# What are the characteristics of the next FMG??



## akumaslair (26 November 2007)

hello everyone,

was wondering if the more experienced can tell me what are the characteristics of a company to be the next FMG?????

Ive been trading mining/explorers, made a few hits and misses...

I know a guy who bought into FMG at 0.20 and sold out within a few days thinking they weren't very good.

with these miners, other then the obvious factors such as decent management, $$$ etc. etc.

do these so called nothing companies whose SP is like 1c each, simply try and gather as much money as possible to drill/explore, and they typically will shoot up 100%-1000% in matter of days or weeks if they hit the absolute goldmine of the century........

so what I am asking is, is it almost pure luck........ to be able to pick a stock in the early stages that are going to be like an FMG????

comments appreciated!!


----------



## So_Cynical (26 November 2007)

*Re: What are the characteristics of teh next FMG??*

FMG - FORTESCUE METALS GROUP LTD

First listed 01 Oct 1987  
First traded 01 Oct 1987

Amazing really...did nothing for 17 yrs then whoosh.

A 20 year old company is not an overnight sensation...imagine holding from day 1 

10 year chart below.


----------



## nioka (26 November 2007)

*Re: What are the characteristics of hte next FMG??*



akumaslair said:


> hello everyone,
> 
> was wondering if the more experienced can tell me what are the characteristics of a company to be the next FMG?????
> 
> ...



You are asking for an answer from the future. If anyone has been there please hold up your hand so that we can all stop guessing. If the answer was known then the price would have risen. Last week there were a lot of ASFers about to clean up with MHL today that dream fizzled but then again tomorrow it may boom again. Just remember the bigger the potential profit the bigger the risk.


----------



## tech/a (26 November 2007)

*Re: What are the characteristics of hte next FMG??*



> with MHL today that dream fizzled




Not if you were short.
Infact those trading CFD's short can have a field day shorting these huge one week wonders.
There are massive signs.
I have had a look technically on the threads of JMS and MHL and pointed out the weakness in each.
No I didnt short them but Ive seen it so so often I'm sure as hell opening a CFD account.

FDL was another.
Markets hate HUGE range and HUGE volume,most see it as a sign of strength in up moves and weakness in down moves.
Infact most of the time its the exact opposite!


----------



## Snagglepuss (26 November 2007)

*Re: What are the characteristics of hte next FMG??*



tech/a said:


> Not if you were short.
> Infact those trading CFD's short can have a field day shorting these huge one week wonders.




Yeah, except I very much doubt that any provider would offer CFDs over minnows like FDL or JMS ... Willing to be proved wrong, though!

- Snaggle.


----------



## nomore4s (26 November 2007)

*Re: What are the characteristics of hte next FMG??*



Snagglepuss said:


> Yeah, except I very much doubt that any provider would offer CFDs over minnows like FDL or JMS ... Willing to be proved wrong, though!
> 
> - Snaggle.




Macquaire Prime will let you short them but with little or no margin


----------



## akumaslair (27 November 2007)

I think I need to clarify, I am not requesting people tell me which stocks are going to be like FMG etc...

Just would like to know what are the typical characterisitcs of one that will make it more likely then another stock... or what is the main one.... just for the beginners to get some idea...


----------



## the barry (27 November 2007)

akumaslair said:


> I think I need to clarify, I am not requesting people tell me which stocks are going to be like FMG etc...
> 
> Just would like to know what are the typical characterisitcs of one that will make it more likely then another stock... or what is the main one.... just for the beginners to get some idea...




The most important characteristic of a stock like fmg is the number of shares on issue. Its low number of shares on issue has allowed the share price to climb to the highs it has. The fewer the shares on issue the higher the stock price can run. 

That is one of the main reasons i am in bannermans (bmn), it has approx. half the shares on issue that fmg has so it has the potential to run quickly. Having said that not many companies come up with the resource that fmg has.


----------



## Timmy (27 November 2007)

the barry said:


> The most important characteristic of a stock like fmg is the number of shares on issue. Its low number of shares on issue has allowed the share price to climb to the highs it has. The fewer the shares on issue the higher the stock price can run.
> 
> That is one of the main reasons i am in bannermans (bmn), it has approx. half the shares on issue that fmg has so it has the potential to run quickly. Having said that not many companies come up with the resource that fmg has.




