ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/canslim/archive/v01.n241

Internet Message Format | 1997-06-30 | 41KB

From: [e-mail] (canslim Digest)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: canslim Digest V1 #241
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Precedence:


canslim Digest          Monday, June 30 1997          Volume 01 : Number 241



In this issue:

    Re: [CANSLIM] IBD Online
    Re: [CANSLIM] DG and Incomplete Institutional Info
    Re: [CANSLIM] DG and Incomplete Institutional Info
    Re: [CANSLIM] DG and Incomplete Institutional Info
    Re: [CANSLIM] CMVT Breakout!
    Re: [CANSLIM] DG and Incomplete Institutional Info
    Re: [CANSLIM] DG and Incomplete Institutional Info
    Re: [CANSLIM] DG and Incomplete Institutional Info
    Re: [CANSLIM] DG and Incomplete Institutional Info
    Re: [CANSLIM] DG and Incomplete Institutional Info
    Re: [CANSLIM] DG and Incomplete Institutional Info
    RE: [CANSLIM] DG and Incomplete Institutional Info
    RE: [CANSLIM] DG and Incomplete Institutional Info
    Re: [CANSLIM] DG and Incomplete Institutional Info
    [CANSLIM] Dbphoenix what screening programs do you refer in yr "IBD Online" post?
    [CANSLIM] Does anyone use Prodigy / Strategic Investor program?
    Re: [CANSLIM] DG and Incomplete Institutional Info
    Re: [CANSLIM] DG and Incomplete Institutional Info
    Re: [CANSLIM] Dbphoenix what screening programs do you refer in yr "IBD Onlin...
    Re: [CANSLIM] Dbphoenix what screening programs do you refe
    [none]
    [CANSLIM] info accuracy
    [none]
    re: [CANSLIM] info accuracy
    [CANSLIM] AFCX

See the end of the digest for information on subscribing to the canslim
or canslim-digest mailing lists and on how to retrieve back issues.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 19:33:52 -0500 (CDT)
From: Anthony Ku <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] IBD Online

You can scan through 3000-400 stocks using the printed mehod, i.e. just
look through them all quickly find the char  patterns you like and
investigate further.  youca n't do taht with the online version.  At least
not yet.. i mean, there isn't really any search criteria for that program
as of yet.  And of course, there is one, but not for individual investors.


Anthony Ku


On Fri, 27 Jun 1997, Dan Musicant wrote:

> On Tue, 24 Jun 1997 12:24:47 -0500 (CDT), you wrote:
> :    Dailygraphs includes a lot more information than IBD has.
> :Dailygraph is definitelyworth the price, though expensive.  I don't like
> :the Online version of it because it does not have search functions.  Plus
> :I like to just browse through 3000 stocks weekly and see which stocks met
> :my criteria technically, then look for fundamental information and see if
> :it worth buying.  It's hard to scan through 3000 stocks using anything on
> :the computer.  If they have a search function that allows you to search,
> :say, stocks thathave EPS > 90, RS > 80 and made a new high on heavy
> :volume, then it'd be wroth getting the online version.
> :Anthony Ku
> :[e-mail]
> I would think that an online version would be far more searchable than
> a printed version, and that potentially it would be as searchable as
> the programmers wanted it to be.
>
>  I have never seen DG, the non-online version, and only looked at the
> online version briefly the other day. Can someone describe what DG is?
> How could a printed medium be searchable? It can only be if it is
> pre-sorted by certain criteria.
>
> If you can download data on a broad spectrum of stocks you can program
> to search on anything that is reported on in the data. It's my
> business. I am a database programmer.
>
> Dan
>

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 20:44:06 -0400
From: "Tom Worley" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] DG and Incomplete Institutional Info

Because of the way the nrs are counted, you will often get
duplicate reporting. For example, some pension funds, insurance
funds, and even mutual funds will use prime broker type accts at
banks. Thus the bank holds the shares, but they are not actually
the owner. Yet, using DTC type reports, the shares will show at the
bank, and at the same time the fund must file quarterly reports of
its holdings, so it can show in both places.

I am not familiar with Zack's source of info on institutional
holdings, but still am quite confident that the total holdings
institutionally of CMVT is not at the 95 percent level.

I don't believe WON is "withholding" information, rather he is
reporting info that can be considered reasonably accurate (e.g.
qtrly mutual fund filings of holdings). Even the "bank" holdings
can be misleading, as they can include individual investors who
have their securities accts there thru a banking securities
subsidiary.

