ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/canslim/archive/v02.n922

Internet Message Format | 2000-06-13 | 41KB

From: [e-mail] (canslim-digest)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: canslim-digest V2 #922
Reply-To: canslim
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-No-Archive: yes

canslim-digest        Wednesday, June 14 2000        Volume 02 : Number 922



In this issue:

       Re: [CANSLIM] EMC - "tripple" bottom?
       Re: [CANSLIM] EMC - "tripple" bottom?
       Re: [CANSLIM] EMC - "tripple" bottom?
       Re: [CANSLIM] back to investing
       Re: [CANSLIM] WAT B/O?
       Re: [CANSLIM] back to investing
       Re: [CANSLIM] WAT B/O?
       Re: [CANSLIM] EMC - "tripple" bottom?
       Re: [CANSLIM] EMC - "tripple" bottom?
       Re: [CANSLIM] EMC - "tripple" bottom?
       Re: [CANSLIM] back to investing
       Re: [CANSLIM] KEI [Keithley Instruments]
       RE: [CANSLIM] EMC - "tripple" bottom?
       Re: [CANSLIM] back to investing
       Re: [CANSLIM] KEI [Keithley Instruments]

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

Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 22:25:49 -0700
From: "Joseph Weisfish" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] EMC - "tripple" bottom?

That may be true, but this is a CANSLIM forum and your forgetting about the
'S'.

Also it's interesting to note the U/D V ratio is a weak 0.8
Other than that there is definite resistance at 72.

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Worley" <[e-mail]>
To: <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2000 10:00 PM
Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] EMC - "tripple" bottom?


> yeah, float doesn't seem to matter on this one. Even light volume
> of 4 to 8 million shares, well under the ADV, has been
> consistently able to move this stock up in its trading range.
>
> Tom Worley
> [e-mail]
> chat with me at ICQ # 5568838
> get ICQ software at http://www.icq.com/icqhomepage.html
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Joseph Weisfish <[e-mail]>
> To: <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2000 12:42 AM
> Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] EMC - "tripple" bottom?
>
>
> What's all the fuss about EMC? How can you justify a position in
> a stock
> with a float of almost 2 billion shares?! Are you aware what type
> of buying
> is needed to push this one?
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Patrick Wahl" <[e-mail]>
> To: <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2000 9:33 PM
> Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] EMC - "tripple" bottom?
>
>
> > Looks pretty good to me, I think you could call a cup on this,
> it
> > wasn't too deep, from 71 or so to 53, which I think is around
> 28%
> > (approximately) deep, which isn't bad, volume shriveled up a
> bit for
> > a few days.
> >
> > On 12 Jun 00, at 22:57, Alexander T wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Could someone help me understand the chart of EMC's recent
> action?  It
> sort
> > > of looks like there was a double bottom from end of march to
> early may,
> and
> > > then some other cup-like base.
> > >
> > > On the other hand, one may think that there is a "Tripple"
> bottom since
> the
> > > latest peak did not go over the second peak of the W.  Could
> someone
> point
> > > out their view on this?
> > >
> > > Thank you
> > >
> > > ______________________________________________
> > > FREE Personalized Email at Mail.com
> > > Sign up at http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup
> > >
> > >
> > > -
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > -
> >
>
>
> -
>
>
>
> -
>


- -

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

Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 01:36:30 -0400
From: "Tom Worley" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] EMC - "tripple" bottom?

"S" went out of style with WON's 26 week series, and remember
that I am still a hard core, fanatic micro and small cap
investor. Haven't owned a single company with more than about 15
million shares in several years.

I like the challenge of beating the odds. Liquidity isn't
everything if you are patient. R2000 is still the best index for
the year.

Tom Worley
[e-mail]
chat with me at ICQ # 5568838
get ICQ software at http://www.icq.com/icqhomepage.html


- ----- Original Message -----
From: Joseph Weisfish <[e-mail]>
To: <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2000 1:25 AM
Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] EMC - "tripple" bottom?


That may be true, but this is a CANSLIM forum and your forgetting
about the
'S'.

Also it's interesting to note the U/D V ratio is a weak 0.8
Other than that there is definite resistance at 72.

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Worley" <[e-mail]>
To: <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2000 10:00 PM
Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] EMC - "tripple" bottom?


