search elliott

  • Google

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner


  • Where From?
    free counters
Related Posts with Thumbnails

« California Solar Farms Frozen By Glacial Permitting Process | Main | Time to Short the AUD? »

Wednesday, April 21, 2010


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


Yelnick, the Yuan currency forward price in around 3% rise within next 6-12 months. The breakdown, if it comes, it is not about the rise of the currency, but the administrative policy to shutdown the lending to the property speculation in China as for now, people cannot borrow any money to buy their third piece of property.


Short trade on the SPY setting up. Under 120.7 by 11 AM ET will trigger it. Confirmation from QQQQ and IWM by going under 49.81 and 71.78 by the same time. Stop for the SPY trade would be 123.36.

50/50 odds this is a top, which is my way of saying I have no idea if it is nor do I really care at this point. Simply getting the trade to trigger will either turn out to be a top or it won't. That's just the nature of a wave-(B).


Market threw a little curveball here by possibly ending patterns at lower highs. Would now need to get under 120.55 SPY by 11:50 ET. And so it goes.


By the way guys, did I tell you guys that:

I am gay!!

I am proud of this and I now feel that I can forecast the market better because I dont't waste my time and my energy hiding from my family.
Please spread the word... I am a proud gay..


Ps. Thanks Ricky Martin... you inspired me!!

Wave Rust

I'll know when a top is in when a puny 1-day pull back doesn't result in 150 blog posts using pretzel wave counts to justify a top for the 20th time since March '09. That's when you can write the 'post of posts' entitled 'Peter Cries "Wolf" for the Last Time!' as the wolf (fomc) finally gets to eat.

spx 1260+/- by Mother's Day, 1280 by Memorial day then down to 1150+/- before the 4th of july. Bubble rally to end the whole bullish bounce at spx 1330+/-.

beware of bubble waves dressed in wolf's clothing (it's really a wolf).

wave rust

p.s. shouldn't that be CUnary in the gAUld mine? or CLunary in the SPoo mine?

only 1 leader since 2006 and it ain't china.


wave, love the Gauld mine! This rally feels a lot like 2003-2004 period. I did a series of posts back in 2005 called Wolf! Wolf! pointing out that Prechter et al. were calling the top too many times.

Dow Predator

Trade what you see not what you believe. Forget about the wave counts and you will not be calling wolf..wolf... Trade the facts, trade the oscillators not your wishes.

The technical health of this market is very bearish. Here is a proof:

Today's high on the nasdaq was made on negative breadth, this is bearish as hell. Once we break 1190 on the SPX a to should be in, at least short term.
So far the nasdaq has hold 2044, which a powerful fibonacci resistance.

Dow Predator


Unless we have a major gap down at the open (3-10% sort of gap, not a 1-2% gap), the top will only be visible in retrospect.


More drivel from the resident perma-bear who continues to initiate/post trades on this website from the short side.


Dow Predator

Lasting gaps never happen at the top.
They usually happen at the middle of the move. When a market gaps at the top usually it will return to close the gap and make new highs.

All the important tops are made with weak technicals, just like it is happening right now.

Dow Predator


From my observations, high-yield fund price activity tends to mirror the movement of the Nasdaq Comp most of the time.

CXO guru advisory recently analyzed the theory that HYF's led the market.


More drivel from the resident perma-bear who continues to initiate/post trades on this website from the short side.


Yeah, that short trade I posted on Friday was a real loser. Oh, wait, actually it was a huge winner (entry would have been 120.7 SPY and exit 119.26). And, yes, to repeat, I did not take that trade, so don't accuse me of lying about that. I'm just saying that it was a fine call and better than anything I've seen out of you. EVER.

And the long trade I mentioned taking at 119.07 on Monday was also a huge loser. Oh, wait, that got stopped out today at 120.65 and was a huge winner.

I guess with all these perma-bear thoughts clouding my brain, I forgot about those two big trades. Now, those two trades don't compare to Carl Futia scalping 2.5 points on the ES, but I'll survive.

OK, now it's your turn to call me a "paper-trader". Go ahead, you know there's no way you can resist doing so.

