LEL Chart, page-78

That's what happens when you apply chart analysis ("TA") but without any regard to Fundamental Analysis ("FA"). For example, anyone who looked at supply and demand for rare earths (e.g. IXR stock with large decline over the past year) and cared about fundamentals would have known Tesla (for example) is working to totally eliminate any rare earths from their permanent magnet motors, replacing them with cheap iron nitride (which has a much lower coercivity than rare earth magnets). Tesla are using complex computer multi-physics models to model how to place and utilise the cheap but larger iron-nitride magnets to ensure that their weaker coercivity does not lead to them becoming demagnitised by the opposing magnetism in the copper rotors. Some ground-breaking CAD work by Tesla engineers that could destroy future demand for a big chunk of planned use of rare earths. But solid FA is very hard work and very time-consuming.

Similar thing going on with cobalt, game-changing outlook for future demand for cobalt based on FA. Feel sorry for those retail people who got stuck in JRV buying on TA (e.g. support levels, gaps etc.) all the way down with now a devastating a 90% drawdown from peak (for example) which would be way worse for retail averaging down all the way down.

Chart or Technical Analysis has its place and an obvious value, but never when divorced from fundamental analysis. I read somewhere that something well over 50% of ASX retail investors are actually day-traders, so they think they have numbers on their side to get their theories becoming reality. Problem is good FA is very very hard work and requires expertise in the relevant area.

About the candle-stick gap theory - what these day traders may not realise is that candles may show a gap between one day to the next, however the candles on the chart do not show gaps "within the day" when some stocks gap up or down during the day and it does not trade at each price level. There are some stocks with gaps within a day that are simply not visible to these day-traders.

The idea that each and every "close to open" candle gap always gets filled is a nonsense (i.e. an unsubstantiated and biased self-serving opinion contradicted by numerous historic counter examples) perpetuated by those who wish to re-buy the shares that they sold by buying them back lower down, by using these theories to explain why the share price *must* re-trace to the "close to open" candle gap.

Coming back to LEL, I do not think the 87c gap will close based on TA due to the power fundamental FA driving the re-rate here. But should it get anywhere near there will be a wall of buyers (including me) bidding 88c to get their fill in size ahead of TA types. GLTAH.