How's That Net Neutrality Thing Working Out?

The free-wheelin' days of the Internet are numbered. The Internet now becomes subject to Federal encroachment with the new net neutrality regs. It is not clear if the FCC has the authority to regulate the Internet, and that proposition might be tested in court, but they went ahead and grabbed the power anyway. 

The most immediate impact is on Internet stocks: cable is up, phone companies are down, and content companies have gone up a bit then plateaued. Google and Apple went down when the news broke.

It is perhaps no coincidence that this is breaking when WIkiLeaks is under assault. Julian Assange is in jail under a somewhat odd (if not trumped up) sex charge from Sweden, and he may fall into the clutches of the US government. 

Where are the civil liberty folks when we need them? Is it that hard to compare WikiLeaks to The New York Times, and the private who illegally leaked to Daniel Ellsberg of the Pentagon Papers? Or are web sites about to lose the protections of the First Amendment, including Freedom of the Press?  

Instead, it is left to the WSJ of all places to expose the forces behind net neutrality, which are probably not what you think they are. John Fund unveiled what led to this decision and the motivations behind it - which are to control content, not simply price the fast lanes of the info highway:

The net neutrality vision for government regulation of the Internet began with the work of Robert McChesney, a University of Illinois communications professor who founded the liberal lobby Free Press in 2002. Mr. McChesney's agenda? "At the moment, the battle over network neutrality is not to completely eliminate the telephone and cable companies," he told the website SocialistProject in 2009. "But the ultimate goal is to get rid of the media capitalists in the phone and cable companies and to divest them from control."

There is a lot of blather flying around the blogosphere over this, and over McChesney's background, and the story could easily blow this out of all proportion. The current administration did, however, try to shut Fox News out of the flow of press briefings by the While House, and have floated the idea of reinstating the Fairness Doctrine in order to shut down talk radio in general and critics like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck in particular. Their record on a free press is already suspect.

The FCC decision today is much more limited, but might be the proverbial camel's nose under the tent. This is the angle taken by TechCrunch, which views the fight as just beginning. GigaOm focused on the disparate treatment of wireline and wireless networks, expecting wireless broadband prices to rise. VentureBeat found the exemption of wireless networks "a bit of a head scratcher." 

The capstone to this story might be the old adage to be careful what you wish for. Big Internet content companies like Google have been lobbying for some sort of net neutrality rules, and may someday wish they had left things alone. 

Comments

[Account Deleted]

DG and Yelnick !!

This latest bout of rise in SNP500 has somehow put NEELYs Terminal Theory in a bit of a fix.COs according to NEELY theory SNP shouldnt have gone beyond 1240-1246.Now does that mean a change of count altogether or slight modifications in the label marking.

Also Can u both please enlighten us with your Current Count on SNP500 and how do u view it going forward.

Thanx in advance
Regards
VB

[Mamma Boom Boom]

Does anybody know this answer: Does Neely have any customers left?

I'm not trying to be hateful. As I've said before, I like Neely. But, I just can't believe anybody has stuck with him, at this point.

Neo-Mamma

[Neely Boom Or Bust]

Mamma, at least one is the answer. Maybe two if you include Yelnick.

We know The One with out doubt and it ain't GLN.

But of course The One has taken Neely NeoWave and Went Beyond!

Merry Xmas To All!

[gem-x]

Look out Prechter. http://Wavegenius.com

[Mamma Boom Boom]

>But of course The One has taken Neely NeoWave and Went Beyond!<

I wonder if he's still hanging in there. (he..he)

[yelnick]

VB- Neely changed the end of wave 4 from the low point to the bifurcation point ( when the overlapping waves ended) giving a higher end to wave 5. He still thinks a correction is imminent.

[Hank Wernicki]

What''s BP and STU's wave count ?

[da bear]

Mine is a final wave 5 of v from the WAVE 2 low in March 2009.
Wave 4 included the flash crash. The rebound since late summer has been wave 5. Wave v of 5 in the DJIA could top out around 11,800 and 12,000.

Gold is likely to correct further.
The dollar is likely to rally further.

da bear

[Account Deleted]

Yelnick !!

I have an issue with Neelys 4th Wave.Its clearly a Truncated ZigZag.And if it indeed is one then we cannot have a 4th that ended so easily it shouldve formed a Triangle.