> yeah, float doesn't seem to matter on this one. Even light
volume
> of 4 to 8 million shares, well under the ADV, has been
> consistently able to move this stock up in its trading range.
>
> Tom Worley
> [e-mail]
> chat with me at ICQ # 5568838
> get ICQ software at http://www.icq.com/icqhomepage.html
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Joseph Weisfish <[e-mail]>
> To: <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2000 12:42 AM
> Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] EMC - "tripple" bottom?
>
>
> What's all the fuss about EMC? How can you justify a position
in
> a stock
> with a float of almost 2 billion shares?! Are you aware what
type
> of buying
> is needed to push this one?
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Patrick Wahl" <[e-mail]>
> To: <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2000 9:33 PM
> Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] EMC - "tripple" bottom?
>
>
> > Looks pretty good to me, I think you could call a cup on
this,
> it
> > wasn't too deep, from 71 or so to 53, which I think is around
> 28%
> > (approximately) deep, which isn't bad, volume shriveled up a
> bit for
> > a few days.
> >
> > On 12 Jun 00, at 22:57, Alexander T wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Could someone help me understand the chart of EMC's recent
> action?  It
> sort
> > > of looks like there was a double bottom from end of march
to
> early may,
> and
> > > then some other cup-like base.
> > >
> > > On the other hand, one may think that there is a "Tripple"
> bottom since
> the
> > > latest peak did not go over the second peak of the W.
Could
> someone
> point
> > > out their view on this?
> > >
> > > Thank you
> > >
> > > ______________________________________________
> > > FREE Personalized Email at Mail.com
> > > Sign up at http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup
> > >
> > >
> > > -
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > -
> >
>
>
> -
>
>
>
> -
>


- -



- -

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

Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 23:45:15 -0700
From: "Joseph Weisfish" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] EMC - "tripple" bottom?

Isn't that a bit to extreme? There are plenty of great breakouts in the 20m
range.

Also how did the 'S' go out of "style"? Here's an excerpt from week 8:

"Q:  What is volume and why is it important?
A: The law of supply and demand is rampant in the marketplace. Stocks never
go up in price by accident - there must be large buying or demand."

The key words here are supply and demand, supply being the float. The only
reason that specific word, or "shares outstanding" was left out of those
articles is because they were geared to selling the paper. Since you cannot
find those figures anywhere in IBD it's useless for the article to mention
it.

Instead the articles tout what is presented in the paper namely "Vol %
Change", ''Acc.-Dis", and the institutional ''36 Mos. Performance Rank".

Float (supply) is still half the equation.
- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Worley" <[e-mail]>
To: <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2000 10:36 PM
Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] EMC - "tripple" bottom?


> "S" went out of style with WON's 26 week series, and remember
> that I am still a hard core, fanatic micro and small cap
> investor. Haven't owned a single company with more than about 15
> million shares in several years.
>
> I like the challenge of beating the odds. Liquidity isn't
> everything if you are patient. R2000 is still the best index for
> the year.
>
> Tom Worley
> [e-mail]
> chat with me at ICQ # 5568838
> get ICQ software at http://www.icq.com/icqhomepage.html
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Joseph Weisfish <[e-mail]>
> To: <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2000 1:25 AM
> Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] EMC - "tripple" bottom?
>
>
> That may be true, but this is a CANSLIM forum and your forgetting
> about the
> 'S'.
>
> Also it's interesting to note the U/D V ratio is a weak 0.8
> Other than that there is definite resistance at 72.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Tom Worley" <[e-mail]>
> To: <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2000 10:00 PM
> Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] EMC - "tripple" bottom?
>
>
> > yeah, float doesn't seem to matter on this one. Even light
> volume
> > of 4 to 8 million shares, well under the ADV, has been
> > consistently able to move this stock up in its trading range.
> >
> > Tom Worley
> > [e-mail]
> > chat with me at ICQ # 5568838
> > get ICQ software at http://www.icq.com/icqhomepage.html
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Joseph Weisfish <[e-mail]>
> > To: <[e-mail]>
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2000 12:42 AM
> > Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] EMC - "tripple" bottom?
> >
> >
> > What's all the fuss about EMC? How can you justify a position
> in
> > a stock
> > with a float of almost 2 billion shares?! Are you aware what
> type
> > of buying
> > is needed to push this one?
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Patrick Wahl" <[e-mail]>
> > To: <[e-mail]>
> > Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2000 9:33 PM
> > Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] EMC - "tripple" bottom?
> >
> >
> > > Looks pretty good to me, I think you could call a cup on
> this,
> > it
> > > wasn't too deep, from 71 or so to 53, which I think is around
> > 28%
> > > (approximately) deep, which isn't bad, volume shriveled up a
> > bit for
> > > a few days.
> > >
> > > On 12 Jun 00, at 22:57, Alexander T wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > Could someone help me understand the chart of EMC's recent
> > action?  It
> > sort
> > > > of looks like there was a double bottom from end of march
> to
> > early may,
> > and
> > > > then some other cup-like base.
> > > >
> > > > On the other hand, one may think that there is a "Tripple"
> > bottom since
> > the
> > > > latest peak did not go over the second peak of the W.
> Could
> > someone
> > point
> > > > out their view on this?
> > > >
> > > > Thank you
> > > >
> > > > ______________________________________________
> > > > FREE Personalized Email at Mail.com
> > > > Sign up at http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -
> > >
> >
> >
> > -
> >
> >
> >
> > -
> >
>
>
> -
>
>
>
> -
>


