Member Info for Velo

" A pint of blood? Have you gone stark raving mad? I mean I came here in all good faith to help my country. Now I don't mind giving a reasonable amount - but a pint?
Why that's very nearly an armful! "

The Blood Donor episode :)

Yes having probs with LSE site, and also saying not secure anymore - had to use beta version just to post this.

Well I like this reducing of posts to one per week (1 per month would be better) but the truth is I've been busy  away from home and remain so until the middle of next week with only a small amount of free time late at night, daily. So much for willingly reducing the amount of posting of my own free will.

What did you think of the drift back to the shelf edge closes on 201 with intraday visits to 200, in recent days? That wasn't in the script
 - Was it BT announcing 90% of it's real estate property is being sold off?

Then instantly forgotten in a day, and this back-on-course bounce today? - Was it new CEO share purchases?

Just shows sentiment rules, before facts, before fundamentals - before truth, before everything. Ultimately just a couple of dings in the path of the newly forming uptrend.
 
So, if this 207p holds and builds from next week, then what next?
IMO, a push onto 200-teens (Preferably slowly). And then on to that gap-closing, all the way up to possibly 220 area.

Whatever, both the big move today, and that earlier in the week of low 190's to well over 200 in one-day, are a bit unsettling. It's having the same effect as the rapid fall since results day earlier in May (never mind the last 6 months or so) but in the opposite direction - rushing out of oversold and hurrying up to higher strength ratings with the prospect of racing into overbought, with inevitable results.

Never liked over fast movements in 'elephants don't run' shares like BT. It shows too much emphasis on ephemeral,  fickle sentiment, and not enough on fundamentals.

"Ultra short" term trend, has been bullish since the beginning of week.

It's a start.

Shorter term/medium term trends almost just kissing as of tonight suggesting they too are close to crossing to the bullish upside.

Should they do so, that IMO will be a sit up and take notice moment.

Long term heavy duty trends still have the long-faced downers. Been that way since 2016. That's the heavyweight championship ultimate prize to win, the long term trends - not these lesser trends. But you have to start somewhere and last May to end of November looked like "it"( One long term trend is still bullish because of the half year ending 2018, but fading). Time for a rematch?

So things looking bullish trendwise, tentatively. As in like blowing embers of lit straw kinder to build a camp fire.

Far from home and tired. So briefly:

Breathtaking performance today (Tuesday). Closed with a powerful highly bullish pattern. Bodes well.

1). Thought the SP would be slow out of a very severe oversold condition. I was wrong. It's no longer in oversold condition. It rose out if it in one day flat (today) - very fast!
The Bull is out the gate, running and snorting - get behind the barriers for safety.

2) I thought 205p might be a mean reversion comfort zone. Maybe, but won't be surprised to see it find further comfort circa 200-teens. And that's where that old gap-down lies. So get to 213-ish and it's a slam dunk to 219-ish to close that gap, so 220p is certainly on the cards now.

3) New target 220? Then recalibrate and once there, see what's what. But first destroy 205p.

4) I thought 200 would slow down any attempt to climb back. I was wrong. Did it in one leap in one day.

5) 200 is a pussy; could prove a potential weakness in the future so ..... stay away from it.

6) The new black is190 -195. Turns out it never was 200.

Ever noticed that when a share is in trouble that the self-appointed herd keepers go out of their way to claim special privileges for their shareholding that other companies on the stock market are denied?

Most other companies have amortisation and depreciation costs as part of their free cash flow calculation - BUT ARE STILL JUDGED ON THE DIVIDEND COVER. Not the herd keepers on here. Oh no. They demand that you look over here or over look over there instead, because the view is better. Total delusional response.

Why do you mostly never hear this delusional sh!t on other shares? Maybe because those companies practise better financial housekeeping? And still go on to deliver a decent dividend cover despite they too having amortisation and depreciation costs that could make it look even better.

All companies on the London stock exchange, calculate their free cash flow along the lines of operating cash flow minus capital expenditures that also includes depreciation and amortisation. All of them have some depreciation and some amortisation costs. But some on IMB would have you believe because THEY own shares in this company, it should be judged differently and allowed special privileges that all other companies are not allowed to enjoy.

They're all judged on dividend cover no matter what. Only in this parallel universe that exists here, do they some cry boo hoo that's not fair you can't measure IMB on dividend cover, it has to be different to everybody else. Well you do measure IMB the same as everyone else - and it has not covered dividends in 4 out of the last 6 years. Suck it up!

