Hello Friends here we come up with an extension of our previous blog “Additional Directional Movement (ADX)” Part 1.
.
Additional Directional Movement (ADX) Final Part
.
In this blog we would read about the features of ADX and the current scenario of the ADX in the market.
.
ADX On PRACTICE
.
The great feature of ADX is the ability to see buying and selling pressure at the same time.
.
Values above 40 indicate very strong trending while values below 20 indicate non-trending or ranging market conditions.
.
The indicator does not grade the trend as bullish or bearish, but merely assesses the strength of the current trend.
-
When ADX begins to strengthen from below 20 and moves above 20, it is a sign that the trading range is ending and a trend is developing.
-
The current scenario of ADX falling from the levels of 32 & now continuing at 25, tells that the momentum of price is toward a weaker section with a sideways movement.
.
It shows that the sellers are stronger than the buyers,this is seen in a downtrend.
.
The lesser volumes of trade & the bearish fundamentals also confirm that the overall sentiments are not supportive to the prices.
-
The factors are as follows:
.
· Fresh arrivals are coming to the spot market with harvesting in Idukki.
· Commencement of fresh arrivals with higher moisture content is likely to keep check on the price.
· Indian production is also expected to be higher by 10% to 55,000 tonnes.
· Indian parity in the international market quoting at $3,200-3,225 a tonne (c&f).
· Spot prices have plunged by 9% within a span of 4 weeks, quoting near the levels of 14K.
.
The investors are being cautious to enter the trade, which is hence keeping the price in a range between Rs. 13800-14800.
.
However, the current tight stock levels in pipeline, & demand from the overseas and domestic market is adding support to prices.
.
The DMI lines are good reference for price volatility.
.
In a nutshell, values of the ADX can be used to confirm the strength of an upward/down trend & also give the investor the confidence to enter into the trade.
.
.
Note : For More Latest Industry, Stock Market and Economy News and Updates, please Click Here
No, this isn’t one of those times where he’ll pull a quarter from behind your ear. And come to think of it, you will remember where you placed your car keys after this one.
If you haven’t heard of Andy Davis, then this is the PERFECT time to catch a sample of what he has to offer musically. Coming off of his 2007 album “Let the Woman”, Davis has decided to launch an EP that is absolutely free. Yes, that is right. F-R-E-E. Now I’m a person who feels that each artist that you enjoy must be compensated for their work. However, he is offering you a good deal, take it!
The website for more information about this download can be found at www.andydavisonline.com
For all those that are interested, here is a sneak peak of the EP with a youtube video of Mr. Davis performing “Where My Head Is” for Lightning 100 in Nashville. He recently came off the West Coast Christmas Tour with the Ten Out of Tenn group.
Jeffrey Smith Huffington Post January 8, 2010 Author and founder of the Institute for Responsible Technology
For a couple of years, the Institute for Responsible Technology has predicted that the US would soon experience a tipping point of consumer rejection against genetically modified foods; a change we’re all helping to bring about. Now a December article in Supermarket News supports both our prediction and the role the Institute is playing.
“The coming year promises to bring about a greater, more pervasive awarenes” of the genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in our food supply, wrote Group Editor Robert Vosburgh, in a trade publication that conventional food executives and retailers use as a primary source of news and trends in the industry. Vosburgh describes how previous food “culprits” like fat and carbs “can even define the decade in which they were topical,” and suggests that GMOs may finally burst through into the public awareness and join their ranks.
Vosburgh credits two recent launches with “the potential to spark a new round of concern among shoppers who are today much more attuned to the ways their food is produced.” One is our Institute’s new non-GMO website, which, he says, “provides consumers with a directory of non-GMO brands . . . developed for the 53% of Americans who say they would avoid GMOs if labeled.’”
The other launch is the Non-GMO Project, offering “the country’s first consensus-based guidelines, which include third-party certification and a uniform seal for approved products. . . . The organization also requires documented traceability and segregation to ensure the tested ingredients are what go into the final product.”