Flame on,


And how could I have forgotten my post this morning to short the SPY under 120.55? Wow, what a losing call that was. Oh, no wait again, that's also actually working just fine. In fact, with the break of the day's earlier low just now, risk on that trade has been reduced to just about break-even.

But, I'm just a drivel-posting perma-bear paper-trader, I'm sure those three calls were just luck.

As I've said a couple of times already, punk, if you want to go toe-to-toe in a real-time trading contest, just let me know. That'll give you a chance to put your money where your flapping gums are.



"Short trade on the SPY setting up. Under 120.7 by 11 AM ET will trigger it. Confirmation from QQQQ and IWM by going under 49.81 and 71.78 by the same time."

Dude, no one cares about your "could have" "should have" "would have" paper-trades and all of your conditions that help you RATIONALIZE you and your massive Ego on this blog.

Has anyone asked you about your trading here?

Of course not.
No one cares.

Dow Predator


By reading this blog we all know that you follow and love Neowave and his creator Gleen Neely.

Well that is ok to me. Good for you.

Below this post, I attached a real answer from Gleen Neely when I questioned his method and his way of making fun of the competitors. After this answer I realized that his method is not worth following or even reading. This is my humble opinion.

I just wanted to share this with you, in good faith. Gleen Neely is not God.

Dow Predator

-----Original Message-----
From: NEOWAVE, INC. [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, March 05, 2007 5:45 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Read Your Posting


Mamma Boom Boom

>Lasting gaps never happen at the top. They usually happen at the middle of the move.<



Les, good find. Interesting conclusion that high-yield maybe coincident more than leading.

Here is also some more info on Cu as a leading indicator:

"Copper has a particularly inelastic [note: I think he rather means elastic] relationship with the global economy, because its two primary areas of use, electronic goods and construction, are those cyclical sectors which historically suffer most during an economic downturn. Similarly, they are two of the areas which tend to benefit quickest during economic expansion (or in this case, recovery) and so as global economies continue to show GDP growth, as many have during the early half of 2010, one could expect copper prices to directly benefit, possibly seeing a sharper reaction than the broader markets as a whole (price inelasticity means that a small change in GDP growth for example, would lead to a relatively large gain in price)."

".. If we now compare this with the S&P 500 equity index during the period, a traditional, if somewhat simplistic, proxy for the global economy (although unlike GDP and industrial output numbers, this is not a lagging indicator), the index is only up around 71% from its trough in early 2009, suggesting the global economic recovery is somewhat short of what a copper price would indicate."

Hence Cu has a higher beta than stocks, no surprise, and is more sensitive to GDP changes (meaning goes up more and down faster).

Or, Cu is in a huge commodities bubble and got way ahead of any real recovery.

Dow Predator


Here is your evidence...

Show me a lasting top with a gap in the major indexes, and you will prove me wrong.

There is not such thing.

Dow Predator


"Has anyone asked you about your trading here?

Of course not.
No one cares."

If that were the criterion for posting, why would you ever post?

Also, do you think that by this time I am unaware of your opinion about my posting? Unless I was asleep all this time, I'm amply aware of your opinion of my posts.

Quite frankly I don't care.

As for who's got the biggest "Ego", please. The only reason you try to shut me up non-stop is because you think you're some kind of BSD and that everyone should just take their cues from you on everything from Goldman Sachs' legal troubles to the latest economic statistics. The fact that I don't bow down to your "superior" knowledge of these things bothers you to no end.



Dow Predator,

Just to clarify something important. I don't think Neely is God or even a minor deity from any of the various pagan religions of the world. I distinguish between Neely the person and NeoWave the method. If I suddenly heard that Ralph Elliott had told A Hamilton Bolton to bugger off, it would change my opinion of him as a person, but wouldn't matter in how I judge Elliott Wave as a method.

I have privately corresponded with Neely on many occasions and he has been very cordial each time, even though each time I have initiated correspondence it has been because I had some concerns about his current market stance or even about some aspects of his method in general. I don't know what was said to prompt his reply, but I have also been known to use similar language, but not as an initial response. Debates can get heated and time pressure is almost always an issue in trading, so the need to be abrupt can be more pressing than the need to be courteous.