At least forecast divi cover is adequate for the next forward 2 years. You won't hear a peep out of them then on divi cover.

" Your statement "profit is profit" could not be more wrong, Profit can be manipulated. Cash cannot. "Profit is vanity , cash is king" as they say."

And 2018 cash (part 2) was actually down on the preceeding 5 years average, by being just above half that average. So your pithy, well known saying, doesn't change anything, does it?

But instead, rather confirms my point that 2018 cash being "up" on 2017 was no cause for celebration, as we were being encouraged to do so.

(Part 4) concludes with -

Now if I stopped there I'd be aping Tom by not telling both sides of an issue, because 2 of those 6 years met their dividend obligations fully from net profit and not only that but left some net profit available for other uses.
So the net profit "surplus" deducted from the full 6 years 'overspend', now results in adding to debt, not that £1,342m, but £910m. Still extremely undesirable - which is all the negative dividend cover has been indicating for some years, debt has increased because more is being paid out than is being earned in profit! It's sheer Charles Dickens:

"Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen pounds, nineteen shillings and six pence, result happiness.
Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds nought and six pence, result misery."

Ergo - It needs dealing with!

However, that's all historic water under the bridge.

Looking forward, the good news is (and it is good news) the next 2 years forecasts show dividends are well covered - if budgets and targets are met.

Investors will just have to live with that £0.9billion added stress on the debt metric. Could easily have been dealt with at the time, but I guess management were terrified of offending the income funds invested in IMB and political ramifications of damage to IMB's reputation as a pension fund's favourite investment vehicle.

Free cash flow is not a secret profit channel panacea that's somehow not declared in the accounts. It's more an efficiency measure that can also be used to advantage in times of duress. The profit is the profit and that's it. No secret pots of gold hidden under the free cash flow floorboards.

Do not let anyone dismiss the importance and danger of successive years of dividend cover falling under 1.0 - IT IS IMPORTANT! And to persuade otherwise is both disingenuous and unwise.

(Part 3)

Having said all that - there are loads of quality metrics in the balance sheet that designate IMB as a true value prospect - when value shares come back into fashion. But as well as numerous market beating metrics in IMB there are some that are not so hot, and need attention. So let's turn attention to the truth of the dividends and dividend cover, in essence, my sole issue with your post. What follows are the past half dozen years of net profit and how many of those years failed to provide sufficient net profit to fully pay for dividends.

Now exemplary free cash flow can come to the rescue if dividend payments exceed the net profit if - IF - it's only a temporary situation, or just the odd year - but continue doing that, for many a year and eventually you will come to the end of the road. Curtains. Insolvency. Dress it up all you want but spending more than you earn will end in insolvency, that cash flow just won't be able to solve. It's 100% delusional to attempt to discredit negative dividend cover as not the full picture and that's where my issue with your opinions lie.

But instead of opinions flying about all over the place, what is the actual position in £'s and pence? Divi cover for 4 of the last 6 years was under 1.0 suggesting that debt has indirectly increased because of paying out more than the net profit produced ie.,

Divi cover:
2013 = 0.8 bad
2014 = 1.16 ok
2015 = 1.25 ok
2016 = 0.42 bad
2017 = 0.86 bad
2018 = 0.76 bad

(PS. Net Debt for 2018 stands historically at the highest ever, for the past 6 years @ £12,807m but it's only marginally higher, not breathtakingly higher).

Consider:

2013 Net profit = £905m
2013 Dividends paid out = £1,065m . . . = £160m adversely impacting debt.

2014 Net profit = £1,422m
2014 Dividends paid out = £1,149m . . . = £273m surplus net profit available :)

2015 Net profit = £1,691m
2015 Dividends paid out = £1,259m . . . = £432m surplus net profit available :)

2016 Net profit = £631m
2016 Dividends paid out = £1,386m . . . = £755m adversely impacting debt

2017 Net profit = £1,409m
2017 Dividends paid out = £1,528m . . . = £119m adversely impacting debt

2018 Net profit = £1,368m
2018 Dividends paid out = £1,676m . . . = £308m adversely impacting debt

So, the 4 years with negative divi cover under 1.0 produced added stress on debt, by subverting free cash flow to the tune of £1,342m (£1.342 BILLION in increased debt to finance dividends!)