WON, from what I have heard, does not put as much weight on
holdings by pension funds, 401s, etc. as these tend to have a
higher rate of trading and are less of a "long term investor".
Also, I believe their reporting requirements are less stringent.
Banks, because they come under banking regulations, not the SEC,
have much different disclosure rules. This problem will only get
worse as the proposed rules for banks becoming broker-dealers for
securities will continue to regulate them under the various banking
agencies, not the securities agencies. They will have a completely
different set of rules and requirements.

tom w

Any statements or opinions are strictly my own and not that of my
employer. My comments should not be intrepreted as a recommendation
of any kind. I am a licensed (inactive) broker and an active
investor. All investors should do their own research prior to any
investment, especially one learned about on the Internet.

- ----------
> From: George <[e-mail]>
> To: [e-mail]
> Subject: [CANSLIM] DG and Incomplete Institutional Info
> Date: Thursday, June 26, 1997 11:42 PM
>
> For those who may not be aware of it:
>
> The Funds and Banks %-owned does NOT necessarily represent the
total
> institutional ownership picture of a company. In most cases, it
probably
> doesn't accurately represent it at all. There are still insurance
> companies and advisors to take into consideration (maybe others,
I don't
> really know).
>
> Anyway, I was wanting to check out the info from Zacks (by way of
> Quote.com), so I just randomly picked a company out of my NASDAQ
book,
> which was already open, and settled on -- Comverse Tech
(NASDAQ:CMVT).
> My DG book (6/20) shows CMVT Funds: 48% and Banks: 12%, for a
total of
> 60%.
>
> Although 60% is probably a bit high, it "leads" us to believe
that there
> is still 40% out there to play with -- couldn't have been further
from
> the truth.
>
> The Zacks report that I got back, showed total institutional
ownership
> of CMVT is actually... 94.5%!!!!! I double checked this at
another site
> and that report showed 95%.
>
> And "The Book" cautions us about buying the stock of a company
that is
> institutionally "over-owned" and yet O'Neil "intentionally"
withholds
> the "complete" picture from us in DG -- and for a tidy price, I
might
> add.
>
> Kinda makes you feel like a little CS lemming, at times. <g>
>
> George
>

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 21:20:18 -0500
From: George <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] DG and Incomplete Institutional Info

Anthony Ku wrote:
>
> You shouldn't buy a stock with 60% ownership anyway.. that's way too much.


Ssssssshhhhhhhh... Zoran will hear you and he'll be embarrassed about
being up four or five bucks! <grin>

Seriously, though, the point of the post was to examine the
discrepancies between the numbers, not to suggest that the numbers were
"within tolerance."

George

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 21:07:27 -0500
From: George <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] DG and Incomplete Institutional Info

Tom Worley wrote:
>
> Because of the way the nrs are counted, you will often get
> duplicate reporting. For example, some pension funds, insurance
> funds, and even mutual funds will use prime broker type accts at
> banks. Thus the bank holds the shares, but they are not actually
> the owner. Yet, using DTC type reports, the shares will show at the
> bank, and at the same time the fund must file quarterly reports of
> its holdings, so it can show in both places.

Here we go again, the shell-game, revisited! <grin>

> I am not familiar with Zack's source of info on institutional
> holdings, but still am quite confident that the total holdings
> institutionally of CMVT is not at the 95 percent level.

If their source is providing them with inaccurate info, you would think
that they would be way off with any other company, as well. Yet in DG,
Ciber, Inc. (NYSE:CBR) shows Funds: 21% and Banks: 15%, for a total of
36% and Zack's reports 39%, which would seem to confirm the DG number,
not to mention their (Zack's) source.

> I don't believe WON is "withholding" information, rather he is
> reporting info that can be considered reasonably accurate (e.g.
> qtrly mutual fund filings of holdings). Even the "bank" holdings
> can be misleading, as they can include individual investors who
> have their securities accts there thru a banking securities
> subsidiary.

Well, not knowing, I will have to take your word on it. One thing's for
sure, we're going to have to take one number or the other and run with
it. Or use one to confirm the other, such as with Ciber.

George

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 21:36:58 -0500
From: George <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] CMVT Breakout!

Zoran Mitrovski wrote:
>
> I now it's too late (15 min before close) but
> for those of you who've been waiting, CMVT is
> breaking out 48 7/8 x 49 (+3) on very positive
> up volume. This one is definitely leaving the
> base (45 - 48 box).
>
> Disclaimer: I am already in.
>
> Cheers,
> Zoran

Well, I was actually looking at this one, as well. My TA was about 3:1
in favor of a buy, but those institutional numbers wouldn't let it get
through my CS filters.

