It was very simple, TOP made on Fridays rarely remains as top. Wrong day selection by bears to form a TOP last Friday. Simple patterns of mkts always helps if one has conviction on it.
Task for weekend to those interested: Just research and check significance of TOP made on Friday. #markets #nifty #sensex
— Anand Rathi (@anandrathi12) September 17, 2021
More from Screeners
Most of the indices are entering oversold territories
Take small cap index for example
Whenever Monthly RSI is below or around 40, the index bottoms out
We are getting there.
If I had 50% cash, I would have deployed some in beaten down stocks where earnings growth is intact. https://t.co/t5WwgH1V5o
Take small cap index for example
Whenever Monthly RSI is below or around 40, the index bottoms out
We are getting there.
If I had 50% cash, I would have deployed some in beaten down stocks where earnings growth is intact. https://t.co/t5WwgH1V5o
I have more than 50% cash but still worried if this is a good time. Will invest 20% by EoY
— Tamil Metaverse (@TamilMetaverse) June 21, 2022
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?