From: owner-canslim-digest@lists.xmission.com (canslim-digest) To: canslim-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: canslim-digest V2 #682 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 Sunday, August 22 1999 Volume 02 : Number 682 In this issue: Re: [CANSLIM] DGO List [CANSLIM] DGO List Re: [CANSLIM] DGO List Re: [CANSLIM] RT streaming quotes Re: [CANSLIM] RT streaming quotes [CANSLIM] My boy, Jeffry. [Connie Mack] [CANSLIM] DGO List [CANSLIM] new Marder on the Markets [CANSLIM] Charting Site [CANSLIM] Overall market health. [Connie Mack] Re: [CANSLIM] My boy, Jeffry. [Connie Mack] Re: [CANSLIM] Sentiment #'s [CANSLIM] My Boy, Dan (and Jeffry). [Connie Mack[ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 21 Aug 1999 16:33:33 -0400 From: Walter Stock Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] DGO List Hi Tom, The silence has been deafening. Very happy to hear from you again. Walter Oakville, Ontario, Canada Tom Worley wrote: > List criteria: RS/EPS 80/80 or better as of Friday; price at > or within 5% of 12 mos high in prior week; stocks in WON's > Daily Graphs books. Data from Daily Graphs Online. Total on > list this week: 146, last week: 108. > > Worth a second look based on chart only: CMED, TWRI, SUNW, > ETEK, KEI, TSII, DYN, SCOR, WLFI, USFC, ROP, PTSI, UCI, AGX, > ZBRA, BRC, CNYF, DOX, EQT, SFIN, ARC. > > Thought a few members might like the occasional CANSLIM > content post. > > Tom Worley > stkguru@netside.net > chat with me at ICQ # 5568838 > get ICQ software at http://www.icq.com/icqhomepage.html > > - - - ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 21 Aug 1999 15:32:26 -0500 (CDT) From: mckeen@ix.netcom.com Subject: [CANSLIM] DGO List Tom, Nice change. Thank you. Mary - - ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 21 Aug 1999 17:58:10 -0400 From: "Tom Worley" Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] DGO List Hi Walter, I thought the group had swung way too far in favor of the daytraders, technicians, and non CANSLIM (no matter how you arrange the letters) strategists. So I will try to come out of lurker retirement haven once a week and post the list. It's going to be up to the "silent majority" whether this list returns to being CANSLIM or not. And that's not a dig at Connie, as he has contributed hundreds of hours of his time to educating this group on using Technical Analysis to better improve our stock selection and especially timing, and I for one appreciate (and have gained from) his contributions over the past several years. Last I heard, we had around 700 members, and roughly 650 are never heard from. If they want this list to get back to being near pure CANSLIM, it's going to be up to them. In the meantime, I will remain a lurker, tho will try to post a weekly DGO List. My thoughts on "M", economics, Greenspan, etc will remain my own. Tom Worley stkguru@netside.net chat with me at ICQ # 5568838 get ICQ software at http://www.icq.com/icqhomepage.html - -----Original Message----- From: Walter Stock To: canslim@lists.xmission.com Date: Saturday, August 21, 1999 4:32 PM Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] DGO List Hi Tom, The silence has been deafening. Very happy to hear from you again. Walter Oakville, Ontario, Canada Tom Worley wrote: > List criteria: RS/EPS 80/80 or better as of Friday; price at - - ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 22 Aug 1999 00:50:47 +0200 From: Johan Van Houtven Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] RT streaming quotes Mary, Srteaming means continually updating (with you having to do anything). At 03:09 PM 8/21/99 -0500, you wrote: >Johan, > >What's a "streaming" quote? > >Mary Johan === - - ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 22 Aug 1999 00:53:38 +0200 From: Johan Van Houtven Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] RT streaming quotes >Srteaming means continually updating (with you having to do anything). Woops. I meant to write: 'Streaming' means continually updating (without you having to do anything). Johan === - - ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 21 Aug 1999 20:08:41 -0400 From: Connie Mack Rea Subject: [CANSLIM] My boy, Jeffry. [Connie Mack] Jeffry-- You are not yet armed to go public with your criticism. Had you written me privately, I would have taken your criticism differently. One of the rules for criticizing me is that I hold the critic accountable for his use of language. I find that excellence in writing is corollary to excellence in thinking. I'll hold you to the same standards of writing that I hold my students. Let's see how you grade