- -

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

Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 16:17:02 +0200
From: Tom Gumpel <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] back to investing

At 08:20 PM 13/6/00 -0600, Earl Setser wrote:
>Where did you buy AMCC??  I bought it in April but was promptly chased out
>as the NAS rally failed.  You should ALWAYS limit your losses to no more
>than 7-8% according to WON.  If you are profiting, then there are many
>rules to consider.  I count 4 distribution days in the last 6 days, and I
>wouldn't want to hold a stock with that action.  However, when and where
>(and why if it wasn't a CANSLIM Breakout) you bought it is a key factor.

I would disagree with WON in his strategy for taking profits. Weinstein has
a much more accessible strategy which includes defensively winching up
stops as the stock continues on a stage 2 climb, but then allows you to
stop out easily.

This has allowed me 95 - 100% on PCCC and TLGD. If I had followed WON, I'd
be out much, much sooner.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Tom Gumpel
Department of Special Education                         972-2-588-2165
School of Education                                   Fax:    [phone]
The Hebrew University of Jerusalem        in US:  877-258-9406
Jerusalem, ISRAEL 91905
http://pluto.mscc.huji.ac.il/~msgumpel/main.htm
VISUALIZE WHIRLED PEAS!


- -

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

Date: 14 Jun 2000 06:59:17 -0700
From: "Tim Fisher" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] WAT B/O?

I own most of these so my opinion would be a bit biased ;}

At 04:23 PM 6/13/00 -0400, you wrote:
>Can someone please tell me if you were to choose between buying ADI, GLW,
>ANEN, SGR, SDLI, ADCT, NOK, PLXS, PWER, SEBL, or ORCL, which one would you
>buy tomorrow?
>Thanks so much all :)
>Lynn

Tim Fisher, 1995 President, Pacific Fishery Biologists
Ore-ROCK-On Rockhounding Web Site
PFB Information
mailto:[e-mail]
WWW http://OreRockOn.com


- -

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

Date: 14 Jun 2000 07:01:35 -0700
From: "Tim Fisher" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] back to investing

I removed my stop & am holding mine - this is one of those situations when
I deviate from WON. No rational reason for the selloff, not even "M", and
it had a flurry of _upgrades_ and EPS revisions upwards to boot! Also MNMD
is in this boat lately too; analysts refuse to budge after it tanked on
barely related news.

At 04:33 PM 6/13/00 -0400, you wrote:
>I am so sorry, I forgot to ask if you would sell AMCC. The volume in selling
>is mind-boggling yet the analysts keep saying it is a n overeaction. I hae
>about 1870 shares and I am not sure whether to sell all or some?
>Thanks again all :)
>LYnn
>----- Original Message -----
>From: <[e-mail]>
>To: <[e-mail]>
>Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2000 10:08 PM
>Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] back to investing
>
>
> > OK, I've said enough [too much] already on hydrogen as a fuel.  This IS a
>CANSLIM group, and it's time to get
> > back on topic:
> >
> > I was 100% invested a week ago, and I'm now 100% cash (except for mutual
>funds).  I liked the Nasdaq action
> > today, closing strong at the end--forgot to check volume though.  So why
>am I in cash?  I'm chicken; I don't
> > like having to follow my stocks every day, and I'm on vacation.
> >
> > Good luck and happy hunting,
> >
> > -Jim
> >
> > P.S. My E trade [fake] game portfolio is up 13% in under a week largely
>because of KEI [Keithley Instruments].
> > I hope one of you were fortunate enough to latch onto this a few weeks ago
>or earlier [up over 50% in a few days
> > off of a decent cup w/ handle--way extended now though].
> >
> >
> > -
> >
>
>
>-

Tim Fisher, 1995 President, Pacific Fishery Biologists
Ore-ROCK-On Rockhounding Web Site
PFB Information
mailto:[e-mail]
WWW http://OreRockOn.com


- -

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

Date: 14 Jun 2000 07:03:35 -0700
From: "Tim Fisher" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] WAT B/O?

Earl, these are all from the HGS 90/90/90 ABC list. There are some oil
drillers on that list too (the horror!)