Dow Predator,

What did you ask Neely to get that response?

Mamma Boom Boom

>Show me a lasting top with a gap in the major indexes, and you will prove me wrong.<

Just as I thought.

Dow Predator


On 2007 Neely sent a mail to all his subscribers with a link of a video in youtube. The video was making fun of the competitors (Elliott Wave International). Just after he sent that video (a few days later) the market had a huge break down. By that time Neely was waitning for a huge move to the upside. He was wrong, so I questioned him. (Attached is the email). And he answered that.

NEVER..NEVER trade on someone else's advise, specially if he lives from his publishing company. This is the case of Gleen Neely in my opinion.

On Mar 5, 2007, at 2:24 PM, Dow Predator wrote:

Where is the HUGE to the upside that you were waiting?
I hope you learn from your mistakes and NEVER,,,,NEVER make fun of your competitors.

This time Prechter was correct. They day you sent that mail making fun of your competitors I lost the little respect I had for you.

That same day you sent that mail you ended your personal bull market. Now enjoy your bear market.

I wonder If you will now have the courage to admit your mistake and send another mail making fun of yourself?

Of course you won't

Dow Predator


"Dude, no one cares about your "could have" "should have" "would have" paper-trades and all of your conditions that help you RATIONALIZE you and your massive Ego on this blog."

You're like the Joe McCarthy of "paper-trader" accusations, instead of Communism. Do you see a massive conspiracy of paper-traders to subvert our American way of life, too?

Give the accusation a rest, Tailgunner. It isn't any truer the millionth time you make the claim than it was the first time, skippy. I'm already allocated to the short side, so unless I want to double up on risk, I'm not going to take another short trade. Man, you'd think that wasn't too hard a concept to understand for a super-genius like you.



Neely lost close to $70K on that downside break, so I'm not surprised he wasn't in a good mood.

"My suspicion is that Neely has had a crisis of confidence, and little hints he made during the seminar about losing $70,000 US in a day makes me think that he may have recently suffered psychologically as a trader, and may be going through a syndrome I’ve observed for many traders who have had excellent results with a system for a long time, and then a series of sustained losses during times when their approach/system is less suited to a market phase that they haven’t recognised at the time."

I fully agree with the write-up that Neely's system is better suited for some markets and less suited for others. We have been in an "other type" for a while now.



Speaking of Copper and other commodities, have you seen this?

V-shaped explosion
By Martin Hutchinson

Commentators, including the egregious Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke, are increasingly claiming that the United States is in the process of a V-shaped recovery from the Great Recession. Certainly first-quarter gross domestic product (GDP), to be announced next week, is likely to show a substantial bounce, albeit not quite the inventory-driven 5.6% annualized growth of the fourth quarter. Yet commentators should be careful what they wish for: a V-shaped recovery is likely to lead not to a prolonged period of healthy growth, but to an economic explosion and collapse.

This may seem counter-intuitive. You would normally expect a period of above-normal growth after such a deep recession, whatever the political environment. After all, even in 1934, a year in which the federal government was taking a hatchet to the

banking system and capital markets through the Glass-Steagall Act and was micro-managing wages, prices and product specifications through the National Recovery Administration, US GDP, it is now estimated, rose by an extremely healthy 10.9%. Indeed, 1933-34 form the principal supporting evidence for the efficacy of Keynesian "stimulus" - real federal expenditure rose by 23.7% in 1933 and no less than 34.2% in 1934, a public sector bloat rate of which even President Barack Obama might be proud.
In the very short run, intuition may be right. Manufacturing numbers for the last couple of months have been good, while surging retail sales and the plunging savings rate suggested that the US consumer has discovered yet another credit card in an old jacket pocket that he had forgotten about. Automobile sales too have rebounded nicely, and Ford in particular is looking more solid than it has for several years. Tech sector profits seem to be "surprising on the upside" as they say, with Google reporting sharply rebounding ad sales. With such growth, even the projected federal deficit may decline by US$50 billion or so, still not quite a rounding error.

