From: owner-canslim-digest@lists.xmission.com (canslim-digest) To: canslim-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: canslim-digest V2 #828 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, February 20 2000 Volume 02 : Number 828 In this issue: Re: [CANSLIM] Here come the biotechs! [CANSLIM] YHOO (for Tim) Re: [CANSLIM] YHOO (for Tim) [CANSLIM] Acc/Dis Numbers Re: [CANSLIM] Turn around [CANSLIM] DGO List [CANSLIM] Selling short [CANSLIM] long term/short term [CANSLIM] 3 of 4 stocks follow the market Re: [CANSLIM] long term/short term Re: [CANSLIM] Turn around Re: [CANSLIM] long term/short term Re: [CANSLIM] YHOO (for Tim) [CANSLIM] IBD Numbers Online Re: [CANSLIM] Turn around Re: [CANSLIM] Selling short Re: [CANSLIM] YHOO (for Tim) Re: [CANSLIM] 3 of 4 stocks follow the market Re: [CANSLIM] IBD Numbers Online ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 19 Feb 2000 10:38:05 -0800 From: "Tim Fisher" Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Here come the biotechs! Well, after looking at many an extended chart, I think a dip is in order. Then I can hit all my stops (which will be ratcheted up this weekend, big-time!) and buy back in after the next V-bottom which if the past couple months is any indication will also happen next week. Anyway Craig mentioned some very buyable bases yesterday and I see a few worth watching. KEI was buyable 2 days ago. heck, I'd still buy it here since it has a couple thousand percent to go to catch up to the big boys' PEs. If it doesn't get bought by JDSU first ;) Has anyone looked at the HHH components lately? Looks like schizophrenia in the internuts. The absolute last stock I expected to become an LLUR is doing just that - INKT. Of course that's after I got stopped out with a 20% gain. 1/3 of the component stocks look like great shorts with no bottom in sight, a third are parabolic, and 1/3 are putting in some long, loose bases (I put Ebay into that camp.) E.g. I wanted YHOO at 300 a couple weeks ago & it never made it there. Looks like it will make it there soon. If it finds support it looks to be good for a double. And how come EGRP and ATHM have almost identical 1-year charts? Weird. At 11:10 AM 2/18/00 -0600, you wrote: >Tim, Tim, Tim... > >You are sounding way too eager here - weren't you the one who >once said that a key to success was to keep one's emotions >in check ;-) > >Actually I agree that the Biotechs look good - its just >hard for me to say that the chart patterns/fundies of >much of anything look very CANSLIM right now. > >Dave > > >Tim Fisher wrote: > > > > Sorry Harlan, had to say that ;) Anyway even AMGN and BGEN are showing > > strength today, and IMHO they are the cream of the biotech crop. IDPH is > > coming back to a pivot point from the underside too. And QGENF (which I > > own) is accelerating its run. Actually just about everything on my watch > > list is doing great or taking modest profits today. My portfolio is sure > > doing great; I have 3 up 10-20 pts. Either the NASDAQ will turn around and > > close up strong (boy wouldn't another confirmation day be great? 4850 here > > we come!) or the biotechs and net security stocks will turn down and follow > > the index. > > > > Tim Fisher > > Ore-Rock-On and Pacific Fishery Biologists WWW Sites > > > > Tim@OreRockOn.com > > WWW: http://OreRockOn.com > > See naked fish and rocks! > > > > - > >- Tim Fisher, 1995 President, Pacific Fishery Biologists Ore-ROCK-On Rockhounding Web Site PFB Information mailto:tim@OreRockOn.com WWW http://OreRockOn.com - - ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2000 19:59:52 +0100 From: Johan Van Houtven Subject: [CANSLIM] YHOO (for Tim) At 10:38 AM 19-02-00 -0800, you wrote: > E.g. I wanted YHOO at 300 a couple weeks ago & >it never made it there. Looks like it will make it there soon. If it finds >support it looks to be good for a double. Tim, Why do you think YHOO would be good for a double then? - -- Johan - - ------------------------------ Date: 19 Feb 2000 18:52:37 -0800 From: "Tim Fisher" Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] YHOO (for Tim) Loosely applying Ian Woodward's points down in a price correction x 2 = potential points up, you get a potential of 350 which is more than a double from 150. I think 250 is easily achievable, 300 is likely and 350 is a stretch. At 07:59 PM 2/19/00 +0100, you wrote: >At 10:38 AM 19-02-00 -0800, you wrote: > > E.g. I wanted YHOO at 300 a couple weeks ago & > >it never made it there. Looks like it will make it there soon. If it finds > >support it looks to be good for a double. > >Tim, > >Why do you think YHOO would be good for a double then? > > > > > >-- Johan > > > >- Tim Fisher, 1995 President, Pacific Fishery Biologists Ore-ROCK-On Rockhounding Web Site PFB Information mailto:tim@OreRockOn.com WWW http://OreRockOn.com - - ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2000 20:09:03 -0500 From: Robert Subject: [CANSLIM] Acc/Dis Numbers Here are the latest Acc/Dis numbers Date A B C D E AB/A:E %E 2/1/2000 1607 2392 1215 1107 578 58% 8% 2/2/2000 1518 2436 1226 1134 568 57% 8% 2/3/2000 1541 2490 1207 1115 539 58% 8% 2/4/2000 1585 2503 1205 1092 526 59% 8% 2/7/2000 1651 2576 1187 1030 489 61% 7% 2/8/2000 1690 2542 1161 1065 486 61% 7% 2/9/2000 1743 2470 1167 1076 501 61% 7% 2/10/2000 1848 2415 1153 1043 518 61% 7% 2/11/2000 1813 2396 1133 1075 553 60% 8% 2/14/2000 1847 2366 1117 1072 576 60% 8% 2/15/2000 1835 2286 1126 1141 613 59% 9% 2/16/2000 1839 2311 1135 1121 598 59% 9% 2/17/2000 1830 2316 1149 1137 566 59% 8% 2/18/2000 1859 2281 1168 1131 570 59% 8% 2/21/2000 1893 2272 1157 1127 572 59% 8% Spreadsheet version: Date,A,B,C,D,E,AB/A:E,%E 2/1/2000,1607,2392,1215,1107,578,58%,8% 2/2/2000,1518,2436,1226,1134,568,57%,8% 2/3/2000,1541,2490,1207,1115,539,58%,8% 2/4/2000,1585,2503,1205,1092,526,59%,8% 2/7/2000,1651,2576,1187,1030,489,61%,7% 2/8/2000,1690,2542,1161,1065,486,61%,7% 2/9/2000,1743,2470,1167,1076,501,61%,7% 2/10/2000,1848,2415,1153,1043,518,61%,7% 2/11/2000,1813,2396,1133,1075,553,60%,8% 2/14/2000,1847,2366,1117,1072,576,60%,8% 2/15/2000,1835,2286,1126,1141,613,59%,9% 2/16/2000,1839,2311,1135,1121,598,59%,9% 2/17/2000,1830,2316,1149,1137,566,59%,8% 2/18/2000,1859,2281,1168,1131,570,59%,8% 2/21/2000,1893,2272,1157,1127,572,59%,8% Robert - - ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2000 16:26:56 -0500 From: "Tom Worley" Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Turn around The most significant thing Greenspan said, and it's very significant, is that the Feds now view the desired trend of growth for non-inflationary expansion at 3.5% to 4%. This is a big, actually huge, jump over the 2.5% to 3% line they have been trying to achieve. Productivity gains have far exceeded what the Feds thought was possible. Last week held many economic reports, and most showed strong growth still, tho seasonal adjustments may have distorted some of them significantly. Several Fed Reserve regions did show some slowdown, but others already strong showed further strength. Underlying the PPI and CPI reports, however, was clear indications of inflation (prices paid, for example, and neutral changes in indexes only because tobacco responded to drops in sales by cutting prices, so if you don't smoke you still paid higher prices overall). A qtr pt hike in March appears to be a given, tho a half pt hike is lessened. But that could change if Mr. G decides that he needs to be more aggressive. Right now that doesn't appear necessary. Whether the Feds hike again in May remains to be seen. Tom Worley stkguru@netside.net chat with me at ICQ # 5568838 get ICQ software at http://www.icq.com/icqhomepage.html - ----- Original Message ----- From: Dan Musicant To: Sent: Friday, February 18, 2000 11:31 PM Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Turn around On Fri, 18 Feb 2000 15:09:00 -0500, you wrote: :Are we going to have a turn around here or what?! : : Ari or Dave I don't know. The Nasdaq didn't seem to give a damn what A. Greenspan said, but after a day or two with some time to think about what he said Thursday, a one day sell-off took place, It was not on big volume. The