At 08:17 PM 6/13/00 -0600, you wrote:
>No, absolutely not!!  :-)  But I will share some opinions from a CANSLIM
>perspective.  A summary is that I would only consider ADI and NOK tomorrow.
>  ADI has broken out and is in range, and NOK is ready to go (maybe).  There
>are a couple of others that I'm not following due to Industry Group rank
>below an A (as noted below), but they are a B so they could be bought.  IBD
>said to concentrate on the top 60 a few days ago.
>
>ADI - I really like the chart on this one, but I haven't bought it (at
>least yet).  I have the pivot at 92.25, so it's still buyable at today's
>close.  Hmm, I wonder if it's time to trade in my JBL for this one???  Hmmmm.
>GLW - I got this one yesterday.  I made the pivot at 220, so I wouldn't
>recommend it above 5% or $231.  Good stock.
>ANEN - Good stock, way extended.
>SGR - Not on my leader list (Steel Pipe and Tubing??), but looks extended
>anyway.  (I prefer 7+ week base, and don't even take a second look below 4
>weeks)
>SDLI - I bought this one after the FT day.  Great stock, but it's too
>extended for a purchase now.
>ADCT - Strong uptrend, way extended.
>NOK - This one is playing with a breakout.  I have the pivot at 59 (closing
>basis), but it needs to show at least 1.4 ADV when it makes the price.
>Definitely worth watching.
>PLXS - Strong uptrend, way extended.
>PWER - Industry Group Rank is 62, so it's off my list (top 40 only).
>Strong uptrend, way extended anyway.
>SEBL - I loved this one early this year!!  However, Industry Group Rank is
>65, so it's off my list (top 40 only).  Chart looks like it's forming the
>right side of the cup.  You would want to wait for a handle or a new high
>to buy this one if you want to risk the group.
>ORCL - Great stock.  However, Industry Group Rank is 65, so it's off my
>list (top 40 only). This one could be forming a handle right now.
>
>
>
>At 04:23 PM 6/13/00 -0400, you wrote:
> >Can someone please tell me if you were to choose between buying ADI, GLW,
> >ANEN, SGR, SDLI, ADCT, NOK, PLXS, PWER, SEBL, or ORCL, which one would you
> >buy tomorrow?
> >Thanks so much all :)
> >Lynn
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: <[e-mail]>
> >To: <[e-mail]>
> >Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2000 6:44 PM
> >Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] WAT B/O?
> >
> >
> >> Hi Shah,
> >>
> >> WON uses the 50 day average volume which in the case of WAT is
> >383,800...today's
> >> volume of 585,300 is 1.52 x ADVor +52% ADV.
> >>
> >> XLNX (IBD #'s 94 95 AAA) had a price B/O today to hit a new 52 week
> >high...however
> >> volume wasn't
> >> there...was less than ADV.  May be worth watching tomorrow to see if
> >volume comes
> >> in.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Ziggy
> >>
> >> Pritish Shah wrote:
> >>
> >> > I do not know much but I do not think we are seeing a substantial
> >breakout
> >> > today (as far as volume is concerned). We should see around
> >1.5xWeekly_Avg
> >> > or more.
> >> >
> >> > Last week it averaged around 400k/day this week, it is about 450k this
> >> > week and thus not a breakout volume.
> >> >
> >> > I am being defensive at the present moment because of the market and am
> >> > falling back on weekly (rather than daily) charts.
> >> >
> >> > Regards,
> >> > Shah
> >> > 408-525-4263
> >> >
> >> > On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 [e-mail] wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > I calculate the pivot point to be 109 7/8...1/8 higher than the handle
> >high of
> >> > > 109 3/4.
> >> > >
> >> > > Ziggy
> >> > >
> >> > > [e-mail] wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > > IMHO the proper pivot is 109.75 (as per TA that I have read), which
> >is the
> >> > > > top of the handle, HOWEVER, just to be on the safe side you may want
> >to
> >> > > > wait untill 113 is cleared, since it may prove to be resistance.  I
> >am
> >> > > > quite interested in what others have to say about it.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Btw, few weeks ago I purchased a stock in similar situtation
> >> > > > using 109.75 as pivot just to see it bounce down from the 52 weeks
> >high
> >> > > > resistance of 113 (I am using WAT's numbers to illustrate).  Now I
> >try to
> >> > > > use 52 weeks high as a pivot, especially if it happened recently.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Anna
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Pritish Shah <[e-mail]> on 06/13/2000 02:11:56 PM
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Please respond to [e-mail]
> >> > > >
> >> > > > To:   canslim list <[e-mail]>
> >> > > > cc:
> >> > > > Subject:  Re: [CANSLIM] WAT B/O?
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Ok here is a question for you.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > What would you consider the pivot point.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > On march 7th (start of the cup), the o/c/h/l was 109/103.5/113/103
> >> > > > Today WAT is 112.875 currently.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Is the pivot point 109 or is the pivot point 113?
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Regards,
> >> > > > Shah
> >> > > > 408-525-4263
> >> > > >
> >> > > > On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 [e-mail] wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > WAT (IBD #'s 96 91 AAB) looks like it is breaking out of a
> >> > > > > cup and handle pattern on volume that at least as of now is
> >> > > > > running about + 50% ahead of ADV.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Ziggy
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > -
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > -
> >> > > >
> >> > > > -
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > -
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> > -
> >>
> >>
> >> -
> >>
> >
> >
> >-
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>-

Tim Fisher, 1995 President, Pacific Fishery Biologists
Ore-ROCK-On Rockhounding Web Site
PFB Information
mailto:[e-mail]
WWW http://OreRockOn.com


- -

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

Date: 14 Jun 2000 07:05:27 -0700
From: "Tim Fisher" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] EMC - "tripple" bottom?

