ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/canslim/archive/v02.n1169

Internet Message Format | 2001-03-01 | 41KB

From: [e-mail] (canslim-digest)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: canslim-digest V2 #1169
Reply-To: canslim
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-No-Archive: yes

canslim-digest        Thursday, March 1 2001        Volume 02 : Number 1169



In this issue:

       Re: [CANSLIM] REMOVE
       Re: [CANSLIM] Fund Ownership
       Re: [CANSLIM] OFF TOPIC(Mutual Fund Question)
       [CANSLIM] Re. DGO Online
       [CANSLIM] Japan
       RE: [CANSLIM] Mutual Fund Question
       [CANSLIM] Adjustments on open orders
       Re: [CANSLIM] Let me correct my spelling
       Re: [CANSLIM] Mutual Fund Question
       Re: [CANSLIM] Mutual Fund Question
       Re: [CANSLIM] Japan
       RE: [CANSLIM] Mutual Fund Question
       [CANSLIM] Mutual Fund Answer
       RE: [CANSLIM] Mutual Fund Question
       Re: [CANSLIM] Selling Strategies
       Re: [CANSLIM] Japan
       Re: [CANSLIM] Japan

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

Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 18:36:28 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] REMOVE

REMOVE

- -

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

Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 18:04:14 -0600
From: "David Squires" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Fund Ownership

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------=_NextPart_000_0032_01C0A27A.0691C460
Content-Type: text/plain;
    charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi all,

Doug has mentioned hedge fund manager Mark Boucher. Anyone who has not =
read his book "The Hedge Fund Edge" is doing themselves a big =
disservice. Although WON will always be my sentimental favorite, Boucher =
is, IMO, the perfect speculator. He has studied AND TESTED every =
worthwhile trading method, many back to the 1900's, kept what worked and =
trashed what didn't. What more could you want?!!

DSquires
  ----- Original Message -----=20
  From: DougC=20
  To: [e-mail]=20
  Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2001 3:18 PM
  Subject: [CANSLIM] Fund Ownership


  I've noticed that many of the stocks being talked about recently by =
this group have around 40% or more fund ownership. In WON"s book I don't =
believe he mentions anything about a upper limit to fund ownership as a =
criteria for CANSLIM selection. He just says that it's good to have some =
fund ownership but I don't know if he puts a min or max number on it. =
But I think Tom's point is very important that with more fund ownership =
there is increased risk of being subject to intense selling. Especially =
in this market even when it appears to 'experts' that it is oversold. =
One writer I've read so far, Mark Boucher - who teaches a trading course =
with very stringent selection criteria for longs and shorts and appears =
to use CANSLIM as a foundation, advocates not initiating any long =
positions on stocks with more than 16% fund ownership. When the market =
was still rocketing up I think many people, including myself, overlooked =
an upper limit to fund ownership as a criteria. But now after reading =
through Boucher's courses I am going to use 16% as a limit. It helps to =
keep me less inclined to dabble in this very dangerous market. I also =
want to mention that several professional swing and intermediate term =
traders and market commentators I follow are staying out of the market. =
And these are guys who play both sides, long and short. So it does =
appear to be very gutsy for anyone to be trading this market. After =
getting whipsawed more than a few times for the past year I'm finally =
going to start listening to those with much more experience than I have =
and stay out until there is a followthru AND many stocks with complete =
bases.=20

  At 09:05 AM 3/1/01 -0500, you wrote:

    Funds already own 38% of the float, that could be a problem esp if =
they falter in earnings. High PE (trailing is 53, projected is over 39). =
Up/down ratio is 0.9, acceptable with the good CS elements, but not =
exciting. # 2 in the group, but GRS is only 36.

    Tom Worley
    [e-mail]
    ICQ # 5568838
    =20
    =20

      ----- Original Message -----=20
      From: David Squires=20
      To: [e-mail]=20
      Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2001 7:56 AM
      Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Pick for Chris

      Hi Chris,
      =20
      I'm sure you know I'm not a proponent of buying right now but if =
you had to buy something CEFT is about the best looking chart I've seen =
lately. It looks almost identical to GLW in the summer of 2000 just =
before its huge run. Chart is attached.
      =20
      Good Trading,
      Dave Squires
      =20
      =20

        ----- Original Message -----=20
        From: [e-mail]=20
        To: [e-mail]=20
        Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2001 11:15 PM
        Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Pick for Chris