He alerts supermarket executives that, “the growth of the organic (which bans GMO ingredients), local and green product categories reflects a generation of consumers who could be less tolerant of genetic modification.”
Please allow me to sit back with an I-told-you-so grin of satisfaction. Two years ago, I wrote a newsletter article describing three components that would move the market on GMOs:
1. The Non-GMO Project’s new “widely accepted definition for non-GMO” would spark a GMO cleanout, starting with the brands in the natural food industry.
Our Institute endorses the Non-GMO Project and encourages food companies to enroll their products with this excellent nonprofit organization. Their official seal was introduced in October 2009 and has quickly become the national standard for meaningful non-GMO claims.
2. “Providing clear Non-GMO product choices” with our Non-GMO Shopping Guide would make it easier for consumers to select “non-GMO products by brand and category.”
The same Guide is available as a website, a spread in magazines, a pocket guide, a two-sided download, and coming soon, a mobile phone application.
3. “Educating Health-Conscious Shoppers” about the health effects of GMOs is the key means by which GMOs will become a marketing liability—the next culprit.
Past culprits drove the market because of consumer beliefs that were unhealthy. In the same way, evidence demonstrating the health dangers of GMOs is already igniting an anti-GMO fever. In 2009, for example, the prestigious American Academy of Environmental Medicine urged doctors to prescribe non-GMO diets for all patients, based on evidence that GMOs fed to lab animals triggered diseases and disorders.
GMO Rejection Will Be Widespread
The prognosis in Supermarket News overlooks critical differences between GMOs and the other culprits. Fats, carbs, salt, and sugar each offer unmistakable consumer appeal. As a result, food companies offer options with them, without them, and at low levels.
Genetically modified (GM) foods, however, don’t offer a single consumer benefit. The five major GMOs—soy, corn, cottonseed, canola, and sugar beets—are gene-spliced to either tolerate poisonous herbicides, or produce poisonous insecticides. Consumers never clamor for them.
Also unlike the other culprits, companies can usually eliminate GMOs without even changing recipes. Purchasers can simply instruct suppliers to provide the non-GMO soy and corn derivatives, the non-GMO sugar, etc., as Trader Joe’s and Whole Foods have already done for their home brands.
Therefore, when major food companies notice even tiny losses in market share, their GMO cleanout will be widespread. Kraft Foods and others will recognize that the same consumer trend that forced them to remove all GM ingredients in Europe and Japan has reared its head in the States.
Consumer Opinion Already Poised Against Biotech
We’re already seeing the momentum build against genetically engineered bovine growth hormone. Wal-Mart, Starbucks, Dannon, Yoplait, and most dairies have shunned the controversial drug that is now synonymous with “increased cancer risk” in the minds of many consumers. (The recent condemnation of the hormone by the American Public Health Association will help nail its coffin shut.)
In the case of GMOs, the proportion of US consumers needed to avoid brands that contain GM soy and corn, etc. is quite small–probably only 5%. That means that the purchasing power (and trend setting ability) of 15 million people or 5.6 million households can turn GMOs into a marketing liability. But when you look at the numbers, no matter how you slice it, they add up to a coming non-GMO tidal wave.
About 28 million health-conscious Americans regularly buy organic. About 87 million are strongly opposed to GM foods and believe they are unsafe. And 159 million say they would avoid GMOs if labeled. While most people do not conscientiously avoid brands with GM ingredients, its usually because they don’t know how. That’s where our Non-GMO Shopping Guide comes in—disseminated far and wide in 2010.
Vosburgh says that in the food industry, culprits “can even define the decade in which they were topical. In the ’80s, it was fat; in the ’90s, it was carbs.” We won’t need a full decade to send GMOs packing. Although I can’t forecast the exact timing, I’ll wager one prediction. By this time next year, Monsanto—the largest GMO producer—is not going to be happy.