out. I've put my comments in brackets. Jeffry wrote: My bewildered one, That note of thanks has been oft repeated, and will be repeated hence in one form or another. [What form does "another" allude to? It needlessly causes the reader to stop and think what the writer could mean.] Although the one you posted may not have been the first, my recollection is it was ["is it was" wads up in the mouth--and the brain] almost 2 [Good usage calls for "two."] years ago. And, if more recent, it long preceded your tireless drones [Don't believe that a careful speaker uses "drones" in this way. So it is, then, that the noise you imply is not tied to a legitimate context.] of late, a distracting noise without so much as a hint of a proffer toward its MANSLIC applicability. Fear not, I am eternally grateful for your 3,7,10 and slow stochasitcs cross-overs. They have, and I suspect, [The proper punctuation is "have, and, I suspect."] will continue to make and save me money. In return, I have only a coming holiday leg of lamb to offer, would that you'll accept. [Those comma splices are ever present for the uninitiated. Try this: "In return, I have . . . to offer. Would that you'll accept?" A serious error.] But let us not forget, professor, your visitor status was, as I understood, as TA *guru-extraordinaire* [The better pairing for the verb "was" is "TA *guru-extraordinaire*" rather than "as TA *guru-extraordinaire*." What do the asterisks mean? They do not, as far as I can see, have any recognized function in this context.] who could offer some light where the lowly WON could not. [Don't believe I ever thought to do what O'Neill could not. Rather, I meant to comment where he chose not to.] And now, anon, ["[A]non" implies a former instance; you have noted none.] we have digest after digest of your day trading journal. No longer do we hear the artful tutelage of the hardened trader. We are left instead with murky dregs [dregs are by definition murky], reflecting nothing greater than the din of self absorbtion [Believe you mean "absorption."]. Seemingly gone is the purity and clarity of past days. [When an apprentice day trader subscribes to any one of several sites, he asks to, and is permitted to, eavesdrop on every thought of the head trader. The head trader accommodates by constant and spidery detailed comment on each trade; the relationship is that of teacher and student. The Pristine Trader, as I recall, is just such a stewardship. My intent was to give the novice traders in the group frequent but not onerous comment as I moved through a trade. I always add my name to the subject line so those not interested won't be bothered. You just couldn't leave well enough alone.] What.... [Why the four period ellipsis? Or any ellipsis? The implication is that a careful reader will be able to infer the omitted words. I can make no inference.] Or am I now, too, to [You need to listen to the words. The alliteration of "too" and "to" does speak to a certain deafness.] ask the group to suffer my every thought as I attempt a swing trading index option system? Or, should the exacting and so often gruesome details of lambing and such [Such what?] be pressed upon the members, as opposed to a passing observation of how lambing and trading seemingly provoke the same self reflections, calls for discipline and struggles with strengths and weaknesses greater than most men can muster? [Neither the logic nor the clarity of your example ought to be forgiven. I don't have time to improve the clarity. However, to add lambing to trading implies that there is some analogous and extraneous pairing in my posts to the group. There is, of course, no second item on my part. This is an instance of not being sure that all comparisons are balanced and accounted for. Too, you say "struggles with strengths and weaknesses greater than most men can muster." This is a careless example of failing to be accountable for what you say. I.e., men may muster "strengths," but surely not "weaknesses."] Return in peace to a private exchange of that [It is dangerous for clarity to place a pronoun ["that"] in a position of importance. What precisely is the referent for "that"? There certainly is no preparation for it to be understood thoroughly and quickly.] portion of your proffer, and allow the forum to return to its' [There are still those who know the literate difference between "its" and "it's" and maintain that difference in their writing. The "its'" is an extraordinary creation.] MANSLIC origins. The noise [Because you used "drones" erroneously above, you cannot expect the reader to correct your error and move on as if