UNDERSTANDING CHART PATTERNS IN REAL CHARTS!

RETWEET AND LIKE 👍❤
@kuttrapali26 @AmitabhJha3

More from JayneshKasliwal

More from Learnings

Should you add more in Equity or redeem right now?

A thread 🧵to guide retail on why & what should they do at these historic market highs.

Do ‘re-tweet’ and help us educate more retail investors (1/n)

#investing #StockMarket

Some investors feel that markets are trading at a PE of 27 vs 10 years historical average of 20 and a market-cap to GDP of 105 vs historical average of 79 and hence markets look expensive (2/n)


But, in such crazy liquidity driven markets, prices can move much ahead of the fundamentals & suddenly we start hearing commentaries of how the market is pricing in the earnings of FY 22 & 23 to justify the rally

If you r new to fundamentals, 👇 can help


Results for Q4 have come out very well but that is also because of the lower base effect of the last year.

Over the last many years, markets have corrected 10-15% each calendar year. Can it happen this year as well? Can very much and that can be a great entry point. Why? (4/n)


There are a lot of over hangs in the near term,
-Crude going up
-$ index moving up
-Inflation moving up
-COVID uncertainties
All of the above are –ve for markets & liquidity on the other side driving markets up, its impossible to judge the near term movement of the markets (5/n)

You May Also Like

I think a plausible explanation is that whatever Corbyn says or does, his critics will denounce - no matter how much hypocrisy it necessitates.


Corbyn opposes the exploitation of foreign sweatshop-workers - Labour MPs complain he's like Nigel

He speaks up in defence of migrants - Labour MPs whinge that he's not listening to the public's very real concerns about immigration:

He's wrong to prioritise Labour Party members over the public:

He's wrong to prioritise the public over Labour Party
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?