        Thanks Jeff, I will take a good look at LNCR.=20

        Chris.=20

- ------=_NextPart_000_0032_01C0A27A.0691C460
Content-Type: text/html;
    charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.50.4611.1300" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Hi all,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Doug has mentioned hedge fund manager Mark Boucher. =
Anyone who=20
has not read his book "The Hedge Fund Edge" is doing themselves a big=20
disservice. Although WON will always be my sentimental favorite, Boucher =
is,=20
IMO, the perfect speculator. He has studied AND TESTED every worthwhile =
trading=20
method, many back to the 1900's, kept what worked and trashed what =
didn't. What=20
more could you want?!!</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>DSquires</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
  <DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
  <DIV=20
  style=3D"BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: =
black"><B>From:</B>=20
  <A title=[e-mail] href=3D"mailto:[e-mail]">DougC</A> =
</DIV>
  <DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A =
title=[e-mail]=20
  =
href=3D"mailto:[e-mail]">[e-mail]</A>=
 </DIV>
  <DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, March 01, 2001 =
3:18=20
  PM</DIV>
  <DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> [CANSLIM] Fund =
Ownership</DIV>
  <DIV><BR></DIV>I've noticed that many of the stocks being talked about =

  recently by this group have around 40% or more fund ownership. In =
WON"s book I=20
  don't believe he mentions anything about a upper limit to fund =
ownership as a=20
  criteria for CANSLIM selection. He just says that it's good to have =
some fund=20
  ownership but I don't know if he puts a min or max number on it. But I =
think=20
  Tom's point is very important that with more fund ownership there is =
increased=20
  risk of being subject to intense selling. Especially in this market =
even when=20
  it appears to 'experts' that it is oversold. One writer I've read so =
far, Mark=20
  Boucher - who teaches a trading course with very stringent selection =
criteria=20
  for longs and shorts and appears to use CANSLIM as a foundation, =
advocates not=20
  initiating any long positions on stocks with more than 16% fund =
ownership.=20
  When the market was still rocketing up I think many people, including =
myself,=20
  overlooked an upper limit to fund ownership as a criteria. But now =
after=20
  reading through Boucher's courses I am going to use 16% as a limit. It =
helps=20
  to keep me less inclined to dabble in this very dangerous market. I =
also want=20
  to mention that several professional swing and intermediate term =
traders and=20
  market commentators I follow are staying out of the market. And these =
are guys=20
  who play both sides, long and short. So it does appear to be very =
gutsy for=20
  anyone to be trading this market. After getting whipsawed more than a =
few=20
  times for the past year I'm finally going to start listening to those =
with=20
  much more experience than I have and stay out until there is a =
followthru AND=20
  many stocks with complete bases. <BR><BR>At 09:05 AM 3/1/01 -0500, you =

  wrote:<BR><FONT size=3D2>
  <BLOCKQUOTE cite type=3D"cite">Funds already own 38% of the float, =
that could=20
    be a problem esp if they falter in earnings. High PE (trailing is =
53,=20
    projected is over 39). Up/down ratio is 0.9, acceptable with the =
good CS=20
    elements, but not exciting. # 2 in the group, but GRS is only=20
    36.</FONT><BR><BR>Tom Worley<BR><A=20
    href=3D"mailto:[e-mail]">[e-mail]</A><BR>ICQ # =

    5568838<BR> <BR> <BR>
    <BLOCKQUOTE cite type=3D"cite">----- Original Message ----- =
<BR><B>From:</B>=20
      <A href=3D"mailto:[e-mail]">David Squires</A> =
<BR><B>To:</B> <A=20
      =
href=3D"mailto:[e-mail]">[e-mail]</A>=
=20
      <BR><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, March 01, 2001 7:56 =
AM<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re:=20
      [CANSLIM] Pick for Chris<BR><BR><FONT size=3D2>Hi=20
      Chris,</FONT><BR> <BR><FONT size=3D2>I'm sure you know I'm =
not a=20
      proponent of buying right now but if you had to buy something CEFT =
is=20
      about the best looking chart I've seen lately. It looks almost =
identical=20
      to GLW in the summer of 2000 just before its huge run. Chart is=20
      attached.</FONT><BR> <BR><FONT size=3D2>Good =
Trading,</FONT><BR>Dave=20
      Squires<BR> <BR> <BR>
      <BLOCKQUOTE cite type=3D"cite">----- Original Message -----=20
        <BR><B>From:</B> <A =
href=3D"mailto:[e-mail]">[e-mail]</A>=20
        <BR><B>To:</B> <A=20
        =
href=3D"mailto:[e-mail]">[e-mail]</A>=
=20
        <BR><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, February 28, 2001 11:15=20
        PM<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: [CANSLIM] Pick for Chris<BR><BR><FONT=20
        face=3Darial size=3D2>Thanks Jeff, I will take a good look at =
LNCR.=20
        <BR><BR>Chris.</FONT><FONT face=3Darial>=20
  =
</FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>=


