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 : The Darvas Box Thread - Using the Nicholas Darvas system -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dow Beater who wrote (228)	1/18/1999 2:47:00 PM
From: jan_mike	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 498

It's CANSLIMish for sure. Now I just need the rest of the world to agree. That's why I love the Darvas concept. I get bored holding and sell perfectly good companies, many of which make runs after I get bored. I think LogicWorks tripled and was bought out soon after I sold out. I figure if I can identify a decent population of decent companies, many of them have to be moving up if the market's moving up. One or two should be really ripping in a bull/neutral market. That's my theory anyway. Mike

To: Dow Beater who wrote (228)	1/18/1999 7:33:00 PM
From: Iceberg	Respond to of 498

>CANSLIM, in some ways, is very similar to the Darvas method. Dow Beater, True. One "critical" [?] difference though - as I understand it - is that the CANSLIM approach doesn't mandate that all-time highs be a requirement prior to buying a stock; that 52-week highs will suffice, although not quite as desirable as stocks passing through all-time highs. I'm gradually forming an opinion that, for all practical purposes, a 48-52-week high is sufficient for operational purposes, and that tracking down only stocks that are at all-time highs might be a waste of time and effort. I know that's not what Darvas used. But it seems to me that a year-or-so in the market in 1999 isn't quite the same thing as a year-or-so in the market in 1959 during Darvas' heyday, approximately 40 years ago. Things happen much faster now. With Internet stocks, for example, a single day can seem like light-years - especially if you are on the wrong side of a trade. So I don't know that the all-time-high restriction Darvas emphasized is necessarily valid today. [BTW, I'm not suggesting anyone get involved with irrational-behaving Internet stocks. That was just an example I used to illustrate the concept of time in today's markets.] Ice