nothing were amiss.] is deafening to these tender ears, and my eyes now bleed from peering through the weeds for the sweet clover of what was Spring [Believe an uncapitalized "spring" will do nicely.] pasture. A pedestrian talent cannot seriously criticize ideas, large or small, for both become intractable in his hands. How to spell, how to punctuate, how to put together a sentence, how to slice an idea into manageable parts and pairs, or how to coordinate ideas ends in embarrassment and failure. A little bad grammar, spelling, and logic is like a little bit of leaven--a little leaven leavens the whole lump. [How's that for alliteration?] Connie Mack - - ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 22 Aug 1999 01:18:45 +0100 From: "Marc Laniado" Subject: [CANSLIM] DGO List Dear Tom, I'm sorry you weren't on holiday but hope there's time for that in the near future for you. I would like to see more posts on canslim and I am sure many others would too. One thing I don't understand is why we spend so much time looking through the listings when IBD publishes minicharts everyday (which I only get to see when I'm in America). The minicharts are, I believe, the daily company index online on DGO. I've started to keep a list of these and try to follow them. Is there more to these than is immediately obvious? Many do not seem canslim but get in there anyway! How else do you or other people use these? The useful postings in IBD I've seen include the industries in the news. Do you keep track of these and monitor them? Anyway, I'll try and go through the lists and pick out what seem interesting to my eyes and thank you, as ever, for sharing your knowledge. Marc - - ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 22 Aug 1999 12:43:40 +0200 From: Johan Van Houtven Subject: [CANSLIM] new Marder on the Markets A new Marder on the Markets is posted at: http://cbs.marketwatch.com/news/current/marder.htx?source=htx/http2_mw As we have experienced in the past, this link will change and can then be found in the archives at: http://cbs.marketwatch.com/news/current/marderarchives.htx?source=htx/http2_mw Keeping the powder dry By Kevin N. Marder, CBS MarketWatch Last Update: 04:33 PM August 19, 1999 Columns & Opinion NEW YORK (CBS.MW) -- Last time (June 30: Leadership + Volume = Advance), I'd written that "...the action of the past week in the major averages and growth stock leaders is enough to know that more gains lie ahead." The Dow ($DJ) went on to rise as much as 343.84 points, or 3.1 percent, while the Nasdaq Composite ($COMPQ) climbed as much as 7.0 percent. Outside of the Nasdaq, the problem with the advance was that there was no follow-through. Technically, the typical pattern of a winning stock or group follows a 1-2-3 progression: base, breakout, follow-through, base, breakout, follow-through, etc. A base is merely a resting, or consolidation, phase and is needed in order to work off the excesses of the advance. A winning stock will clear a base on sharply expanding volume. If the stock is a real leader, it will follow through on its breakout and advance at least 20 percent to 25 percent before building another base. Numerous stocks with names like Altera, American Express, Boeing, Catalina Marketing, Dial, Equant, Estee Lauder, Gap, General Electric, Nokia, Rambus, Verisign, Verio, and Viatel did break out on volume -- but then failed to follow through. Critically, several benchmark computer-related issues, including Applied Materials (AMAT: news, msgs), Lucent (LU: news, msgs), MCI WorldCom (WCOM: news, msgs), Microsoft (MSFT: news, msgs), and Sun Microsystems (SUNW: news, msgs) did the exact same thing. For an explanation of this behavior, the failed breakout, see the Jan. 27 column (A Yellow Light). It was followed by five weeks of choppy, sideways action in the big averages. A number of stocks continue to act well, including Apache, Baker Hughes, Elantec, Enron, Gilead, HI/FN, Harmonic, JDS Uniphase, Lam Research, Legato, Millenium, NextLink, PMC-Sierra, Priority Healthcare, QLogic, Sandisk, Tidewater, VISX, and Voicestream. But these are decidedly in the minority. In the market, it's the unexpected that's noteworthy. And so when the Dow formed a 10-week O'Neil cup-with-handle base -- a bullish chart pattern if there ever was one -- and broke down out of that base instead of breaking out, it was time for concern. Meanwhile, the Nasdaq was more fortunate. It's been able to hold above its prior base. As for the Internet group, on April 29 I'd mentioned that the group needs "to put in more time backing and filling before a legitimate rally attempt can be considered." Three