|
C = Current quarterly earnings
per share.
They should be up a minimum of 25% - 50%
over the year earlier. In fact, of the
500 best performing stocks O'Neil
studied in the 38 years from 1953 to
1990, three out of four had earnings
increases averaging more than 70% in the
latest publicly reported quarter before
the stocks began their major price
advance. The one out of four that didn't
show solid quarterly increases did so in
the very next quarter, and those
increases averaged 90%!
|
A = Annual earnings per share.
There should be meaningful growth over the last
five years. The annual compounded growth rate of
earnings in the superior firms should be from
25% to 50%, or even more, per year. With all of
this emphasis on earnings, it is important to
understand something about Price-Earnings Ratios
(P/E). Factual analysis of the greatest winning
stocks shows that P/E ratios have very little to
do with whether a stock should be bought or not!
In fact, you will automatically eliminate most
of the
best
investments available if you're
not willing to by a stock that trades with a
high P/E. Remember earlier when I mentioned
Xerox? In 1960 it traded at a 100 P/E - before
it went up 3300% from $5 to $170 (adjusting for
the
stock
splits). Genentech was priced at
200 times earnings in November 1985, and it
bolted 300% in the next 5 months. Syntex sold
for 45 times earnings in 1963, before it
advanced 400%. For years analysts have misused
P/E ratios, and it's amazing to me how so many
people will still ask about a company's P/E
before they ask about a company's earnings
growth.
N = New product/management/price high. =
New product/management/price high. = New
product/management/price high.
Usually it is a new product or service that
causes the big earnings acceleration we're
looking for. Consider these examples:
-
Rexall's new Tupperware division, in 1958,
helped the stock go from $16 to $50.
-
Thiokol came out with new rocket fuels for
missiles back in 1957-1959. The stock
blasted from $48 to the equiuvalent of $355.
-
In 1957-1960, Polaroid came out with the
"picture in a minute" self-developing
camera, the stock went from $65 to $260.
Then in 1965-1967 they came out with a
color-film version. The stock repeated with
an amazing, split adjusted, rise from $23 to
$133.
-
Syntex, in 1963, began marketing the oral
contraceptive pill. In six months the stock
soared from $100 to $550.
-
Computervision stock advanced 1235% in
1978-1980, with the introduction of Cad-Cam
factory automation equipment.
-
Price Company went up 15 fold in 1982-1986
while opening their chain of wholesale
warehouse membership stores.
Get the point? 95% of the greatest winners in
the 38 year study O'Neil conducted were
companies that had a major new product or
service.
The other important thing to consider is the
price of the stock. Most people miss the biggest
winners in the market because of what O'Neil
refers to as "the great paradox" of the stock
market. It is hard to accept, but the stocks
that seem too high and risky to the majority
usually go higher and what seems low and cheap
usually goes lower. If you don't think this is
true, I challenge you to look in an old
newspaper from a few months ago and observe a
good number of stocks highlighted because they
hit new highs and new lows. Then see where they
are today. Most of the highs will be higher, and
the lows will be even lower.
S
= Supply/Demand:
Small
Cap + Volume
Supply and demand dictates the price of almost
everything in your life. The law of supply and
demand is more important than all the analyst
opinions on Wall Street. The price of a stock
with 400 million shares is hard to budge up
because of the large supply of stock available.
Yet, if a company has only 2 or 3 million shares
outstanding, a reasonable amount of buying can
push the price up rapidly because of the small
available supply. If you are choosing between
two
stocks
to
buy, one with 60 million shares
outstanding and one with 10 million shares, with
all other factors equal, the smaller one will
usually be the bigger mover. Stocks that have a
large percentage owned by top management are
generally better prospects. Again referencing
O'Neil's 38 year study, more than 95% of the
companies had less than 25 million shares
outstanding when they had their greatest period
of earnings improvement and stock price
performance.
Foolish stock splits can hurt a stock's
performance. Watch out for companies that split
their stock 2 or 3 times in just a year or two.
The splitting creates a larger supply and may
make a company's
stock
performance more lethargic, like
many "big cap" companies. Large holders who
thinking of selling are often inclined to sell
their 100,000 share positions before a 3-for-1
split would have them looking to sell 300,000.
Smart short sellers (an infinitesimal group)
pick on stocks beginning to falter after
enormous price runups and splits, realizing that
the potential number of shares for sale
(particularly by funds) has dramatically been
increased.
L = Leader or Laggard?
Which is your stock? People often buy stocks
they're comfortable and familiar with, like an
old pair of shoes. Usually these are draggy
slow-pokes rather than leaping leaders. It is
really important to look at how your stock is
performing in relation to the overall market.
The 500 best performing stocks from 1953 to 1990
averaged a relative price strength of 87 (scale
of 1-99) just before they began their major
advances in price. Avoid laggard stocks and look
for genuine leaders.
I
= Institutional Sponsorship = Institutional
Sponsorship = Institutional Sponsorship
It
takes big demand to move a stock significantly
higher in price. Institutional buyers are the
most powerful source. You don't need a large
number of institutional owners, but should have
at least a few. No institutional sponsorship in
a stock is a bad sign because odds are that many
institutional investors looked at the stock and
passed it over. The things we are looking for
with C-A-N-S-L-I-M are really signs that the
bigger money (mutual funds, banks, insurance
companies, pension funds, etc.) is coming into
the stock. See that there is a
better-than-average performance record by at
least a few of the institutional owners.
Another good thing about some institutional
sponsorship is that it provides buying support
for the stock. Beware of stocks that become "overowned".
By the time performance is so obvious that
almost all institutions own it, it is probably
too late. Pay attention to whether the number of
institutional owners is increasing or
decreasing.
M = Market Direction
= Market Direction
= Market Direction
You can be right on everything else, but if you
are wrong about the direction of the broad
market you are still likely to lose money. The
best way to analyze the overall market is to
follow and understand every day what the general
averages are doing. The difficult to recognize,
but meaningful changes in the behavior of the
market averages at important turning points is
the best indicator of the condition of the whole
market.
What signs should you look for to detect a
market top? On one of the days in the uptrend,
the total volume for the market will increase
over the preceeding day's high volume, but the
Dow's closing average will show stalling action,
or substantially less upward movement, than on
prior days.
The spread between the daily high and low of the
market index will likely be a bit larger than on
the earlier days. Normal market liquidation near
the market peak will only occur on one or two
days, which are part of the uptrend. The market
comes under distribution while it is advancing!
This is one of the reasons so few people know
how to recognize distribution (selling).
Immediately following the first selling near the
top, a vacuum exists where volume may subside
and the market averages will sell off for four
days or so. The second, and probably the last
early chance to recognize a top reversal is when
the market attempts it's first rally, which it
will always do after a number of days down from
it's highest point. If this first attempt to
bounce back follows through on the third,
fourth, or fifth rally day either on decreased
volume from the day before, or if the market
average recovers less than half of the initial
drop from it's former peak to the low, the
comeback is feeble and sputtering when it should
be getting strong. Frequently the first attempt
at a rally during the beginning of a downtrend
will fail abruptly. Possibly after a one day
resurgence, the second day will open up strong,
only to sell off toward the end of the day and
suddenly close down.
After an advance in stocks for a couple of
years, the majority of the origional price
leaders will top, and you can be fairly sure the
overall market is going to get into trouble. It
is very important to pay attention to the way
the leading stocks are acting. |