Uh, the same type of buying that pushed QCOM to 250?

At 09:42 PM 6/13/00 -0700, you wrote:
>What's all the fuss about EMC? How can you justify a position in a stock
>with a float of almost 2 billion shares?! Are you aware what type of buying
>is needed to push this one?
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Patrick Wahl" <[e-mail]>
>To: <[e-mail]>
>Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2000 9:33 PM
>Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] EMC - "tripple" bottom?
>
>
> > Looks pretty good to me, I think you could call a cup on this, it
> > wasn't too deep, from 71 or so to 53, which I think is around 28%
> > (approximately) deep, which isn't bad, volume shriveled up a bit for
> > a few days.
> >
> > On 12 Jun 00, at 22:57, Alexander T wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Could someone help me understand the chart of EMC's recent action?  It
>sort
> > > of looks like there was a double bottom from end of march to early may,
>and
> > > then some other cup-like base.
> > >
> > > On the other hand, one may think that there is a "Tripple" bottom since
>the
> > > latest peak did not go over the second peak of the W.  Could someone
>point
> > > out their view on this?
> > >
> > > Thank you
> > >
> > > ______________________________________________
> > > FREE Personalized Email at Mail.com
> > > Sign up at http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup
> > >
> > >
> > > -
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > -
> >
>
>
>-

Tim Fisher, 1995 President, Pacific Fishery Biologists
Ore-ROCK-On Rockhounding Web Site
PFB Information
mailto:[e-mail]
WWW http://OreRockOn.com


- -

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

Date: 14 Jun 2000 07:09:00 -0700
From: "Tim Fisher" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] EMC - "tripple" bottom?

Big cap breakouts are here to stay. Why? Liquidity provided by the net. Get
out of the 1986 HTMMIS rut where institutions were the only players & into
the new age where us geeks are the buying force for a breakout.
Capitalization is only relevant to mutual fund geeks with their proprietary
screens. I no longer consider capitalization except I don't want to tread
on Tom's toes so I set a 15M minimum.

At 10:25 PM 6/13/00 -0700, Joseph Weisfish wrote:
>That may be true, but this is a CANSLIM forum and your forgetting about the
>'S'.
>
>Also it's interesting to note the U/D V ratio is a weak 0.8
>Other than that there is definite resistance at 72.
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Tom Worley" <[e-mail]>
>To: <[e-mail]>
>Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2000 10:00 PM
>Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] EMC - "tripple" bottom?
>
>
> > yeah, float doesn't seem to matter on this one. Even light volume
> > of 4 to 8 million shares, well under the ADV, has been
> > consistently able to move this stock up in its trading range.
> >
> > Tom Worley
> > [e-mail]
> > chat with me at ICQ # 5568838
> > get ICQ software at http://www.icq.com/icqhomepage.html
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Joseph Weisfish <[e-mail]>
> > To: <[e-mail]>
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2000 12:42 AM
> > Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] EMC - "tripple" bottom?
> >
> >
> > What's all the fuss about EMC? How can you justify a position in
> > a stock
> > with a float of almost 2 billion shares?! Are you aware what type
> > of buying
> > is needed to push this one?
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Patrick Wahl" <[e-mail]>
> > To: <[e-mail]>
> > Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2000 9:33 PM
> > Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] EMC - "tripple" bottom?
> >
> >
> > > Looks pretty good to me, I think you could call a cup on this,
> > it
> > > wasn't too deep, from 71 or so to 53, which I think is around
> > 28%
> > > (approximately) deep, which isn't bad, volume shriveled up a
> > bit for
> > > a few days.
> > >
> > > On 12 Jun 00, at 22:57, Alexander T wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > Could someone help me understand the chart of EMC's recent
> > action?  It
> > sort
> > > > of looks like there was a double bottom from end of march to
> > early may,
> > and
> > > > then some other cup-like base.
> > > >
> > > > On the other hand, one may think that there is a "Tripple"
> > bottom since
> > the
> > > > latest peak did not go over the second peak of the W.  Could
> > someone
> > point
> > > > out their view on this?
> > > >
> > > > Thank you
> > > >
> > > > ______________________________________________
> > > > FREE Personalized Email at Mail.com
> > > > Sign up at http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -
> > >
> >
> >
> > -
> >
> >
> >
> > -
> >
>
>
>-

Tim Fisher, 1995 President, Pacific Fishery Biologists
Ore-ROCK-On Rockhounding Web Site
PFB Information
mailto:[e-mail]
WWW http://OreRockOn.com


- -

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

Date: 14 Jun 2000 07:09:00 -0700
From: "Tim Fisher" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] EMC - "tripple" bottom?