Now if I stopped there I'd be aping Tom in not telling both sides of an issue, because 2 of those 6 years met their dividend obligations fully from net profit and not only that but left some net profit available for other uses.
So the net profit "surplus" deducted from the full 6 years 'overspend', now results in adding to debt, not that £1,342m, but £910m. Still extremely undesirable - which is

(Cont)

(Part 2):

Sheer bull. Divi cover is derived from comparing to net profit earnings and is separate from comparing it to operational earnings - and you know it is. It's a rather lame way to discredit (negative) divi cover. Dividends are not a direct expense and therefore can only be paid from net profit, as all other expenses (mostly) are paid from operational profit, and what is left is net profit.

And Geez! whilst on operational profit - I EXPECT the electricity and utility bills to be paid from operational profit.
I EXPECT staff wages to be paid from operational profits. What's so damn good about that? I'd worry if nothing at all was paid from operational profit - that's why it's called operational profit - it's for paying off and attending to things accrued directly in operations of the business. It's not "good" it's nothing to marvel at. It's not a case of: "Oh look what's been achieved" as you opine. It's absolute basic operation - not "extra" to expectations as you appear to be implying.

If it were a family, and the housewife was asking the husband where the money went, it's like the husband replying - but look what's been achieved, you're not looking on the bright side - First I've paid off the monthly mortgage, etc.,

Only for the wife to interrupt: well I don't expect you to spend the mortgage money on the racetrack, of course it gets paid from your salary, I expect that, what I want to know is, where's the rest of it?

Also, you mention a £200m cash surplus, whilst quietly ignoring in the same sentence that an unexpected windfall of £200m occurred from selling a subsidiary, and with an evangelical expression of delight conclude:
" This meant the company finished the year with around £200m more cash than the previous year"

Well duh, yeah - you just had £200m handed to you for the subsidiary sale. What you gonna sell off next year? The office desks and chairs?

And even that increase in cash, is pure smoke and mirrors illusion. Sure 2018 finished with £775m - which was up on 2017's cash of £624m. So cash in 2018 was up on 2017 cash, yes? But behind 2017 is a different story and that's like having a salary cut by 50% in 2017 and getting a 10% pay rise in 2018 and then running home declaring that things are on the up.

- What I mean by that is, cash for the past 5 or 6 years or so has been running as follows:

CASH:
2013 = £1,793m
2014 = £1,413m
2015 = £2,042m
2016 = £1,274m
2017 = £624m

So running average is circa £1430m. But according to your assertion of look what's been achieved from operations for 2018 - cash is UP £200m over last year you say, and is -

2018 = £775m

So in retrospect, what you trying to pull here Tom? 2018 cash is little more than half the longer term average of the 5 years prior to 2018. Hardly "up" by comparison . So you pull the wool over others eyes on how great cash is because it's up on 2017? But it's all relative, isn't?

tomglan - (1st part of a 3 or 4 part-post or so, to complete my rant :)

Right grabbing the chance whilst I have it, to post. I'll have barely an hour free apart from 11pm to midnight for 8 days solid commencing tomorrow, so you may well have the last word on this subject matter Tom, as I'll be busy elsewhere.
That's because, I'm reluctant to reply several weeks later, however much I differ in opinion on an old subject, as it clogs up the board, when the forum might have moved on to other issues.
PS. Please try not to take personal offence as my posting style can become quite colourful in language at times. I'm not aiming at you, just your bias (we all have biases; no doubt you'll point mine out :)

Having said that I feel I must respond to that summing up sentence in your last post of:

" I stand by my last point that the dividend cover of 0.76 reported earnings does not paint a true picture as it suggests the company is borrowing to pay dividends, which is not the case"

Not only incorrect - I say, Poppycock and more fool you, and I intend demonstrating why you are so mistaken, by showing the cumulative damage a series of years in negative divi cover can cause.

------------------
First off, two things (before commencing) in which you said initially:
" ... all figures were pulled from the 2018 annual report so there shouldn't be anything contentious there..."

- Of course, it's not the figures per se, that I take issue with (hee! although read on) it's the conclusions and potential for misdirection in your opinions that you draw from them, that I find erroneous.

And the second is your: "... in 2018 the company generated approx. £3100m from operations..."

Well, right there I'm afraid we're not even on the same page from the off.

There is only one figure for Operating Profit , and I'm not seeing £3,100m as you offer - but instead £2,407m. Is it me or is it you?

Even the LSE fundamentals link above is showing the same as I'm suggesting of £2,407m. Perhaps that was a typo on your part, and if not, go ahead and blind me with science and a bit of music hall stand-up comedy routine along the lines of:
You have two and I have three, but you have more than me because"........etc., etc.,

(Maybe you're swallowing company 'buff' of add-on's that shows things in a better light - add this bit and re-add this debateable bit - to change the actuality to come up with that £3,100m?)

