Hey there ES a good evening to you. Noted on your points and I tend to concur with the full quiver approach for investing i.e. looking from various and multiple vantage points to make an informed decision. To reiterate, I stated if charts were "super" reliable then.... I review charts for general trends and sometimes, if a stock warrants it, I actually perform some hairy capital asset pricing model (CAPM) stuff. In CELZ's case, BETA is a total crapshoot and what other pureplays can you reliably use for a qualified comparative analysis?
My point earlier was very focused on the comments of making a imminent prediction on CELZ'S price tomorrow based purely on a chart. This is foolish for many reasons. What if they announced a new doctor list and # of patients treated since the urology conference? It's probably a low probability but totally plausible. Do any of us really think the stock would drop to 3 cents on news of confirmed docs signed or positive customer experiences? Nope. Due the extreme sensitivity to such influences on a stock like CELZ at this stage in its commercialization, the market makers have so much more control of the stock than any chart reading enthusiasts. IMO. I like charts like I like 10k's and 8k's and informed DD etc. I take it all and pass it through a reasonability litmus test. CELZ gets a passing grade regardless of the current turmoil or chart action. The charting will become much more useful AFTER Celz is trading like a commercially active Pfizer, or mini-me version.
No offense intended to those who use charts a reasonable tool among many others. It was a jab at those who play God with predictions from lines on a chart.
-- Narrow is the way and few are those who find it. --
