SUPN – New long position

Ticker – SUPN

Purchase date – 5/23

Price – $34.54

Company – Supernus is a specialty pharma company focused on developing and commercializing products for the treatment of central nervous system diseases.


Below is an in-depth review of SUPN and why we recently took a long position in this stock.   One study we like to do is run specific watch lists by sector and note where companies rank and if any particular name stands out with an abnormally high overall score or if any name has drastically moved up in ranks from previous weeks.

Our current healthcare watch list is below


For this run, the settings were set to classic and weights/targets were set to healthcare. Since each sector acts differently from each other, we needed to create different investor settings.  I wont go into much detail here but we spent a lot of time back testing each ratio performance per sector/industry to really improve this feature.

SUPN qualified as a top idea as it scored much higher than any other name in this run while also moving up the ranks in recent weeks.  When we see a name act like that, we start to get comfortable looking into taking a position.

Below you will see our summary page snapshot showing the averages of each category and some key ratios we like to see at a glance.  SUPN scored 13 bps higher than any other name which is rare when you understand what the other names went through to even make it to this point.  While it does everything from decent to great, I am going to highlight some of its strengths.


First off the fundamentals (level 1) were very strong within a very strong group.   Some areas of strength were its growth rate, management and how it ran through the avg, basic and target areas.


The technicals (level 2) were also aligned for an entry as all average indicators were on a buy signal.   RSI was slightly bearish but that just means it was close to 70 which by itself really doesn’t mean anything as a standalone.


Level 5 is our rules section which has well over 30 rules.  Below is a small example of some of the grades we gave it.    Debt, PEG, Margins, Revenue and ROE all were very strong and only some weaknesses were insider ownership vs institutions along with forward growth which could become a concern but nothing short-term.  A score of 63% is very strong when you consider the average score of the 24 compared was only 55%


The growth score (level 6) was also decent.  While it wasnt the best, it was still top 10 and the yearly and quarterly composite scores are very healthy for an investment and or trade


Part of our valuation score (level 3) takes into consideration fair value and long term metrics.  SUPN stood out here, with a margin of safety just over 200% and a LTV at $106.   The lower and upper boundarys had targets of $46 and $50 respectively which means 32-44% upside.


Now that we really understand this name is a clear leader in this sector run, we had to get down to its chart and just see where price has been and potentially could go. We thought this rising channel could really get going and so far we were right.


On top of all the bullishness, the yearly return map was showing some really strong seasonality.  This combined with all the data above really got us excited about some of the short term potential.


Actually, June is its strongest month to date and we are quickly starting to see why.


I understand some of this might be confusing because all of the underneath calculations are priortiery and not shared with this or really any review, but understand we consider everything to really lower the risk when entering a trade.  We are currently +12% on this purchase since last week.




The current state of small caps

The daily chart shows price at a pivotal point for small caps.  Currently just trading over a flattening 50 day moving average and up against the recent down trend line while filling the gap from Wednesdays selloff.  Volume has also been light into this week while everyone kind of waits for direction.  The RSI line shows a slight break of the down trend line ahead of price so we will keep an eye out to see if that could be a directional tell.

small caps again

The weekly chart shows where buyers stepped in this week.   Its basically right around $134 where it broke out around the end of 2016 and really has just consolidated for 5 months between 132 and 142.   Each higher high has been met with sellers so its just not ready for its next move but a nice trading range is established for now.

small caps2.png

Last week we broke down the top 24 % holdings for the IWM ETF and noticed that the average score of each was above 50% which we like to see if anymore upside is left.  The group as a whole is still maintaining.  Actually the top 10  holdings secured an average score of 63% so that’s still pretty healthy for now.  The chart of the 24 is shown just below


Next I like to see where those 24 are today and maybe see if we can notice any strength occurring behind the scenes and maybe ahead of price.

