u/iktisab

I pulled daily NSE prices (via Yahoo Finance) around IndusInd Bank’s last two Q1 results:

	Q1 FY26 (Jul 2025)	Q1 FY27 (Jul 2026)
Net profit YoY	−72%	+71.7% (₹604 cr → ₹1,037 cr)
2 days before results	−5.4%	+3.5% (Bank Nifty −1.4%)
Reaction day close	+0.8%	−6.0% (Bank Nifty −0.9%)

Under the FY27 headline, net revenue fell 4.8% (₹6,797 cr → ₹6,471 cr) and fee income fell 17%. The profit rise came mostly from lower costs, on a base hit by the 2025 accounting issue.

My takeaway: the price moved before both announcements, and the reaction followed the surprise, not the headline. It’s one example, not proof, so happy to see counterexamples.

Steve Nison compares the Evening Star to a traffic light.

1. Green: a long up day. Buyers are in control.

2. Yellow: a small-bodied "star" that opens above day 1's close. Its colour doesn't matter; Nison says the star can be white or black.

3. Red: a down day that cuts deep into day 1's body.

Example: Day 1 ₹100 → ₹110. Day 2 ₹112 → ₹111. Day 3 ₹110 → ₹103, which cuts 70% into day 1's body.

Details most explanations skip:

- Nison says the main concern is how far day 3 cuts into day 1.

- In principle there's a gap before and after the star, but he notes the second gap is rarely seen and not necessary.

- It needs a prior uptrend. The same three candles in a sideways market carry little information.

Not a guarantee of a top. Source: Steve Nison, Japanese Candlestick Charting Techniques. Example numbers, not advice.

Three candles:

1. A tall red day: sellers in control.

2. A small-bodied day that opens below day 1's close: sellers push, price barely moves.

3. A strong green day that closes well into day 1's red body: buyers take over.

Example: Day 1 ₹110 → ₹100. Day 2 ₹98 → ₹99. Day 3 ₹100 → ₹107, which recovers 70% of day 1's body.

Two details most explanations skip:

- Nison's ideal version has a gap before AND after the middle candle. He notes the second gap is rare, and missing it doesn't weaken the pattern.

- It needs a prior downtrend. The same three candles in a sideways market carry little information. It's more useful at a level where buyers stepped in before, but that part is judgement, not definition.

It's not a guarantee. Nison's own examples include a rally after a morning star that stalled within days.

Source: Steve Nison, Japanese Candlestick Charting Techniques. Example numbers, not advice.

An engulfing is two candles where the second's real body (open to close) completely covers the first's real body, in the opposite colour. The shadows, meaning the day's high and low, aren't part of the test.

What it represents: the side that lost yesterday not only recovered, it pushed past where yesterday started. In a bullish engulfing, price passes yesterday's open and closes above it.

Context is what makes it mean anything:

• After a decline, at support: bullish engulfing, buyers taking control.
• After a rally, at resistance: bearish engulfing, sellers taking control.
• Mid-range, with no nearby level: it's just a volatile day.

It's commonly treated as stronger when the engulfing body is large relative to recent candles, and it still benefits from confirmation by the next session.

For people who trade these: do you require the engulfing candle to close beyond a level, or is the pattern at the level enough?

Both have a small body near the session low and a long upper shadow. What happened inside: price pushed well above the open, then got sold back down to close near the low.

• At resistance, after a rally: buyers failed at a level where sellers have shown up before. That's the bearish reading, the shooting star.
• At support, after a decline: buyers at least managed a hard push up, which they hadn't been doing. That's the bullish reading, the inverted hammer. It's weaker on its own because the session still closed near the low.

Both are commonly treated as needing confirmation from the following candle. The pattern tells you a fight happened; location and the next close tell you who won.

For people who trade these: do you wait for the confirmation close, or act on the pattern candle with a tight stop?

A quick look at recent SIP data and what it may indicate about investor behaviour during a volatile market.

SIP contributions have remained strong, while a significant number of SIP accounts have also been discontinued.

It raises an interesting question: when markets become volatile, do investors generally stay invested, reduce their contributions, or stop their SIPs altogether?

Sharing this as a discussion around investor behaviour and market trends. The video is based on publicly reported data.

Since 3 August 2026 the closing price for ~200 F&O stocks isn't the last-30-minutes average. It's an auction, 3:15 to 3:35.

The exchange finds the single price where the largest quantity matches. At ₹1,000 there are 9,000 buys against 4,000 sells; at ₹1,005 it's 7,000 against 7,000; at ₹1,010 it's 3,000 against 9,500. Tradeable is the smaller side each time — 4,000 / 7,000 / 3,000. ₹1,005 clears the most, so that's the close. Every order fills there regardless of your limit.