Thats interesting Barry.  Can I ask a question about this point?  In the tech boom this was the case with a lot of companies, the shares issued only made up a small portion of the overall "value" of the company - eg. company may have been worth $100, but only $10 of publicly trader shares available (numbers just examples).  So is this the case with FMG?  That is, the actual "value" of the company is X but there are only shares with a value of x/10 (or whatever) on issue, or do the number of shares on issue reflect entire value of the company?


----------



## explod (27 November 2007)

*Re: What are the characteristics of hte next FMG??*



tech/a said:


> Not if you were short.
> Infact those trading CFD's short can have a field day shorting these huge one week wonders.
> There are massive signs.
> I have had a look technically on the threads of JMS and MHL and pointed out the weakness in each.
> ...




Absoluely.  There was huge volume for MHL on he 14th and 15th.  What does that say?    A lot of buyers, but equally a lot of sellers.  

Good plays are usually steady uptrends, often on low volume, few want to sell, conservative buyers (have usually done their home work)


----------



## RichKid (27 November 2007)

the barry said:


> The most important characteristic of a stock like fmg is the number of shares on issue. Its low number of shares on issue has allowed the share price to climb to the highs it has. The fewer the shares on issue the higher the stock price can run.
> 
> That is one of the main reasons i am in bannermans (bmn), it has approx. half the shares on issue that fmg has so it has the potential to run quickly. Having said that not many companies come up with the resource that fmg has.




Another, perhaps obvious, point to note from a supply/demand perspective is that the fewer shares on offer the greater the effect of buyer demand on the share price, it only takes a bit of buyer energy to drive prices higher as supply has dried up. Wyckoff made some interesting points about balance points where the scales tip inexorably in favour of oneside- thanks to motorway again for his insights. This is especially so in highly emotional markets like the resource speccies, consider it a form of leverage. Fat Prophets Mining and other tipsheets that track these small caps often keep an eye on 'dilution of ownership' or the number of shares on issue when filtering candidates. 

As long as the stock is liquid, trends cleanly and has high daily turnover with narrow spreads (ie easy to get in and out of) then it'll have my preference from a TA perspective- but not many of the 'small chips' share these traits.  Some small caps have a bad reputation for issuing millions of shares, even if they make a huge discovery worth hundreds of millions very little will filter through on a per share basis- not that the market always considers this initially when people are euphoric. I'm not much of an expert on speccies so these thoughts might be flawed.


----------



## Kauri (27 November 2007)

Fairly difficult I would have thought to pick another FMG...
 AMS brought Twiggy on board and gave him about 50% of the company in cheeep options, he then changed the Co. name to FMG and started what he does best, selling the companies story to investors... so this one was a combination of a Management change later backed up by the China ore story.. I think..
Cheers
........Kauri


----------



## akumaslair (27 November 2007)

Can anyone else confirm or agree with Barrry...

would the smaller number of shares be the most important factor in determining this???


----------



## tech/a (27 November 2007)

akumaslair said:


> Can anyone else confirm or agree with Barrry...
> 
> would the smaller number of shares be the most important factor in determining this???





Think about this a little.
Potential and performance have little correlation until its on its way.
You can sit in 50 stocks with potential.
Its the one that moves you want to be on.
I maybe wrong but thats the aim of your question is it not?


----------



## prawn_86 (27 November 2007)

akumaslair said:


> Can anyone else confirm or agree with Barrry...
> 
> would the smaller number of shares be the most important factor in determining this???




Its really not about the number of shares, its the market cap.

A company and have 1bill shares @ $1 = $1bill MC or 100mil shares @ $1 = $100mill market cap. 

So therefore buying co's with low # on issues makes no difference really, it depends on the price of the shares and the number ie - market cap.


----------



## alphman (27 November 2007)

akumaslair said:


> Can anyone else confirm or agree with Barrry...
> 
> would the smaller number of shares be the most important factor in determining this???




The number of shares only determines the price at which a company trades at.

eg. 
Company ABC has 100,000,000 shares and has a market value of $500,000,000.  Share price is $5.00.
Company XYZ has 500,000,000 shares and has a market value of $500,000,000.  Share price is $1.00.

In terms of "potential gains", to me it makes no difference.

eg.
Company ABC has 100,000,000 shares and has an initial market value of $10,000,000.  Share price is $0.10.
Company XYZ has 500,000,000 shares and has an initial market value of $10,000,000.  Share price is $0.02.

Assume both companies are successful and are now worth $500,000,000 (as in the previous example).  Gain for both is 50 times, so no difference.

Therefore, ther smaller number of shares is *NOT* "the most important factor in determining this".  

It is more a combination of strong management, quality projects, market sentiment and self-integrity among many other factors.