Regards
VB

[DG]

But of course The One has taken Neely NeoWave and Went Beyond!

Yeah, I did. That's just a straightforward matter of fact. Anyone who's read the detail on my blog can tell you that I've definitely taken NeoWave, condensed it and made it even less subjective than Neely ever had, to the point where it's now simply an algorithm and it provides more, and more accurate, trading opportunities than any of Neely's services. Has anyone taken it up and tested it in their own trading? I don't know, but I use it, and, strangely enough, that's all that matters to me. I hope no one adopts my method, frankly, or if they do, they're smart enough to keep it quiet and just trade it without letting others know about it, so it will continue to work. Although, since it's based on the logic of "greed and fear" and mass psychology, I doubt it would ever stop working.

I wonder if he's still hanging in there. (he..he)

Yep. The primary reason I mostly stopped posting is because none of the discussions here have any relevance to what I am doing. Do I really need to read JT's one thousandth "Bears are getting crushed" post or Michael's rants about how the economy doesn't matter to the market (except when it does, because the news is good, which he clearly implies to mean the market will go up on the news) or click on yet another Roger D link claiming that the secret to understanding the end of the Grand Supercycle is an Autozone chart, which, I guess, means that cars will cease to exist or something? No, obviously. Unlike some people who seem to enjoy posting on blogs where they think the entire premise of the blog is stupid, like the resident wave theory bashers here, I actually find that I enjoy posting on blogs where I think the premise of the blog is sound. Since I'm the only one doing what I'm doing in terms of trading technique, that basically leaves me with no blogs to post on, other than occasionally to post on my own or here.

The people who want to have a good discussion know where to reach me and do so on a regular basis.

[Account Deleted]

Yelnick:

Merry Christmas to you and your family.

I appreciate your posting regularly on this Elliott Wave blog, and I enjoy reading all the technical analysis posts. I noticed you have not covered STU for a while, but today I got an email piece from John Mauldin that includes some pretty scary sentiment metrics. I guess I don't need to read STU anymore. :)

Since Citi has a pretty definitive date on the upcoming correction, let's just follow the date and see how it goes. There are some technical analysts who believe this correction will be short-lived, as ECRI indicators are not topping out. I am not so sure, but will surely follow it.

Maybe you can post portions of John Mauldin's letter here to do a cheat for holidays? :)

Cheers

Jing

[e_djur]

IMO, J. Assange should to be nominated to reward for his brave. Leaking cables it is fact. And better for all is to have awareness of that fact. Will it be better to have acess to that leaks without all of that turmoil? There is one thing to do and it is improvement cable system. And, those resposible for it are to be prosecuted.

[OracleLurker]

DG - two questions,

First, and I'm only asking this because I've read a couple of reviews on how daunting MEW is - what, in your opinion, is the most important chapter to grasp as relates to practical trading...

Second, and I'm just curious about this based on my own back-testing of various strategies, is the frequency of the signals your system generates fairly consistent? Let's say a consistent 3-5 signals per weak or whatever it is. Or is it a lot more variable than that? I don't expect you to give anything away I was just curious about that given I have found the shorter the time frame (i.e. more frequent/consistent the signals) the more difficult it is to find any kind of strategy with an edge - the only strategies I have that work are based on setups that I have to wait weeks or sometimes even months for - but then the goal is stay in the trade as long as possible, and with as much leverage as I can bring myself to take above my stop "range".

thanks in advance.

[DG]

Oracle,

I would say Chapters 5 & 6 are the most important because 5 will help you distinguish Impulse waves from Corrective waves and 6 will provide you with the logic of wave behavior under certain conditions, i.e. the ends of patterns. If you actually try to work with wave structures, Chapter 10 is important because it gives you the logic of wave structure sequences. As an example, at one point Prechter was saying this was a wave-2 Triple Zigzag rally before a wave-3 down to come. But, if you read Chapter 10, you'd see that Neely claims Triple Zigzag's are the most powerful corrections and should not be fully-retraced ever. That's ultimately an empirical question and I don't claim to have seen every single Triple Zigzag in existence and verified that not a single one has been fully-retraced, but it makes intuitive sense "as a hypothesis" about the way in which a particular wave structure IMPLIES something about the wave structure which will follow it. Note that the logical constructs in Chapters 6 & 10 are subject to probabilities, ultimately, both because not every example of Chapter 6's logic leads to the same outcome and you get some "false positives" and the logical implications of structures is something which holds true more often than not, so it is possible that a Triple Zigzag gets fully-retraced sometimes, or, if there has never been an example of it yet, it could happen in the future. I don't know to what extent you work with wave structures, so the points I'm making about them might be irrelevant, but in the context of someone who uses wave theory as a trading basis, they are absolutely crucial to attaining maximum accuracy.