Three things I don't think are widely understood:

1. Stop-loss and iceberg orders are cancelled when the auction begins
2. Orders outside ±3% of the reference price are rejected, not queued
3. Order entry freezes at a random moment between 3:28 and 3:30

The structural concern: cash trading stops at 3:15 but derivatives run to 3:40. If people finish before 3:15 because they doubt the auction has depth, the auction gets thinner — which justifies finishing early.

On 27 August the Sensex swung ~2,000 points during the window on expiry day. SEBI has ruled out rolling it back, calling it teething. An MP has asked for an investigation. No findings yet.

Teething problem or design flaw? Genuinely unsure. Follow me on instagram@ https://www.instagram.com/unheeded_prophet/

From the Yale Program on Financial Stability case study (2014-3A), which is worth reading in full.

A normal repo is a financing — the collateral stays on your books. But if you post collateral worth at least 105% of the loan, the accounting treats it as a sale. The assets come off your balance sheet entirely.

Lehman used this to remove as much as $50 billion at quarter-end — precisely when the accounts are reported — then reversed the transactions days later.

Reported leverage was 30.7× in November 2007, up from 23.9× in 2004. The examiner concluded the transactions were material and should have been disclosed to the SEC. They weren't.

The part that stays with me: Matthew Lee, a 14-year veteran whose job was balancing the global balance sheet for public reporting, wrote to senior management in May 2008 raising it. His employment was terminated the following month.

Fuld's testimony: "I have absolutely no recollection whatsoever of hearing anything about Repo 105 transactions while I was CEO of Lehman."

On 15 September 2008 Lehman filed with $639bn in assets against $613bn in debts — the largest bankruptcy in US history.

Genuine question, because I don't think it's obvious: legal, or fraud? No criminal charges followed. Follow me on instagram https://www.instagram.com/unheeded_prophet/

>

Nifty 50, ₹10 lakh, measured 3 years forward. Nifty has crossed −20% four times since 2000: Jan 2008, Aug 2011, Feb 2016, Mar 2020. n=4, so treat this as four stories, not a statistic.

Buying the exact low of each drawdown: all-in beats staggering 4 of 4, +28.9%.

Buying the day it crosses −20% — the decision you can actually make — all-in wins 3 of 4, +4.0%.

Entry	All in	Staggered	Fell further
2008-01-22	₹11,16,323	₹13,70,458	−48.5%
2011-08-16	₹15,89,102	₹15,77,001	−9.8%
2016-02-11	₹16,00,844	₹13,80,765	−0.1%
2020-03-12	₹17,67,616	₹15,11,301	−20.6%

Average further fall after committing: −19.7%.

The 28.9% edge is entirely hindsight. Code below — tell me if I've made an error.

A or B? I'd take A on three of these and I'd have been wiped on the fourth.

Nifty 50, monthly ₹10,000 SIP, Jan 2010 – Aug 2026 (200 months, ₹20L invested). Three behaviours:

• Steady — buys every month, no exceptions
• Pauser — stops new contributions when drawdown exceeds −15% from peak, resumes above −5%. Never sells existing holdings.
• Panic Seller — same pause rule, plus liquidates the entire corpus at −15% and rebuys on recovery

	Final	Multiple
Steady	₹51,34,037	2.57x
Pauser	₹43,80,749	2.19x
Panic Seller	₹35,00,566	1.75x

Steady beats Pauser by 17.2%. Beats Panic Seller by 46.7%.

The part I didn't expect: the Pauser never sold anything. He just stopped buying during drawdowns — 27 of 200 months. That alone cost ₹7.5 lakh. Adding full liquidation on top only cost another ~30 percentage points. Most of the damage comes from not buying, not from selling.

A caveat, since it nearly fooled me: my first version used a −3% re-entry threshold. Nifty is below −3% from its peak more often than not, so Pauser sat out 104 of 200 months — 52% of the entire period, with ₹10.4L never entering the market. That produced a 56% gap that was an artifact of a bad rule, not a behavioural finding. Corrected to −15%/−5%, which pauses 13.5% of months.

https://www.instagram.com/unheeded_prophet?igsh=d2pxdHZqMWlhbHow&utm_source=qr

open with the setup, the three numbers, the 29.7%, then the turn — worst timing beat cash by ₹25.7L. Close with: "I expected the perfect-vs-worst gap to be 15–25%. It came back at 29.7%, so timing matters a bit more than I assumed. Code below — tell me if I've made an error."

https://www.instagram.com/unheeded_prophet?igsh=d2pxdHZqMWlhbHow&utm_source=qr

https://www.instagram.com/unheeded_prophet?igsh=d2pxdHZqMWlhbHow&utm_source=qr

[deleted]

https://www.instagram.com/unheeded_prophet?igsh=d2pxdHZqMWlhbHow&utm_source=qr