More from Aneesh Philomina Antony (ProdigalTrader)
#tataelxsi
2772 - 4455
60% move
it made a fresh breakout recently and looks poised to make further gains
strong stock for huge gains https://t.co/bTizotDqHz
2772 - 4455
60% move
it made a fresh breakout recently and looks poised to make further gains
strong stock for huge gains https://t.co/bTizotDqHz
strong uptrending stock
— Aneesh Philomina Antony (@ProdigalTrader) April 4, 2021
unlikely to accumulate for further long
supply seems to have dried up#tataelxsi pic.twitter.com/btBiDgfxbt
Parameters
1.Price structure - higher swing highs & swing lows
2. Momentum - doubled in last 250 days & trade close to recent highs
3. Demand - Higher volume on green bars
4. Volatility - Bigger bars on upside & shorter on downside
5. Relative strength - Outperforming market
1.Price structure - higher swing highs & swing lows
2. Momentum - doubled in last 250 days & trade close to recent highs
3. Demand - Higher volume on green bars
4. Volatility - Bigger bars on upside & shorter on downside
5. Relative strength - Outperforming market
Hello Aneesh, (1) apart from the volume supported HH-HL formation in ATH or 52 weeks high stocks, what other data point u see to shortlist scrip? (2) How do u estimate the holding period for the scrip? Plz guide
— Rohit Khanna\U0001f1ee\U0001f1f3 (@Rohit_MktWale) March 26, 2022
More from Apollohospitals
You May Also Like
This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.
Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)
There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.
At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?
Imagine for a moment the most obscurantist, jargon-filled, po-mo article the politically correct academy might produce. Pure SJW nonsense. Got it? Chances are you're imagining something like the infamous "Feminist Glaciology" article from a few years back.https://t.co/NRaWNREBvR pic.twitter.com/qtSFBYY80S
— Jeffrey Sachs (@JeffreyASachs) October 13, 2018
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.
Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)
There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.
At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?