NYSE volume was about what it was Thursday, and the Nasdaq volume was lower, a positive signal. Part of the selloff was apprehension before a long 3 day weekend, a common scenario. Is this a buying opportunity. Probably. But I could be wrong. A. Greenspan has the power to cause a correction all by his lonesome. The wrong thing for dinner could cause a lot of people indigestion. Dan :----- Original Message ----- :From: Johan Van Houtven :To: :Sent: Friday, February 18, 2000 2:24 PM :Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Bases : : :> From: "david lawson" :> :> David, :> :> :> :> Please define the cup you are seeing. :> :> >Now :> >that you mention it, I remember reading somewhere in WON land that if the :> >handle goes to the 50 or 200 SMA that it's a weak sign.I can't seem to :find :> >where I read this. :> :> He says the handle should stay above the 50MA. :> :> > Thanks Ari :> ----- Original Message ----- :> From: Johan Van Houtven :> To: :> Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2000 2:34 PM :> Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Bases :> :> :> > At 02:03 PM 17-02-00 -0500, you wrote: :> > >What do you think of EBAY,s chart.Fundies also good. :> > :> > Ari, :> > :> > Both the 50 and 200 MA are curling over and pointing down. :> > :> > What does that tell you? :> > :> > :> > :> > -- Johan :> > :> > :> > :> > - :> > :> :> :> -- Johan :> :> :> :> - :> : : :- : - - - - ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2000 01:34:25 -0500 From: "Tom Worley" Subject: [CANSLIM] DGO List Been a grueling week, took me several head banging sessions to finish this review (look at charts, fall asleep, bang head on keyboard, wake up, look at charts, fall asleep, . . . . ). Understandably, the head banging may have influenced my perceptions, as I really wanted to finish the list and go to sleep properly. I'm too old for these back to back 80 hour work weeks. Anyway, the list seems stable compared to last week, a total of 141 vs 146 on the list, and the number of bases vs major breakouts seems about the same. Once again tech stocks kick some DOW butt, up for the week compared to continued decline on the "old" stocks. The Dow 30 is now back into correction territory, down over 11% from its high, and the NYSE and S&P500 are only a few percentage points away from following suit. Meanwhile, the 7th largest point drop on NASDAQ is simply profit taking, having hit a new high just the day before. And I notice that the Russell 2000 beat out the NASDAQ for the week as well, chart continues to look good. The earnings reporting cycle is essentially over, should we be getting seriously bearish now? The long bond continues to rise in price (drop in rate), even tho it seems everyone expects the Feds to raise rates again in March. Meanwhile the short term Treasurys continue to invert the yield. Here's the margin notes: ADIC - B/1 SILI - B/1 VRTS - B/2 CLFY - B/2 QLGC - breakout, possibly still buyable TLGD - B/2+ SDLI - B/2 RFMD - B/2 NT - B/2 SMTC - B/5, volume up ELNT - B/S SNDK - B/2 APEX - B/2, descending base SUNW - B/S DAVX - B/4, base rising SYMC - B/1 RMDY - B/1 ORBK - B/2 BBRC - B/2 RMD - B/1 ISYS - B/14, trading range, exhaustion level??? NSOL - B/1 DIO - B/4 MTIC - B/S CUBE - B/S EXAP - B/S ALTR - B/2 SMTF - B/S SFA - B/1+ VSH - B/2 BCE - B/2 EKT - B/1+ POSI - B/1+ SBSE - B/2 NVLS - B/2 TXN - B/2 Enjoy, hope this does some members some good in building a decent CANSLIM watch list. Tom Worley stkguru@netside.net chat with me at ICQ # 5568838 get ICQ software at http://www.icq.com/icqhomepage.html - - ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2000 06:46:54 GMT From: "Chester Haines" Subject: [CANSLIM] Selling short After Alan Greenspan's speech on Thursday and the sell off on Friday I am thinking that is time to concentrate on finding stocks to sell short. Does anyone have experience with Boucher's proprietary list on TradingMarkets.com? Current suggestions for selling short are LTR,CVCL,MEA,H,CTL,DLTR,KMB,PEG,WFMI,DOV,TRB,TIF,MBI,RCL and SBC. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com - - ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2000 00:17:51 -0700 From: "Patrick Wahl" Subject: [CANSLIM] long term/short term You know, it is somewhat discouraging to trash your system files to the point where your 4 day old computer is nearly unusable, but, I have recovered, mostly. Anyway, on to some stock stuff... There was some discussion here a few weeks ago that some people found CANSLIM to be too short term for them. I don't know where anything particular rules are laid out that turn it into a short term trading system. The Friday IBD had an interesting article, for those that don't read it - they mentioned that to make the really big gains you need to be in for the long haul. They mentioned the returns of 3 stocks - Cisco returned 71,300% in the 1990's, Dell 60,800%, and Wal Mart a more measly 9700% since 1982. They mentioned this in the overall context of picking the leading company in a leading industry, and then letting it ride through the inevitable corrections. They point out that you must know more than the numbers, you need to know what the company is doing, is it innovative, why is it the leading company. Not to say that I do this, I think that sometimes can't see the forest for the trees and exit sound companies too soon, but probably something most of us need to work on. Of course, easy to look back on CSCO and realize it was a hold, for every CSCO, there are probably 100 companies (500 maybe) that have a nice gain over a period of a year and then give much of it back. I think what I am bumbling around trying to say is that a sell should probably depend on more than an indicator or two turning south, or a few rocky days in the market. - - ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2000 09:04:23 -0800 From: han.26@osu.edu Subject: [CANSLIM] 3 of 4 stocks follow the market I may sound like Greenspan (re: irrational exuberance) and no one wants to hear this, but according to WON 75% of all stocks go the way of the overall Market. He says that of all the CANSLIM characteristics Market direction is the MOST important. You can be right on all the others, but if the market is dropping, it will eventually get your stocks too. One may say, "yes, but the Nasdaq is in a new economy." All I can say is re-read the chapter on Market in HTMMIS, especially about divergences in the indexes. Just a bit of contrarian noise amongst the otherwise sanguine posts. Jim, the short-term [Kiljoy, party-pooping] bear - - ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2000 10:27:52 -0500 From: "Matt Robinson" Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] long term/short term I think that is definitely great if you can find companies that fit such a description. I don't know if you have read anything by him but Phil Fisher advocates just this. One of the best investment books I have read, Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits, gives you suggestions for doing just this. Unfortunately and realistically, doing this requires much research and can't be done by simply looking at ratios or charts. Anyway, for what its worth, I think its a good read and very insightful. For Warren Buffet fans out there, Phil Fisher was one of his greatest influences. I don't know why my subject lines would be messed up. They appear just like anyone else's when I get them. I get these emails sent to a yahoo email address for organizational purposes (I already get a lot of email at my main one) because I didn't know the volume of email this would produce. Regards Matt - ----- Original Message ----- From: Patrick Wahl To: Sent: Sunday, February 20, 2000 2:17 AM Subject: [CANSLIM] long term/short term > You know, it is somewhat discouraging to trash your system files > to the point where your 4 day old computer is nearly unusable, but, > I have recovered, mostly. Anyway, on to some stock stuff... > > There was some discussion here a few weeks ago that some > people found CANSLIM to be too short term for them. I don't know > where anything particular rules are