The recovery may be V-shaped in the next quarter or two, but it is very doubtful indeed whether it can continue to be so for long enough to define itself as a true recovery rather than merely an intermediate bump in a "double-dip" recession. On unemployment, for example, since 8.4 million jobs have been lost in the recession, a US recovery that lasted two years from now would have to create 350,000 jobs per month to restore the jobs lost, and that would still leave unemployment much higher than in December 2007, at 6.5-7%, because over 5 million more people would have been added to the labor force between December 2007 and April 2012.

With an employed US labor force of 139 million at present, job creation at 350,000 per month implies an increase in the work available of 0.252% per month or 3.02% per annum. Add the 2% trend growth in productivity, and you're talking more than 5% GDP growth for two full years. A lovely V-shaped recovery if you could get it, but in terms of duration and extent, the bare minimum necessary for the recovery to qualify as a true economic expansion and not simply a bump in a prolonged recession.

So what are the chances of 5% US annual GDP growth for the next two years and commensurate growth in international markets? To see the problems involved, consider the question of commodity and energy prices. In the last 12 months, while the global economy has been operating far below capacity, the Organization for Petroleum Exporting Countries benchmark crude oil price has risen from $50.20 to $81.52 per barrel, a 62.4% increase. Yet US GDP, which bottomed out last April/May, has risen no more than 5% in the last 12 months, probably less. Thus two years of 5% GDP growth would imply energy prices rising at least as quickly as in the last 12 months, as Chinese and Indian growth continued rapid and US oil consumption rebounded towards historic trends.

Two more years of 62.4% price rises would take oil prices to $215 per barrel. Given that $147 per barrel oil was a major contributor to the 2008 crisis, do we really think the US economy capable of bearing $215 oil in 2012 without caving in on itself? I don't think so. At least, not unless the dollar has collapsed and inflation has taken off to a level of perhaps 20-25% per annum, which is certainly a possibility.

Then there's iron ore. The annual contract system appears to have broken down, with contracts settled at 100% above last year's prices and the spot price running 50% higher still. Given the assumption of robust global growth and thus maintenance of this rate of increase, iron ore prices by April 2012 could thus be quadruple their current level, or $600 per tonne. Automobile production would have to shift entirely to plastic - except that being derived from petroleum, plastics prices would also have grown exponentially.

Then there's copper. That's also up more than 60% over the past year and on the London Metal Exchange is closing in on its all-time record price, set in April 2008, around $9,000 per tonne. Existing copper mines deplete rapidly unless capital is invested in them, and with new investment having ceased for a year in 2008-09 there is now a serious supply shortage, not expected to be alleviated until major new capacity comes on stream in 2014-15. Again, if economic recovery is robust for the next two years, copper prices will continue rising at the same rate as in the last year, reaching $21,000 per tonne by 2012. Any bets on what that will do to the economy, or to inflation?

In short, rapid expansion at 5% per annum for the next two years, the minimum necessary for this to be termed a true V-shaped recovery and not just a blip, will run into one of two constraints. Either inflation will take off, reaching an annual rate of at least 20% by 2012 as commodity and energy prices continue their inexorable climb, so forming a larger and larger part of the consumer's purchase basket. Or a collapse in the government bond market, panicking at the rapid acceleration in inflation, will choke off economic recovery, plunging asset prices including housing back into the depths of gloom and sparking off another banking crisis caused by yet another wave of home mortgage defaults.

In other words, a true V-shaped recovery is impossible, at least without some very unpleasant consequences indeed. Presumably in the latter stages of a rise in inflation towards 20-25%, even Bernanke would be forced to recognize its existence and raise short-term interest rates from their present derisory levels - which would itself cause a crisis in the financial and housing sectors.

When considering the recovery's future trajectory, there is another fairly benign possibility, that of a gamma-shaped recovery (the English language has no appropriate letters!) in which growth starts off at the V-shaped rate of 5% or so, but within a quarter or two from now slows down to a "soft landing" pace of 1-1.5%, at which the commodity price explosion levels out, inflation remains a potential problem but not an immediate danger and the global economic imbalances are allowed to work themselves out over time..

