Gold - Holding 1680-1720 Key.
Above 1840 its a confirmation of trend change. Till then Ping pong move to continue.
Gold CMP $1760 SL 1680 Looking Bullish on daily chart based on various parameters.
More from Shivaji Vitthalrao🇮🇳
More upside above 158.
Targets as given 200-212
#Hindcopper
Hindcopper cmp146+
— Shivaji Vitthalrao\U0001f1ee\U0001f1f3 (@shivaji_1983) July 6, 2021
Previous low 135 can be the SL for longs.
Possible short term bottom here CONFIRMATION ABOVE 158 for further upside https://t.co/iofvrn6l5b
105 is key, Bulls might defend for the time being. Once they fail during any downtrend Boy Bulls will be in serious trouble.
First targets 90-95 and worst case 65-70 (This i wil review later) https://t.co/RYaMwRQb7e
Angle 2 -- On Log scale its end of this upmove from March 2020.
— Shivaji Vitthalrao\U0001f1ee\U0001f1f3 (@shivaji_1983) August 24, 2021
No major support until 90-92.
Conclusion - any rise to 123-128 is a sell opportunity
Bullish only above 145. Personally not bulish.
Potential taregts on downside are 105-90#SAIL pic.twitter.com/yZv2WXwIMU
Could be best innings of 2022 🤑
BIG Boy of PSU Bank space is ready to make its best move after 8-9 months of consolidation.
— Shivaji Vitthalrao\U0001f1ee\U0001f1f3 (@shivaji_1983) July 7, 2022
Time for #SBI Great Again. Some more days move can trigger, stock can head towards 540-600-650-680 and more in 2022. @moneyworks4u_fa @dtbhat pic.twitter.com/N6dBJNC36s
More from Gold
You May Also Like
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?