Hope it holds up for you.

George

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 28 Jun 1997 00:47:51 -0400 (EDT)
From: Zoran Mitrovski <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] DG and Incomplete Institutional Info

Perhaps I'm stubborn and/or still green, but I personally
don't give too much weight (if any) to the institutional
sponsorship percentages. Given the discrepancies in
what is considered institutional, the above makes
even more sense. Even if 90% of the float of a stock
is owned by "institutions", how is one to know what
their strategies and intentions are about the stock?
What if only three small funds decided to sell within
a price range but other ten larger funds decided it
is time to accumulate some more? What if all 90% of
the (institutionally owned) float are reluctant to
sell because the co is doing great and some them
even decide to accumulate some more of the good stuff?
Wouldn't the bidding that would occur cause the
stock to move up? Why should the granularity level
of the float make the stock more or less desirable?

My point is that the mere fact that a high percentage of
the float is owned by institutions does not necessarily
mean that they all are potential sellers ONLY. They
could as well be buyers, and if there is more of them
on the buying side than on the selling side
(Isn't that what we all want?) the price should
nevertheless go higher.

When at some point there is too little of some
good stuff, its price will invariably rise, no matter
who the bidders are.

Finally, I acknowledge that less institutional ownership
is better but not to the extent that it should convince
me out of an otherwise perfect trade. I'm not trying to
preach or convince anybody here. Just thinking outloud,
and, as always, comments are more than welcome.

Cheers,
Zoran
http://www.seas.rochester.edu:8080/ee/users/zmitrov/home.html

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 28 Jun 1997 00:54:43 -0400
From: "Tom Worley" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] DG and Incomplete Institutional Info

I guess what really amazes me is this group's quickness and
willingness to assume it's WON/DG nrs that are off, and not Zack's
or another unidentified third source, esp when those sources are
claiming that there is only a 5% float remaining. Come on, guys,
check out the ADV and figure out how that's possible with only a 5%
float! The three remaining "public" shareholders would have to get
together for coffee and figure out what price they wanted the stock
to trade at that day!. For those in this group that received
tonight's opinion of Zack's from Brenda, maybe you have some second
thoughts about that source. For me, since I'm more of the calm,
mellow type, I simply take what I find with a large grain of salt.
Been there, seen that, been fooled by too many sources to count.

Bottom line for me is that I have found DG/WON data to be more
consistently reliable than most. Not always perfect, esp on
earnings due dates, but for a source that does not do its own
independent analysis, research, or due diligence, it's far superior
to most. Where he can't consistently rely on the incoming data, he
simply chooses not to spew it back out again. For me, I would
rather have insufficient data than bad data I can't trust.

tom w (a DG/WON fanatic, but I still use Zack's for limited
purposes)

Any statements or opinions are strictly my own and not that of my
employer. My comments should not be intrepreted as a recommendation
of any kind. I am a licensed (inactive) broker and an active
investor. All investors should do their own research prior to any
investment, especially one learned about on the Internet.

- ----------
> From: George <[e-mail]>
> To: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] DG and Incomplete Institutional Info
> Date: Friday, June 27, 1997 10:07 PM
>
> Tom Worley wrote:
> >
> > Because of the way the nrs are counted, you will often get
> > duplicate reporting. For example, some pension funds, insurance
> > funds, and even mutual funds will use prime broker type accts
at
> > banks. Thus the bank holds the shares, but they are not
actually
> > the owner. Yet, using DTC type reports, the shares will show at
the
> > bank, and at the same time the fund must file quarterly reports
of
> > its holdings, so it can show in both places.
>
> Here we go again, the shell-game, revisited! <grin>
>
> > I am not familiar with Zack's source of info on institutional
> > holdings, but still am quite confident that the total holdings
> > institutionally of CMVT is not at the 95 percent level.
>
> If their source is providing them with inaccurate info, you would
think
> that they would be way off with any other company, as well. Yet
in DG,
> Ciber, Inc. (NYSE:CBR) shows Funds: 21% and Banks: 15%, for a
total of
> 36% and Zack's reports 39%, which would seem to confirm the DG
number,
> not to mention their (Zack's) source.
>
> > I don't believe WON is "withholding" information, rather he is
> > reporting info that can be considered reasonably accurate (e.g.
> > qtrly mutual fund filings of holdings). Even the "bank"
holdings
> > can be misleading, as they can include individual investors who
> > have their securities accts there thru a banking securities
> > subsidiary.
>
> Well, not knowing, I will have to take your word on it. One
thing's for
> sure, we're going to have to take one number or the other and run
with
> it. Or use one to confirm the other, such as with Ciber.
>
> George
>
>