- ------=_NextPart_000_0032_01C0A27A.0691C460--


- -

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

Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 18:36:16 -0600
From: "walter nusbaum" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] OFF TOPIC(Mutual Fund Question)

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "BW Smith" <[e-mail]>
To: <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2001 5:07 PM
Subject: [CANSLIM] Mutual Fund Question
(SNIP)


> What would be dumb about moving those poorly performing funds into their
> family income funds until the market direction changes?  The cost is zero
to
> switch funds within the same families.  Not only would that curtail the
> losses, but it would generate a modest profit.  As Greenspan lowers the
> rates, the income funds yield higher returns.
>
> Thanks from Bill Smith

Bill,
I've got a couple of screamers also. I've designated them "core holdings"
and am not going to touch them even though they continue to be a drag. You
may be able to get out and back in in a timely manner, but I've yet to
master that feat. The stuff I've got can move 5-8% in a single day, and if
I'm waiting for a FT day on the fourth through the seventh day, they could
already be up 25-30%. On top of that, you won't get filled until COB on the
day after a FT, which means you could be waiting eight days from the market
bottom until you're back in. I believe It's gonna be a rough ride in the
techs for perhaps a  year or so, but they are money in the bank. Good luck.
Best wishes,
Walt




- -

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

Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 20:13:51 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: [CANSLIM] Re. DGO Online

Steve,

     Earning and Sales are indeed great and increasing.  However, notice the
last 4 quarters the E&S's percent rate of increase has been declining.
Therefore, growth (the ACCELERATION in the rate-of-growth, not the actual
rate-of-growth) has been declining.

     For a more precise (and in my opinion, complicated) explanation go to
the top of the DG toolbar to Help.  Click it and go to Daily Graph Help (the
first option).  A window will open up giving you, among other things, the DG
graphing-block.  Click on Growth Rate.

jans

- -

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

Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 21:32:42 -0500
From: "Tom Worley" <[e-mail]>
Subject: [CANSLIM] Japan

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------=_NextPart_000_000E_01C0A297.26208240
Content-Type: text/plain;
    charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

If you think we have it tough with the NASDAQ, look at Japan, where they =
hit a 15+ YEAR low last night, and are down another 1.4% right now. And =
that's despite the rally in Naz today, not giving them any boost from =
the looks of things.

At least we have an interest rate to cut to stimulate the economy. Their =
latest cut a few days ago was only 10 basis points, leaving them with =
only 25 BP before they have to start paying people to borrow money!

Tom Worley
[e-mail]
ICQ # 5568838



- ------=_NextPart_000_000E_01C0A297.26208240
Content-Type: text/html;
    charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-1" =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.00.2314.1000" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>If you think we have it tough with the NASDAQ, look =
at Japan,=20
where they hit a 15+ YEAR low last night, and are down another 1.4% =
right now.=20
And that's despite the rally in Naz today, not giving them any boost =
from the=20
looks of things.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>At least we have an interest rate to cut to =
stimulate the=20
economy. Their latest cut a few days ago was only 10 basis points, =
leaving them=20
with only 25 BP before they have to start paying people to borrow=20
money!</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2><BR>Tom Worley<BR><A=20
href=3D"mailto:[e-mail]">[e-mail]</A><BR>ICQ #=20
5568838</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT> </DIV></BODY></HTML>

- ------=_NextPart_000_000E_01C0A297.26208240--


- -

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

Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 21:41:16 -0500
From: "Ann Hollingworth" <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [CANSLIM] Mutual Fund Question

I have been wondering the same thing.
Ann


What would be dumb about moving those poorly performing funds into their
family income funds until the market direction changes?  The cost is zero to
switch funds within the same families.  Not only would that curtail the
losses, but it would generate a modest profit.  As Greenspan lowers the
rates, the income funds yield higher returns.