The signals are actually based on minimum time segments completing on Hourly charts, so any time one of those completes, a signal can get generated. Typically, there is one trade per day and the most trades per day was four, on one extremely choppy day, which actually ended up being the day of the low in August. The longest inter-trade period between trades in the same direction, i.e. you enter a trade on one side of the market, exit it with a gain or loss, then wait for the next signal in that direction, is typically no more than a day, but can be multiple days. I got a short signal this Monday, managed it to a small profit, and didn't get another one this week. That's rare, but the market was "strong" all week. I put "strong" in quotes because we obviously didn't go very far, but the logic of the price moves was strong. I can switch from long to short and vice versa within a matter of hours. Sometimes I'm both long and short (but not in a "net flat" kind of way, since I'm managing both trades separately). The "bigger picture" just doesn't matter on this timeframe.

There is a variant of the logic which can be used to trade longer-term time frames, too, scaling up the Hourly minimum time segments to Weekly.

[Mamma Boom Boom]

The past 2 years have been devastating to Neely, I suspect. Time has proven that Neo-Wave has absolutely no validity, without a doubt. Even a coin toss would give better results. I really think that is sad, because I know he puts a lot of effort into his work.

But, when the evidence is so stark you simply have to obey it. Maybe he can salvage his career by spending more time on his 'River Theory". Or develop some other version of E-Wave. But, I just don't see how he'll ever salvage his Neo-Wave business. If he does it only proves how stupid the investing public is. IMO

Neo-Mamma

[vipul garg]

neo-mamma,
if only you will try and read Mastering Elliott Wave, perhaps try and understand
what it is all about, you will begin to understand his contribution.
so instead of drawing balance sheets of others, may i recommend a swift read.

whatever level of trader you are, it will improve your skill set.

[yelnick]

Jing, I am working on an ewave post, probably for later today. I have downplayed ewave recently as it has not been very instructive. If I can pick up on the comments by DG and VB, both STU and Neely find a five-waver off the late August bottom, and yet to dow so both jump thru hoops: STU has a really small waves 1-2, and Neely has a big 1 followed by a bastard child of a 2. To top it off, to make his wave 4 work, Neely switched from the low to a later point, which makes his wave C truncate in an odd way.  

My take is both of the major ewavers are making a count fit, instead of following the wave structure. The rally off August counts as a "3" as DG points out much easier than a "5". This has some serious implications, including that the November correction may be the wave 2 and the Santa Rally wave which we are in may have a lot more to go. Or, if we get the correction that seems due, it may end this "3" and call into question most commentators wave counts. 

Either possibility likely makes the P2 count wrong. I think commentators have too short a time frame. One can count the 2000-2009 waves as a classic ABC irregular flat, but maybe that is but wave A of a larger flat or triangle pattern? We would be in a large wave B, or an X wave to complete the wave C of the flat, which would be breaking as a zigzag (five-wave A).  

So leave open two possibilities: 

we are still in the corrective pattern after the Flash Crash, and it may roll on for a whilewe have a ways to go in the Hope Rally, possibly into 2012 before the next major top

[yelnick]

Hank, I will post a wave update shortly

[Tom]

A queston to Yelnick, DG and other Neely experts:

I read the MEW and Neely's recommendation of putting 1% capital at risk at all times.

When Neely or his follower said he was up say 20% this year, what does it really mean and how was it computed...assuming he has a capital of $100K?

Does it mean he made $20K in total despite everytime he trade at 1% risk on capital only?

Is it realistic when you leave $99K capital idle at most times, by risking only $1K on your trade?

How many trades do you need in order to make up say 20% profit or $20K based on 1% risk?