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 28 Jun 1997 01:07:02 -0400 (EDT)
From: Zoran Mitrovski <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] DG and Incomplete Institutional Info

> Believe me, O'Neil gives out as much as
> you can afford, and usually more.  IBD loses money, DG isn't making him
> rich either.  His money comes from his trading, which he spends trying to
> get you good information quickly in order to better optimize our economy
> so that we can all profit from it.  That's his win-win philosophy.

Joseph, you almost brought tears into my eyes. We do need to be
occasionally reminded of the benevolence, the kindness and
the far-sightedness of Big O. And we shall always remind
ourselves how discordant and chaotic would the markets (and the
world at large) have become if it weren't for Him to optimize them
by tweaking the amounts and the formats of information that he feeds
us with.
Amen. (And my apologies to all the potentially hurt souls of orthodoxy.)

Cheers,
Zoran
http://www.seas.rochester.edu:8080/ee/users/zmitrov/home.html

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 28 Jun 1997 01:06:39 -0400
From: "Tom Worley" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] DG and Incomplete Institutional Info

The simple answer is that it is all about stats and probabilities.
If there is minimal institutional holdings (IH), and the CS nrs and
chart are fine, then the likelihood of present holders deciding to
sell is very low. Likewise, the present IH may even decide to buy
more. Meantime, other IH who don't yet own a share may also decide
to buy, thus the probability of IH buyers exceeding IH sellers is
extremely high.

At the opposite end of the spectrum is the more mature situation,
where IH already have a huge position (presumably at a profit).
Again, if the CS nrs and chart are favorable, then the present IH
are more likely to continue holding, however other events unrelated
to this position (such as the need to look good on qtrly reports)
may dictate selling. Far less likely is that present IH will choose
to buy more shares.  And since there is already a large IH
presence, less likely that other IH will decide to jump on the
bandwagon at this late (and highly inflated price) level. Thus, the
probabilities are that there will likely be move IH sellers than
buyers.

tom w

Any statements or opinions are strictly my own and not that of my
employer. My comments should not be intrepreted as a recommendation
of any kind. I am a licensed (inactive) broker and an active
investor. All investors should do their own research prior to any
investment, especially one learned about on the Internet.

- ----------
> From: Zoran Mitrovski <[e-mail]>
> To: [e-mail]
> Cc: Zoran Mitrovski <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] DG and Incomplete Institutional Info
> Date: Saturday, June 28, 1997 12:47 AM
>
>
> Perhaps I'm stubborn and/or still green, but I personally
> don't give too much weight (if any) to the institutional
> sponsorship percentages. Given the discrepancies in
> what is considered institutional, the above makes
> even more sense. Even if 90% of the float of a stock
> is owned by "institutions", how is one to know what
> their strategies and intentions are about the stock?
> What if only three small funds decided to sell within
> a price range but other ten larger funds decided it
> is time to accumulate some more? What if all 90% of
> the (institutionally owned) float are reluctant to
> sell because the co is doing great and some them
> even decide to accumulate some more of the good stuff?
> Wouldn't the bidding that would occur cause the
> stock to move up? Why should the granularity level
> of the float make the stock more or less desirable?
>
> My point is that the mere fact that a high percentage of
> the float is owned by institutions does not necessarily
> mean that they all are potential sellers ONLY. They
> could as well be buyers, and if there is more of them
> on the buying side than on the selling side
> (Isn't that what we all want?) the price should
> nevertheless go higher.
>
> When at some point there is too little of some
> good stuff, its price will invariably rise, no matter
> who the bidders are.
>
> Finally, I acknowledge that less institutional ownership
> is better but not to the extent that it should convince
> me out of an otherwise perfect trade. I'm not trying to
> preach or convince anybody here. Just thinking outloud,
> and, as always, comments are more than welcome.
>
> Cheers,
> Zoran
> http://www.seas.rochester.edu:8080/ee/users/zmitrov/home.html
>

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 28 Jun 1997 01:58:51 -0500
From: George <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] DG and Incomplete Institutional Info

Tom Worley wrote:
>
> I guess what really amazes me is this group's quickness and
> willingness to assume it's WON/DG nrs that are off,

Well, what amazes me even more is where you found a reference to his
numbers being off? There was never a question of "bad" numbers, only a
question as to why not "all" the numbers. The two are completely
different, and the question was valid.