months later, this is still the case. Better to wait than to try to catch the falling knife. Another buying opportunity in the 'Nets such as I pointed out on March 5, 1998, June 23, 1998, and Nov. 17, 1998 will eventually present itself -- but not now. What does look good? The semiconductors ($SOX), oil servicers ($OSX), and biotechs ($BTK). The semis, in particular, should resume leadership once the current correction is over. In sum, the breakdown of the Dow, S&P 500 ($SPX), and numerous individual leaders provides objective evidence that the market simply isn't ready for a renewed advance at present. Over the intermediate-term, flat-to-lower prices are in store. Once again, the winning speculator with an intermediate-term bent will be sitting on a generous pile of cash, having exited his positions in the market leaders as they broke down over the past couple of weeks. He knows that now isn't a time for aggressive speculation. It's a time for keeping the powder dry. Correspondence, love letters & advice ...I received an e-mail asking what I meant when I wrote the following in the last column: "The successful speculator who emphasizes tape action in his decisions won't concern himself with trying to forecast the extent or duration of the move." This has to do with evaluating the health of each stock in a portfolio on a stand-alone basis and not forecasting where and when the current market advance will end. Trying to guess in advance when a rising market will begin to correct can be a risky proposition, as the past five years have repeatedly illustrated. The most successful intermediate-term speculators exit a winning position as it breaks down, i.e. experiences distribution (professional selling) and/or breaks technical support levels... ...I continue to receive e-mail asking what had become of the Marder on the Market archives. Some time ago, they'd gotten lost in a site redesign. Now, they're back. For MOM back issues, click here... Johan === - - ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 22 Aug 1999 09:38:13 -0700 From: "Earl Setser" Subject: [CANSLIM] Charting Site Here is a site that has Java charting that allows you to see the exact HLC for any day on the chart. It also allows you to select any time period that you want to expand, and to draw your own trend lines. I am using it to find out the exact high close price to set pivot points (rather than an all-time high). http://www.prophetfinance.com/charts/ - - ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 22 Aug 1999 11:46:36 -0400 From: Connie Mack Rea Subject: [CANSLIM] Overall market health. [Connie Mack] Have mentioned this site before, but members still ask for a place to get overall market health. This is one of the best. For the time being it is free, but the writer speaks about charging down the line. http://www.glen-net.ca/sp500_daytrend/aug20.html Connie Mack - - ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 22 Aug 1999 18:14:59 GMT From: musicant@pacbell.net (Dan Musicant) Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] My boy, Jeffry. [Connie Mack] On Sat, 21 Aug 1999 20:08:41 -0400, you wrote: :Jeffry-- : :You are not yet armed to go public with your criticism. Had you written :me privately, I would have taken your criticism differently. : :One of the rules for criticizing me is that I hold the critic :accountable for his use of language. I find that excellence in writing :is corollary to excellence in thinking. One of who's rules? You can nitpick a critic's use of language, but it is you who is imposing rules here, and your critic may not feel impelled to live by your rules, at least not all of them. I am curious about this. What post are you critiqueing here? I didn't notice anything in your post to indicate this. Dan - - ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 22 Aug 1999 15:18:40 -0500 From: Dave Squires Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Sentiment #'s postwhit@sover.net wrote: > Thanks, I think. Way too much info for me. Is the IBD sentiment number > in there somewhere? Or, for that matter, anywhere on the web? I don't bother much with most of the stuff there. The top three sentiment numbers are the important ones. Investor's intelligence Market Vane AAII Investor's intelligence is the most broad sentiment survey and is also the one in IBD. Market Vane is more geared toward futures markets and is much more volatile. AAII is the survey of the little guy. DSquires - - ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 22 Aug 1999 17:03:32 -0400 From: Connie Mack Rea Subject: [CANSLIM] My Boy, Dan (and Jeffry). [Connie