However, that would not allow US unemployment to decline much - once the slow recovery had set in, productivity growth would prevent net job creation and so with the workforce expanding steadily, unemployment would remain stubbornly high, probably around 9%.

To achieve the optimal gamma shaped recovery, however, one policy change is absolutely necessary: the Fed must increase forthwith its federal funds target and other short-term interest rates from zero to a level slightly above the rate of inflation, perhaps in the 3-4% range, increasing them further if, as is likely, inflation trended upwards. That would remove the incentive for banks and hedge funds to borrow at negative real interest rates and invest in anything, such as commodities and energy, which seemed likely to maintain its value.

It would also remove two anomalies in the present market that make healthy and sustained recovery impossible. First, it would remove the subsidy for banks to "borrow short and lend long" by investing their balance sheets in Treasury securities and housing bonds, thus starving small business of funding. With commercial and industrial loans now down 25% from their October 2008 peak, small business is starving for working capital at the same time as the banks make record profits.

Second, it would remove the disincentive to saving that is driving the US savings rate back down to the near-zero levels of 2005-07, making the US financial system in the long run unsustainable. Japan can sustain public debt of 200% of GDP because of its enormous savings pool; blowout is likely in the US at much lower levels because no such savings pool is available.

Higher interest rates would also reduce stock market speculation, returning the market to its sustainable level of around 8,000 or below on the Dow. It would also, by reducing bank enthusiasm for housing bonds, begin to remove the excessive subsidization of housing, diverting capital back into more productive channels.

A gamma-shaped recovery may look fairly unattractive, but it's a lot better than the alternative of rapid recovery followed by blowout. It could also be engineered so that the gamma-ization of 5% growth into 1.5% growth did not become apparent until after November's midterm elections, thus allowing the Obama administration to present simple folk in the electorate with the impression of a vigorous and sustainable recovery.

However, with Bernanke at the Fed, the necessary rise in interest rates is unlikely to happen. So the wise investor will remain long commodities and energy -and brace himself for eventual inflationary collapse into a "double-dip" Greater Recession.

Martin Hutchinson is the author of Great Conservatives (Academica Press, 2005) - details can be found at

(Republished with permission from Copyright 2005-10 David W Tice & Associates.)

Dow Predator

.......but didn’t convince me sufficiently to pursue this right now. I think I’ll watch and see how it goes, rather than shell $5000 - $6000 out for a seminar on “River Trading....

Wavepicker and I got a chance to talk to him at the end of the seminar, and while we didn’t want to disrupt his selling efforts still wanted to ask some in depth questions.......

This is exactly what I said... Gleen Neely lives from his publishing company. He is a seller not a trader, and that is a HUGE difference. After reading this information that DG posted, I am now 110% convinced that Gleen Neely's method is not worth following.

Dow Predator

Mamma Boom Boom

Fair amount of distribution, today.


"This is exactly what I said... Gleen Neely lives from his publishing company. He is a seller not a trader, and that is a HUGE difference. After reading this information that DG posted, I am now 110% convinced that Gleen Neely's method is not worth following."

Dow, if he lost money on a day when the market was down big, that means he's a trader. The poster said that Neely stated he lost $70K in a single day. What, did 12-14 people demand refunds for their Neely River training that day? No, it's that he had $70K at-risk in the market that day and lost it. It's not unfathomable that a person do both and I'm not sure why many posters here present this dichotomy as if it were impossible to both publish a trading service and trade.

You can follow him or not follow him or you can follow him at times and not follow him at other times, which is what I do. What you can't do is say that he isn't publishing AND trading.

There are two significant flaws in NeoWave, I will grant that. Once you fix those flaws, you're fine.