On Dec. 30, 2009, the Economist loudly proclaimed:
The rich world’s quiet revolution: women are gradually taking over the workplace
Getty Images
AT A time when the world is short of causes for celebration, here is a candidate: within the next few months women will cross the 50% threshold and become the majority of the American workforce. Women already make up the majority of university graduates in the OECD countries and the majority of professional workers in several rich countries, including the United States. Women run many of the world’s great companies, from PepsiCo in America to Areva in France.
Women run many of the world’s great companies??? What does “many” mean? I have to admit, they do try to address a lot of the issues that have plagued women’s progress in the workplace. It’s a short article, full of quick facts, lots of sound bites, basing all its discussion on statistics — as if numbers tell the whole story. It’s worth reading if only to see the 195 comments that it generated from its readership (some of my favorites are below. Here’s the URL:
via http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15174489.
And here are just 3 of the comments:
mahagwa’s comments
mahagwa’s Comments
–>
My Comments | My recommendations
–>
We did it!
Dec 30th 2009 6:14 GMT
The disparity between men and women’s wages has been proven to not be systematice but more so due to the fact that many women leave and re-enter the workforce and other factors which are insitigated by women…
My greater concern is what is going to happen to society. With women being the greater number of college graduates, and with women becoming more INDEPENDENT, and hence either postponing motherhood or somehow integrating it into their work environment, you will now see within the next 10 years women actually earning more than men. This new economic power will translate into political power..because women fight for their causes (even if they make things up) — like all this ENVIRONMENTALISM and SMOKING CESSATION..dubious claims which have gained mainstream acceptance.
So, you now have a world where women control the money, and women control the laws. You have a world of CASTRATED men, who no longer have any sense of worth. Because remember, for many, many years, men were wired to be the breadwinners, the protectors, and so forth. Now all of a sudden, the women make the laws, and control the money…men will be in a state of confused dementia.
What will happen then? Will gender roles reverse (as is now happening– i no longer understand the difference between men and women). WIll men now be the homemakers? Will women now support their men (as is already begining to happen).
What will the sons envison themselves as? What will the sons aspire to be when they grow up?
There is a very dangerous shift happening in society today. And it has nothing to do with conservatives or liberals. It has nothing to do with sexism or feminism. It is a very dangerous societal shift taking place, and many people are sleep-walking down this path to oblivion. I fear what the world will be like in 10 years.
Mz. Hubriz’s comments
Mz. Hubriz’s Comments
–>
My Comments | My recommendations
–>
We did it!
Dec 30th 2009 6:14 GMT
not… sure… as one of two women, (the 2nd woman came on board a few months back), in a reporting structure of ~50 men at an Ivy League University, I am wondering where the progress is.
generated2173760’s comments
generated2173760’s Comments
–>
My Comments | My recommendations
–>
We did it!
Dec 30th 2009 6:33 GMT
What bothers me is what has always bothered me, has anybody asked whether this is a good thing? I mean it forced nearly all households to become dual income and I am not quite sure children or people are any better / happier than they were of yesteryear. To me its seems like the greatest coupe by industry ever, get 50% more consumers with no real social or lifestyle gains. Plus I hate when people throw income disparage around, it could be women make less because they often do less work, less productive, etc etc …. over my years I rarely have seen a woman as productive as a man in the same position; also in most families the men are still the breadwinner with women working a lower skilled or part-time job.
I also am amazed how many women see this as a good thing, I mean honestly any man I know would happily trade the toil of forty hours in a deadend job to be a kept man sitting at the pool with his friends playing games while his wife slaves away sixty hours a week supporting them …men call that housewives, women call it deadbeat husbands.
Lastly I have a hard time with the numbers. Nearly every man I know (I lived in a middle class inner ring suburb) wife is a housewife; hell as far as I can tell from Google nearly 30% of all women are still housewives. Giving women only outnumber men by a percent or two how is it that 30% of women can be housewives yet outnumber men in the workforce .. what are all the men doing?
I still thinks insane though to call a family working more and harder for less happiness and purchasing power progress.
Many more. I thank the AAUW for keeping an eye on the news and their efforts on all women’s behalf.
