Is there a way to scan the SC universe for newer stock issues (e.g. < 1 year old)?

dwhitney

I would like to segregate newer issues in a favorite list. I have tried some scans e.g. [sma(200,close) is undef] - which is the notation at the upper left corner of the chart of a stock without enough data to calculate the sma(200) -- also have tried [sma(200,close) is undefined] and [sma(200,close) = 0] without success.

The process can be done manually every few months by gathering all the stocks from an exchange in a few favorite lists and then spending a few hours looking through all the candle glances pages from the lists, recording the symbol for all the short time frame charts and then re-entering them in a new favorites list. It's no fun. Any ideas would be most appreciated. maybe I am overlooking something simple.

Richard

markd

Well, here's a way to to find them each day. Then you can adjust the scan date using the calendar on the advanced scan page to walk back as far as you want. (It's just above the scan window - "Starting 0 days before..."). For instance, if you set the date to Jan 30 2015, you will get Shake Shack (and a few others). Maybe run it each weekend for the preceding five days?

Note that some days (sometimes many days) will show no results because nothing started trading that day. Also, most hits should be new issues, but there will be some junk. There are some issues (not many) that don't trade at all for days at a time, then trade large amounts on one day and go quiet again. Also, if the selected date is right after a holiday, the holiday volume may be recorded as "0" for some existing issues, so the scan will pick it up.

You may want to tweak the groups and exchanges, or the first day volume (higher or lower). The "1 day ago volume" MUST be zero.

The lines that begin "//" do not execute. The scan engine ignores them.

//universe

// line below gets stocks only, excludes indexes

[type is stock]

//optional exclusions

and [group is not etf]

and [exchange is not OTCBB]

// optional inclusions - add or remove exchanges - note "flying brackets" around the or // statement - don't touch those.



and

[

[exchange is NYSE]

or [exchange is NASD]

// or [ exchange is ...]

// or [ exchange is...]

]

// if you are interested in a particular sector or industry...

//and [sector is Technology]


// the next two statements are essential; the volume parameter 100000 can be edited

// stockcharts daily data is stored with the initial record volume = 0
// note: this is just a housekeeping tool - the date on the first record is actually
// the day BEFORE trading began

and [1 day ago volume = 0]

// the actual first day of a worthwhile new issue is usually very high volume
// edit this number higher if you get too much junk

and [volume > 100000]

dwhitney

Thank you markd for all the effort you put into responding. Running the scan you devised for Jan 30 does pull up SHAK and 5 others all of which were new that day. Unfortunately as you noted using other days and different volumes often picks up lots of junk, most of which are old issues which simply had zero volume the previous day.

I am not really interested in the early days of a new issue. I just don't want to miss out on picking up charts that have interesting early form in their first few months, for example symbol 'AST' which opened July 21, 2014, but I don't want to spend a lot of time doing it. The only type of scan that would turn this up early would have to be say [close >= sma(20,close)]. Running this type of scan would turn up half the universe of stocks.

My idea for an easy way would be a takeoff on your idea for using [1 day ago volume = 0] that is to have a scan using for example [sma(200) = 0 or 'is undefined'] so that every stock with insufficient data points to calculate the sma(200) would fall out giving you a chart list of all fairly recent new issues. You could then use candleglance to quickly weed out the ones that are really new and be left with some potentially interesting charts that have several months of history. I guess I'll have to carry on with my old fashioned method for now.

Thanks again.
Richard

markd

OK. Maybe somebody else has an easier way. This approach does require some persistence.