Here is a list of the 24 sorted by weight in the IWM ETF

Name Ticker Weight Price
Advanced Micro Devices Inc AMD 0.44 10.88
The Chemours Co CC 0.43 41.61
Take-Two Interactive Software Inc TTWO 0.36 76.67
Coherent Inc COHR 0.32 242.25
LogMeIn Inc LOGM 0.31 111
Microsemi Corp MSCC 0.29 49.55
XPO Logistics Inc XPO 0.28 53.18
Olin Corp OLN 0.27 30.53
New Residential Investment Corp NRZ 0.26 16.45
Universal Display Corp OLED 0.26 113.6
PrivateBancorp Inc PVTB 0.25 59.89
Cavium Inc CAVM 0.25 73.4
Aspen Technology Inc AZPN 0.25 59.89
Webster Financial Corp WBS 0.25 49.76
Tesaro Inc TSRO 0.24 154.97
Teledyne Technologies Inc TDY 0.24 128.58
Exelixis Inc EXEL 0.23 20.25
Prosperity Bancshares Inc PB 0.23 64.85
F N B Corp FNB 0.23 13.65
MKS Instruments Inc MKSI 0.23 79.5
Idacorp Inc IDA 0.23 85.58
Bank of the Ozarks Inc OZRK 0.22 46.76
WGL Holdings Inc WGL 0.22 83.05
Parexel International Corp PRXL 0.22 79.69

small caps3

Today’ s run shows the following statistics

The 24 average has moved up to 57% (from 52)

The top 10 has moved up to 71% (from 63)

The IWM has been up 4 days in a row, today is still up in the air but could be 5 if any push after 3 pm.

Names like the below are really keeping small caps afloat


We will continue to monitor the underneath strength of small caps but as of today we don’t see much weakness overall as a group and support is/can still be bought.

Lastly we have a snapshot of the IWM as an ETF and a look at its technicals.  Its currently holding 58% so its just above average of the 24 weighted with all indicator averages currently on a buy signal


ALGN – 5/23/17 Update

Not much has changed with ALGN since our stock report on 5/12.  The price has been stable and most JXM scores have remained relatively unchanged.  As the below table reinforces, ALGN is still an extremely strong scorer.


However, its technical score has fallen a bit to 63%.  While the score is still very healthy, the drop-off warrants a closer look at price.

ALGN Pricemap

The 10 and 5 year charts below do show some short term weakness but strong long-term potential.


A closer look at the short term broken out to one month from today, shows where this weakness is coming from.

1 month.pngThe one-month price behavior is remarkably consistent between long term, 10 yr, and 5 yr trends.   All suggest the stock will go down for the next two weeks before moving back up.

Stretching this out to to six months shows a departure of the long and shorter term trends and some larger fluctuations in price as well.

6 month

However, the shorter term trends do seem to point to solid price potential for the rest of the year.

Finally the stock has consistently out-performed the SNP over the past year (with circles representing earnings report dates):


While we should stay on top of ALGN’s tech score, it doesn’t appear that we have much to worry about.

JXM and the NFL Draft – Defensive Ends

Even though this is a financial website, I thought it might be fun to assess the 2017 NFL draft through the lens of the JXM to see how top prospects withstand our unique scoring system.  With a focus on data obtained from college statistics and combine results, I attempted to the form basis of a JXM fundamental, Level 1-type analysis.

Since defensive end Myles Garrett was the number 1 pick in the draft, I decided to concentrate on how he and his fellow defensive ends measure up.  The draft went heavy with defensive ends, as seven were selected in the first round and a total of seventeen in the first four.  Coincidentally, my favorite team (the Philadelphia Eagles) also selected a defensive end in the first round, Derek Barnett.

My first step was to gather information on the top seventeen defensive ends taken in the draft.  The below table lists these players in the order they were drafted, with a column that calls out their selection round and overall draft position:


The statistics I focused on came from their college and combine performance and are listed below:


While I simply selected all combine statistics available, the college stats were selected to the measure the performance of the defensive end position, leaving out stats such as interceptions and TD returns.  The FBS rank was added to reward strength of schedule, weeding out results that may have been padded by weak competition.

It should be noted that a complete analysis is not possible without access to personal interviews, workout results, Wonderlic scores, video analysis, or privileged information on character and injury concerns.  Further, several players listed may be projected to switch positions in the pros. This basic study is based only on quantifiable and readily available data.

College Stats

I gathered the following information on college stats, filling any missing data with the sample average (highlighted in red font):


These stats are ordered in the position that the player was drafted.  The green/ yellow/red colors are added to show the best and worst per column.  For example, McKinley’s 50 solo tackles are the top in his draft class and thus the dark green cell color.  On the other hand, the 13 solo tackles by Hendrickson are the worst of the group and show a dark red.  The same color scheme is also applicable to variables where a lower value is better, such as the dark green calling out Walker’s outstanding -118 yards lost from sacks.

