Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
No. of Recommendations: 0
Sounds like there is some revisionist stuff going on in the book?

They specifically stay to steer clear of stocks lower than $15 and with average daily volume of 400K or less. Institutions don't like buying these, so you won't typically get your long, nest-egg making run from these.

That's odd, because their very own "Weekly Review" feature (aka 85-85 index) uses criteria of over $10 and more than 10K shares.

The WER group on Yahoo worships that list. :)

If a stock is not owned by a significant number of funds (50+) it means that at least some of the 10,000 institutional investors out there have studied and and didn't like it (so why would you expect the others to jump in and why would you).

I'm not the only one that has the different impression. Google the phrase below and you'll find a number of sites giving overviews of CANSLIM:

"a stock worth investing in has at least three to 10 institutional owners."

I wonder if IBD has changed their stance on that?

Also found in many sources:

"More than 95% of the stocks in O'Neil's study of the greatest stock market winners had less than 25 million shares outstanding. Using the simple principles of supply and demand, restricting the shares outstanding forces the supply line to shift upward which results in higher prices."

"Original: Look for companies with a total number of shares outstanding between 5 and 30 million. As later modified: Shares outstanding can be large or small, but trading volume should be big as the stock price increases."

I will once again state my objection to using something like average trading volume or daily totals. I've seen too many screens using those for liquidity checks that actually had days in the past month where the stock either didn't trade at all or traded very small amounts, simply because there was a huge surge in buying volume, only to see it return to "normal" levels soon after. I always use a MINIMUM daily total, to make sure it has real liquidity.

From my reading of HTMMIS back in 1995, I recall it being a method for picking small companies BEFORE they increase 10-fold in price. That's what O'Neil's study was about -- finding those stocks. I've always considered it an individual investor's method, and one that institutions could not apply.
Print the post  


When Life Gives You Lemons
We all have had hardships and made poor decisions. The important thing is how we respond and grow. Read the story of a Fool who started from nothing, and looks to gain everything.
Contact Us
Contact Customer Service and other Fool departments here.
Work for Fools?
Winner of the Washingtonian great places to work, and Glassdoor #1 Company to Work For 2015! Have access to all of TMF's online and email products for FREE, and be paid for your contributions to TMF! Click the link and start your Fool career.