laid out that turn it into a short > term trading system. The Friday IBD had an interesting article, for > those that don't read it - they mentioned that to make the really big > gains you need to be in for the long haul. They mentioned the > returns of 3 stocks - Cisco returned 71,300% in the 1990's, Dell > 60,800%, and Wal Mart a more measly 9700% since 1982. They > mentioned this in the overall context of picking the leading > company in a leading industry, and then letting it ride through the > inevitable corrections. They point out that you must know more > than the numbers, you need to know what the company is doing, is > it innovative, why is it the leading company. > > Not to say that I do this, I think that sometimes can't see the forest > for the trees and exit sound companies too soon, but probably > something most of us need to work on. Of course, easy to look > back on CSCO and realize it was a hold, for every CSCO, there are > probably 100 companies (500 maybe) that have a nice gain over a > period of a year and then give much of it back. I think what I am > bumbling around trying to say is that a sell should probably depend > on more than an indicator or two turning south, or a few rocky days > in the market. > > > > - > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com - - ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2000 08:35:58 -0700 From: Earl Setser Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Turn around At 04:26 PM 2/19/00 -0500, you wrote: >The most significant thing Greenspan said, and it's very >significant, is that the Feds now view the desired trend of >growth for non-inflationary expansion at 3.5% to 4%. This >is a big, actually huge, jump over the 2.5% to 3% line they >have been trying to achieve. Productivity gains have far >exceeded what the Feds thought was possible. > I've read somewhere that the "wealth effect" is estimated to be about 1% of the 4 or 5% growth in the economy. I wonder if that's part of the reasoning for increasing the goals? It seems to be Greenspan has to be VERY CAREFUL about spooking the market. If an aggressive rate cut(s) caused a significant slowing AND the market reacted strongly, the overall impact could easily lead to lower growth than desired. Anyone think this is part of the reasoning for the fairly cautious approach the FED has taken so far? - - ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2000 08:40:53 -0700 From: Earl Setser Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] long term/short term I am a behind on my Friday IBD, but this sounds like an article to read, and then frame!! It certainly seems to me that following the short term trends (or trying to anyway) is going to be very difficult using CANSLIM. I don't believe the rules were based on 1 day or 1 week of action. Thanks for pointing out the article. At 12:17 AM 2/20/00 -0700, you wrote: >You know, it is somewhat discouraging to trash your system files >to the point where your 4 day old computer is nearly unusable, but, >I have recovered, mostly. Anyway, on to some stock stuff... > >There was some discussion here a few weeks ago that some >people found CANSLIM to be too short term for them. I don't know >where anything particular rules are laid out that turn it into a short >term trading system. The Friday IBD had an interesting article, for >those that don't read it - they mentioned that to make the really big >gains you need to be in for the long haul. They mentioned the >returns of 3 stocks - Cisco returned 71,300% in the 1990's, Dell >60,800%, and Wal Mart a more measly 9700% since 1982. They >mentioned this in the overall context of picking the leading >company in a leading industry, and then letting it ride through the >inevitable corrections. They point out that you must know more >than the numbers, you need to know what the company is doing, is >it innovative, why is it the leading company. > >Not to say that I do this, I think that sometimes can't see the forest >for the trees and exit sound companies too soon, but probably >something most of