Big cap breakouts are here to stay. Why? Liquidity provided by the net. Get
out of the 1986 HTMMIS rut where institutions were the only players & into
the new age where us geeks are the buying force for a breakout.
Capitalization is only relevant to mutual fund geeks with their proprietary
screens. I no longer consider capitalization except I don't want to tread
on Tom's toes so I set a 15M minimum.

At 10:25 PM 6/13/00 -0700, Joseph Weisfish wrote:
>That may be true, but this is a CANSLIM forum and your forgetting about the
>'S'.
>
>Also it's interesting to note the U/D V ratio is a weak 0.8
>Other than that there is definite resistance at 72.
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Tom Worley" <[e-mail]>
>To: <[e-mail]>
>Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2000 10:00 PM
>Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] EMC - "tripple" bottom?
>
>
> > yeah, float doesn't seem to matter on this one. Even light volume
> > of 4 to 8 million shares, well under the ADV, has been
> > consistently able to move this stock up in its trading range.
> >
> > Tom Worley
> > [e-mail]
> > chat with me at ICQ # 5568838
> > get ICQ software at http://www.icq.com/icqhomepage.html
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Joseph Weisfish <[e-mail]>
> > To: <[e-mail]>
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2000 12:42 AM
> > Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] EMC - "tripple" bottom?
> >
> >
> > What's all the fuss about EMC? How can you justify a position in
> > a stock
> > with a float of almost 2 billion shares?! Are you aware what type
> > of buying
> > is needed to push this one?
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Patrick Wahl" <[e-mail]>
> > To: <[e-mail]>
> > Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2000 9:33 PM
> > Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] EMC - "tripple" bottom?
> >
> >
> > > Looks pretty good to me, I think you could call a cup on this,
> > it
> > > wasn't too deep, from 71 or so to 53, which I think is around
> > 28%
> > > (approximately) deep, which isn't bad, volume shriveled up a
> > bit for
> > > a few days.
> > >
> > > On 12 Jun 00, at 22:57, Alexander T wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > Could someone help me understand the chart of EMC's recent
> > action?  It
> > sort
> > > > of looks like there was a double bottom from end of march to
> > early may,
> > and
> > > > then some other cup-like base.
> > > >
> > > > On the other hand, one may think that there is a "Tripple"
> > bottom since
> > the
> > > > latest peak did not go over the second peak of the W.  Could
> > someone
> > point
> > > > out their view on this?
> > > >
> > > > Thank you
> > > >
> > > > ______________________________________________
> > > > FREE Personalized Email at Mail.com
> > > > Sign up at http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -
> > >
> >
> >
> > -
> >
> >
> >
> > -
> >
>
>
>-

Tim Fisher, 1995 President, Pacific Fishery Biologists
Ore-ROCK-On Rockhounding Web Site
PFB Information
mailto:[e-mail]
WWW http://OreRockOn.com


- -

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

Date: 14 Jun 2000 07:10:12 -0700
From: "Tim Fisher" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] back to investing

Let's hear it, I'm all ears. Need to protect my AMD and PLXS profits now &
don't want to set a stop at my buy price since I'm only 20-30% up on those.

At 04:17 PM 6/14/00 +0200, you wrote:
>At 08:20 PM 13/6/00 -0600, Earl Setser wrote:
>>Where did you buy AMCC??  I bought it in April but was promptly chased out
>>as the NAS rally failed.  You should ALWAYS limit your losses to no more
>>than 7-8% according to WON.  If you are profiting, then there are many
>>rules to consider.  I count 4 distribution days in the last 6 days, and I
>>wouldn't want to hold a stock with that action.  However, when and where
>>(and why if it wasn't a CANSLIM Breakout) you bought it is a key factor.
>
>I would disagree with WON in his strategy for taking profits. Weinstein has
>a much more accessible strategy which includes defensively winching up
>stops as the stock continues on a stage 2 climb, but then allows you to
>stop out easily.
>
>This has allowed me 95 - 100% on PCCC and TLGD. If I had followed WON, I'd
>be out much, much sooner.
>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>Tom Gumpel
>Department of Special Education                         972-2-588-2165
>School of Education                                   Fax:    [phone]
>The Hebrew University of Jerusalem        in US:  877-258-9406
>Jerusalem, ISRAEL 91905
>http://pluto.mscc.huji.ac.il/~msgumpel/main.htm
>VISUALIZE WHIRLED PEAS!
>
>
>-

