Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Z Best Place to Talk Stocks -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: E.J. Neitz Jr who wrote (49883)	11/26/2003 6:10:26 AM
From: Ron McKinnon	Respond to of 53068

that is a valid method, but just another tool if any "program" always gave 75% wins it would be kept a secret while the developer got quietly rich a year track record in a bull market a guru does not make it might be interesting to compare his record >>>Since it began in August 2002, 123 of the 163 stocks it has recommended are up — a 75% success rate. And of that 163, 22 stocks have more than doubled, with nearly half of them up more than 200%. to the market as a whole anyway, thanks for posting that

To: E.J. Neitz Jr who wrote (49883)	11/26/2003 9:24:40 AM
From: BWAC	Respond to of 53068

Oh wow? I see it as just another tool. I used to think most people used some form of that anyway. But then charts were invented <g>. Is he signing up a lot of people for this freely available info? Maybe I have a problem with the accrual comment. Which the author seems to not understand the concept of matching revenues to the expenses that created them, within the same accounting period. Might as well not record payables either until you actually plan to pay them, under the flip side of his theory. <g>

To: E.J. Neitz Jr who wrote (49883)	11/26/2003 1:24:07 PM
From: Carl Worth	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 53068

sounds interesting but as ron said, 75% winners in the last 15 months is about a market performance, i would guess most of us have had at least that win percentage, without a fancy algorithm to pick our stocks...it would be interesting to see if their performance on the warnings improves over time, as companies can mask underlying trouble for a while (i.e. TYC), but eventually it comes home to roost, so over time, if his system is on the mark, more of those warning stocks may work out as to a new dow high in the next six months, color me pessimistic <g> actually, i don't want to see a move like that anyway, because then we would need a bunch of backing and filling, i'd much rather see a gradual ascent...my wishes aside tho, a move of 2000+ dow points by may seems unlikely one thing he said coincides with some info i saw in another article, that being that while the s&p is way off its highs, an unweighted portfolio of the s&p stocks, with each stock given an equal position, rather than the way the index is weighted, would now be at an all time high, so whereas the big stocks skewed the averages to the upside in the late 90's, they have held the indexes back more recently...as such, the underlying market is actually much stronger than it appears carl

To: E.J. Neitz Jr who wrote (49883)	11/26/2003 6:51:30 PM
From: Carl Worth	Respond to of 53068

one further comment... to place this guy, with a "market performance" track record of picking winning stocks in a bull market, and a mediocre record of picking stocks in trouble over the same time frame, in the company of people such as benjamin graham and warren buffett, is to say that because the cowboys are 8-3, quincy carter ranks up there with joe montana....PLEASE!!!!! happy thanksgiving all :) carl

To: E.J. Neitz Jr who wrote (49883)	11/27/2003 3:19:06 AM
From: Mark Adams	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 53068

Take their net income, add depreciation and decreases in payables back in, then subtract increases in receivables and inventories. That leaves cash flow from operations, or operational cash flow. If I might rephrase- 'adjust net income for working capital changes and add back depreciation'. I think this approach is a bit shallow, but perhaps a clue as to the correct direction. If you are going to add back depreciation, you need to account for CAPEX. Not all capex can be considered voluntary- there are O&M issues. In fact, another indicator might even look at changes in DDA vs CAPEX over time. This might show up companies that are milking assets in a wasting mode, or companies that are facing a cash crisis. Such companies might exhibit a sudden shift in CAPEX vs DDA. The ideal enterprise might be one that is creating increasing streams of cash flow via organic growth, without suffering margin compression. Now how do we get a screener to spit out those candidates?