Ultratech Cement - Strong counter with constant consolidations during an up move.
More from Steve Nison
I believe 5-10 stocks are enough for a retail investor to achieve super performance. And with small capital, there is no point in buying 20/30 names which doesn't even get appropriate initial capital.
Stock: CDSL
— Steve Nison (@nison_steve) December 16, 2020
CMP - 516.95. Low risk setup. Weak below 500. Target open. Stock retesting the ascending triangle BO line. Kindly check please. @nishkumar1977 @Rishikesh_ADX @VijayThk @kuttrapali @Thekalal @PAVLeader pic.twitter.com/PlcpOMsdnz
A bullish flag pattern right after the breakout. Although the broader rectangle target of 1190 is way more than this bullish flag target https://t.co/wdAzb7SS7L
Interesting chart of Mahindra & Mahindra consolidating in a rectangle pattern & the price not falling back to the lower support. pic.twitter.com/GJ7rCfkB9f
— The_Chartist \U0001f4c8 (@charts_zone) May 26, 2022
More from Ultratechcement
Cement companies are now is good buying zone for long term investors. Downside may not be more than 10-15% at max. Valuations extremely attractive.
— Sandeep Kulkarni (@moneyworks4u_fa) June 8, 2022
As far as I remember cement business has always been a cartel for atleast past 20 yrs.
You May Also Like
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?