Stocks that were in focus included names like Samvardhana Motherson, which fell more than 4 per cent to hit a fresh 52-week low,
, which rose over 4 per cent and , which also cracked over 1 per cent to hit a fresh 52-week low.
Here’s what Rahul Goud, Research Analyst – Equity Research, CapitalVia Research, recommends investors should do with these stocks when the market resumes trading today:
Samvardhana Motherson International: Avoid
Shares of auto components maker Samvardhana Motherson International (formerly known as
) are currently trading at a PE of 57.75 compared to the sector PE of 157, which suggests that the company is undervalued. Amid global unrest, the stock is technically trading at a 52-week low.
Rising volumes at lower levels suggest that sellers are in control and that the downward trend might persist. We urge investors to avoid the company at CMP Rs 108 because of the recession-like conditions in Europe and other nations.
Tejas Networks: Buy
Tejas Networks sells carrier-grade communications tools and services to the telecom sector. The business provides optical networking hardware to telecom providers all over the world. Compared to Nifty50, which returned – 4.70 per cent over the past year, the stock has returned 13.95 per cent.
Technically, the scrip is trading at a 52-week high with enormously rising volumes, suggesting buyers are confident about the stock.
A trader might purchase the stock at the current market price of Rs 653, with a stop loss of Rs 590, to achieve the short-term target price of Rs 750. The stock has broken out of an inverse head and shoulder pattern on the weekly charts.
(IOC) deals with the sale of petroleum products and petrochemicals. The stock is down 11% from the benchmark index and trading at a 52-week low.
Technically, the stock has developed a head and shoulders pattern on weekly charts, which could result in a further downside target of Rs 58. As a result, we advise traders to avoid the stock at these levels.
(Disclaimer: Recommendations, suggestions, views and opinions given by the experts are their own. These do not represent the views of Economic Times)