Hello Byteme,You have correctly quoted me:"When the fundamentals...

Hello Byteme,

You have correctly quoted me:

"When the fundamentals warrant it (if that ever occurs), Centro will turn around. The first people to benefit from that will be the savviest of big investors. Until that turn around occurs, I believe it is unwise to invest one cent in Centro."

If you read this carefully, you will note that I don't claim any insight into fundamentals - but "the first people to benefit from that will be the savviest of big investors. Until that turn around occurs, I believe it is unwise to invest one cent in Centro."

So - the content of the post suggested that people watch for a "turn around" - not an obvious change in fundamentals - that would be the province of "the savviest of big investors". The turn around refers to chart aspects.

The things which have changed in the chart are the following:

1. The weekly MACD is now positive.
2. The daily MACD is now positive.
3. The down trend line was broken five days ago.
4. There was a higher high and a higher low (see intraday chart).

I haven't checked but I believe those were the criteria I set out in an earlier post. That is what has changed.

Criterion Three and Four took CNP into a short term up trend - three white candles in a row - something which hasn't occurred for sometime. Those three days were also accompanied by three days of above average volume. The volume on those three up days was in excess of the 50 day average for trading in CDU. The volume on last Friday was the heaviest in over two months. This volume increase suggested that "savvy investors" were positioning themselves in CDU.

I entered the trade Tuesday - the day after the third white candle.

I stopped posting on CNP because of the abuse I was receiving particularly regarding my expertise in technical analysis. Because of that abuse I became defensive and I found that I was beginning to post in a way which is untypical of my usual behaviour. I regret that now - particularly the post to Badjelly which has been recently referred to.

I note that he has had the good grace to acknowlege, if somewhat begrudgingly, my prospective technical prognosis of CNP. And I thank him for that.

I usually try to maintain a level of decorum in my posts and respect for other posters, thus my regret over the Badjelly post.

I hope that the above clarifies my position and indicates clearly just what has changed in the CNP situation.

It cannot now be charged that this is in hindsight - a typical criticism when I was posting on CNP - as the criteria were posted ahead of time.

Cheers
Red