You can find the strongest management with the highest quality projects, but in the end market sentiment towards the company determines the price, and self-integrity determines your gain (eg.  If I invested $100,000 in FMG "back then" when it was trading at $0.20, I probably would have sold when it reached $1.00, realising 500% and thinking "you beaut!".  Little would I have known at the time that if I held on, it could have doubled, tripled, quadrupled.. etc - the higher the share price, the greater my investment, the wobblier my knees)

So, to answer your question, there are no solid characteristics of an FMG-like company, but management and project quality are considered a good start.  Whether or not you can bring yourself to forget about it for 10 years is another story.

(All IMO).


----------



## mr_delta (27 November 2007)

> _You can find the strongest management with the highest quality projects, but in the end market sentiment towards the company determines the price, and self-integrity determines your gain (eg. If I invested $100,000 in FMG "back then" when it was trading at $0.20, I probably would have sold when it reached $1.00, realising 500% and thinking "you beaut!". Little would I have known at the time that if I held on, it could have doubled, tripled, quadrupled.. etc - the higher the share price, the greater my investment, the wobblier my knees)_





On a similar note, but in a different country (India), there is a parallel story…

In 1977 a company called Reliance Industries Ltd was floated and any investor who invested Au$30 (IPO price – 30c per share)at the time today finds his investment at over Au$200,000 due to number of bonus shares & free shares allocated in 3 other companies. The Chairman of this company recently became the world’s richest person based on this valuations. I read in the Indian papers that there are more than 10% of seed investors still on the company records as current share holders. They are reaping the maximum benefit of this huge upside simply because of the fact that they did not bail out when the sp moved from 30c to $3 or 5 or 10 or at its current $150 (based on the fact that it is now split into multiple companies). So according to me when you are on such a ride, the best option would be to sit tight & let your profits work for themselves. This is IMO a “really solid return on investment”.


----------



## adobee (8 December 2007)

I bought FMG at $7 after reading an arcticle in brw rich 200 that said he had been the richest and poorest in the 200 on and off throughout the year.. At this time I was looking for potential mining players and after reading up on him decided he was a player (I am still of this mind frame and still not to sure I believe everything he says) however if you can find a manager like this who talks the talk but doesnt get caught out the company can look awfully good..
I sold FMG at $20 thinking it was to good to be true and would retrace.. I am still waiting.. My pick for the next FMG still share is AND Andean resources potential of big reserves, already a fast mover and investors who hold on..


----------



## ithatheekret (8 December 2007)

Anything with a solid reserve of coal in their tenements , would have to have a look in . 2008 will be a good year for coals .


----------



## the barry (9 December 2007)

alphman said:


> The number of shares only determines the price at which a company trades at.
> 
> eg.
> Company ABC has 100,000,000 shares and has a market value of $500,000,000.  Share price is $5.00.
> ...




What you are saying is completly incorrect, the question is asking what are the characteristics of the next fmg. 

In your example above, say the two companies hypothetically have the same resource in the same country etc. 

In your example the company abz would have a share price of $5 compared to that of xyz of $1 

Now if xyz was to run to that of abz, it would have a market cap of 5 times that of abc which is completly illogical. 

Market cap is = number of shares on issue x the current share price. 

Now do you understand why the number of shares is one of the most important factors when determing a shares ability to run?


----------



## jet328 (9 December 2007)

For me, its all about *SCALE, SCALE, SCALE*

How many companies are there that will have BHP/RIO sort of scale? 
You only have to look at some of these 2nd & 3rd tier iron ore players to realise that they have no chance in hell of getting near the economies of the scale the big 3 will have. When I last looked, BHP & RIO's cost of production were around the $10-15/t mark. Then look at some of these smaller players costs. Most will be 3 times that.

*PROFIT = VOLUME * MARGIN*

Companies with *SCALE* have bigger volumes and bigger margins

I think you've got to look for something that is out of favour (difficult the last year or two) and with a low market cap relative to its potential *SCALE*

Cheers 

If you find any, let us know


----------



## jet328 (9 December 2007)

Should have added

I really don't think the number of shares on offer will make any long term difference.

At the end of the day, its the potential profit Vs the market cap (ie. the % of the company that you will own is still the same)


----------



## Bushman (9 December 2007)

For me, the FMG story comes down to one factor - the ability of Twiggy to sell his vision of the company to investors (both debt and equity), thus raising the funding for the huge infrastructure costs needed to get the Fortescue Valley IO project off the ground. It is a much quoted fact, but FMG is yet to produce a shipment of ore. Investors had to be convinced of the integrity and drive of mgt to get this project financed and built. 