Unless one catches a really big bull or bear trend early on, I find it hard to achieve anything meaningful in the return on capital consistently.

Please share your view on above.

Tom

[rc]

>> Back in May, when I turned 'bullish', I said that this year was going to turn out just about like 2007. I'll stick to that. Look for the market to start it's retreat by early January.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it!

Neo-Mamma <<

And we're going to hold you to it! Seriously, that's a brave forecast in light of this relelentless nearly 2 year rally.

It just _feels_ certain that the rut is going to new highs (almost there) and the dow will follow and the ndx will outperform. I'm not short, but I'm out and the sense of missing out, and the fear of being left behind... way, way behind, is building. Is that the signal? I'd say yes, and be contrary, except I've been early too often and have learned bubbles can go on and on and on.

I'm beginning to think the economy may remain moribund, but the stock markets will keep going up.

Yelnick: exellent articles, this and the previous. Your site is a must read. I aree about the internet... it was supposed to be a great force for individual freedom. But who is kidding who... the corporations are in control (no privacy -- individuals have no power except to unplug, and that's, as they say a Hobson's choice), along with governments. The Great Firewall of China may not be the aberration, but the future.

[yelnick]

Tom, I will let DG opine i detail since he follows Neely more closely than I do, but in general what that means is to use stops to limit your downside to 1%, but this doesn't mean you don't have more in play on the upside if you catch the trade.

[yelnick]

rc, we need to fight against the US putting up its own Great Firewall. It is getting hard since the noise level is high - for example, net neutrality gets wrapped in goodness even as the grasping hand of government extends. Sometimes the grasping hand over-reaches, as with the TSA gropes, but usually it disguises itself. My "tell" is when the complicit media demonizes an issue or personality - then almost always you know something is up. If they were dealing with it honestly, they would not need to resort to such a debating tactic.

[Mamma Boom Boom]

vipul garg, I have his book, it's in my book case, I've read it. But, I actually like reading Prechter's stuff, better. Nevertheless, neither have show an ability to time markets. How is that a contribution to society?

The reality is that many people have lost tons of money, trying to be e-wavers. It's the 'Devils Curse'.

Neo-Mamma

[DG]

mamma,

While there are clearly many ways to trade profitably and NeoWave is just one, I would absolutely second vipul's suggestion to just read the book. Secondly, if you don't separate Neely the person from NeoWave the method, you do yourself a disservice.

Once you understand the NeoWave rules, you can go back for yourself and recreate all of the long trades Neely should have recommended over the past 20 months (basically, NeoWave logic would have triggered longs on the "largest and fastest" recovery rally after any dip, which would have been quite profitable and more than compensated for the losses on the short trades he recommended). He rationalizes this by saying those trades weren't safe, but the fact is that they were "a priori" as safe or as risky as any of the short trades he actually did recommend. Neely should have recommended AT LEAST AS MANY LONG TRADES AS HE HAS SHORT TRADES OVER THE PAST 20 MONTHS. Period. That he didn't is his own fault, not the fault of NeoWave's ruleset. It's a classic "strategy vs. execution" problem.

As I have said before, if you have a working strategy and its rules have proven themselves profitable over time, you simply must follow its signals even if you do not believe that particular signal will work out.

Someone once wrote that one way to do this is to imagine that you work for someone who has developed a trading strategy and then gone off to take a year-long vacation and your compensation when the developer returns will be based on how closely you followed the strategy's rules, not on the outcome of any specific trade or even the entire year's trades.

On that basis, unfortunately, I would say that I wouldn't pay Neely anything based on the level to which he's broken NeoWave rules over the past two years. For example, I said two months ago that if the market didn't decline more than it had to that point, the Terminal hypothesis was in danger because wave-2s of Terminals have to achieve minimum time and retracement relationships with wave-1s and there were no such relationships present in the market. After that, his wave analysis has always represented, to me anyway, a lower probability analysis than a non-Terminal structure. Is it absolutely impossible that Neely's count is correct? No, but it's not as likely to be correct as a count with the rally to November's high as a :3 and the subsequent decline as an x-wave, which follows more NeoWave rules than the Terminal analysis. I know of at least one other wave count which also is more in harmony with the rules than Neely's. I have tried to convince Neely to get back to his roots in NeoWave logic and to start trading against his bias, but haven't been able to do so. Ultimately, it's not my problem, although I would like to see him do well.

