G'day Alpha,I assume you haven't been able to buy yet!Some...

G'day Alpha,

I assume you haven't been able to buy yet!

Some points I would put are;

You have failed to rule the line at $1.42, which is the 23.6% retracement from $1.54. $1.42 is also 38% from $1.71, assuming the bottom of $0.96. I say this because you have put in the line at $1.25 which is the 62% retracement from $1.71.


Equally, $1.35 could deserve a line, being 50% retracement from $1.71, and its correction low when CST traded from 1.17 to 1.53 (and where I hoped it may have traded to on Thursday)


I would be intrigued if you think the close of 1.45 on Thursday isn't significant, esp considering the low for the day was 1.44, bouncing off previous days low of 1.43, and considering this is 38% retracement point from closing bottom of $1 and peak of $1.71.


I would be equally intrigued if you don't think the large number of days it has taken to come back to this point is significant, and the declining volume.


I feel a much better chart to understand the current activity is over 2 years. This points out that Thursday's close is right on the overhead resistance line which CST broke through 2 weeks ago, and which goes back to its very closing peak in October 2001.

Viewing this, I have to disagree with you that 1.25 is on the cards for coming days. Although I would love it to be, I don't think it is possible and throws CST's chart out of symetry.

I feel the spike down to $1 was the gap filling which CST had to do. If CST had not closed above 1.54 2 weeks ago, IMO it would now be filling this gap, and the targets between 1.10 and 1.28 would be very relevant.


I also note one gap which was never filled was from $0.50 to $0.85.


So my short term targets are between 2.40 and 2.50. I would look for a close Tuesday above 1.50.


No offence Alpha, have much respect for you. Hope this helps debate.