A big rerating underway for #McDowell based on price action.
Holding 660 & 680, poised for big run in the days, weeks & months ahead.
Volume goes with rises
Thank you.\U0001f64f
— Van Ilango (JustNifty) (@JustNifty) August 18, 2021
A fresh input for you. #McDowell
A major triangle break out in the coming months.
Presently poised to move out of recent consolidation pic.twitter.com/J15F06ODUq
More from Van Ilango (JustNifty)
You could choose to make yr entries IF in Hour t/f, it closes above mid point, 13Sma- Your choice
Elliott wave alerted to termination of "ABC" correction at 2540-2550; Now, with "i" & "ii" almost done, would be looking for "iii"rd https://t.co/rSbLlguwp1
Bollinger band has been a trusted guide with the settings of 13sma & 2 std deviation. Add to it 5 & 8 smas and it works in all time frames.
— Van Ilango (JustNifty) (@JustNifty) September 29, 2020
Start from week & Day for investments; Hour & 5 minute for intraday.
Experiment initially; you'll still need other tools to read the mkt\U0001f600\U0001f64f pic.twitter.com/yEkHiDHiha
An "ABC" correction ended & "C" wave's "12345" ended in this highly traded stock.
#Elliottwave captures Nature's law, human actions in a collective way
and,
in Top gainers' https://t.co/9bw8A0tgUp
#bajfinance is almost @ sloping channel bottom & has entered the demand zone.
— Van ilango (JustNifty) (@JustNifty) June 22, 2022
One of few stocks that are displaying +ve #Divergence in "Day t/f"
"ABC" correction "almost" done.
Above 5650, mild strength. https://t.co/IJlQ0GKtN3 pic.twitter.com/4uqY0DRqiW
More from Mcdowell
You May Also Like
Five billionaires share their top lessons on startups, life and entrepreneurship (1/10)
I interviewed 5 billionaires this week
— GREG ISENBERG (@gregisenberg) January 23, 2021
I asked them to share their lessons learned on startups, life and entrepreneurship:
Here's what they told me:
10 competitive advantages that will trump talent (2/10)
To outperform, you need serious competitive advantages.
— Sahil Bloom (@SahilBloom) March 20, 2021
But contrary to what you have been told, most of them don't require talent.
10 competitive advantages that you can start developing today:
Some harsh truths you probably don’t want to hear (3/10)
I\u2019ve gotten a lot of bad advice in my career and I see even more of it here on Twitter.
— Nick Huber (@sweatystartup) January 3, 2021
Time for a stiff drink and some truth you probably dont want to hear.
\U0001f447\U0001f447
10 significant lies you’re told about the world (4/10)
THREAD: 10 significant lies you're told about the world.
— Julian Shapiro (@Julian) January 9, 2021
On startups, writing, and your career:
Ironies of Luck https://t.co/5BPWGbAxFi
— Morgan Housel (@morganhousel) March 14, 2018
"Luck is the flip side of risk. They are mirrored cousins, driven by the same thing: You are one person in a 7 billion player game, and the accidental impact of other people\u2019s actions can be more consequential than your own."
I’ve always felt that the luckiest people I know had a talent for recognizing circumstances, not of their own making, that were conducive to a favorable outcome and their ability to quickly take advantage of them.
In other words, dumb luck was just that, it required no awareness on the person’s part, whereas “smart” luck involved awareness followed by action before the circumstances changed.
So, was I “lucky” to be born when I was—nothing I had any control over—and that I came of age just as huge databases and computers were advancing to the point where I could use those tools to write “What Works on Wall Street?” Absolutely.
Was I lucky to start my stock market investments near the peak of interest rates which allowed me to spend the majority of my adult life in a falling rate environment? Yup.
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?