Combine Stats

I gathered the following information on the prospects’ combine results, again filling any missing data with the sample average (highlighted in red font):


Again, these stats are ordered in the position the player was drafted while employing the same color scheme.

JXM Level 1

I applied a JXM Level 1-type system to analyze these players under four criteria:  equal weight of all stats, college only stats, combine only stats, and my own criteria.  Each of the below tables rank the players based on JXM score, versus the round the player was drafted and the overall pick order.

With each measure weighted equally I came up with the following scores:


As can be seen, an equally weighed analysis does not fully describe how NFL GMs evaluated the defensive ends in this draft class, explaining only 6.9 % of the draft order. Second round pick Walker stands out here, while third round picks Willis and Hendrickson best first round picks Barnett, Thomas, and top overall pick Garrett.  Fellow first round picks McKinley, Charlton, and Allen place in the middle and form a tightly packed triplet of mediocrity, while Harris fell to sixteenth place.

Given the likelihood that teams value certain statistics over others, it is not surprising that an equally weighed scoring system would not reflect the actual draft order.  With this in mind, I focused only on college stats and came up with the following scores:


Considering college stats tailored to the defensive end position results in a slightly more predictive model but explains only 15.9% of the draft order.  Three of the four top picks were first round selections as Barnett, Allen, and McKinley place second, third, and fourth respectively.  However, Walker dominates this analysis and scores seven points higher than his closest competitor, even though he lasted until the second round.  Third round picks Hendrickson and Willis also have strong scores while the other first round picks struggled.  Third overall pick Thomas has a decent showing as does Harris, but Charlton lags to twelfth and Garrett places two picks later with a score in the mid-thirties.

While certainly not perfect, these ranks do make it clear that Philadelphia, Washington, and Atlanta value college stats, while Cleveland and Dallas do not.  Why would Cleveland take Garrett first overall and Dallas jump on Charlton later in the first round?  Why was Walker only the eighth end drafted?  Would combine results reveal their logic?

If only combine stats are considered I came up with the following scores:


Combine stats predict the overall top pick but are otherwise fairly worthless, explaining only 5.1% of the overall draft order.  Garrett finally earns the top spot in a category, but he is the only first round selection that finishes in the top six.  Willis scores a close second to Garrett even though he wasn’t even the first end selected in the third round.  While Charlton, Thomas, and Walker finish in the top 10 here, their scores are indiscernible from a group of six ends that includes one player taken as late as the fourth round.  Furthermore, fellow first round selections McKinley, Barnett, Allen, and Harris bring up the rear, with four of the five worse scores.

Garrett’s top score may reveal how strongly Cleveland believes in the combine, while it appears Atlanta, Philadelphia, Washington do not.  I cannot figure out what Dallas or Miami were thinking with their selections of Charlton and Harris respectively.  Neither distinguished themselves in college or at the combine.  Further, Thomas was the third pick in the draft but is a middling rank in both college and the combine.

Obviously, the combine was not a very good predictor of draft order.  Maybe NFL GMs are looking at something more sophisticated, combining both combine and college stats?  This is where I tried to guess which variables NFL GMs used to analyze defensive end prospects.  I focused on sacks and tackles in college with a slight tilt towards combine measurements including height, weight, arm strength, and the vertical jump. Considering these factors reveals the following ranks:


This analysis did improve the predictive nature of our screener, but still only explains 25.6% of draft order.  Walker again wins in dominant fashion, followed by Allen, Barnett, Willis, and Hendrickson.  Of the top five, only Barnett and Allen were first round picks, though McKinley posted a strong score and places sixth.  Thomas, Charlton and Garrett reach the top 10 but post only pedestrian scores.  Again, Harris does not place well and falls all the way to twelfth.   Obviously, GMs must be looking something else.

JXM Gurus

Given that college stats and the combine did not seem to be very good predictors, I decided to form a Guru-like level that focused on how the experts would rank these players.  I came up with the following:


The experts beat all Level 1 screeners, explaining 68.9% of the overall draft order.  The dominant score of Garrett certainly explains why he was the consensus number 1 overall pick.  The experts also solidify the first round status of Thomas, Allen, Charlton, McKinley, Barnett, and Harris.  However, they did miss on Walker and Kpassagnon, who were ranked in the lower third of this list but were drafted much higher.  This is also the only area where Charlton and Harris score well, suggesting that Dallas and Miami value the opinion of experts above all else.