Thanks from Bill Smith


- -


- -

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

Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 21:57:07 -0500
From: "Tom Worley" <[e-mail]>
Subject: [CANSLIM] Adjustments on open orders

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------=_NextPart_000_0024_01C0A29A.8F2F9F20
Content-Type: text/plain;
    charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I learned something today, when I complained to Schwab that they had not =
adjusted all my open orders following a stock split. Those of you using =
GTC orders should note this if you don't already know it (and I didn't =
even with all my years in the business) if your orders are on a stock =
that announces a split.

Bottom line is that you may have to go in yourself and adjust your open =
order for either or both of the quantity or price limit.

The Exchanges will adjust open orders as follows:=20

NYSE, PSE (Pacific Stock Exchange) & NASDAQ: The quantity (number of =
shares) and the order price are adjusted on buy limit and sell stop =
orders for both round and mixed lots.  The shares of round lots are =
increased in round lots only.  All odd-lot orders are canceled.  Sell =
limits and buy stops on round and mixed lots are not adjusted for shares =
or price.=20

Buy Limits and Sell Stops: The shares of round lot orders are increased =
to round lots only.  For example, an order for 300 shares having a 2 for =
1 split will be increased to 600 shares and the limit price will be =
reduced by one half (1/2).  However, an order for 300 shares having a 3 =
for 2 split would be eligible for an additional 150 shares but will be =
increased to 400 shares and the limit price will be reduced by one third =
(1/3).

Mixed Lots: The shares of mixed lots are increased in odd amounts, =
rounding down to the next lowest whole share (i.e. an order for 167 =
shares having a 3 for 2 split is due 83.5 additional shares.  The order =
is increased by 83 shares, to 250 shares, rather than 250.5 shares).=20

 Note:  The NASDAQ policy is the same as the NYSE with one exception: on =
open buy limit/sell stop orders, the shares of mixed and round lots are =
adjusted to round lots only, rounding down to the nearest full lot.

AMEX (ASE): All order types are adjusted for price only, including odd =
lots.  The share quantity of an order is not adjusted on the ASE.

MWSE (Mid West Stock Exchange): All order types are adjusted by the NYSE =
rules.  Orders of odd lots are canceled.

Tom Worley
[e-mail]
ICQ # 5568838



- ------=_NextPart_000_0024_01C0A29A.8F2F9F20
Content-Type: text/html;
    charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-1" =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.00.2314.1000" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>I learned something today, when I complained to =
Schwab that=20
they had not adjusted all my open orders following a stock split. Those =
of you=20
using GTC orders should note this if you don't already know it (and I =
didn't=20
even with all my years in the business) if your orders are on a stock =
that=20
announces a split.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Bottom line is that you may have to go in yourself =
and adjust=20
your open order for either or both of the quantity or price =
limit.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>The Exchanges will adjust open orders as follows:=20
<BR><BR><STRONG>NYSE, PSE (Pacific Stock Exchange) & =
NASDAQ</STRONG>: The=20
quantity (number of shares) and the order price are adjusted on buy =
limit and=20
sell stop orders for both round and mixed lots.  The shares of =
round lots=20
are increased in round lots only.  All odd-lot orders are =
canceled. =20
Sell limits and buy stops on round and mixed lots are not adjusted for =
shares or=20
price. <BR><BR><STRONG>Buy Limits and Sell Stops</STRONG>: The shares of =
round=20
lot orders are increased to round lots only.  For example, an order =
for 300=20
shares having a 2 for 1 split will be increased to 600 shares and the =
limit=20
price will be reduced by one half (1/2).  However, an order for 300 =
shares=20
having a 3 for 2 split would be eligible for an additional 150 shares =
but will=20
be increased to 400 shares and the limit price will be reduced by one =
third=20
(1/3).<BR><BR><STRONG>Mixed Lots</STRONG>: The shares of mixed lots are=20
increased in odd amounts, rounding down to the next lowest whole share =
(i.e. an=20
order for 167 shares having a 3 for 2 split is due 83.5 additional =
shares. =20
The order is increased by 83 shares, to 250 shares, rather than 250.5 =
shares).=20
<BR><BR> Note:  The NASDAQ policy is the same as the NYSE with =
one=20
exception: on open buy limit/sell stop orders, the shares of mixed and =
round=20
lots are adjusted to round lots only, rounding down to the nearest full=20
lot.<BR><BR><STRONG>AMEX (ASE</STRONG>): All order types are adjusted =
for price=20
only, including odd lots.  The share quantity of an order is not =
adjusted=20
on the ASE.<BR><BR><STRONG>MWSE (Mid West Stock Exchange): </STRONG>All =
order=20
types are adjusted by the NYSE rules.  Orders of odd lots are=20
canceled.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2><BR>Tom Worley<BR><A=20
href=3D"mailto:[e-mail]">[e-mail]</A><BR>ICQ #=20
5568838</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT> </DIV></BODY></HTML>