us need to work on. Of course, easy to look >back on CSCO and realize it was a hold, for every CSCO, there are >probably 100 companies (500 maybe) that have a nice gain over a >period of a year and then give much of it back. I think what I am >bumbling around trying to say is that a sell should probably depend >on more than an indicator or two turning south, or a few rocky days >in the market. > > > >- > > > - - ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2000 09:23:38 +0100 From: Johan Van Houtven Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] YHOO (for Tim) I assume this rule doesn't apply to every stock that is down? How do you determine which ones one can apply it to? Where can I find more about this rule? I have nearly all of Ian's newsletters for the last 2 years and can't find anything about this rule, but would like to read more about it. At 06:52 PM 19-02-00 -0800, you wrote: >Loosely applying Ian Woodward's points down in a price correction x 2 = >potential points up, you get a potential of 350 which is more than a >double from 150. I think 250 is easily achievable, 300 is likely and 350 >is a stretch. > >At 07:59 PM 2/19/00 +0100, you wrote: >>At 10:38 AM 19-02-00 -0800, you wrote: >> > E.g. I wanted YHOO at 300 a couple weeks ago & >> >it never made it there. Looks like it will make it there soon. If it finds >> >support it looks to be good for a double. >> >>Tim, >> >>Why do you think YHOO would be good for a double then? >> >> >> >> >> >>-- Johan >> >> >> >>- > >Tim Fisher, 1995 President, Pacific Fishery Biologists >Ore-ROCK-On Rockhounding Web Site >PFB Information >mailto:tim@OreRockOn.com >WWW http://OreRockOn.com > > >- - -- Johan - - ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2000 11:04:34 -0500 From: "Matt Robinson" Subject: [CANSLIM] IBD Numbers Online I am sure most of you (if not all) know about this site: http://members.aol.com/RANord/ It is weekly updated with IBD numbers. It is easily put into Excel. He only puts the ones that he deems the best and groups them: Stock List 1 - E: 80-99; R: 80-99; G: 80-99; A/D: ABC Stock List 2 - E: 80-99; R: 80-99; G: 60-79; A/D: ABC Stock List 3 - E: 80-99; R: 60-79; G: 60-99; A/D: ABC Stock List 4 - E: 70-79; R: 60-79; G: 60-99; A/D: ABC (Box 7 stocks) It is actually based on Ian Woodard's HGS not IBD, but it has mostly the same info (and more). Just not volume percentage increases and price. Sorry if everyone knows about this site or it was posted earlier, but I find it useful and I hadn't seen it come up. Regards Matt __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com - - ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2000 10:58:47 -0500 From: "Tom Worley" Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Turn around The wealth effect factor may certainly be a part of the change, as until recently the wealth effect was denied as a factor in the economic growth, despite the fact that it not only made people feel richer, it also generated a new source of income for those that took some profits out of the market (and presumably spent them). The wealth effect has also assisted the govt in achieving unexpected budget surpluses, as they didn't anticipate all the tax income on capital gains. That in turn has reduced the borrowing requirements of the govt, something I have long advocated as necessary to sustain the economy. Greenspan has taken a cautious approach because he is a cautious man. He thinks, and acts, long term, so he is not reactive to current events. Tom Worley stkguru@netside.net chat with me at ICQ # 5568838 get ICQ software at http://www.icq.com/icqhomepage.html - ----- Original Message ----- From: Earl Setser To: Sent: Sunday, February 20, 2000 10:35 AM Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Turn around At 04:26 PM 2/19/00 -0500, you wrote: >The most significant thing Greenspan said, and it's very >significant, is that the Feds now view the desired trend of >growth for non-inflationary expansion at 3.5% to 4%. This >is a big, actually huge, jump over the 2.5% to 3% line they >have