And as I stated in an earlier post, you have but to look at the
institutional breakdown provided in the graph in the "Companies in the
News" piece in IBD to see that he is NOT giving us "all" the numbers in
DG. It's obvious. It's a fact. And was stated as such. Why anyone would
have a problem with that is beyond me.

And as far as the reference to "intentional" goes: DG INcludes funds and
banks. DG EXcludes advisors and insurance companies. DG EXcludes IH
totals. I have no idea why he chose to do it this way, but I doubt
seriously that it could have happened by accident, so it must have been
intentional.

How is anyone new to the CS methodology ever going to know how to deal
with these types of issues without asking questions? There is no reason
for anyone to take it personal.

> For those in this group that received tonight's opinion of Zack's
> from Brenda, maybe you have some second thoughts about that source.

As I am on James' shit list for daring to question his "Master O'Neil's"
"Holy RS" number, I didn't receive this info <sniff> <sniff>, so I can't
comment on it. But had I received it, I'm sure I would have had some
second thoughts about "that" source.

[And grasshopper (aka James), I take it as a compliment that you are
still reading my posts, especially after you ranted and raved about how
you were going to put me in your "kill file"... forever. I knew you
couldn't resist.]

> Bottom line for me is that I have found DG/WON data to be more
> consistently reliable than most. Not always perfect, esp on
> earnings due dates, but for a source that does not do its own
> independent analysis, research, or due diligence, it's far superior
> to most. Where he can't consistently rely on the incoming data, he
> simply chooses not to spew it back out again.

Like I said, I'll have to take your word for it -- cause "I" damn sure
don't know. <grin>

> For me, I would rather have insufficient data than bad data I can't trust.

And I would rather have sufficient data, so as to enable me to make wise
trading decisions. To me, insufficient data IS bad data and therefore,
SHOULDN'T be trusted.

George

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 28 Jun 1997 10:36:04 -0400 (EDT)
From: Zoran Mitrovski <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] DG and Incomplete Institutional Info

Tom wrote:

> The simple answer is that it is all about stats and probabilities.
> If there is minimal institutional holdings (IH), and the CS nrs and
> chart are fine, then the likelihood of present holders deciding to
> sell is very low. Likewise, the present IH may even decide to buy
> more. Meantime, other IH who don't yet own a share may also decide
> to buy, thus the probability of IH buyers exceeding IH sellers is
> extremely high.
>
> At the opposite end of the spectrum is the more mature situation,
> where IH already have a huge position (presumably at a profit).
> Again, if the CS nrs and chart are favorable, then the present IH
> are more likely to continue holding, however other events unrelated
> to this position (such as the need to look good on qtrly reports)
> may dictate selling. Far less likely is that present IH will choose
> to buy more shares.  And since there is already a large IH
> presence, less likely that other IH will decide to jump on the
> bandwagon at this late (and highly inflated price) level. Thus, the
> probabilities are that there will likely be move IH sellers than
> buyers.

Tom, I must say that I am not comfortable accepting the "likelihood"
explanations from above but, for the time being, I'll just take
your word for it out of respect towards all these years you've
spent in the markets. The mere concepts of putting IH's in one
basket; labeling them with 'shaky hands that may dump the stock
on you any time'; and juxtaposing them to the non-IH's (i.e.
the crowd) labeled as 'strong hands; never sellers; always
buyers; you want them as mush as possible', are of questionable
plausability. For these concepts to hold, one must make the
assumptions included in the attached labels, and I just cannot
make them.

I see IH's as a sort of a "crowd" as well, especially
these days when there is so many of them now, coming in all
sorts of colors and flavors. Perhaps the symphony among them
was greater when there were couple of hundreds IH's out there
but with only MF's breaking 8,000, to me they seem as "crowd-
like" as any non-IH could be --  with the caveat that one should
always pay attention to the IH-characteristic phenomena such
as quarterly "window dressing" purchases/sales and others.

At the same time, with the advancement of technology, Internet,
data dissemination, etc, the non-IH's are starting to approach
the IH's in terms of trade decisions and executions, as well.