Personally I am not too concerned about market cap. While it is true that if a a share has a lower 'free float', the sp can appreciate remarkably, these shares are also invariably difficult to value as they tend to be more illiquid. What comes up quickly can come down quickly. Investors will always pay a premium for liquidity.  

Does the company have a vision? Can the MD sell this vision? Will investors have the faith in the MD to buy in to the project? Do exonomic indicators and investor timeframes support the vaibility of the project? These are the questions I ask. 

What do I believe to be the next FMG - I like POL/SDL (ore potential) and GBG (strategic value) and a few others. But there is much water to flow under the bridge before the full potential is realised, if ever. They will NOT be $50 companies though but that does not mean their market cap does not have the potential to be +$1b plus.


----------



## Scuba (9 December 2007)

mr_delta said:


> On a similar note, but in a different country (India), there is a parallel story…
> 
> In 1977 a company called Reliance Industries Ltd was floated and any investor who invested Au$30 (IPO price – 30c per share)at the time today finds his investment at over Au$200,000 due to number of bonus shares & free shares allocated in 3 other companies.
> ...edited for brevity...
> This is IMO a “really solid return on investment”.



Does anyone else know of any more of these "success stories" ie; like Warren Buffett's investment Co (please correct a noob if neccesary)?

Back to the question, I wonder if here in Australia whether the upbringing of Mr Forrest (?) and his ability to deal with the traditional owners and communities (not to mention) the way he looks after "his" workers has anything to do with the flow of the projects and hence the shareprice...?


----------



## kloid (13 December 2007)

the barry said:


> What you are saying is completly incorrect, the question is asking what are the characteristics of the next fmg.
> 
> In your example above, say the two companies hypothetically have the same resource in the same country etc.
> 
> ...




Hi,

I don't understand what you've said.  To my (nooby) way of thinking how can the number of shares influence the likelihood of a "run"?  Surely a company has a run when there is the perception that the company has a positive future e.g. strong earnings growth, good management, good products.  If two companies exist with the same assets and prospects but one has 100m shares and one has 10m shares on issue would the first one have more chance of a run such as FMG?

Sorry if I've misunderstood but I am interested to know if this can really be the case.

Cheers
Kloid


----------



## prawn_86 (13 December 2007)

kloid said:


> Hi,
> 
> If two companies exist with the same assets and prospects but one has 100m shares and one has 10m shares on issue would the first one have more chance of a run such as FMG?




It depends on the price of the share and not the # of shares on issue.

If there was a discrepancy between the market caps of the 2 companies then you would expect the one with the smaller/lower market cap to increase


----------



## kloid (13 December 2007)

prawn_86 said:


> It depends on the price of the share and not the # of shares on issue.
> 
> If there was a discrepancy between the market caps of the 2 companies then you would expect the one with the smaller/lower market cap to increase




Thanks, that's what I thought.  I was also thinking that if the number of shares really did influence their performance then directors would presumably want to have the maximum possible number of shares in issue (assuming that share price maximisation is one of their goals).  One way to do this would be to issue shares (at the time of float) with a tiny nominal value i.e. by Barry's logic it would make more sense to issue 100m shares at 10c each rather than 10m shares at $1 each but I don't think this is the case in reality.


----------



## prawn_86 (13 December 2007)

barrys logic was the exact same as mine.

It doesnt matter how many issued/price it is all dependent on market cap.

In fact, psychology may indicate that investors would prefer a $1 stock as it is seen to be more 'solid'. although that is crap of course.


----------



## So_Cynical (14 December 2007)

I would guess that company's with lots of shares would also have lots more holders and smaller parcels of shares per holder.

Have a look at the buyers and sellers of any penny dreadful and u see lots of little 
parcels of shares....less shares = bigger parcels per holder.


----------



## Wysiwyg (14 December 2007)

So_Cynical said:


> I would guess that company's with lots of shares would also have lots* more holders and smaller parcels of shares per holder.*
> Have a look at the buyers and sellers of any penny dreadful and u see lots of little
> parcels of shares....less shares = bigger parcels per holder.





Not so ..... the more shares available to be traded then the bigger the holding per individual.A stock at 10c with 100 mil on issue will have less available shares to buy so holdings of 1 mil could only be achieved if the buyer bought up sell offers to 1 mil which could be up to 30c and then no more.