What you are suggesting in the examples that followed your opening is along the lines of: just look what's been achieved from operations of reducing this and increasing that - therefore you shouldn't "panic" over (negative) divi cover as you're not getting the full picture.

Bull! Sheer bull. Divi cover is derived from comparing to net profit earnings and is separate from comparing it to operational earnings - and you know it is. That's a rather lame way to discredit (negative) divi cover.

(Cont...)

Hi tomglan,

Out of time and booked up solid all next week, but will try to find time somewhere to detail the misconceptions in your last post below. Had it concluded without the final sentence tacked on, I might have let it pass as is. In fact your first post on divis to Bismarck and the one below up till the final sentence almost had me posting positive salutations to you, until I read that last sentence as it indicates to me, IMO, that you are suffering quite badly from buyers bias.

(Seriously; you're trying to tie a link with operating profit and its associated operational expenses as a consideration against net profit and divis? Unbelievable!)

If time I will detail my calcs and findings, but really it's not why I logged on here last night. I've held IMB for 3 years so am deeply under water, and have never posted on here in that time.

I have worked on some provisional possible floor SP's and just wanted to put out a post to see if others had any views (wether calculated or not) on where they feel the floor might lie, and after depart on my merry way.

One thing I feel is likely - I don't think anyone will like my calculations I've come up with as to where the floor might lie.

"I've seen it quoted at 0.74 on some sites and 1.45 on this site. "

And my - ** The actual divi cover for the full year ended Sept 30th 2018 is = 0.76 **

--------------------------------------
PS. It occurs to me that the 0.74 you're seeing elsewhere may be their figure for the last full year and if so is pretty close to my 0.76 (So your 0.74 site would appear to be fairly accurate).

I did state below that initially I thought it was their attempt at the TTM calculation but it's rare for free sites to offer that info, only historic info.

So it's probable that both sites are attempts at revealing last year's divi cover, and not TTM valuations. I prefer TTM and forward projections, so may have over-complicated my reply to you.

" Please can someone explain the correct div cover for imb. I've seen it quoted at 0.74 on some sites and 1.45 on this site. "

Bismarck, Might be able to shed some light on the disparity -

First off the divi cover of 0.74 is a little worse than I have, but it's close enough for me to confirm that the 0.74 you're seeing is based on the TTM - the Trailing 12 Month Data. That means it incorporates the latest interim results into the company/market forecasts to arrive at a 'forward' cover likely to be achieved by the time the full year results are announced. I would suggest that wherever you obtained the 0.74 figure from, is more current than LSE (Go back and check; does it make any mention of TTM?)

For the record I have the forward divi cover slightly better at 0.84

Whatever - both are well under 1.0 and represent an undesirable state of affairs.

----------------------

As for this site's (LSE) 1.45 cover for last year. I have no idea how they arrived at that nonsense!

The actual divi cover for the full year ended Sept 30th 2018 is = 0.76

Again undesirable as it's under 1.0 and means that money was either borrowed to pay shareholders or sidetracked from free cash flow. Not good and can't carry on like that. Some good news though -

For the year ending Sept 2019 I have the divi cover @ 1.34 (But recall that TTM of 0.84 so straight away we have a disparity between what the company has led the market to expect and that of building in the last interims of March just gone, into the calcs which as stated above is suggesting 0.84 So that's a big wait and see in Sept or rather a couple of months later when they release the results.

And for next year ending Sept 2020 I have the divi cover @ 1.27

Everything for 2020 gets readjusted once those Sept 2019 figures are known.

So in summary:

Last full results divi cover = 0.76

TTM expectations for Sept 2019 = 0.84
( Company/brokers estimate is far better @ = 1.34 (We'll see which comes closest soon enough)

Thanks rxdav & Nige,

" I concur with your assessment that the decline is likely over - but would prefer to say nearly over -"

- And I defer to your more accurate description of the true state of affairs. There will be the usual requirement of climbing out of oversold condition initially, and only after then, is it safe to pop your head out of the tank gun turret - but by then it would generally be apparent to all.

-------------

" I have also noticed that the BT share price has dropped for the 5th week consecutively, with this week being the smallest of drops compared to the other weeks."

