previous two months and then can calculate my EMA for the current two month period. I have looked at Bigcharts and tested for different time periods and I think that I see a difference in the EMA depending on the plotting period. But I am asking for confirmation from someone that this is true. Also, is it true that the number of observations that you are using in the plotting period also affects the calculations for an EMA? The SMA would change for a five-day observation compared to a 10-day observation of which would be plotted for the period of say one month. Sorry, if I am being obsessive here with EMAs, but I do want to understand them and use them correctly. If there is anything here that is wrong, such as the construction of an EMA, please let me know. I do want to construct an EMA the right way. I do have the book, "Technical Analysis Explained" by Martin J. Pring, but this book discusses an EMA a little but doesn't give a thorough explanation. Thank you Michael Doroshenko - - ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1998 21:01:41 +0200 From: Johan Van Houtven Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Expert on EMA http://lonestar.texas.net/~rgdoczzz/Text/text-ema.htm An exponential (or exponentially weighted) moving average is calculated by applying a percentage of today's closing price to yesterday's moving average value. For example, to calculate a 9% exponential moving average of GLM: First, we would take today's closing price and multiply it by 9%. We would then add this product to the value of yesterday's moving average multiplied by 91% (100% - 9% = 91%). m.a. = [(today's close) x 0.09] + [(yesterday's m.a.) x 0.91] The method used to calculate an exponential moving average puts more weight toward recent data and less weight toward past data than does the simple moving average method. This method is often called exponentially weighted http://www.wsdinc.com/glossary/g219.shtml Exponential Moving Averages Exponentially Weighted Average (EWA) applies a percentage of today's closing price to yesterdays moving average calculation. This gives more importance to the most recent days as compared to the simple moving average which treats each day equally. Today's EWA = Yesterday's EWA + (Percentage)(today's price - yesterday's EWA) New Moving Average=(Last MA Value)*(1-(2/(n+1)))+(New Price)*(2/(n+1)) MA=Moving Average n=Length of Moving Average New Price = Most Recent Closing Price of Stock At 01:34 PM 30-08-98 -0500, you wrote: >Hello Group: >I have been studying EMAs for the last couple of weeks and have written a >program that charts this indicator. I am very puzzled at how it is charting. >Is it true that an EMA chart will look different for each plotting period >that is specified? I know that the EMA must start first with an SMA for a >set period and then the EMA derives from that SMA. If I first plot an EMA >for a one-month period, I first have to create an SMA for a month's worth of >observations. In essence, I am calculating my SMA for the previous month to >start the calculation of the EMA for the current month. I than can calculate >and plot my EMA for the current month. But if I plot an EMA for a period of >two months worth of observations, I must first create my SMA for the >previous two months and then can calculate my EMA for the current two month >period. I have looked at Bigcharts and tested for different time periods and >I think that I see a difference in the EMA depending on the plotting period. >But I am asking for confirmation from someone that this is true. Also, is it >true that the number of observations that you are using in the plotting >period also affects the calculations for an EMA? The SMA would change for a >five-day observation compared to a 10-day observation of which would be >plotted for the period of say one month. Sorry, if I am being obsessive here >with EMAs, but I do want to understand them and use them correctly. If there >is anything here that is wrong, such as the construction of an EMA, please >let me know. I do want to construct an EMA the right way. I do have the >book, "Technical Analysis Explained" by Martin J. Pring, but this book >discusses an EMA a little but doesn't give a thorough explanation. > >Thank you >Michael Doroshenko > > > > >- > > Johan Van Houtven / CLICK! N.V. - - ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1998 21:15:31 +0200 From: Johan Van Houtven Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Recession, "M" Tom, Here's a viewpoint from a Luxembourg based fund manager: (note that it was written around 08/25/98!). I would appreciate your