But, of course, to go back to what vipul said, the only reason I know this is because I've read the book 15 times. So you, who haven't read the book, say the method is invalid, while I, who've read the book over and over, as well as studied the results of every S&P trade for the past 4+ years, say it's valid, both "as-is" in MEW and the Question of the Week mini-essays, if you follow the rules to the letter, as it's implemented by Neely on the Weekly timeframe (I've said many times that if you are going to follow Neely's trades exactly, only take the Weekly trades because those are where he actually does do better than a "coin flip"), and in the modified form I've developed. Whose analysis seems to stand on firmer footing?

[Mamma Boom Boom]

>Someone once wrote that one way to do this is to imagine that you work for someone who has developed a trading strategy and then gone off to take a year-long vacation and your compensation when the developer returns will be based on how closely you followed the strategy's rules, not on the outcome of any specific trade or even the entire year's trades.<

Of course, that's the way you use any tool, in any profession.

>On that basis, unfortunately, I would say that I wouldn't pay Neely anything based on the level to which he's broken NeoWave rules over the past two years.<

And that brings us full circle to my original point of this thread: "How can he survive'?

>So you, who haven't read the book, say the method is invalid<

This is a flaw in you, you did not read my post. I have read the book, I own it, it's in my book case right now.

Actually, I use a fair amount of e-wave in my analysis, it's not considered one of my tools, but I give it consideration. But again, that's not my point. My point is 'How is Neely going to survive this time in his professional life'? He has screwed up, LIKE FOR SURE.

[vipul garg]

Mamma,
'how is neely going to survive this time...'
it is pointless to have any discussion on the above since its a personal bias you harbor about the future, which in spite of forecasting tools remains most unpredictable.
Prechter has his own place in the history of e wave. but thats where it stays.past.
there is no way to do any credible wave analysis using prechter's methods.

[DG]

My point is 'How is Neely going to survive this time in his professional life'? He has screwed up, LIKE FOR SURE.

2009 was much worse than 2010, for underperformance relative to the market.

Anyway, I've already said what I think Neely should do, which is get rid of his biases and just trade his rules. If he did that, everything would be fine and I'm sure the past underperformance would be forgotten in no time.

But, even if he doesn't, I'm sure the market will eventually get back into a more "predictable" (by NeoWave) situation, in which case his performance will improve.

Obviously, I would say the former is a more sustainable strategy than the latter, but I can't make the man's decisions for him.

[Account Deleted]

" One can count the 2000-2009 waves as a classic ABC irregular flat, but maybe that is but wave A of a larger flat or triangle pattern? We would be in a large wave B, or an X wave to complete the wave C of the flat, which would be breaking as a zigzag (five-wave A). Â

Yelnick !

Can u elaborate on these statements a little bit.Somehow fail to understand the count u r considering in these statements.

Regards
VB

[usdollar]

Yelnick, could it be that we are in an elongated flat, wave 2 of C?
I am buying silver, it has been good so far. I believe fiat will die within the next 5 years.

[yelnick]

usdollar, it is possible that thew 5 waves down to MAr09 are but wave 1 of a large C, and we are in wave 2 of C. This is the prime count of EWI where the 2007-09 drop is P1 and we are in P2. with a P3 to follow.

[yelnick]

VB, elaboration on "one can count the 2000-2009 waves as a classic ABC irregular flat, but maybe that is but wave A of a larger flat or triangle pattern? We would be in a large wave B, or an X wave to complete the wave C of the flat, which would be breaking as a zigzag (five-wave A)"

The flat is 2000-02 = A (or you could end it in Mar03) .. 2003-07 = B and is irregular since the B wave exceeded the start of the flat ie the 2000 highs ... 2007-09 = C

New Bull Market?