A company with 1 bil shares tradeable would have 10 times as many shares available so holdings of 1 mil could be achieved by numerous individuals while the s.p. moves less percentage wise.


----------



## imajica (14 December 2007)

To me logically the next FMG will come from the company with the next largest iron ore JORC compliant resource - and that's AQA - Aquila Resources. 266 million tonnes and this will rise as their massive tenements are explored further + they own or have sizeable stakes in several coal mines.


----------



## alphman (14 December 2007)

the barry said:


> What you are saying is completly incorrect, the question is asking what are the characteristics of the next fmg.
> 
> In your example above, say the two companies hypothetically have the same resource in the same country etc.
> 
> ...




the barry,

I think you may have misinterpreted me.  In my examples, I have used two companies with different number of shares on issue but same market cap ($10m). 



> Company ABC has 100,000,000 shares and has an initial market value of $10,000,000. Share price is $0.10.
> Company XYZ has 500,000,000 shares and has an initial market value of $10,000,000. Share price is $0.02.




I have assumed both companies are exactly the same (management, vision, projects, balance sheet, cashflow, etc etc) and both companies are re-evaluated by the market to now be worth $500m each.

Company ABC will therefore be trading at $5 per share, while Company XYZ will be trading at $1 per share.



> Company ABC has 100,000,000 shares and has a market value of $500,000,000. Share price is $5.00.
> Company XYZ has 500,000,000 shares and has a market value of $500,000,000. Share price is $1.00.




As the market cap has increased 50-fold, so will the price of both companies (ie. Company ABC runs from $0.10 to $5.00; Company XYZ runs from $0.02 to $1.00).

I am merely looking at it from a (broader) valuation perspective which IMO is a valid contribution (ie, what is the characteristics of a company that can appreciate more than 300 times).  In this case the number of shares makes no difference.  FMG started off as a small cap company (<$50m) as do most explorers. It is now worth more than $17b.  Any company can do this provided they have the right "characteristics" and it doesn't have to be the number of shares.

Take another hypothetical company, BOB, with 1 billion shares and a $50m market cap.  Share price is therefore $0.05.  BOB is FMG's little brother and follows big brother's footsteps and is now worth $17b.  With 1 billion shares, share price would be trading at $17.  The growth of these two companies are the same, therefore number of shares makes no difference.

I think you're looking at it more from a share price perspective, ie. what are the characteristics of a company that will run from $0.20 to over $60.  This is also a valid contribution (and probably the type of answer that was sought). I agree in this sitution that it is more restricted when you take into account a realistic market cap, therefore the number of shares would play a significant part.  

(All the above examples assumes no share reconstructions)


----------



## Timmy (14 December 2007)

This thread seems to have taken off again, with a lot of good info in it.  I asked a question in the early part of this thread that I don't think was answered (maybe it was a stupid question!).  Given the increased interest in the thread I would like to hear more ideas on it if anyone is so inclined?  I suppose I could do the research to answer it, but 1. too lazy & 2. would be interested in input/ideas.  



Timmy said:


> Can I ask a question about this point?  In the tech boom this was the case with a lot of companies, the shares issued only made up a small portion of the overall "value" of the company - eg. company may have been worth $100, but only $10 of publicly trader shares available (numbers just examples).  So is this the case with FMG?  That is, the actual "value" of the company is X but there are only shares with a value of x/10 (or whatever) on issue, or do the number of shares on issue reflect entire value of the company?


----------



## the barry (14 December 2007)

Timmy said:


> This thread seems to have taken off again, with a lot of good info in it.  I asked a question in the early part of this thread that I don't think was answered (maybe it was a stupid question!).  Given the increased interest in the thread I would like to hear more ideas on it if anyone is so inclined?  I suppose I could do the research to answer it, but 1. too lazy & 2. would be interested in input/ideas.




I will have to do more research, but i think if a company is trading as a publicly listed company it means that all shares are 
'theoretically" traded. In reality this might not be the case if say directors hold 50 percent of the company then only the other 50 percent get traded. I'm not sure it is possible to only have a percentage of the company's worth available to trade.  Will get back to you on this. So in short to answer your question the number of shares traded does reflect the entire value of the company.


