Circumstantial factors causing #NIFTY's resistance:
• Reverse retracement at 1.618
• NIFTY in USD terms reverse retracement at 1.382
• NIFTY in GSec at previous Highs
More from Piyush Chaudhry
New All Time High.
#HINDUNILVR
EW
Long Term Chart of the Month. #HINDUNILVR
— Piyush Chaudhry (@piyushchaudhry) December 9, 2020
Sometime in the next decade I see a fair possibility of stock reaching 7000 odd.
Invalidation below Blue Trendline. #ElliottWave pic.twitter.com/uxQrzt1mbj
as per relative strength
One question that I often get is which of the two: #HINDUNILVR or #ITC would be a better Investment bet. While their individual charts are clear themselves, another approach is ratio chart. IMHO Lever should outperform ITC for several years going forward.https://t.co/3AFqm6FJ1Q pic.twitter.com/rLuIm8xyVw
— Piyush Chaudhry (@piyushchaudhry) December 30, 2020
15 Months to this post. No change in the larger projections.
Long Term Chart of the Year.#NIFTY - Wave 5 (Cycle Degree) Target Zone of 25000-34000 by 2024-2027.
— Piyush Chaudhry (@piyushchaudhry) December 19, 2020
Reassessment on a breach below Blue Trendline. A breach is not a necessary invalidation. Depends on internals.
The dashed path is for representative purpose only. #ElliottWave pic.twitter.com/1xVY4OSr5T
You May Also Like
Just added Telegram links to https://t.co/lDdqjtKTZL too! Now you can provide a nice easy way for people to message you :)
Less than 1 hour since I started adding stuff to https://t.co/lDdqjtKTZL again, and profile pages are now responsive!!! 🥳 Check it out -> https://t.co/fVkEL4fu0L
Accounts page is now also responsive!! 📱✨
💪 I managed to make the whole site responsive in about an hour. On my roadmap I had it down as 4-5 hours!!! 🤘🤠🤘
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?