comments on his last few sentences. - --- start of included mail --- Equity markets were exceptionally volatile last week, with sharp moves in both directions as investors reacted-and over-reacted-to international news. On Monday the Dow Jones rose 149.85 points, followed by a rise of 139.8 points on Tuesday. This was matched in London on Tuesday with a rise of 181 on the FTSE 100, an increase of 3.3%. However, as the crisis in Russia matured, markets became increasingly anxious about the possible fall-out, particularly (though for different reasons) in Germany and Latin America. The attacks on Afghanistan and Sudan, though with little direct effect, heightened the tense mood. German exposure to Russia is through bank lending. This amounts to around DM54 billion (US$33 billion). However, some DM20 billion (US$12 billion) is in export credits guaranteed by the German federal government. The remaining amount is thought to be already 2/3 provided for. German exports to Russia are worth DM16.5 billion (US$10 billion), less than 2% of the total. Trade relations between Russia and other eastern and central European economies are also fairly minimal, accounting for 4% of Polish and 2.5% of Czech exports. There is no real danger of Russia causing a significant seizure of the German financial system-but new commercial finance will have come to a stop, blocking off future exports. The effect in Latin America may be more substantial, but is indirect. There are two hits. One is the impact on commodity prices-which has already caused a devaluation in Venezuela and three budget cut-backs in Mexico. The other is speculative attack on fixed or managed exchange rate regimes-including Brazil and Argentina-comparable with Russia. Although Brazil and Argentina have ample reserves-US$70 billion in Brazil-they also depend heavily, like Russia, on short-term debt. As interest rates are forced up to attract and hold lenders, the domestic economy is forced into recession-increasing the temptation for the government to ease the pressure by letting go the currency. A currency/liquidity collapse in Brazil and Argentina would almost certainly engulf Mexico and could possibly involve Canada, which is also a resource based economy. This would have both a positive and a negative impact in the US. Commodity prices-especially oil and copper-would fall further, as would the cost of other Latin American inputs, including labour. US interest rates would also be more likely to fall-a scenario which the futures markets are already beginning to toy with. Negative effects, meanwhile, would be sector and stock specific, though could still be substantial. Banks would be hurt, as would the local profits of automotive, technology, airline and consumer stocks. Non-US American markets account for around 6% of US corporate profits. - --- end of included mail --- At 11:00 AM 30-08-98 -0400, you wrote: >While I have seen several commentaries that give little weight or >concern to the latest income vs spending figures, I remain worried. As >I previously posted, a drop in spending below income increases levels >would mark a break in the trend we have been seeing. And considering >that consumer spending is about the only remaining "engine" fueling >the US economy, it takes on far greater significance. > >For those that missed the numbers, but consider them important, this >is what was released on Friday: > >Personal Income: >Original Est +0.2% >Final Est +0.3% >Actual +0.5% >Last month +0.3% > >Personal Spending: >Original Est +0.1% >Final Est unchanged >Actual -0.2% >Last Month +0.6% > >With the recent sharp drop in the mkts, thus eliminating the "instant >wealth" created by mkt profits and thereby funding the typical deficit >consumer spending we have seen for the past year or so, and the >resulting shift in consumer sentiment from positive to negative (or at >least much less positive, depending on which poll you follow), there >is a real potential for the last "engine" which has been supporting >the US economy to finally be failing. Worse, many consumers who have >been relying on "the good times keep on rolling" may now find >themselves in difficult times financially. Last month's personal >spending results may just be a one time blip caused by GM's strike, >and employment does remain very strong. However, consumers have been >doing the same thing as Congress has done for decades, deficit >spending. Consumers however have far greater personal accountability. > >Looking at the latest list of those stocks in the DG books that hit a >new high last week, it is the shortest yet since DG started this >report, only 66 total and only 24 that meet WON's basic criteria of >RS/EPS of 80/80 or better. > >Included are TSFW, OMC, MNMD, KRON, PHM, KR, EAGL, OXE, IPG, JKHY, >VOD, SAI, WPI, ESI, ARTNA, CSCO, TAN, NE, DELL, LLY, WMT, RAD, WAG, >and BEI. Note the predominance of NYSE issues, the absence of tech >issues (aside from the apparently unstoppable CSCO and DELL), and the >general absence of NASDAQ stocks in general. > >Do not underestimate the extent of damage done this past week, any >more than you should underestimate the power of the institutionals, >which continue to fuel the rise of CSCO and DELL despite the lack of >participation by the tech sector in general. The extent of >undercutting on every index achieved on Thu and Fri is significant. > >While I still hold a bullish attitude, I am far more likely to cash >out on any rally than ever in nearly a decade. > >Tom W > > > >- > > Johan Van Houtven / CLICK! N.V. - - ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1998 21:47:25 -0400 From: "Tom Worley" Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Recession, "M" Johan, A further drop in the price of oil or copper is unlikely to be reflected at the consumer side. Certainly, drops in crude oil over the past month or so have not resulted in lower prices at the pump in South Florida. As for interest rate changes, the Feds are pretty severely constrained on this; they can't raise rates as there is no hard evidence of inflation to justify it (so politically unacceptable) and it also would make the US dollar more attractive, further hurting other currencies already in trouble. Likewise a lowering of rates while employment remains so strong, and employment costs are showing signs of increasing, is equally unacceptable as there is no basis for a cut. Should the USA slip into a recession, then a cut might be justified. However, Q2 GDP still showed positive nrs, thus it is likely to take another two qtrs of data before a cut might be justified (and personally I doubt that the data would support a cut). I do agree that reaction so far has been overdone. That, however, does not prevent things getting even worse, emotional swings can be excessive and severe. Tom W - -----Original Message----- From: Johan Van Houtven To: canslim@lists.xmission.com Date: Sunday, August 30, 1998 3:17 PM Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Recession, "M" >Tom, > >Here's a viewpoint from a Luxembourg based fund manager: (note that it was >written around 08/25/98!). I would appreciate your comments on his last few >sentences. > >--- start of included mail --- > >Equity markets were exceptionally volatile last week, with sharp moves in both > >directions as investors reacted-and over-reacted-to international news. On > >Monday the Dow Jones rose 149.85 points, followed by a rise of 139.8 points on > >Tuesday. This was matched in London on Tuesday with a rise of 181 on the FTSE > >100, an increase of 3.3%. However, as the crisis in Russia matured, markets > >became increasingly anxious about the possible fall-out, particularly (though > >for different reasons) in Germany and Latin America. The attacks on >Afghanistan > >and Sudan, though with little direct effect, heightened the tense mood. > >German exposure to Russia is through bank lending. This amounts to around DM54 > >billion (US$33 billion). However, some DM20 billion (US$12 billion) is in > >export credits guaranteed by the German federal government. The remaining > >amount is thought to be already 2/3 provided for. German exports to Russia are > >worth DM16.5 billion (US$10 billion), less than 2% of the total. Trade > >relations between Russia and other eastern and central European economies are > >also fairly minimal, accounting for 4% of Polish and 2.5% of Czech exports. > >There is no real danger of Russia causing a significant seizure of the German > >financial system-but new commercial finance will have come to a stop, blocking > >off future exports. > >The effect in Latin America may be more substantial, but is indirect. There >are > >two hits. One is the impact on commodity prices-which has already caused a > >devaluation in Venezuela and three budget cut-backs in Mexico. The other is > >speculative attack on fixed or managed exchange rate regimes-including Brazil > >and Argentina-comparable with Russia. Although Brazil and Argentina have ample > >reserves-US$70 billion in Brazil-they also depend heavily, like Russia, on > >short-term debt. As interest rates are forced up to attract and hold lenders, > >the domestic economy is forced into recession-increasing the temptation for >the > >government to ease the pressure by letting go the currency. A > >currency/liquidity collapse in Brazil and Argentina would almost certainly > >engulf Mexico and could possibly involve Canada, which is also a resource >based > >economy. > >This would have both a positive and a negative impact in the US. Commodity > >prices-especially oil and copper-would fall further, as would the cost of >other > >Latin American inputs, including labour. US interest rates would also be more > >likely to fall-a scenario which the futures markets are already beginning to > >toy with. Negative effects, meanwhile, would be sector and stock specific, > >though could still be substantial. Banks would be hurt, as would the local > >profits of automotive, technology, airline and consumer stocks. Non-US >American > >markets account for around 6% of US corporate profits. > >--- end of included mail --- > > > >At 11:00 AM 30-08-98 -0400, you wrote: >>While I have seen several commentaries that give little weight or >>concern to the latest income vs spending figures, I remain worried. As >>I previously posted, a drop in spending below income increases levels >>would mark a break in the trend we have been seeing. And considering >>that consumer spending is about the only remaining "engine" fueling >>the US economy, it takes on far greater significance. >> >>For those that missed the numbers, but consider them important, this >>is what was released on Friday: >> >>Personal Income: >>Original Est +0.2% >>Final Est +0.3% >>Actual +0.5% >>Last month +0.3% >> >>Personal Spending: >>Original Est +0.1% >>Final Est unchanged >>Actual -0.2% >>Last Month +0.6% >> >>With the recent sharp drop in the mkts, thus eliminating the "instant >>wealth" created by mkt profits and thereby funding the typical deficit >>consumer spending we have seen for the past year or so, and the >>resulting shift in consumer sentiment from positive to negative (or at >>least much less positive, depending on which poll you follow), there >>is a real potential for the last "engine" which has been supporting >>the US economy to finally be failing. Worse, many consumers who have >>been relying on "the good times keep on rolling" may now find >>themselves in difficult times financially. Last month's personal >>spending results may just be a one time blip caused by GM's strike, >>and employment does remain very strong. However, consumers have been >>doing the same thing as Congress has done for decades, deficit >>spending. Consumers however have far greater personal accountability. >> >>Looking at the latest list of those stocks in the DG books that hit a >>new high last week, it is the shortest yet since DG started this >>report, only 66 total and only 24 that meet WON's basic criteria of >>RS/EPS of 80/80 or better. >> >>Included are TSFW, OMC, MNMD, KRON, PHM, KR, EAGL, OXE, IPG, JKHY, >>VOD, SAI, WPI, ESI, ARTNA, CSCO, TAN, NE, DELL, LLY, WMT, RAD, WAG, >>and BEI. Note the predominance of NYSE issues, the absence of tech >>issues (aside from the apparently unstoppable CSCO and DELL), and the >>general absence of NASDAQ stocks in general. >> >>Do not underestimate the extent of damage done this past week, any >>more than you should underestimate the power of the institutionals, >>which continue to fuel the rise of CSCO and DELL despite the lack of >>participation by the tech sector in general. The extent of >>undercutting on every index achieved on Thu and Fri is significant. >> >>While I still hold a bullish attitude, I am far more likely to cash >>out on any rally than ever in nearly a decade. >> >>Tom W >> >> >> >>- >> >> > >Johan Van Houtven / CLICK! N.V. > > > > >- > - - ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1998 23:06:49 -0400 From: "Frank V. Wolynski" Subject: [CANSLIM] Asian Market Web Site - Bloomberg Looks fairly in depth and timely, probably has other world markets, haven't check that out yet. http://www.bloomberg.com/@@VivqmAcAXOdU*7S6/markets/asia.html Frank Wolynski - - ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1998 12:18:46 -0400 From: Craig Griffin Subject: [CANSLIM] Today's Wrong! Article Interesting reading from Cramer, http://fnews.yahoo.com/street/98/08/31/wrong_980831.html We may get a bounce here - but the intermediate to long term destruction is widespread and will not be resolved soon. I would be surprised by a buy signal anytime in the next month or two, but will consider taking it if it comes. Best regards, Craig - - ------------------------------ End of canslim-digest V2 #372 ***************************** 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.