|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
At 05:08 PM 6/22/97 UT, you wrote:
Jim:
I agree. The market tends to be a moving target. When this market turns
down, for example, it'll be a different ballgame.
I've been following your posts and your methodology and it sounds good to
me. I use a combination of Navellier's MPT newsletter, the Pitbull method,
IBD relative strength rank, and IBD accumulation/distribution rating to
establish my "list." Then I use trendlines, channels, support and
resistance to further select and time entries and exits.
I'm a convert to the idea of relying heavily on fundamental analysis for
stock selection, and technical analysis primarily for timing. But I prefer
to have someone else do that leg work for me.
I spent years looking for a mechanical system that could be applied to any
stock. I could alwaya find systems that would work great on some stocks
some of the time, but which always lost big-time on many stocks some or all
of the time.
I think Dave Zawicki's point about earnings upgrades and using Zack's is a
good one. Gotta have a way of narrowing down the universe.
TomJ
>Tom,
> I'm just trying to find out what works for me <G>. I use different
>approaches at different times based on what seems to be working currently.
>For a brief recap, I use several Telescan searches to identify stocks I like.
>Then for the ones I like, I download the data to my MetaStock database. I
>prune my MetaStock database periodically to keep it under 200 stocks. When I
>put a new stock in my database, I run a MetaStock comparison of several system
>tests to determine which test works best for that stock. My chart has three
>windows with indicators at the top, then a window with the Candle Volume plot
>of the stock, then a window with the volume at the bottom. The three
>indicators at the top are unique to the test that performed best, so I can
>tell which test I use for the stock by just looking at the chart. I run three
>explorations each week to determine what stocks to place on my watch list. I
>look at all the charts every few weeks. I look at the watch list charts
>daily.
> I look at the stocks that come out of the searches and explorations to
>see which ones I like. I don't use all of them, only the ones I like based on
>looking at the charts. I rely heavily on trend channels and breakouts.
> Now back to the subject <G>. For years I have used telescan Prosearches
>looking for reversals, breakouts, and strong momentum stocks with good
>fundamentals and technicals. I had not included analyst recommendations until
>recently. I have started to play with a combination of the number of analysts
>recommending the stocks coupled with strong buy recommendations which is the
>best way I know to define sponsorship. This does look promising, but not
>significantly better then several other approaches. It seems to me that
>different approaches work at different times, and it's best to have several in
>your bag of tricks. What do you think?
>
>Jim
>
>Jim
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Tom
>Sent: Sunday, June 22, 1997 11:09 AM
>To: Metastock List
>Subject: RE: Sponsorship
>
>Jim,
>
>Several months ago I attended a talk by Louis Navellier re his Market
>Portfolio Theory ("MPT") of selecting stocks. Basically, he applies a
>number of technical and fundamental screens based solely on statistical
>computer methods (as in minicomputers) designed to identify "what makes
>stocks move." I think that the only subjective input involved is how to
>balance the quantity of each stock in a portfolio to minimize volatility of
>the portfolio.
>
>Anyway, at that time, Navellier's objective, statistical analysis showed
>that "sponsorship" in the form of broker recommendations, and earnings
>estimate upgrades, were among the most important fundamental factors shared
>by the best performing stocks during the last six months. This could
>change, but for right now, it suggests that buying on
>upgrades/recommendations is not a bad approach. Of course, if you are
>prescient, you could get in before a series of upgrades/recommendations.
>I'm not. <g>
>
>Are you trying to get in on the ground floor, before any brokers get
>interested?
>
>TomJ
>
>
>
>At 07:23 PM 6/21/97 UT, you wrote:
>>Tom,
>> I wasn't really talking about the fundamentals of the stock, but instead
>
>>the investment story. For example, "brokers have to be coining money at
>these
>>high volume levels" or "farm equipment manufacturers will do well because of
>>the high grain prices". I realize that's not the sponsorship you are talking
>
>>about, but instead is one of the factors along with a stocks fundamentals
>that
>>might cause a big brokerage firm to sponsor the stock.
>> Back to your thesis. I agree that stocks can move after big firm
>sponsor
>>them. No matter what causes the move, I like to try to get in ahead of the
>>sponsorship <G>.
>>
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Tom
>>Sent: Friday, June 20, 1997 9:41 PM
>>To: metastock-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>Subject: Re: Sponsorship
>>
>>Jim:
>>
>>You may be confusing "sponsorship" with good quality fundamental analysis by
>>the quality investment firms.
>>
>>I don't think that we can tell whether it is the "sponsorship" that causes
>>certain stocks to rise, or instead, the quality of the company that is being
>>sponsored.
>>
>>At bottom, though, either way -- you win!
>>
>>Good luck.
>>
>>
>
>
|