Some company's concalls are addictive. You go through one n learn so much about industry that u keep going. Name some of such companies. Let me start - Heritage concalls on Dairy Industry
Your list?
If it's better than 10 year multi bagger stock list, then, like n forward 😄
More from kumar saurabh
Stocks don't pick you, You pick stocks. It's all about process.
At scientific investing, we ve "ghoomega" strategy n currently 4 stocks. UFO was one example shared
The least to do is observe all charts of @VVVStockAnalyst @charts_zone @Accuracy_Invst n u will get their pattern
At scientific investing, we ve "ghoomega" strategy n currently 4 stocks. UFO was one example shared
The least to do is observe all charts of @VVVStockAnalyst @charts_zone @Accuracy_Invst n u will get their pattern
Many were telling me that's stocks move after my post
— Volatility Volume and Value (@VVVStockAnalyst) April 18, 2022
Didn't post nahar cap today when I bought and now it's 10% higher
This shows we surf the move and don't make the move \u270c\ufe0f
More from Screeners
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?