Mr. Panic

Not only is the Shanghai Index breaking down but EEM the emerging markets ETF is also. Last I checked EWZ,Brazilian ETF, hadn't made a new high above its January high yet I have seen advertisements for a new Brazilian Infrastructe Fund; PIMCO is also getting into the equity fund business with a focus on international stocks. These are all topping sings and a sign that one of the great bubbles of the last decade was in emerging market stocks (similar to the tech bubble during the 90s decade---in fact in 2000 fund companies were bringing to market an incredible amount of new tech funds) (I have followed Trim Tabs public reports for a while and since the 2002 low money has been flowing out of US large cap stocks and into foreign/emerging market funds almost continuously except for a brief respite during the 2008 bear when money flowed out of every class of funds).

Despite last Friday's setback, ISEE all equities put call ratio continues to flash excessively bullish numbers. RSI levels were a little too extreme at the highs last week (commensurate to levels seen in January 2000 and May/June 2007) so a pullback and then rise to new highs might be in order. New 52 week highs again are approaching the 52 week high level so another washout might be needed to cull the new highs number.
I have also noticed a resemblance of the current Russell 2000 to the final few months advance of the Nikkei into its Feb 2007 high. The Russell could be putting in a 3peaks and dome pattern with the dome currently forming with the 3rd peak being the January high. At the January high it did not exhibit the 3peaks and dome pattern like most of the other indices.

Wave Rust

"I did a series of posts back in 2005 called Wolf! Wolf! pointing out that Prechter et al. were calling the top too many times."

I have said the same thing here, about the similarity of 2003-04 and 2005-06 to this whole run from March '09.

I'm still open to this being a Primary B wave of Cycle C, with 2007-09 being the Primary A of Cycle C. '98 to 2002 being the Cycle A and 2002-2007 being Cycle B.

But, these guys are making the same calls AGAIN!!!
I really do feel bad for the EW gurus. They have done alot for technical analysis. I'm grateful for that.

Same calls, same formations, same outcome??? but expecting to be right this time?!

Isn't that the definition of 'insanity' ,,, heck, it's even at the same SPX price level! SPX 1193. Blimey!

I'm going to read the rest of your Wolfen series. :) while humming Streisand's "Memories" :-))

wave rust

Wave Rust

Forgot my P.S. pun

'It's all just soooo FEic.'

Hank Wernicki

2019 stop for the NQ tonight

IF the markets make a new high then a continued ralling into the summer / fall

I'm using the fractal mentioned last night

This market just will Not go Down ............. unless someone blows it up


Dow Predator, don't forget Neely's latest public announcement that market is now unpredictable, to me thats really childish and not professional.

If his complex arcane method has been that well research, why doesn't he provide warning long before his failure call? Why he has to come out and make all these explanation after his system fail to track the market and he blame the market is unpredictable now?

I share your view, these newsletter seller is just newsletter seller. IMO, they use the subscription and seminar income to finance their small time trading with pipe dream to become some big shot trader. If they are that good for such a long time, they should have already managing a sizable fund or working in some major institution.


zendo, You are spot on. God bless you.


For those super trader, star hedge fund manager like Steve Cohan, George Soros, Paul Tudor Jones, James Simons, they don't come out and tout about their "method" and debate about the market direction and make "market calls" to the public. They go into the market and use whatever ways to make money secretly. The only announcement we see is their annual payout in range of hundred of millions to billions of dollar.

So how much creditability should we give this newsletter people when they open their mouth everyday and make market call and keep talking about their system's sophisticated capability, yet they don't provide how much money they are managing, imo its an outright scam.


Soros charges tens if not hundreds of thousands in fees to invest with him, I'm sure. Neely charges $40/month. Are Soros' returns hundreds or thousands of times higher than Neely's, so that you get comparable value for the fee?

You don't have to answer that, it's a rhetorical question.


Rhetoric... why else do we expect anyways.


For people charge $40/month and open his mouth everyday like he know where the world (or market for this matter) is going...? That's a rhetorical question.



As usual, you don't deal with the issue and engage in the time-honored tradition among people with no case, i.e. you change the subject.

Again, for $40/month over the past four years, you would have beaten the market following Neely's advice. You would not have beaten the market a 1,000 times more if you had your money invested with one of those top-tier advisers, but you would have paid 1,000 times more, in all likelihood.

Dollar for dollar, which is the better value?

The comments to this entry are closed.