|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
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.
>
>
|