- Yes indeed, the firesome, sheer cliff-face-like drop in SP since the day before the results were announced to this Friday's close are just simply breathtaking in its ferocity. I regard it all as part and parcel of the latest and current down trend that started at the v beginning of early December '18.

'
Away for 8 days solid from Tues next week. So if the SP ends up at £1 - it won't mean I've dissappeared as unwilling to to face the music :) :) it'll be because, if I can post, it might only be possible at around midnight etc due to heavy commitments during the day and evenings.

That Youtube, High Noon theme tune link below, doesn't open when I clicked it! Duh.

Well it's over. This decline. IMO the bears lost the war today. I'm prepared to be that conclusive.

I really should wait for further confirmation, really should, but I'm sure it's a done deal.

Don't think you'll see 180's for some time yet. And only if and when, the new uptrend that's about to get underway, concludes after it does get underway.

So busy preparing a suitable, cheeky, buy-limit order for Monday in case of another 'flash crash' as happened for a few seconds on opening today - which accounts for that 190 low - and which no one in the world could have taken advantage of manually, as it was over in mere seconds - you'd have needed a pre-prepared computer limit-buy order in place or one of Fleccy's algobots to participate.

I'm expecting all next week to be mostly bullish days for BT - but only gently so, as still deep, deep, v deep in oversold condition, so still dangerous.

It's so deep I had to bring up on screen 20 years of price action to find another occasion to match the ferocity of this relentless decline - and that was an oversold condition that occurred in 2009!

BT does have a characteristic of reasonably, but swiftly, going straight high up to overbought from these mega oversold occasions; but that's bye the bye. Don't count on that cherry on top.

Monday might be a bitty wobbly, so setting that computer buy limit v low but will additionally buy manually - but not seriously expecting the v low computer buy limit to trigger as IMO I reckon the bears are as of tonight suffering from seller exhaustion.

A beautiful closing price pattern tonight - a long legged Doji. And that signifies indecision with a tendency towards a trend change in direction, to that which currently prevails. Long-legged because the bears couldn't hold on to that 190 and were chased all the way back up by the bulls (buyers) to Fibonacci's retracement level.

So a slow climb out of oversold, commencing Monday. However, such has been the monster damage done by this long destructive decline I'm thinking not much better than 205p short term - and that could use up most of it's energy getting past 200. A big question mark remains on whether 200 is too much too soon at the moment. The damage done by this decline is lasting, so I'm not expecting fireworks. Nor am I convinced getting back above 200 is a foregone conclusion. But then again there is that little matter of an outstanding account to be closed
- the gap down from 219 to 213 in early May; the only way to close that account is - to go visit it, so a potential 220 visit when the SP is strong and healthy enough.

Maybe not on this occasion, as only expecting a mild recovery initially. Having said that, I'm also convinced in near-future months the bears will be back, tooled-up for another big push, but for now I believe they've had enough.

The bears gunslinger lies face down in the dusty main street with a bullet dead centre between the eyes -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4a

Mike. A friendly heads-up.

Be careful of what you post on social forums. You are being watched, monitored and your material 'recorded'. Edward Snowdon has fully detailed the warehouses they have in the USA where they stored so much digital content culled from social forums and emails, texts etc., that they can't process it so are using bots to further filter down key words to find persons that might put them, the US, in harms way.

Key words in your post that have probably already found their way into their databases is the line "... somebody has to get rid of...... " and (insert name of an elected state leader you mentioned).

Think I'm exaggerating? Do you know you are now in my old spot of 17th worst person on VOD for "ramping"?

I have been "promoted" up to 10th place. Longish is still the Fonz in 1st place.

And I'm No:1 on BT. Never win anything so 'pleased' to win that one.

If you were here when Pumpandump was being discussed you'd have seen that virtually 90% of all posters on here have their log-in ID's advertised without their permission on another site and falsely accused as derampers engaged in possible fraudulent activity for personal financial gain.

And that's all before 5G kicks in. With superior IP detection they may even be able to publish your real name in the future.

Now that's small scale where you and I are being monitored and accused falsrly on another site.

Just think what the big boys are capable of.

"The perception of BT is just the opposite it is of lower market share and lower profits."

Avro, was that a typo? Did you mean lower REVENUE instead of lower profits?

Profits are up and forecast by both the company and market to continue rising over the next 2 years.

It's revenue that is down and forecast to continue being down over the next 2 years.

" but she said she'd Bobbitt me if I took any cash out of our house move stash lol."