It is probably safe to assume that these experts have access to some insider information and consider more than the data available to our Level 1 analysis.  However, there is still over 30% of the draft order they couldn’t explain.

JXM Sum2

In an attempt to fill in that 30% gap, I tried one last measure.  In this last table, I sprinkled in my user analysis with those of the experts:


This analysis does improve on expert opinion, explaining 75.2% of the draft order and doing a very good job of predicting the first round selections; it guesses the top ten almost perfectly.  However, first round selections Barnett, Charlton, McKinley, and Harris score very closely to Willis and Walker, who went much later.  This suggests that the Eagles may have reached a bit by taking Barnett as high as they did.  On the other hand, it seems like Willis and Walker lasted longer than they should have, while Kansas City may have missed by selecting Kpassagnon so high in the second round.

JXM Analysis

The Sum2 screener does surprisingly well in explaining the draft position of the defensive ends selected in the 2017 draft.  A combination of expert opinion and measurable statistics support most of the draft order.  Individually, the Level 1 and Guru screeners reveal how certain GMs set their draft board.  The Level 1 screeners explained which information the teams focused on, while the Gurus revealed that most teams listen to expert opinion.  In the case of Garrett, Cleveland’s pick was backed by the experts as well as his freakish physical abilities.  The Eagles’ pick of Barnett was backed by his college stats and certain combine measurements, as was Atlanta’s selection of McKinley and Washington’s pick of Allen.  All three teams were also supported by the experts.  Thomas was a fine scorer but didn’t stand out anywhere aside from his Guru score.  Though the experts were not high on Kansas City’s pick of Kpassagnon, he did perform well at the combine.  Dallas certainly did not perform a Level 1-type analysis with their selection of Charlton as they seemed to rely only on expert opinion.   The same can be said about Miami.  Based on this analysis the steals of the draft were clearly Denver’s pick of Walker in the second round and Cincinnati’s find of Willis in the third.

JXM Power

This exercise was interesting because it shows the potential of a simple JXM analysis, explaining over 75% of the 2017 draft order without the benefit of insider information.  It was also able to reveal how certain teams evaluated talent, which could be useful to opposing GMs in future drafts.

Now imagine how powerful such a tool would be if it were expanded to include the following:

  • Consider injury issues and character concerns
  • Include more defensive end prospects
  • Analyze every position with criteria tailored to reflect the requirements of each
  • Statistics that populate the database automatically
  • Tested and refined over a period of time to prove its effectiveness
  • Regularly adjusted to keep it current

Such a tool may look like the following:

  • Level 1 – Fundamentals – How does the player stack up in quantifiable measurements?
  • Level 2 – Technical – Is the player moving up or down the draft board?
  • Level 3 – Valuation – Was the player taken in the right round?
  • Level 4 – Guru – How do all of those websites that assign prospect grades feel about this player?
  • Level 5 – Rules – What do the proprietary metrics say about this player?
  • Level 6 – Growth – How did the player develop from junior to senior year?
  • Level 7 – New Growth – Did the player continue to grow as a senior or take a step back from the growth displayed as a junior?

This theoretical model could prove valuable to a GM if it could find the best players while predicting how competing GMs will operate during the draft.

Relation to the JXM Stock Analysis

The reason I wrote this was because I wanted to have a bit of fun.  I also wanted to show the value of the JXM system and attempt to explain how it works.  The JXM stock analysis works similarly to the above, but has already been expanded to include a much more extensive analysis.  Over the years we have formed an expansive database that considers nearly 300 ratios.  It can evaluate up to 75 companies in a matter of minutes.  It considers seven levels through a variety of proprietary algorithms.  It has been tested and refined over a five year period.  Our methods have proven to continually find the winners.  Our system works.

AMBA – Company Spotlight

The Ambarella Story

Ambarella, Inc. (NASDAQ: AMBA) is a leading developer of low-power, high-definition (HD) and Ultra HD video compression and image processing solutions. The company’s products are used in a variety of professional and consumer applications including security IP-cameras, wearable cameras, drone cameras and automotive video processing solutions. Ambarella compression chips are also used in broadcasting TV programs worldwide.