My point/claim/belief is that two phenomena are prevalent:
1. The IH's are becoming less of a one-directional and
   cohesive "bunch" and more of a diverse "crowd".
2. The non-IH's are becoming more informed, educated,
   and their trading is becoming cheaper and more feasible,
   hence they don't have to follow the "buy it and put
   it under your pillow" strategy of the past anymore.

These two phenomena should (at least) question the plausability
of your likelihood analysis and the very importance attached
to the IH data itself.

Cheers,
Zoran
http://www.seas.rochester.edu:8080/ee/users/zmitrov/home.html

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 28 Jun 1997 13:09:09 -0700
From: Joseph Vaughn-Perling <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [CANSLIM] DG and Incomplete Institutional Info

I can tell you are trying to make a point.  Don't know what it is though.

On Friday, June 27, 1997 10:07 PM, Zoran Mitrovski [SMTP:[e-mail]] wrote:
> Joseph, you almost brought tears into my eyes. We do need to be
> occasionally reminded of the benevolence, the kindness and
> the far-sightedness of Big O. And we shall always remind
> ourselves how discordant and chaotic would the markets (and the
> world at large) have become if it weren't for Him to optimize them
> by tweaking the amounts and the formats of information that he feeds
> us with.
> Amen. (And my apologies to all the potentially hurt souls of orthodoxy.)
>
> Cheers,
> Zoran
> http://www.seas.rochester.edu:8080/ee/users/zmitrov/home.html

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 28 Jun 1997 13:29:01 -0700
From: Joseph Vaughn-Perling <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [CANSLIM] DG and Incomplete Institutional Info

yep high IH just means (to me) that when the stock starts to move it will
more likely be in larger blocks and that at least some of the pros like the
numbers & the company.  It doesn't scare me out of a buy but sure will make
me more likely to sell fast if I'm holding when it starts to turn around
(remember how ASND reacted after the 3rd split?)

On Friday, June 27, 1997 9:48 PM, Zoran Mitrovski
[SMTP:[e-mail]] wrote:
>
> Perhaps I'm stubborn and/or still green, but I personally
> don't give too much weight (if any) to the institutional
> sponsorship percentages. Given the discrepancies in


> Wouldn't the bidding that would occur cause the
> stock to move up? Why should the granularity level
> of the float make the stock more or less desirable?
>
> My point is that the mere fact that a high percentage of
> the float is owned by institutions does not necessarily
> mean that they all are potential sellers ONLY. They
and, as always, comments are more than welcome.
>
> Cheers,
> Zoran
> http://www.seas.rochester.edu:8080/ee/users/zmitrov/home.html

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 28 Jun 1997 13:32:01 -0800
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] DG and Incomplete Institutional Info

> From:          Zoran Mitrovski <[e-mail]>

>
> Perhaps I'm stubborn and/or still green, but I personally
> don't give too much weight (if any) to the institutional
> sponsorship percentages. Given the discrepancies in
> what is considered institutional, the above makes


I look at the number, but I give less weight to Insititutional
Sponsorship than any other CANSLIM item.  This is because I don't
know how critical it is in predicting future price performance, and
there are times when  a stock looks great but has high numbers, and
I sort of hate to pass on it simply because a large percentage of
the shares are owned by funds.

When there is a question like this about the merits of some
indicator, there is only one way to solve it.  I think we on the
list here (myself included) tend to try to use a sort of deductive
reasoning to figure out the usefulness of whatever it is (stops,
institutional sponsorship), or we fall back on quoting the good book
(HTMMIS).  What we really need to do in these cases is
empirical testing, where some sort of buy criteria are defined and
tested, and then the results are compared to the performance with
the issue under debate used as an additional filter.  Unfortunately,
I don't have a database that has sponsorshipo information available.
 But maybe some analytical type person with access to, say,
Telescan, and lots of time on their hands, could run such a test and
report back to us.

Short of anyone doing such a test, all the arguing we can do about
the value of sponsorship as a selection criteria is not going to lead
to a definitive resolution of the question.

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 28 Jun 1997 20:02:26 -0600 (MDT)
From: [e-mail]
Subject: [CANSLIM] Dbphoenix what screening programs do you refer in yr "IBD Online" post?

>For the price of
>DG, you can buy one hell of a screening and charting program.  Perfectly
>functional programs cost less than $300.

Several of us seemed interested in knowing.  I didn't see a respond
post-hope I didn't miss it.  Thanks.