Tim Fisher, 1995 President, Pacific Fishery Biologists
Ore-ROCK-On Rockhounding Web Site
PFB Information
mailto:[e-mail]
WWW http://OreRockOn.com


- -

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

Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 10:18:30 -0700
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] KEI [Keithley Instruments]

Earl Setser wrote:
...
>-Jim wrote:
>
>P.S. My E trade [fake] game portfolio is up 13% in under a week largely
>because of KEI [Keithley Instruments].
>I hope one of you were fortunate enough to latch onto this a few weeks ago
or earlier [up over 50% in a few days
>off of a decent cup w/ handle--way extended now though].
>


Earl Setser wrote:

>This one (KEI) is SCARING ME TO DEATH!!  I grabbed it Friday a week ago and
>I'm showing an 88% gain!!  I certainly have never seen this kind of gain
>this fast on any stock ever!!  I put in a stop at 60% gain earlier today,
>but I'm thinking of cinching it up a bit.

>Does anyone think the action is a "climax top" or what?  I'm gonna look
>through the chart tonight and see where I think my hard stop should be.
>Good luck all.  (I am 100% invested now.)

Earl,
I agree w/ your fear.  I've owned a couple stocks that shot up like a climax blow off top just after breaking out
from a nice base [THQI and DSPG].  Although WON says to hold on at least 8 weeks to such rapid advancers, I believe
this is much riskier NOW given the current market conditions [I still think we're merely in the large countertrend
bounce WITHIN a long overdue bear] than if it happened at the BEGINNING of a NEW bull run.  I'm just not convinced
we're in a whole new bull yet.

In the case of both of these stocks I was well served by taking my profits during these climaxes.  Neither have
returned to their lofty heights, and THQI might never recover (it dropped off shortly after I sold near its top).
HTMMIS has so many "when to sell" selling pointers that it seems almost ANY time can be justified under CANSLIM
rules, depending on how you interpret them.  It would be nauseating to either hold on and watch your profit slip
away, OR sell and watch it continue to skyrocket, but having felt both, I'd rather have a conservative profit than
the other way around.

Just my opinion,
- -Jim


- -

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

Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 08:27:19 -0600
From: "Wahl, Patrick" <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [CANSLIM] EMC - "tripple" bottom?

We kicked float size around on this list a year or two ago, maybe before you
subscribed, quite a few people anyway, if not all, agreed that float size
isn't as relevant as it was when canslim was originated.  Most of the
nineties were big cap years, remember the S&P moving about 35% 2 or 3 years
in a row, those were large cap stocks doing that.  And look at what ORCL has
done in the last year, that wouldn't fit into canslim under the old S rule,
but in spite of its larger size, it has had a very good run.

- -----Original Message-----
From: Joseph Weisfish [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2000 10:42 PM
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] EMC - "tripple" bottom?


What's all the fuss about EMC? How can you justify a position in a stock
with a float of almost 2 billion shares?! Are you aware what type of buying
is needed to push this one?

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Patrick Wahl" <[e-mail]>
To: <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2000 9:33 PM
Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] EMC - "tripple" bottom?


> Looks pretty good to me, I think you could call a cup on this, it
> wasn't too deep, from 71 or so to 53, which I think is around 28%
> (approximately) deep, which isn't bad, volume shriveled up a bit for
> a few days.
>
> On 12 Jun 00, at 22:57, Alexander T wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > Could someone help me understand the chart of EMC's recent action?  It
sort
> > of looks like there was a double bottom from end of march to early may,
and
> > then some other cup-like base.
> >
> > On the other hand, one may think that there is a "Tripple" bottom since
the
> > latest peak did not go over the second peak of the W.  Could someone
point
> > out their view on this?
> >
> > Thank you
> >
> > ______________________________________________
> > FREE Personalized Email at Mail.com
> > Sign up at http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup
> >
> >
> > -
> >
>
>
>
> -
>


- -

- -

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

Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 17:28:15 +0200
From: Tom Gumpel <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] back to investing

Tim,
My strategy (taken from Weinstein) may not be yours. I'm hesitant to
describe it, since everyone has different time frames, different levels of
risk they are willing to tolerate, and different long term/short
term/intermediate term needs.

It also depends if you consider yourself a trader or an investor. I'm a bit
of both, depending on the stock's price trajectory and levels of support
and resistance.

You should look at a chart with a 50 MA and a 200 MA. Also, if you can draw
a trendline connecting at least 3 lows.

If you are a trader, look at the trendline, and look at the last reaction
low, and take a stop below the last RL, below a whole or half number.

If you are an intermediate term investor, do the same for the 50 MA,
likewise under the 200 MA for the longer term person.