been trying to achieve. Productivity gains have far >exceeded what the Feds thought was possible. > I've read somewhere that the "wealth effect" is estimated to be about 1% of the 4 or 5% growth in the economy. I wonder if that's part of the reasoning for increasing the goals? It seems to be Greenspan has to be VERY CAREFUL about spooking the market. If an aggressive rate cut(s) caused a significant slowing AND the market reacted strongly, the overall impact could easily lead to lower growth than desired. Anyone think this is part of the reasoning for the fairly cautious approach the FED has taken so far? - - - - ------------------------------ Date: 20 Feb 2000 08:36:05 -0800 From: "Tim Fisher" Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Selling short Shorting is not CANSLIM. I'm sure there are quite a few shorters' lists out there, why don't you ask there? At 06:46 AM 2/20/00 +0000, you wrote: >After Alan Greenspan's speech on Thursday and the sell off on Friday I am >thinking that is time to concentrate on finding stocks to sell >short. Does anyone have experience with Boucher's proprietary list on >TradingMarkets.com? Current suggestions for selling short are >LTR,CVCL,MEA,H,CTL,DLTR,KMB,PEG,WFMI,DOV,TRB,TIF,MBI,RCL and SBC. >______________________________________________________ >Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com Tim Fisher, 1995 President, Pacific Fishery Biologists Ore-ROCK-On Rockhounding Web Site PFB Information mailto:tim@OreRockOn.com WWW http://OreRockOn.com - - ------------------------------ Date: 20 Feb 2000 09:22:12 -0800 From: "Tim Fisher" Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] YHOO (for Tim) Like I said, "loosely applying". He has applied the"Gas in the Tank" calculation to the NASDAQ and the "leaders surrogate" on the HGS website. After the bottom in the NASDAQ and the HTMMIS follow-through day, he has posted the "potential gain" in the NASDAQ as I outlined below. He has done this for the last several 10% corrections. I apply it to stocks in a _long term_ uptrend. Gary the "chartist" on TSC also applies it to individual stocks to predict exit points so as to try to sell closer top the top. I think this is riskier than a simple trailing stop, but he uses it and has attributed it to Woodward. There is a much more complex tool based on the percent extended from the 17, 50, and 200 dma coupled with the past behavior of an index (the "High Jump" method) that he also has posted to the site. I think that the point method gets essentially the same results and furthermore I don't have to spend an hour analyzing anything I want to buy on a pullback. P.S. 4768 is the current "High Jump" target for the NASDAQ. I ballparked 4850 a week or so ago by eyeballing the Yahoo chart. So I'm not too far off...or it's just plain dumb luck. At 09:23 AM 2/20/00 +0100, you wrote: >I assume this rule doesn't apply to every stock that is down? How do you >determine which ones one can apply it to? > >Where can I find more about this rule? I have nearly all of Ian's >newsletters for the last 2 years and can't find anything about this rule, >but would like to read more about it. > >At 06:52 PM 19-02-00 -0800, you wrote: >>Loosely applying Ian Woodward's points down in a price correction x 2 = >>potential points up, you get a potential of 350 which is more than a >>double from 150. I think 250 is easily achievable, 300 is likely and 350 >>is a stretch. >> >>At 07:59 PM 2/19/00 +0100, you wrote: >>>At 10:38 AM 19-02-00 -0800, you wrote: >>> > E.g. I wanted YHOO at 300 a couple weeks ago & >>> >it never made it there. Looks like it will make it there soon. If it finds >>> >support it looks to be good for a double. >>> >>>Tim, >>> >>>Why do you think YHOO would be good for a double then? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>-- Johan >>> >>> >>> >>>- >> >>Tim Fisher, 1995 President, Pacific Fishery Biologists >>Ore-ROCK-On Rockhounding Web Site >>PFB Information >>mailto:tim@OreRockOn.com >>WWW http://OreRockOn.com >> >> >>- > >-- Johan > >- Tim Fisher, 1995 President, Pacific Fishery Biologists Ore-ROCK-On Rockhounding Web Site PFB Information mailto:tim@OreRockOn.com WWW http://OreRockOn.com - - ------------------------------ Date: 20 Feb 2000 09:29:21 -0800 From: "Tim Fisher" Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] 3 of 4 stocks follow the market With those of us still invested continuing to do extremely well, I ask one question: who cares? Not to be facetious, but I hit another all-time high in my accounts on Thursday, my YTD return jumped 6% last week, and none of my holdings are less than 10% away from my trailing stops. I'm sure many of us could say the same. I can twist that statement to state that 75% of all NASDAQ stocks got he way of the NASDAQ comp or the NASDAQ 100. In that case you had better be in for this run and furthermore it had better be NASDAQ issues (or small caps - the RUT actually beat the NASDAQ last week). Personally I have one NYSE listed issue: BVF, and 10 NASDAQ issues in my trading accounts right now. Unfortunately none are small caps by the standard definition but 4 are under 5B market cap which I consider to be mid-cap at least. I agree that if the NASDAQ corrects then it will probably get all my stocks. That's what stops are for. At 09:04 AM 2/20/00 -0800, you wrote: >I may sound like Greenspan (re: irrational exuberance) and no one wants to >hear >this, but according to WON 75% of all stocks go the way of the overall Market. >He says that of all the CANSLIM characteristics Market direction is the MOST >important. You can be right on all the others, but if the market is >dropping, it >will eventually get your stocks too. One may say, "yes, but the Nasdaq is >in a >new economy." All I can say is re-read the chapter on Market in HTMMIS, >especially about divergences in the indexes. Just a bit of contrarian noise >amongst the otherwise sanguine posts. > >Jim, the short-term [Kiljoy, party-pooping] bear Tim Fisher, 1995 President, Pacific Fishery Biologists Ore-ROCK-On Rockhounding Web Site PFB Information mailto:tim@OreRockOn.com WWW http://OreRockOn.com - - ------------------------------ Date: 20 Feb 2000 10:58:52 -0800 From: "Tim Fisher" Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] IBD Numbers Online I like the "Select Stocks" list which I think is all 4 of the lists you mention on one page. You can download the CSV file and rank them however you care to. Usually when I rank them based on multiple criteria the group 1 stocks rank out on top but some rank out very low or get filtered out and some group 2-4 stocks stand out. E.g. with last week's file, KEI ranked way up there with group 1's but it's in group 2 or 3. I filter for HTMMIS criteria like Q0/Q-4 EPS > 25%, etc. The SMR rank combines a few "new HTMMIS" criteria such as sales growth, margins, & ROI into one ranking - very useful. At 11:04 AM 2/20/00 -0500, you wrote: >I am sure most of you (if not all) know about this site: > >http://members.aol.com/RANord/ > >It is weekly updated with IBD numbers. It is easily put into Excel. He only >puts the ones that he deems the best and groups them: > >Stock List 1 - E: 80-99; R: 80-99; G: 80-99; A/D: ABC >Stock List 2 - E: 80-99; R: 80-99; G: 60-79; A/D: ABC >Stock List 3 - E: 80-99; R: 60-79; G: 60-99; A/D: ABC >Stock List 4 - E: 70-79; R: 60-79; G: 60-99; A/D: ABC (Box 7 stocks) > > > >It is actually based on Ian Woodard's HGS not IBD, but it has mostly the >same info (and more). Just not volume percentage increases and price. Sorry >if everyone knows about this site or it was posted earlier, but I find it >useful and I hadn't seen it come up. > >Regards >Matt > > > >__________________________________________________ > >Do You Yahoo!? > >Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. > >http://im.yahoo.com Tim Fisher, 1995 President, Pacific Fishery Biologists Ore-ROCK-On Rockhounding Web Site PFB Information mailto:tim@OreRockOn.com WWW http://OreRockOn.com - - ------------------------------ End of canslim-digest V2 #828 ***************************** 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.