search elliott

  • Google

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner


  • Where From?
    free counters
Related Posts with Thumbnails

« Fractal Finance Gets its Big Test Next Week | Main | Was Last Week a Buying Panic? »

Wednesday, September 08, 2010


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

Mamma Boom Boom

>Everyone should feel free to take a long weekend. Most of next week is going to be sloppy, you won't miss a thing.

Posted by: Mamma Boom Boom | Friday, September 03, 2010 at 12:14 PM<


Da Da Da


NET OUTFLOWS from equity mutual funds are $42 Billion since April 2009, while net inflows of $450 Billion have found their way into Bond Funds.

If rates head back up due to more demand for credit given an expanding Economy, you will see every single tactical asset allocator bail out of bonds and shift into equities.

As a result, the stock market will SURGE and there will be no "P3" for all of those perma-bear bloggers like Daneric, Kenny, Molecool, and that David character at "Trading to Win (Lose)"


No clue. Interest rate rise will kill bonds and stocks.



You are obviously a very poor student of history. The period from the Fall of 1987-1989 says that you have no idea what you are talking about.


I've learned to disregard one-tracks, bear or bull, so there you go.


What you have learned is to conveniently ignore market history . . . and as a result, have zero credibility.


Oh, an historian, please tell me, what happens next!


Interestingly enough, for all of Prechter's DEFLATIONARY talk and that of P3... the Continuous Commodity Index ($CCI) just made NEW HIGHS for the YEAR!

Cotton making new highs.
Gold and silver surging higher.
Lumber limit-up today.
Grains skyrocketing.

And for the guy named "Rolfie" above ... higher rates would be BULLISH for stocks given that it means that the economy is recovering and top-line growth would be kicking in for Corporate America. Tactical AA guys would definetly lighten-up on Bonds and reallocate to equities. That is a FACT.


I can't wait to see your head handed to you! On a discounted cash flow model, see what higher rates do to stock prices.


Like I said before, you have no idea what you are talking about... the fact that you conveniently IGNORE the Post 1987 "Crash" period is quite telling . . . as you are obviously unable to explain a rising equity market given the rising rates that occurred during that time.

Thanks for stopping by.


The Fed started printing money after the 87 crash. Both bonds and stocks rallied after the market bottomed in December. It's quite common throughout recent history after major declines for the Fed to rev up its printing, often in conjunction with partners in Europe (1995 and 2009) and Japan (1995 and 2003).



Bonds and stocks can also fall together as it did from Dec 2008 to March 2009. It would obviously force the hand of the Fed to start up a bigger QE.


It is possible both equities and bonds will fall like it did in wave 3 of the 2007 crash, or if US credit gets a downgrade, or if the IMF announces the US dollar will be replaced as the world currency, or...
It all depends on confidence in the US economy.
As always Yelnik has produced a great piece on bonds - :)


Yelnick, you made an interesting observation in your last post which concerns Neely's count. Neely's count is suspect since August's decline doesn't show a convincing impulse down (nor a terminal impulse). I think Neely would say that because the 5th is truncated one of the other waves is extended, but that is a bit beside the point in that usually truncations of wave 5 occur when 3 is clearly extended (at least 1.618x of 1) and wave 4 retraces a considerable amount of wave 3 (that didn't happen). This current wave up should be an impulsive wave c if an ending flat is being made. I would expect that it would rise faster than the b wave of the second flat (double flat is Neely's count for the down move) so the longer it hesitates at 1100 the more likely Neely's count is wrong. An alternate count is the flat-x-triangle (x ending early June and not later in June as in Neely's count). Currently in d of e (e a neutral or expanding triangle). So it would still be possible to see 950+/- if e is an expanding triangle. The only thing (and DG can comment) that would make this count suspect is the length of time taken for phase 1 and phase 2 of the complex wave (phase 2 as a triangle might be taking too long). Not sure if Neely has ever commented on how much difference in time is allowed between the two phases of a complex correction. Do you know DG?


Markus. thanks. I would caution all of us not to fall into the aphorisms of the industry, that low rates mean high stocks for example, or bonds & stocks go opposite. Bonds and stocks went up together from 82-00 as rates fell, then bonds have continued to perform while stocks have been down since '00 despite very low rates most of the time. Low rates since '00 indicate distress.

Hot money may have flowed from stocks to bonds, but never forget that the bond market is 10x bigger than stocks, and forex is 10x bigger than bonds, so merely showing 10x the move to bonds than stocks is just normal, not interesting. The rebirth of QE has spurred a bond rush, and the price increase in bonds 9drop in yields) may already bake in at least a $300B QE (or as one commentator out it, a 33% chance of a $1T QE). The ambiguous ISM data has momentarily cooled off the rush to QE, since if the economy does bumble along at a modest level the Fed may do less QE than expected - and bonds will fall!


D2, Neely;s count requires the current up wave to go faster (steeper slope) than the recent down wave. Put simply, we have to get back to the Aug9 high faster than the fall to Aug27. We started off like that, and have begun to slow down.


Yelnick, I think that's true too, also because the truncated wave 5 is a failure (fails to take out 3's low). I think the way Neely put it was that if the 5th is a failure the wave should be entirely retraced in less time than it formed. But I also think the wave needs to be faster and further than the counter-trend wave of the second phase of the complex correction which was the b wave in his count.


The only thing (and DG can comment) that would make this count suspect is the length of time taken for phase 1 and phase 2 of the complex wave (phase 2 as a triangle might be taking too long). Not sure if Neely has ever commented on how much difference in time is allowed between the two phases of a complex correction. Do you know DG?


Here are two statements by Neely on this topic. I pulled them from past updates, so they aren't part of MEW or the Question of the Week section of the website.

"The second phase of a complex correction should consume at least 61% of the time of the first phase."

"Under NEoWave theory, the second phase of a complex correction will be related to the first in time by 61.8%, 100% or 161.8%."

I was also skeptical of the C-Failure count because I didn't see the last decline as an Impulse, either.


DG, Thanks, That does sound familiar.


Sorry to blow your bubble but Quantitative Easing is over since August 25, Quantitative Tightening is now on:

Operation TWIST Again: Quantitative Tightening

Giving Tempo to the TWIST.

Update you Software

The comments to this entry are closed.