In such fun days, I adjust my stops every few days. There is absolutely no
reason why you can't mix and match. For instance, for PCCC, I have .5 of my
position under the trendline LRL and the other .5 under the 50 MA.

As of today, I've followed my PCCC up 85.2% and my TLGD up 56.2%. I feel
safe since my stops are defensive (stop at market, gtc) and I don't have to
worry about getting whipsawed. If I would have followed WON, I'd be out at
about 20% each.


At 07:10 AM 14/6/00 -0700, Tim Fisher wrote:
>Let's hear it, I'm all ears. Need to protect my AMD and PLXS profits now &
>don't want to set a stop at my buy price since I'm only 20-30% up on those.
>
>At 04:17 PM 6/14/00 +0200, you wrote:
>>At 08:20 PM 13/6/00 -0600, Earl Setser wrote:
>>>Where did you buy AMCC??  I bought it in April but was promptly chased out
>>>as the NAS rally failed.  You should ALWAYS limit your losses to no more
>>>than 7-8% according to WON.  If you are profiting, then there are many
>>>rules to consider.  I count 4 distribution days in the last 6 days, and I
>>>wouldn't want to hold a stock with that action.  However, when and where
>>>(and why if it wasn't a CANSLIM Breakout) you bought it is a key factor.
>>
>>I would disagree with WON in his strategy for taking profits. Weinstein has
>>a much more accessible strategy which includes defensively winching up
>>stops as the stock continues on a stage 2 climb, but then allows you to
>>stop out easily.
>>
>>This has allowed me 95 - 100% on PCCC and TLGD. If I had followed WON, I'd
>>be out much, much sooner.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Tom Gumpel
Department of Special Education                         972-2-588-2165
School of Education                                   Fax:    [phone]
The Hebrew University of Jerusalem        in US:  877-258-9406
Jerusalem, ISRAEL 91905
http://pluto.mscc.huji.ac.il/~msgumpel/main.htm
VISUALIZE WHIRLED PEAS!


- -

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

Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 17:30:45 +0200
From: Tom Gumpel <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] KEI [Keithley Instruments]

I don't see how this could be a problem and scare anyone, if you set your
stops well enough (see my previous post, today).
Just set the stop and let nature take its course.


At 10:18 AM 14/6/00 -0700, [e-mail] wrote:
>Earl Setser wrote:
>...
> >-Jim wrote:
> >
> >P.S. My E trade [fake] game portfolio is up 13% in under a week largely
> >because of KEI [Keithley Instruments].
> >I hope one of you were fortunate enough to latch onto this a few weeks ago
>or earlier [up over 50% in a few days
> >off of a decent cup w/ handle--way extended now though].
> >
>
>
>Earl Setser wrote:
>
> >This one (KEI) is SCARING ME TO DEATH!!  I grabbed it Friday a week ago and
> >I'm showing an 88% gain!!  I certainly have never seen this kind of gain
> >this fast on any stock ever!!  I put in a stop at 60% gain earlier today,
> >but I'm thinking of cinching it up a bit.
>
> >Does anyone think the action is a "climax top" or what?  I'm gonna look
> >through the chart tonight and see where I think my hard stop should be.
> >Good luck all.  (I am 100% invested now.)
>
>Earl,
>I agree w/ your fear.  I've owned a couple stocks that shot up like a
>climax blow off top just after breaking out
>from a nice base [THQI and DSPG].  Although WON says to hold on at least 8
>weeks to such rapid advancers, I believe
>this is much riskier NOW given the current market conditions [I still
>think we're merely in the large countertrend
>bounce WITHIN a long overdue bear] than if it happened at the BEGINNING of
>a NEW bull run.  I'm just not convinced
>we're in a whole new bull yet.
>
>In the case of both of these stocks I was well served by taking my profits
>during these climaxes.  Neither have
>returned to their lofty heights, and THQI might never recover (it dropped
>off shortly after I sold near its top).
>HTMMIS has so many "when to sell" selling pointers that it seems almost
>ANY time can be justified under CANSLIM
>rules, depending on how you interpret them.  It would be nauseating to
>either hold on and watch your profit slip
>away, OR sell and watch it continue to skyrocket, but having felt both,
>I'd rather have a conservative profit than
>the other way around.
>
>Just my opinion,
>-Jim
>
>
>-

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Tom Gumpel
Department of Special Education                         972-2-588-2165
School of Education                                   Fax:    [phone]
The Hebrew University of Jerusalem        in US:  877-258-9406
Jerusalem, ISRAEL 91905
http://pluto.mscc.huji.ac.il/~msgumpel/main.htm
VISUALIZE WHIRLED PEAS!


- -

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

End of canslim-digest V2 #922
*****************************

 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.