Ha! You'd better not keep tabs on BT's SP then, if the bears break right through the 190-195 area as it'll become a bingo game bag of, pick me a number - any number will do, as you just wouldn't be able to resist :)

Here you go, Fleccy. Found a 6 minute video versioin which they must have negotiated to allow through. It's a bit blurry.

But there's enough in that 6 minute clip still to convict Cramer, if someone was so minded. The version I had ran to 30 minutes or so. But there's more than enough here to reveal how manipulation and outright fraud gets conducted.

In my old version he claims to bring any company in the world, anywhere, to it's knees with just $5million bucks. Think he does touch on that a bit in this shorter version.

It's titled "Jim Cramer Explains How The Stock Market Is Manipulated".

But should really be entitled: "Jim Cramer Explains How HE Manipulates The Stock Market".

Here's the vid link -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOS8QgAQO-k

" I don't care what anyone says, any company's price can be manipulated to exactly where the market makers want, with relatively little outlay in their scheme of things. I spoke to a guy who works for a share dealing company and he stated that he wont invest because of what he's seen happening, unfortunately he didn't share the detail of what puts him off."

I agree with that Fleccy.

Lost the link after downloading a video onto my old computer before it went t!ts up, but I had a video of Jim Cramer foolishly bragging to a young reporter how in his fund manager days he corrupted stock prices to bring a company to its knees. There is an article somewhere that gives a written account of his bragging - but I seem to recall posting all that on here the other year or so, ago.

Anyway the young interviewer was more switched on than Cramer and asked Cramer isn't what he just confessed to, a criminal act? The video was worth it to see Cramer's face gurning for dear life - caught out by a smart kid as he desperately tried to convince the interviewer he meant "He knows of people" who'd done it - and not himself.

Then he couldn't help himself. The kid accepts his version - but then Cramer turns to camera and gurns and winks and winks some more until his head almost comes off, to confirm to the viewer that he means himself all along. His lawyers got Youtube to pull the video. But I had it on my old computer. See if I can find the article with the written account of the incident.

To combat those algos I rely on trend lines. They tell the truth no matter what is being promoted in the media. But of course if one wakes up to a massive gap-up or gap-down, right from the off, nothing on earth can save you.

So, it's Thursday and the SP closed at 194p. Pistols at dawn then - no noon! Cue the theme tune to High Noon.

Friday last week it closed . . @ 196 - Tuesday 28th May it closed @ 196 - Wed it closed @ 196

But the bears must have been reading my posts and tonight the SP closed on 194p. It's a direct challenge! What's to do?

On trend lines, and every indicator known to mankind, I don't have a leg to stand on.
Rxdav is 100% correct below in his assertion of "... as there is still visible downward pressure...." Couldn't agree more, there is! Don't have a hope of trend lines turning from tonight's close. The bears have parked up for the night, right up against BT's front door. I have only one chance to escape. And if that chance fails to show, then I'll become very pessimistic with the SP failing to halt this decline.

And that chance is Fibonacci's retracement level - his best one IMO @ 194p
It can not be seen by trend lines. It can not be seen by candlesticks. It happens by Harry Potter style smoke and mirrors. If I've seen it work once successfully I've seen it work successfully a thousand times. And I'm calling on it tonight.

I've seen it fail too. Loads of times. And it's the last chance saloon when it fails. Carry on 'well past' 194 closing, and the world is the bear's oyster. Which leaves me and any potential buyers of BT with two choices.

1) Buy @ 194p - the floor - if you believe it will hold or
2) Step aside (the sensible option) and let the SP do it's stuff and just follow the trend all the way down - god knows where - 150 whatever and buy when the trend bends, and starts heading north. But buy in tranches to eliminate false reversals.

The bad guy is walking down the centre of the street and he's calling my name for insulting him with 194. The bartender hands me a gun and holster and from nowhere a guitar player steps up and starts strumming forlornly:

Do not forsake me oh my darling
I do not know what fate awaits me
I only know I must be brave
And I must face a bear who hates me
Or lie a coward, a craven coward
Or lie a coward in my grave

Do not forsake me oh my Fibonacci retracement

Look at that big hand move along
Nearin' high noon

Do not forsake me oh my darling

He made a vow while in state prison
Vowed it would be my life or his, and
I'm not afraid of death, but, oh
What shall I do if you leave me?

Do not forsake me oh my Fibonacci retracement

- 200 failed when I posted I thought it shouldn't. Now it's 194. Will I now have to answer for my sins?
Bring on tomorrow. I'm ready to step out into that sunlit dusty main street.