- ------=_NextPart_000_0024_01C0A29A.8F2F9F20--


- -

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

Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 22:11:10 -0500
From: "Tom Worley" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Let me correct my spelling

Not me Tim, I am still thin skinned after over four years here.
And Chris, it's whether, not weather, that's the trouble with
spell checkers (as Surindra so humorously pointed out), it does
well with misspellings, but can't often handle the wrong (but
correctly spelled) word.

Anyway, back to ICUI, I think you finally got one that is a valid
candidate for a CANSLIM watch list.  My eye spotted a few
deficiencies, but they may prove to be minor.  As Tim points out,
the GRS is low (DGO has the GRS at 34 for Medical-Products).
Forecasted earnings growth is 20% for year 2001, but I note the
last two quarters of 2000 were weak (up 9% and 14%) and sales in
Q3 was only up 9% as well. But the chart certainly doesn't act
like the market is expecting earnings growth to falter.

I also note funds already own 39%, so they . . . .

Tom Worley
[e-mail]
ICQ # 5568838


- ----- Original Message -----
From: Tim Fisher <[e-mail]>
To: <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2001 2:03 PM
Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Let me correct my spelling


How would you know if you upset the lurkers? Just wondering...

Really, try not to take the criticism personally. It's going to
happen on
an email list, there's nothing you can do about it. You could
help save
yourself some angst if you posted the IBD numbers on these stocks
when you
bring them up. Most people who regularly post to email lists
either 1)
develop a thick skin or 2) quit posting. That's the reality of
these type
of discussion forums.

As for ICUI, it doesn't show on any of my HGS scans, even though
the EPS
looks acceptable. The GRS, if it is in med products, is in the
toilet (26).
The chart shows some major resistance at 30, and a long double
bottom going
back to July 2000. Interesting, but looks like it needs to break
32 or so
to be worth considering. I personally won't buy from a group
ranked just
below semiconductors.

On 10:41 AM 3/1/01, [e-mail] Said:
>ICUI, just noticed this one, might be worth checking, not sure
if it meets
>all the canslim characteristics, but is close and looking pretty
good
>bouncing off of the 60 DMA. I wont state weather IM buying or
not wouldn't
>want to upset the lurkers only or non-stock buyers.
>
>Chris
>
>-

Tim Fisher
Ore-Rock-On and Pacific Fishery Biologists WWW Sites

[e-mail]
WWW: http://OreRockOn.com
See naked fish and rocks!


- -



- -

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

Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 22:37:00 -0500
From: "Tom Worley" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Mutual Fund Question

Hi BW,

Even with my experience, I did not see the magnitude of this
decline in the markets. Wish I had, would have made some changes
in the funds in my 401. As it is, I not only didn't sell any, I
kept adding to them thru early Jan '01. For right now, my 2001
contributions are going into the money market instead. I will
control the timing of when those funds are added to the growth
funds.

The primary reason WON advocates buying and holding (or adding
to) mutual funds is that they tend to trade in a three to four
year cycle. And, as another member pointed out, you cannot trade
them except on that day's NAV (net asset value) which is not set
until about 5:30 PM each day. If you enter the order during the
trading day, you get that day's NAV. If you enter the order after
the close at 4 PM, you will get the next day's NAV.

If you are trying to compare similar mutual funds from different
families, do not use a one year comparison. Look at the three and
five year comparisons.

When I was still a stock broker, I interviewed several mutual
fund timing services. They had a good spiel, and claimed a good
track record.  But I followed the best sounding for about a year
or so after that, and was not impressed with what they did. I
have timed my own funds in the past, but the gains were not worth
the time it took.  Granted, the severity of this selloff would
have made it worth while, but who knew back in Nov or so, or even
early Jan '01 as the Feds began to cut, that we would be where we
are today?