Mack[ Dan-- One needs to know always whether he should play defender for the undefended. Because of the several exchanges I have had with a former member, Jeffry ought to have known me well enough to try me out privately before going public. You, on the other hand, didn't need foresight. You knew from the present exchange between Jeffry and me that you would be offering yourself for still further comment. I have banged pretty hard on Jeffry. On another day when the moon was in a different phase, I might have done differently. Now you insert yourself when the moon is in a dark phase. You, too, are not armed to step into the exchange. Why must you insist on advertising your ineptness? Here is another rule to vex you: "Ordinarily, there is no need to spread the net in sight of the bird." But some "birds" insist otherwise. If you insist. . . . You wrote: "One of who's rules?" Your use of "who's" is as illiterate as the "its'" of Jeffry. Your "who's" means "who is" as might be found in the title of a reference work called "Who's Who in Literature." "Whose" is the possessive of "who." I see dozens of examples on professionally proofed sites of "it's" presented as a possessive. "It's" means "it is" and "its" is the possessive. Why imply that you can't discover whose rule I am pointing to? Is your question rhetorical? I don't think so. Did I not say that the rule was mine? "You can nitpick a critic's use of language. . . ." Is your "nitpicking" what I call illiteracy and functional illiteracy? You sound like a few of my students who think that my correcting bad spelling, bad usage, and bad grammar is nitpicking. One student thought it racist. He was, of course, genuinely illiterate. An example of nitpicking would be to hold the sugar crystals in contempt because they do not flow like molasses. Nitpicking is a code word for those who don't wish to be held responsible for not having touched all the educational bases through twelve years of schooling. Those who err with the language offer dozens of excuses for their not having received emancipation from several educational servitudes. ". . . but it is you who is imposing rules here. . . ." Did you wish to say "you . . . is imposing rules here?" "You is imposing." Is that what you want to say? Would I be nitpicking if I suggested "you are"? ". . . and your critic may not feel impelled to live by your rules, at least not all of them." The alternative you offer--not to live by my rules--is irrelevant. The critic can not do otherwise. If he criticizes, then I require that he criticize me with standard English. He, and you, may say that I am nitpicking, but neither of you has opted for either of two alternatives available: Write me privately or get a ghost writer. Of only marginal significance is your using "rules" rather than "rule." This is an instance of carelessness. The careful reader, when he sees "rules," thinks he has missed a rule; when he backtracks, he sees he has been mislead and is annoyed. "I am curious about this." Like Jeffry, you use an indefinite pronoun dangerously. You fail to understand that pronouns, as much as they are valuable, are dangerous in the wrong hands. You put "this" in a major position in the sentence (the end) and force the reader to do the work that you wouldn't do, or couldn't do, to make the text clear. This what? Rule, rules? My response? My nitpicking? You then throw in another "this" at the very end. Is the final "this" different from or the same as the previous "this." Superlatively careless writing. Always, in your writing, the reader has to search the gaps, to rearrange, and to back and fill. Then I learn finally, as will others, that you haven't even read what prompted my post. Like a cheap fire cracker, you are defused before popping. Connie Mack Dan Musicant wrote: On Sat, 21 Aug 1999 20:08:41 -0400, you wrote: :Jeffry-- : :You are not yet armed to go public with your criticism. Had you written :me privately, I would have taken your criticism differently. : :One of the rules for criticizing me is that I hold the critic :accountable for his use of language. I find that excellence in writing :is corollary to excellence in thinking. One of who's rules? You can nitpick a critic's use of language, but it is you who is imposing rules here, and your critic may not feel impelled to live by your rules, at least not all of them. I am curious about this. What post are you critiqueing here? I didn't notice anything in your post to indicate this. Dan - - - ------------------------------ End of canslim-digest V2 #682 ***************************** 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.