How to recognise the strong sector?

Widely practised method is that to check the relative strength against the market. Here is the performance of each sector since nifty started falling. We can fairly accurately conclude that, we must look at PSUBANKS, METALS, AUTO

1/11

But how about the sectors such as healthcare, sugar, chemicals etc. These have no respective sector charts. How do u assess the strength in these.

Answer is to check the relative performance. Here is an example chart of health care stocks in NSE500 universe.

2/11
How do u see this?

Majority of the health care stocks are falling below the market. Its just one stock; NArayana Hridayalaya which outperforms the market. Surely its a "DO NOT TOUCH" sector

3/11
Here is how paint industry is faring at present. How do u see this?

Obvious to see majority of the stocks are underperforming the thick blue line (which is Nifty). With such as overal trend, its better to avoid such stocks.

4/11
Here is Beverages stocks & their relative performance to each other & against nifty. Trend is so obvious. Most stocks are falling much lessser than nifty.
In such adverse conditions, hollow stocks with brittle demand are prone to make steep fall. If they do not, its demand

5/11
Its the Relative performance chart of Hospitality stocks. Once again, this is a setor to watch out. They are far stronger than majority of the sectors in the market and also against the market trend.

6/11
Criteria:

1.
Just look at how the stocks are performing. If 2/3rd of the stocks are performing better than market, its a very good sector to bet upon.
2.
Another point is to check where the leaders in the sector lies. Few of them should be there abv market

7/11
NSE500 stocks are the best to keep as ur scannning universe. They contain all the quality stocks out there. And also cover all the sector with fair number of stocks and also contain enough examples from small, mid and large caps. Nifty100 etc may not be enough

8/11
Relative performance is the trick big twitter handles or TV analysts uses to predict the next winning sector. U must have heard them declaring chemicals or sugear sector as the potential watchout sectors 2020-21.

9/11
Beverages and Hospitality are the examples i shared here. There other few ones too. I leave them to u. U may want to check out Power, Textiles and Sugar sectors for this purpose. On the contrary, u can see why should not bet on Tyre stcks too in thesame way.

10/11
I intend to bring out lesser know concepts in trading regularly. But that wont sustain if the public demand isnt good in it. Like & Retweet the thread in that regard.

11/11

More from Aneesh Philomina Antony (ProdigalTrader)

More from Screeners

You May Also Like

MDZS is laden with buddhist references. As a South Asian person, and history buff, it is so interesting to see how Buddhism, which originated from India, migrated, flourished & changed in the context of China. Here's some research (🙏🏼 @starkjeon for CN insight + citations)

1. LWJ’s sword Bichen ‘is likely an abbreviation for the term 躲避红尘 (duǒ bì hóng chén), which can be translated as such: 躲避: shunning or hiding away from 红尘 (worldly affairs; which is a buddhist teaching.) (
https://t.co/zF65W3roJe) (abbrev. TWX)

2. Sandu (三 毒), Jiang Cheng’s sword, refers to the three poisons (triviṣa) in Buddhism; desire (kāma-taṇhā), delusion (bhava-taṇhā) and hatred (vibhava-taṇhā).

These 3 poisons represent the roots of craving (tanha) and are the cause of Dukkha (suffering, pain) and thus result in rebirth.

Interesting that MXTX used this name for one of the characters who suffers, arguably, the worst of these three emotions.

3. The Qian kun purse “乾坤袋 (qián kūn dài) – can be called “Heaven and Earth” Pouch. In Buddhism, Maitreya (मैत्रेय) owns this to store items. It was believed that there was a mythical space inside the bag that could absorb the world.” (TWX)
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?