https://steemitimages.com/DQmZbk19BippTvvZBqKkpnJexBV5DExbdt9LVbsWxFHgRZa/Screenshot_2018-03-20-11-47-06 .png
It's definitely possible I would have bought this in early 2017, given that there was a cliff and then a flat bottom developed, which pretty dramatically illustrates why I'm only taking ultra small positions, $30 positions. According to my theory, cliffs are buy signals, and flat action at the bottom of a cliff is a buy signal, and two cliffs is doubly a buy signal, so putting another $30 invMarch or April, and again in June or July, would have been, well, consistent with my theory. My theory would have had me adding another position in January, because the price was down again and more time had elapsed. Of course now it's down again, and with a gap, which is definitely another buy signal. My theory does say to keep adding positions as time goes by and as prices get lower.
Oh, and it's very much a flat bottom after a cliff on the ten year chart. Combined with the new low price and the gap down that just happened, I think this is quite interesting right now. I would still only be taking a very small position, mind you, unless maybe the fundamentals are great, which I sort of doubt.
Now, the justification for buying based on these signals is the earlier high price at $500, combined with the attractive ten year pattern, suggesting to me that the price should, you could say, go back to $500, and at this point especially could do that quite quickly. If I had bought some in 2017, let's say 10 shares at $5, 10 more at $3, then another 10 at $20, over the next few months, and another 10 shares at $2 in January, and now I would be adding 100 shares at 32 cents, that's 5 buys of about an average of $30 each, totalling, then, about $150 invested and 140 shares purchased, so, if it goes to $500, where I would want to sell it, I would make roughly 30 times my money. That means I could be wrong on something like this 30 times and right once and still break even. It's just a way of looking at the odds.
Also, to take a somewhat different approach, it's quite possible I would have been buying in early 2013, one share at $40, then two at $20, and four more at the end of 2014 at $10, for a total of about $100 invested. When the price later went to almost $100, selling two of those shares would have more than returned the amount of my investment, leaving me with four shares risk free. I mean, this is heavy on the ifs - you could call it iffy - but it might be something to think about.
It could definitely be argued that it would have been best to avoid all of those earlier positions, but how could we have done that? Well, if we were, today, looking at a very recent giant cliff, we might remember this pattern. We might be able to study the pattern this was making in late 2014, when it was sort of a good opportunity, and compare that with the early patterns that were buy signals, and derive some rules from that, although we only have the monthly chart, now. Looking at the more recent signals on the weekly chart, first of all buying after the cliffs hasn't worked out so great, and then, next, prices went out sideways, but now we have a dip to pretty dramatically lower prices. We're now looking at, at least in terms of price - and still in the same long term context, except more fully developed time wise - by far a better situation. We could propose a rule. We're looking at flat prices at the bottom of a cliff, long term, and, more recently, cliffs coming off a little rally in those flat prices, and then in recent months we were looking at flat prices at the bottom of those cliffs. Those flat prices ended in a little rally, and then there was this gap down to new extra low prices. So, looking at an entire giant bottom pattern, we could wait for this kind of break to lower prices.
This may sound quite arbitrary, but I will say that the pattern looks familiar to me. I can't even begin to put together the evidence for this set of rules, but I feel like I'm not just making it up.
I want to reiterate that I would still only be taking a very small position here. With that said, buying now, if it goes to $500, you could be wrong 1500 times and right once, and break even. By that measure you could argue the trade has become quite attractive. If you don't want to go that far you certainly could say it has become more so, and by quite a margin.
Let's take a peak at the fundamentals. My access to detailed numbers has suddenly gone away, but the page for this does cover the basics. https://finviz.com/quote.ashx?t=ANTH&ty=c&ta=0&p=m. To put it simply, they totally suck. Better stick with that micro position.
Let's take a minute to look at sell signals. That rally in 2015 topped out at a level that was sort of marked in 2012. You can see there was a little top, there, and sort of a shelf. I think you will see, if you look at a lot of charts, that tops are often, even usually, associated with some kind of earlier action that way. I'm not sure I want to try to go into more detail about this today. If I see examples when I'm posting in the future I guess I'll point them out. You might also want to look at the big green monthly bars that formed as it topped out, there, including how the last one was shorter, and also at the big red monthly bar that followed, and, especially, how the price did briefly return to near the top of that big red bar the next month. These were some things that could possibly have clued you in to an opportunity to, for example, take the risk out of the trade, if you had had a position along the lines of what I described earlier.
Looking at the situation now, there are little shelves at $40 and $50. If it jumps up there you could take out the risk, take a little profit, and keep some shares. And there's a top at $200. That could be a place to sell some. True, if you just hold the whole position and it goes to $500, you maximize your return.
Having said all of this, is there in fact a snowball's chance in hell this will go back to $500? I mean, the pattern suggests it should. Period. But reason suggests it shouldn't. The one thing is, I've always thought, looking at charts like this, that they are actually telling me something, and I happen to have one bit of evidence that that's true. Found it. I mean, it's not the only example of crazy things happening in the stock market, plus, plenty of penny stocks just stop trading, or stay down maybe forever, or just keep going down and down, plus it's not as crazy looking as I remembered, but it does look like it was trading around a penny at the beginning of 2014, and maybe at 10 cents or less at the end of the year, and then it was trading at $10 a few months later.