Recent Milestones


• H1 introduced, an Ultra HD 4Kp60 H.264/AVC and 4Kp30 H.265/HEVC
flying camera SoC
• A12W introduced, a 28-nm wearable camera SoC
• A12S and A9SE are introduced, 28-nm SoCs for flying cameras
• The S3L family is announced: H.265/HEVC and H.264/AVC 28-nm SoCs
targeting professional and consumer IP camera applications
• Ambarella acquires VisLab, a European developer of computer vision and intelligent automotive control systems


• H2 introduced, a 14nm Ultra HD 4Kp120 H.264/AVC and 4Kp60 HEVC sports and flying camera SoC
• S3L introduced, a 4K Ultra HD SoC family supporting H.265/HEVC and H.264/AVC encoding targeting IP security cameras
• S5 introduced, a 14nm Ultra HD SoC capable of 4Kp60 H.264/AVC and 4Kp60 H.265/HEVC targeting professional IP camera applications


• H22 introduced, a 14nm Ultra HD 4Kp60 SoC supporting both H.265/HEVC and H.264/AVC targeting flying cameras and consumer applications
• A9AQ introduced, Ambarella’s first automotive-qualified SoC targeting video recorders, surround view and electronic mirror applications
• B6 introduced, a high performance, serializer/deserializer companion chip for automotive OEM solutions
• H3 introduced, a 14nm 8Kp30 SoC supporting both H.264/AVC and H.265/HEVC encoding formats targeting the virtual reality and flying camera markets
• S5L introduced, a 14nm 4K SoC for professional, consumer and battery-powered IP security cameras

The JXM Filtration

Today we take a look at $AMBA and how it compares to it’s peers.  The specific names for this focus group are shown below on the technology input page.  This is where we compare financial and technical ratios against a stock’s direct, industry, and sector competitors using the JXM 24.


The JXM 24 analyzes 5880 ratio (4680 core and 1200 growth) and 1042 actual calculations.

First up is level 1 which has a sole focus on fundamentals.  While AMBA is the company spotlight today, the fundamentals are just about average in this group with a final rank of 11.  Below shows the sort from strength to weakness.   To reiterate what this level does, it utilizes 42 ratios (x 24 companies) pulled largely from a stock’s annual report.  This classic analysis focuses primarily on profitability, growth, valuation, and management effectiveness.  The ratios are weighed based on importance and organized into 6 scores; Basic, Average, Target, Category, Industry, and Sector.

  1. The Basic Score compares the ratios of each stock directly against the 24 in the pool.
  2. The Average Score compares the each company against a predetermined average.
  3. The Target Score focuses on a JXM set range or value.
  4. The Category Score is based on a select JXM formula that pools related ratios.
  5. The Industry Score compares each stock ratio against its industry average.
  6. The Sector Score compares each stock ratio against the overall sector average.


So while $AMBA isn’t a gem with fundamentals, our focus is strength in numbers and not necessary something that strives in one particular category or level.

The next phase has a primary focus on technicals which are ratios derived from price. AMBA does much better in level 2 taking home a rank of 6 with a momentum index score of hot.  We will later focus on the price chart but for now we know that it’s trend is strong against its peers (top 25th percentile)


Now lets review the Summary page which is all the levels (Fundamental, Technical, Valuation, Guru, Rules, Classic Growth and New Growth).

$AMBA gets the 5th rank which is our overall rank for this run of 24.  While it’s not the best of the group, it has some interesting aspects.   First, it hasn’t been a top scorer since 2015 so watching a company gain strength again is something we like to look for.


Some of its strengths are technicals (will discuss more at the end), Rules (proprietory blend; not shown) and Classic Growth (small sample shown below)


This run has a classic growth average of 13% and $AMBA scores 30% so its well above average.

It also carries an average valuation score of the 24 names being compared but tech is one of those sectors where valuation can run hot.   The Fair value calc shows that the longer term margin of safety has +32% upside and while the fair value ranges are negative,  its based off average EPS of diluted TTM and next year.  Using only next years reading of $2.55, the valuation gets even better


Now that we like what we see with $AMBA its time to review the charts.

First up is the monthly view where price finally broke out of this ascending triangle.  In 2016 it found support off the 2013 highs of $36.49.


The second chart is the weekly view and price is trading within a bearish bat harmonic.