Trying to predict the future trend of any of the markets is
difficult, and that is what you are doing when you try to time
the funds you own.  It's better to measure how they are doing on
a longer time scale against similar funds, and if they still show
as dogs, then cut and run on that basis, not on what the markets
are doing today, or may do tomorrow.

Tom Worley
[e-mail]
ICQ # 5568838


- ----- Original Message -----
From: BW Smith <[e-mail]>
To: <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2001 6:07 PM
Subject: [CANSLIM] Mutual Fund Question


Won mentioned to keep mutual funds and never sale them.  Hmm,
wonder if he
ever felt like his mutual funds were bleeding his portfolio to
death?
Presently, my NASDAQ heavy funds drop in value day after day.
There are
many folks who believe that it could be several weeks or months
before the
market direction changes.  We are encouraged to cut our losses
quickly on
stocks which are tanking on us, so why keep mutual funds that are
dropping
significantly?

What would be dumb about moving those poorly performing funds
into their
family income funds until the market direction changes?  The cost
is zero to
switch funds within the same families.  Not only would that
curtail the
losses, but it would generate a modest profit.  As Greenspan
lowers the
rates, the income funds yield higher returns.

Thanks from Bill Smith


- -



- -

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

Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 21:44:39 -0700
From: "Patrick Wahl" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Mutual Fund Question

On 1 Mar 01, at 17:07, BW Smith wrote:

> Won mentioned to keep mutual funds and never sale them.  Hmm, wonder if he
> ever felt like his mutual funds were bleeding his portfolio to death?
> Presently, my NASDAQ heavy funds drop in value day after day.  There are
> many folks who believe that it could be several weeks or months before the
> market direction changes.  We are encouraged to cut our losses quickly on
> stocks which are tanking on us, so why keep mutual funds that are dropping
> significantly?
>
> What would be dumb about moving those poorly performing funds into their
> family income funds until the market direction changes?  The cost is zero to

Great, maybe this is a sign of capitulation, a market bottom.
Anyway, I can think of a few reasons - one, the reason you cut
your losses in stocks because any one stock could go in the toilet
and never come back (what if you owned etoys for example and
didn't cut your losses), but a mutual fund is the market, or a
market sector, and the market isn't going away, your fund should
always recover once the market does.

The biggie, I think, is - When does the market direction change?
How do you figure that one out?  What if you sold out in November
or Dec., then decided in January when the market rallied for a few
weeks after the rate cut that the market had turned.  You would
have bought near a high and probably be ready to sell again now,
losing money.  I don't think we have that much more market risk
from this point,  so you may protect yourself against a drop of a
few percent, but by the time you decide to get back in, you are
probably giving away part of the initial move and losing what you
were trying to save yourself from.


- -

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

Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 22:01:14 -0700
From: "Patrick Wahl" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Japan

On 1 Mar 01, at 21:32, Tom Worley wrote:

> If you think we have it tough with the NASDAQ, look at Japan,
 where they hit a 15+ YEAR low last night, and are down another
 1.4% right now. And that's despite the rally in Naz today, not
 giving them any boost from the looks of things.

My faulty memory won't let me recall the exact details, but I have
read that the Japanese deficit is now a huge percentage of their
GDP, much larger than the US deficit was even at its worst.  They
are in trouble over there.  I don't think the government really knows
what to do about it either.

- -

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

Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 23:04:37 -0600
From: "Lonnie Lepp" <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [CANSLIM] Mutual Fund Question

My wife and I have 3 Mutuals in the Vanguard group, SP500, Health Care and
REIT Index. At the beginning of each month as we are paying bills we put
about 15% of our Income for the previous month into our various long term
holdings by balancing the totals. What I mean is that if we assume that on 1
Mar my accounts are as follows; Reits show $10,000, Health shows $9,800 and
SP500  show $9,600. Assume that I have $900 to invest. I would put $100 in
REITs ,$300 in Health and 50000 in SP500.
All I have done is dollar cost average. It is simple. It works. Tax
consequences are none. as opposed to moving money from 1 account to another.

In my IRA, also at Vanguard, I juggle the money back and forth as the month
progresses because there is no tax consequence for doing so.