So the threat is that lite rail (Metro) will be cut back and the bus schedules will be slashed in an effort to reconnoiter the cash-strapped city of Phoenix with its debt levels. The article in the daily tells of Tempe’s travails, but fairly skips over our fair city. The daily most likely can’t bear to give another report putting their favorite liberal in a bad light. Phoenix Mayor Philly Gordon’s had his lucrative city contracts to family members and romantic entanglements exposed for all to see. His constant travel has been notorious, and his internal office embarrassments have made the news numerous times such as here and here..
Yet he was not loathe to spend nearly $17,000 to poll Phoenix residents in an effort to gauge the level of support for a ballot initiative abolishing term limits for the mayor’s office he holds and the city council seats he endorses.
The Phil for Phoenix committee also paid a $5,840 retainer fee to Petition Partners LLC, a Scottsdale-based signature-gathering firm. When the lack of traction was all too evident, Gordon eventually abandoned efforts to extend his term to “mayor for life.”
2012 can’t get here fast enough for Phoenix residents who desire responsible leadership. Gordon has become worse than wearisome.
In the meantime, make sure your bike tires are inflated. His miscalculated trolley might not be there for you, but all in all you might be safer. As it celebrated its first anniversary, the lite rail had racked up 51 accidents.
Best quote I’ve heard in a while on commercial real estate (emphasis is mine):
“A correction might give opportunities,” said Jonathan Bowles, director of the Center for an Urban Future, an independent research group. “I think it’s healthy for the city’s real estate market to have a down cycle.”
via In New York Commercial Real Estate, News Is Bad (or Worse) – NYTimes.com.
Which leads me to a question: Should we be viewing the events that make up this part of the cycle differently? Do we have to think of asset deflation so negatively? I’m not talking about about cheering and sneering at others misery, but just as you can’t have spring without winter, you can’t have a boom without a bust.
It’s almost like people want to fight Mother Nature, but we know that is pointless, don’t we? I hope so, but if we don’t, Mother Nature will have a way of making sure her impact is felt.
I was scared about French claims about web, according to new idea of taxation of…Google (or whatever search it could be). I wonder why, each time a company, a man, an idea make money, it’s unbelievable to see what kind of jealousy it draws, and in the same time, seeing lack of innovation running…but criticize, steale or law sues. It seems like everybody is jealous about his neighbour, ready to kill to spread on his wealth.
I can’t see any reason why old skills or traditional sectors, have to complain about web, that gives us so much freedom, reduced social fracture, gave access to information all over the world and so much more. Complains from creators, authors and editors, that always search to build walls to protect their business (with sometimes and local politics agreements…), while there is so much opportunities, when they only see threats…What a pity, a lack of imagination (remember lack of imagination was the FIRST reason why the 11th of september terrorism’s attack has been possible…imagination), when imagination can make all the walls disappear, send us back hope, ideas and innovation. Does business only consist to copy, be jealous or sue competitors? Is this the only level of motivation right now?
I can’t see why music, newspapers, books, all these traditional markets, complain about the web: they didn’t while they were referenced and googled so many times, rising their notoriety for free…They didn’t while that boosted some unknow artist like never, for free. They didn’t while their “pagerank” and fame indicator was green. But now they deny the one that put them at their level. Why? Because they lack imagination, the constant key able to think of future, tomorrow, and invent their future business. They want cash for free. But they don’t want freeness. They want service for free, but want to be payed for their notoriety…that costed nothing for them.
I like Chris Anderson’s point of view, not why he wrote a book, but because his vision lives with the market: he’s clever about what’s going on, and probably what could exist tomorrow. And many of companies don’t even try to understand how disruptive they can be in the future, because they are followers, and just hope to make a good M&A with their competitor.
My shout was really about, waking up, “let’s reinvent our ability to re-learn”, to think and give value to future, not in lazying so far, but doing the necessary efforts, to value customer service, and have an award from him. What can be more pure than, rise the level of purpose and satisfaction, creating a new field of business…
.
Note : For More Latest Industry, Stock Market and Economy News and Updates, please Click Here