----------



## tyson1 (18 December 2007)

ok, in a fortescue like company (a company which discovers huge profitable reserves of iron ore etc.) the number of shares on issue should IMO have an impact through simple supply and demand ie. less shares available, the faster and higher the market can run... in the short term. This is because many spec buys like this gain on market hype hence the opportunity for big short term gains. However the number of shares on issue should not (in theory) make any difference for the long term as the share price will generally balance out to reflect true value and true gains as other companies of like value but smaller market cap are realised. but as we all know the market rarely acts according to theory


----------



## kivvygosh (26 December 2007)

> Prawn:
> barrys logic was the exact same as mine.
> 
> It doesnt matter how many issued/price it is all dependent on market cap.



You should go read Barry's post again.



> tyson:
> the number of shares on issue should IMO have an impact through simple supply and demand ie. less shares available, the faster and higher the market can run... in the short term.



The number of shares doesn't matter.  Supply and demand isn't about 'numbers' of things, it's about 'values' of things.  And because the value of shares available won't change depending on number of shares on offer, the supply/demand curve won't change either.

If you had such a small amount of shares that there would be less than one per person, or just a few per person, or so high that it is greater than the average parcel, then you have a supply problem.  You get that in Berkshire Hathaway (I believe the average price over the last year was US$140,000) and a few other American companies - most punters who want to buy in can't afford to do so.  But if you're buying 10 or 100 or 10,000 shares in a company it doesn't matter.  It doesn't effect supply or demand, doesn't alter the value of shares on offer or bids.  It's irrelevant.

Ask yourself this - when an investor buys a parcel of shares, are they choosing the size of the parcel based on 'number of shares' or 'total cost'?


----------



## tronic72 (27 December 2007)

akumaslair said:


> hello everyone,
> 
> was wondering if the more experienced can tell me what are the characteristics of a company to be the next FMG?????
> 
> ...




A company like Ausquest could pull it off. They have a quality board and have had some recent success with their exploration. They now have Oxiana as a major share holder and most importantly nearly all their projects are 100% AQD owed, meaning both the company and the shareholder would have both control and reap the benefits of any successful discoveries.

NOTE: I have held AQD in the past but am NOT currently holding.


----------



## tech/a (30 December 2007)

Interesting watching this thread.
Comments from mostly Fundamental people.
Most technical people will be discretionary traders who are unlikely to hold long enough for moves which will rise 100s of %

Very large prolonged moves will ALWAYS come from long term *slow* declines or Sideways accumulation.
I have used as an example *ESG*




The will *ALWAYS* be a clear Breakout from these areas supported by Volume spikes AND an increase in overall volumes




Good moves will maintain an angle of 45 degrees in their move. This angle will often be evident over the life of the move.

You can maintain the life of the move through Volume and Elliot analysis.Topping in a longer range wave 5 will signal an end to the move.




The trick is to get on on the breakout which is rarely challenged in a great move and stay as long as the move has life.




It can be done and it can be done regularly.
Its a matter of taking trades which are small---so you don't panic on retracements. 
If a trade revisits your trigger bar then sell and find another.
It wont take long and you'll have 5 to 10 of these in your stable chugging along.
don't be surprised if you get one or more FMG's over time.

I personally look for moves which break from consolidation or prolonged very slow down trends for a period of 2 yrs or 100 bars.
*I use weekly charts* 

While the trading might not be sexy as in fast paced the potential profits will leave the gun traders gasping for breath and green with envy!


----------



## Boggo (31 December 2007)

TTY seems to be a contender, just need someone like squiggy to talk it up 

Mike
-


----------



## treefrog (31 December 2007)

"Good moves will maintain an angle of 45 degrees in their move. This angle will often be evident over the life of the move."

turn it up Tech! - surely you mean a % increase with time as I can get any share to move at 45deg up or down the page during a run by adjusting either price or time scales; and not everyone uses the same charts or settings

otherwise agree with your chart analysis

have a good new year


----------



## tech/a (31 December 2007)

> surely you mean a % increase with time




Better put this is!


----------



## kivvygosh (31 December 2007)

> > surely you mean a % increase with time
> 
> 
> 
> Better put this is!



You'd hope so, otherwise you're not making too much money.


----------



## tech/a (31 December 2007)

kivvygosh said:


> You'd hope so, otherwise you're not making too much money.




How so??
Has no bearing on profit.

Simply an observation of time and price movements of the best trending stocks.
While some do use semi log most would scale arithmetically as this is default in most software.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (31 December 2007)

tech/a said:


> Interesting watching this thread.
> Comments from mostly Fundamental people.
> Most technical people will be discretionary traders who are unlikely to hold long enough for moves which will rise 100s of %
> 
> ...




excellent post ta 

I took out the images to emphasise the text. 

Its TA 101 to 999

gg


----------