Lonnie Lepp
[e-mail]

- -----Original Message-----
From: [e-mail]
[mailto:[e-mail]]On Behalf Of Tom Worley
Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2001 9:37 PM
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Mutual Fund Question


Hi BW,

Even with my experience, I did not see the magnitude of this
decline in the markets. Wish I had, would have made some changes
in the funds in my 401. As it is, I not only didn't sell any, I
kept adding to them thru early Jan '01. For right now, my 2001
contributions are going into the money market instead. I will
control the timing of when those funds are added to the growth
funds.

The primary reason WON advocates buying and holding (or adding
to) mutual funds is that they tend to trade in a three to four
year cycle. And, as another member pointed out, you cannot trade
them except on that day's NAV (net asset value) which is not set
until about 5:30 PM each day. If you enter the order during the
trading day, you get that day's NAV. If you enter the order after
the close at 4 PM, you will get the next day's NAV.

If you are trying to compare similar mutual funds from different
families, do not use a one year comparison. Look at the three and
five year comparisons.

When I was still a stock broker, I interviewed several mutual
fund timing services. They had a good spiel, and claimed a good
track record.  But I followed the best sounding for about a year
or so after that, and was not impressed with what they did. I
have timed my own funds in the past, but the gains were not worth
the time it took.  Granted, the severity of this selloff would
have made it worth while, but who knew back in Nov or so, or even
early Jan '01 as the Feds began to cut, that we would be where we
are today?

Trying to predict the future trend of any of the markets is
difficult, and that is what you are doing when you try to time
the funds you own.  It's better to measure how they are doing on
a longer time scale against similar funds, and if they still show
as dogs, then cut and run on that basis, not on what the markets
are doing today, or may do tomorrow.

Tom Worley
[e-mail]
ICQ # 5568838


- ----- Original Message -----
From: BW Smith <[e-mail]>
To: <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2001 6:07 PM
Subject: [CANSLIM] Mutual Fund Question


Won mentioned to keep mutual funds and never sale them.  Hmm,
wonder if he
ever felt like his mutual funds were bleeding his portfolio to
death?
Presently, my NASDAQ heavy funds drop in value day after day.
There are
many folks who believe that it could be several weeks or months
before the
market direction changes.  We are encouraged to cut our losses
quickly on
stocks which are tanking on us, so why keep mutual funds that are
dropping
significantly?

What would be dumb about moving those poorly performing funds
into their
family income funds until the market direction changes?  The cost
is zero to
switch funds within the same families.  Not only would that
curtail the
losses, but it would generate a modest profit.  As Greenspan
lowers the
rates, the income funds yield higher returns.

Thanks from Bill Smith


- -



- -


- -

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

Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 23:09:04 -0600
From: "BW Smith" <[e-mail]>
Subject: [CANSLIM] Mutual Fund Answer

Thanks to Tom and Walter for the advice concerning funds.  Yes, it does
appear rather difficult and potentially costly to try to time the entry and
exit points for mutual funds in an uncertain NASDAQ market.  So, I will not
attempt to time the market.  By the way, I checked and found that one of my
funds, GSSQX, is a real dog as judged by any criteria.  That one will be
sold.

My other four mutual funds have all performed significantly below the S & P
500 Index for the past three and five year years.  Just for the heck of it I
checked several other funds presently being held by close friends and found
none that outperformed the S & P 500 Index over a three or five year period.
What the heck?  Maybe dumping all of my lack-luster mutuals and later buying
an S & P index fund is the best way to go?  Hmmm, that would be trying to
time the market too?

Bill Smith



- -

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

Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 23:09:29 -0600
From: "Lonnie Lepp" <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [CANSLIM] Mutual Fund Question

Opps
That should have read 500 in sp500 not 50000
Anyhow you get the idea.

Lonnie Lepp
[e-mail]

- -----Original Message-----
From: [e-mail]
[mailto:[e-mail]]On Behalf Of Lonnie Lepp
Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2001 11:05 PM
To: [e-mail]
Subject: RE: [CANSLIM] Mutual Fund Question


My wife and I have 3 Mutuals in the Vanguard group, SP500, Health Care and
REIT Index. At the beginning of each month as we are paying bills we put
about 15% of our Income for the previous month into our various long term
holdings by balancing the totals. What I mean is that if we assume that on 1
Mar my accounts are as follows; Reits show $10,000, Health shows $9,800 and
SP500  show $9,600. Assume that I have $900 to invest. I would put $100 in
REITs ,$300 in Health and 50000 in SP500.
All I have done is dollar cost average. It is simple. It works. Tax
consequences are none. as opposed to moving money from 1 account to another.