James Coburn
Albuq., NM

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 28 Jun 1997 20:02:31 -0600 (MDT)
From: [e-mail]
Subject: [CANSLIM] Does anyone use Prodigy / Strategic Investor program?

Does anyone use Prodigy and their Strategic Investor program?  I'm curious
if it has macro / automation features in it for daily downloading and
screening/sorting.  (The On-Line Investor book by Ted Allrich endorses this
program.)

Anybody?

James Coburn
Albuquerque, NM

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 29 Jun 1997 08:41:39 -0400
From: "Tom Worley" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] DG and Incomplete Institutional Info

Actually, the "ideal" would be for WON to join the group and
defend/explain some of his reasoning. Empirical testing might prove
some of the "rules" as unsatisfactory, but still won't answer
O'Neill's logic in sticking to them.

tom w

Any statements or opinions are strictly my own and not that of my
employer. My comments should not be intrepreted as a recommendation
of any kind. I am a licensed (inactive) broker and an active
investor. All investors should do their own research prior to any
investment, especially one learned about on the Internet.

- ----------
> From: [e-mail]
> To: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] DG and Incomplete Institutional Info
> Date: Saturday, June 28, 1997 5:32 PM
>
> > From:          Zoran Mitrovski <[e-mail]>
>
> When there is a question like this about the merits of some
> indicator, there is only one way to solve it.  I think we on the
> list here (myself included) tend to try to use a sort of
deductive
> reasoning to figure out the usefulness of whatever it is (stops,
> institutional sponsorship), or we fall back on quoting the good
book
> (HTMMIS).  What we really need to do in these cases is
> empirical testing, where some sort of buy criteria are defined
and
> tested, and then the results are compared to the performance with
> the issue under debate used as an additional filter.
Unfortunately,

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 29 Jun 1997 08:47:32 -0400
From: "Tom Worley" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] DG and Incomplete Institutional Info

Actually, I came up with this reasoning after following reports on
"funds" investing styles for several months, and discovered that
the "industry" tends to disregard pension funds, 401 funds,
insurance cos, and a few others cuz they tend to change direction
so quickly RELATIVE TO mutual funds. If my O'neill training ever
mentioned why WON doesn't include ALL IH positions in his
evaluation of a stock, then I must have been asleep, or maybe no
one ever asked the question.

tom w

Any statements or opinions are strictly my own and not that of my
employer. My comments should not be intrepreted as a recommendation
of any kind. I am a licensed (inactive) broker and an active
investor. All investors should do their own research prior to any
investment, especially one learned about on the Internet.

- ----------
> From: Zoran Mitrovski <[e-mail]>
> To: [e-mail]
> Cc: Zoran Mitrovski <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] DG and Incomplete Institutional Info
> Date: Saturday, June 28, 1997 10:36 AM
>
> Tom wrote:
>
> > The simple answer is that it is all about stats and
probabilities.
>
> spent in the markets. The mere concepts of putting IH's in one
> basket; labeling them with 'shaky hands that may dump the stock
> on you any time'; and juxtaposing them to the non-IH's (i.e.
> the crowd) labeled as 'strong hands; never sellers; always
> buyers; you want them as mush as possible', are of questionable
> plausability. For these concepts to hold, one must make the
> assumptions included in the attached labels, and I just cannot
> make them.
>
> I see IH's as a sort of a "crowd" as well,

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 29 Jun 1997 15:10:50 -0400 (EDT)
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Dbphoenix what screening programs do you refer in yr "IBD Onlin...

In a message dated 97-06-29 00:59:59 EDT, you write:

<< >For the price of
 >DG, you can buy one hell of a screening and charting program.  Perfectly
 >functional programs cost less than $300.

 Several of us seemed interested in knowing.  I didn't see a respond
 post-hope I didn't miss it.  Thanks.

 James Coburn
 Albuq., NM >>

I responded to this once, but it may have been a private e-mail. Can't
remember.  Both WOWS and Telescan have programs for $300 or less.  Each has
three, I believe.  What you choose depends on how elaborate you want it to
be.

I haven't used Telescan, but people I know who have it think it's just great.
 If you want a program that has both fundamental and technical screening,
your choices are limited.  Either of these two would, I believe, make you
happy, though.

Be aware, however, that WOWS has promotions approximately every three months
and offers Pro Investor at a substantial discount.  The one just finished
Friday offered it for $149.  So you may want to wait till August or September
before buying.  Of if you know you want it, you might try calling them Monday
to see if they'll still let you have it at the promotional price or
thereabouts.  Sometimes you can get a better price if you tell them you have
another program and aren't satisfied with it.  They love that.  There's also
Telecharts 2000 or whatever it's called, but I've never understood the
attraction.