The AB bounce off the XA leg down stopped just about the 50% retracement while the BC move dropped within the 88.6% retracement of the AB leg move which eventually created its first higher low.   Now that price has moved over B (which was $60.68) price has made a higher high of the higher low.  The bat has a target of $71-$72 which is the CD leg.  The final CD leg can achieve an 88.6% retracement of the XA leg and also represent a 161.8% to 261.8% extension of the BC leg


The last chart is the daily which shows the new higher high over $60.68, then a nice shakeout followed by nice demand and eventually another high over last weeks high.



$AMBA is exactly the stock the JXM looks for.   Strength in numbers while not doing anything really bad.  It also succeeds really well in specific areas that have strong correlation to positive price movement.   While we held a long position here already in 2017, we are currently looking to buy the retest of 60-61 if possible for a move into $70+



Small Caps – IWM

Update 5/19

We are starting to see a potential bottom from May 17th, shown below on the daily which is now in line with the 3 and 5 year average (discussed below).


The green and purple lines show the 3 and 5 year averages for May and if we are mirroring those patterns, next week should have more upside


Update 5/18

Yesterday as mentioned was a significant down day, it has been the 2nd worst day of May on average and for 2017 it is now the worst day of the month.   Now that we have that out of the way, the 3,5,10 and inception averages are still in play.  Price usually makes a lower low around 5/17 which is did yesterday.  Only the 10 year average has another lower low next week but with a 2 week window you might be able to overcome another draw down.

Today we have a small bounce which is nice, +.27% as I type.  On average 5/18 is green so we are still on par with an average May and if that is the case, some upside may be still in the cards for the remaining 2 weeks


May 16th trade idea

Hearing a lot of chatter through social media about how small caps are currently trading in the tightest range in the last 20+ years.  While nobody really knows the direction, we are in a bull market so lets assume that will be to the upside

The below image shows similar bottoming action on all major time frames.  We have the 3,5 and 10 year along inception shown below.


The 3 and 5 year show bottoming action on deck this week while the 10 year shows one more lower low next week while the inception line basically double bottoms off this weeks low.   They all have one thing in common, an end of month rally could be in the cards.

Lets break these numbers down even further.   The below image is the raw data for every trading day for the IWM ETF in the month of May


The sum of all averages for each time frame can be seen here to make it easier for discussion purposes.   Today is 5/16 and the sum of all averages for that time frame would be -0.08% (inception) -0.75% (10 year) -1.85% (5 year) -0.55% (3 year)


If you take a look at the May line chart for 2017, which is on a closing basis, we are down about 53 cent or -0.38%.   So its very close to the 3,10 and inception averages half way through May


Now that we have some idea that there is price correlation with the sum of all averages lets zoom in and focus on what is left for this month from past results just incase we continue on this path.  The next image is the sum of all averages from 5/17 to end of May


Since inception from 5/16, price was basically flat so the average upside left is +2.82%

The 10 year was down around .75% so would have an average upside of +2.02% left

The 5 year was down the most and recovered very strong with +2.23% upside left

The 3 year is the closest to the 2017 price action and has +3.18% upside

That’s an average upside of +2.56% for all 4 time frames (would put price around $142 to end May)

Another thing I noticed is tomorrow is one of the worst days of the month and while some people like to focus on trading days vs days on the calendar,  5/17 no matter what trading day of that particular year, it hasn’t been very good.

So I will be watching for some downside tomorrow, and if it comes, I will put on some end of May options (June 2nd 140cs) for hopefully some nice profit.


Lastly here is the daily chart showing possible support at the 61.8 Fib with a nice rounding formation looking to retest that high of $141.82.  If my plan comes to fruition, the right side of this rounding bottom will complete in the next two weeks.


Healthcare Scan 5/15

While HC stocks are starting to look strong again, I decided to look at one of my shorter term screeners.

Sector – Healthcare

Market Cap – Under 200 Billion

Price – Over $10

SMA50 – Above

SMA200 – Above

Avg daily volume – > 1 million

Forward PE – Positive


Came up with about 30 names shown below


OSUR took the top spot and is looking interesting now and longer term (posted the monthly on Stocktwits) where $18 may get retested.  The below is the daily where its flagging above the old high.  Has a fierce look it it while RSI compresses.


KND took the #2 spot as price already broke north of this triangle.  Measured move would bring the April highs into play around $15-16


The 3rd spot belongs to ANTM.  This one came all the way back to its 2015 highs to consolidate some and blast higher.   Could very well melt higher from here