In my IRA, also at Vanguard, I juggle the money back and forth as the month
progresses because there is no tax consequence for doing so.

Lonnie Lepp
[e-mail]

- -----Original Message-----
From: [e-mail]
[mailto:[e-mail]]On Behalf Of Tom Worley
Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2001 9:37 PM
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Mutual Fund Question


Hi BW,

Even with my experience, I did not see the magnitude of this
decline in the markets. Wish I had, would have made some changes
in the funds in my 401. As it is, I not only didn't sell any, I
kept adding to them thru early Jan '01. For right now, my 2001
contributions are going into the money market instead. I will
control the timing of when those funds are added to the growth
funds.

The primary reason WON advocates buying and holding (or adding
to) mutual funds is that they tend to trade in a three to four
year cycle. And, as another member pointed out, you cannot trade
them except on that day's NAV (net asset value) which is not set
until about 5:30 PM each day. If you enter the order during the
trading day, you get that day's NAV. If you enter the order after
the close at 4 PM, you will get the next day's NAV.

If you are trying to compare similar mutual funds from different
families, do not use a one year comparison. Look at the three and
five year comparisons.

When I was still a stock broker, I interviewed several mutual
fund timing services. They had a good spiel, and claimed a good
track record.  But I followed the best sounding for about a year
or so after that, and was not impressed with what they did. I
have timed my own funds in the past, but the gains were not worth
the time it took.  Granted, the severity of this selloff would
have made it worth while, but who knew back in Nov or so, or even
early Jan '01 as the Feds began to cut, that we would be where we
are today?

Trying to predict the future trend of any of the markets is
difficult, and that is what you are doing when you try to time
the funds you own.  It's better to measure how they are doing on
a longer time scale against similar funds, and if they still show
as dogs, then cut and run on that basis, not on what the markets
are doing today, or may do tomorrow.

Tom Worley
[e-mail]
ICQ # 5568838


- ----- Original Message -----
From: BW Smith <[e-mail]>
To: <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2001 6:07 PM
Subject: [CANSLIM] Mutual Fund Question


Won mentioned to keep mutual funds and never sale them.  Hmm,
wonder if he
ever felt like his mutual funds were bleeding his portfolio to
death?
Presently, my NASDAQ heavy funds drop in value day after day.
There are
many folks who believe that it could be several weeks or months
before the
market direction changes.  We are encouraged to cut our losses
quickly on
stocks which are tanking on us, so why keep mutual funds that are
dropping
significantly?

What would be dumb about moving those poorly performing funds
into their
family income funds until the market direction changes?  The cost
is zero to
switch funds within the same families.  Not only would that
curtail the
losses, but it would generate a modest profit.  As Greenspan
lowers the
rates, the income funds yield higher returns.

Thanks from Bill Smith


- -



- -


- -


- -

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

Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 21:13:29 -0800 (PST)
From: John <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Selling Strategies

We must be at the bottom.  My last stock sold -- that
always happens at the bottom.

John

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/

- -

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

Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 21:18:01 -0800 (PST)
From: Kent Norman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Japan

oh, they know, they just don't have the guts to do it.

Kent

> > If you think we have it tough with the NASDAQ,
> look at Japan,

<snip>

> I don't think the government really knows
> what to do about it either.


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/

- -

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

Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 21:26:37 -0800 (PST)
From: John <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Japan

It also shows that just cutting interest rates can't
fix an economy with big problems.  Japan has low
rates and they are still in trouble.

John

- --- Patrick Wahl <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>
> On 1 Mar 01, at 21:32, Tom Worley wrote:
>
> > If you think we have it tough with the NASDAQ,
> look at Japan,
>  where they hit a 15+ YEAR low last night, and are
> down another
>  1.4% right now. And that's despite the rally in Naz
> today, not
>  giving them any boost from the looks of things.
>
> My faulty memory won't let me recall the exact
> details, but I have
> read that the Japanese deficit is now a huge
> percentage of their
> GDP, much larger than the US deficit was even at its
> worst.  They
> are in trouble over there.  I don't think the
> government really knows
> what to do about it either.
>
> -
>


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/

- -

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

End of canslim-digest V2 #1169
******************************

 To unsubscribe to canslim-digest, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 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.