- -----Db

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 07:33:34 -0800
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Dbphoenix what screening programs do you refe

>  >DG, you can buy one hell of a screening and charting program.  Perfectly
>  >functional programs cost less than $300.
>
>  Several of us seemed interested in knowing.  I didn't see a respond
>  post-hope I didn't miss it.  Thanks.
>
>  James Coburn
>  Albuq., NM >>

I am pretty familiar with both Metastock and Supercharts.  Just for
ease of use, being able to drop any indicator on a chart, zooming in
and out, drawing objects like trendline and linear regression lines,
Metastock is the champ.  Supercharts does have superior system
testing capabilities, and also allows you to create Paintbar and
Showme studies, where, for example, you could have each inside day
colored red, or when something happens with moving averages, say, you
could color a single bar or sequence.

Metastock also has something called the Explorer, where you define a
set of conditions and then have all stocks scanned for those
conditions.  Metastock then generates a list of stocks meeting the
conditions.  Supercharts may have a similar feature, but I can't say
that for certain.

Both products are probably pretty good choices if that is the way you
want to approach stock analysis.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 12:41:40 -0600
From: [e-mail]
Subject: [none]



------------------------------

Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 07:38:52 GMT
From: [e-mail] (jlucas)
Subject: [CANSLIM] info accuracy

After careful scrutiny, I thought I had found a buy.
Alphanet Solutions (ALPH).  The numbers seemed
right, and according to a chart in IBD, debt was=20
at 0%. I bought at 17.  The next day an add
in IBD informs that 2,000,000 @ 16.5 will be=20
issued the next day, in order to satisfy outstanding DEBT.
I sold @ 16.5.
I not complaining about the .5 loss.
(I wish it was the biggest loss I've had!)
My complaint is that I feel that the information in
IBD was incorrect.  What did I do wrong in this case?

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 18:30:22 -0400 (EDT)
From: Zoran Mitrovski <[e-mail]>
Subject: [none]

jlucas wrote:

> After careful scrutiny, I thought I had found a buy.
> Alphanet Solutions (ALPH).  The numbers seemed
> right, and according to a chart in IBD, debt was=20
> at 0%. I bought at 17.  The next day an add
> in IBD informs that 2,000,000 @ 16.5 will be=20
> issued the next day, in order to satisfy outstanding DEBT.
> I sold @ 16.5.
> I not complaining about the .5 loss.
> (I wish it was the biggest loss I've had!)
> My complaint is that I feel that the information in
> IBD was incorrect.  What did I do wrong in this case?

So are you saying that, say, 20% debt figure would have
scared you out of the trade?

IMO, your scrutiny wasn't all that careful to begin with
since you showed a blatant disregard for the chart. I looked
at the chart and on a scale from 1 ("a definite short") to 10
("a definite buy") I would rate your entry point as 3.
So if that was the single stock in the market, and I was
forced to make some money out of it, you'd have been
buying my short position.

Cheers,
Zoran

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 22:31:08 -0400
From: Michael A Langston <[e-mail]>
Subject: re: [CANSLIM] info accuracy

[e-mail] (jlucas) asks:

> What did I do wrong in this case?

you failed to perform due diligence

ALPH's PSO was noted well in advance in DG, and at any number
of news sources, many of them free (check, for example, yahoo)

mike langston

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 19:01:09 -0800
From: [e-mail]
Subject: [CANSLIM] AFCX

I don't have the dope on this stock at my fingertips right now, but
AFC Cablesystems seems to be worth a look based on the chart pattern
(symbol AFCX).  I'll try to come up with more detail soon.

------------------------------

End of canslim Digest V1 #241
*****************************

To subscribe to canslim Digest, send the command:

    subscribe canslim-digest

in the body of a message to "[e-mail]".  If you want to
subscribe something other than the account the mail is coming from, such
as a local redistribution list, then append that address to the
"subscribe" command; for example, to subscribe "local-canslim":

    subscribe canslim-digest [e-mail]

A non-digest (direct mail) version of this list is also available; to
subscribe to that instead, replace all instances of "canslim-digest"
in the commands above with "canslim".

Back issues are available for anonymous FTP from ftp.xmission.com, in
pub/lists/canslim/archive.  These are organized by date.