ez vs RWE since 2007/2008 /error in prediction/ – EZ shares

ez vs RWE since 2007/2008 /due to an error in the prediction/

When a speculator uses TA, he must read not only TA, but also logic and draw the TA formation correctly and take into account side effects, for example. vi filled with divi, etc. EZ could never reach two hundred. EZ ran an 8-year formation 2000 – 2008 – 2016, not the formation as it can be mistakenly drawn in the graph, namely 2004 – 2008 – 2012, approximately the same as RWE. If someone had drawn this wrongly, they would have seen that the EZ should have reached the lower line of the long-term ascending channel at approx. speculators did not expect this even from the perspective of the course of the formation. The drop in EZ to 2++ could not have been paid by EZ due to the high divi, which in the event of such a decrease, according to the erroneously drawn TA, would mean during the years of divi rates, e.g. around 20 + %… not possible. And because of the high divi, the course of the formation was completely different. from RWE. The prerequisite for the correct use of TA is that it is drawn and used correctly. The formation of this many times does not break away from its main support line, but much much more. it is possible to use TA provided that the graph is correctly evaluated. I often have a great influence on formations in the field, as e.g. RWE almost completed its head and shoulders formation in 2003/2004 – 2007/2008 – 2011/2012, as it paid off against EZ with a small surprise and it was not a problem for the stock to move where it started from. At EZ, this prediction never caused so much surprise at first… to the surprise of many at the time… don’t make the same mistake… What happened, for example. at RWE, someone predicted that it would also happen at EZ… it didn’t happen due to errors in the use and prediction of TA, when they threw a pitchfork at them, especially in the paid division. And that surprised not one speculator, but many… etc. The first difference between a sleeping and a non-sleeping speculator was logically mistaken. Don’t make the same mistake as the one mentioned in the post. Have a nice day.

Your recommendation:

Entry title 1a 20 (323271)