Americas Greatest stock Opportunity

Source: IBD

More from JayneshKasliwal

๐—›๐—ผ๐˜„ ๐˜๐—ผ ๐—ฐ๐—ฟ๐—ฒ๐—ฎ๐˜๐—ฒ ๐˜†๐—ผ๐˜‚๐—ฟ ๐—ผ๐˜„๐—ป ๐—–๐—ต๐—ฎ๐—ฟ๐˜๐—ถ๐—ป๐—ธ ๐—ฆ๐—ฐ๐—ฟ๐—ฒ๐—ฒ๐—ป๐—ฒ๐—ฟ

๐Ÿงต Thread ๐Ÿงต
[1/15]

๐—–๐—ต๐—ฎ๐—ฟ๐˜๐—ถ๐—ป๐—ธ ๐—ฆ๐—ฐ๐—ฟ๐—ฒ๐—ฒ๐—ป๐—ฒ๐—ฟ is a Stock screening tool that is useful to screen stocks based on Technical & Fundamentals.
๐Ÿ”ธ It scans stocks by using technical indicators like RSI, MACD, divergences, etc.
๐Ÿ”ธ It also uses fundamental tools like Book Value, EPS,PE etc
[2/15]

How To Create A Scan ?
Go to
https://t.co/JJEJBg3Cd8 & click on ๐˜Š๐˜ณ๐˜ฆ๐˜ข๐˜ต๐˜ฆ ๐˜š๐˜ค๐˜ข๐˜ฏ under ๐˜š๐˜ค๐˜ณ๐˜ฆ๐˜ฆ๐˜ฏ๐˜ฆ๐˜ณ๐˜ด.

[3/15]


๐—™๐—ถ๐—ฟ๐˜€๐˜ ๐—ฆ๐˜๐—ฒ๐—ฝ ๐—ง๐—ผ ๐—™๐—ถ๐—น๐˜๐—ฒ๐—ฟ ๐—ฆ๐˜๐—ผ๐—ฐ๐—ธ๐˜€
We can select segments of stocks of our choice, e.g. cash or futures stocks, Nifty 100 etc.
Click on green โ€˜+โ€™ icon to add conditions.
[4/15]


๐—–๐—ฎ๐—ป๐—ฑ๐—น๐—ฒ ๐—ง๐—ถ๐—บ๐—ฒ๐—ณ๐—ฟ๐—ฎ๐—บ๐—ฒ๐˜€ & ๐—–๐—ผ๐—บ๐—ฝ๐—ฎ๐—ฟ๐—ถ๐˜€๐—ผ๐—ป ๐—ข๐—ฝ๐—ฒ๐—ฟ๐—ฎ๐˜๐—ผ๐—ฟ๐˜€๐Ÿ”ธ We can select any timeframe of candles in Chartink, from minutes to years.
๐Ÿ”ธ And compare two candles using comparison operators like ๐˜Œ๐˜ฒ๐˜ถ๐˜ข๐˜ญ ๐˜ต๐˜ฐ or ๐˜Ž๐˜ณ๐˜ฆ๐˜ข๐˜ต๐˜ฆ๐˜ณ ๐˜›๐˜ฉ๐˜ข๐˜ฏ , crossovers etc
[5/15]

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" thingโ€”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?