This could have completed the wave 4 correction of the 1982 bull market and we could be in a larger wave 5. If so, the Hope Rally off March 2009 would be counted as wave 1 of Big 5, and should be an impulse wave. There are serious issues counting the Hope Rally as an impulse, however. The primary issue is the lack of alternation between waves 2 and 4, which as normally counted has both waves as sharp zigzag corrections. My best stab at fixing this consists of counting wave 2 as a flat. Most ewavers count wave 2 as starting at the June 2009 high point, but from a Fractal Finance point of view, the thrust up off March ended in mid-May when we began a series of overlapping waves, the mark of a plateau or sideways correction. Wave 2 would then count as a small irregular flat where the B wave was the June high and the C wave went to the July low.  We still have a further issue, to see the putative wave 3 of the Hope Rally from July 2009 to January 2010 as an impulse since it full of sloppy overlapping waves. 

P3?

An alternative to this is to consider the market as still in a large wave 4 that started in 2000. EWI sees it as that way, but believes we are still in the C wave down off 2007. This is of course the count which makes Oct07-Mar09 as P1 and the Hope Rally as P2 with a devastating P3 ahead. Many folk have an issue with that P3, as they expect it to be at least as long as P1, and P1 already went more than 50% of the all time highs, so how can we have another 50% drop without going below zero? Two ways to cure that: look at percent moves not nominal, or expect P1 to have been the longest wave with P3 shorter and P5 even shorter. 

My Two Alternatives

Or, maybe this is not a P2 at all. Maybe the 2000-09 flat is but the first corrective wave of a larger corrective pattern that will be more sideways than down. 

One simple way is to expect this large sideways wave 4 to be a bigger flat or triangle. This leads to my first alternative, that the Hope Rally is the start of a larger B wave. Consider the irregular flat from 2000-09 as wave A of a larger flat. (Recall that flats break as 3-3-5, so a flat can be the first "3" of a larger correction). Under this view, the current Hope Rally is wave B, and should break also as a "3".  Given that we might find the first wave up from Mar09 to Apr10 as an impulse, this marks the Hope Rally as a zigzag. Usually in a ZZ waves A and C are equal. A went 553 S&P points, and if B bottomed in July at Sp1011, it marks the end of C at 1564 = spitting distance from the all time high in Oct07. Think about this for a few seconds and it supports the case that we are in a large flat. We should expect the wave B to get back to at least the 2000 highs, if not 2007.  Timing for the B wave would also suggest A=C. A took 14 months, giving a potential end of C as 14 months after July 2010 = August/September 2011. 

A second alternative is to consider this wave 4 as breaking into a complex correction with at least two and maybe three corrective waves. The irregular flat would be wave W and we would be in the first X wave between W and the coming Y wave.  Perhaps the same B wave above is an X wave. Too early to tell; depends what happens afterwards. 

I will discuss EWI's view and more early next week. Timing is interesting. Maybe this continues into 2012 upwards!

[Paul]

I see the uptrend possibly continuing until next spring. Breadth is still solid. The Transports and Industrials have both made new highs. The RUT and Nasdaq also have made new 20 month highs. However if I look at the waves, it does appear to be 5 waves up from the July low.

[JT]

DG,

I see that you are still posting your "coin flip" Glenn Neely theory here. Why even bother? He changes the end of his Wave iV's just as much as Prechter does.

No one who actively trades cares.
No one.

[DG]

JT,

Go over to Traders Talk and look at the samples from the various newsletter writers, which they post every week, and tell me how many more downloads Neely's latest has than the next most downloaded sample. It's usually at least 2-3 times the next most.

While I know that you and your "crew" believe you are the only active traders in the entire known universe, I've just given you a data point which contradicts your assertion. Of course, now you'll claim that no one over at Traders Talk meets your definition of "active trader". Well, whatever. If it means that much to you to be the only "active traders" out there, go ahead and claim it. Realize that you look stupid doing so, but claim it nonetheless.

[DG]

BTW, I've posted the data on Neely's track record too many times to count at this point as well as my conclusion that the best time frame to follow him on is the Weekly. That yields about 15 trades per year. While it's not the same as the number of trades someone would have using an intraday strategy, it's clearly not "buy and hold" either. The method I'm using generates around 200 trades/year. Frankly, that's sufficient for me.

[Account Deleted]

"One simple way is to expect this large sideways wave 4 to be a bigger flat or triangle. This leads to my first alternative, that the Hope Rally is the start of a larger B wave. Consider the irregular flat from 2000-09 as wave A of a larger flat. (Recall that flats break as 3-3-5, so a flat can be the first "3" of a larger correction). Under this view, the current Hope Rally is wave B, and should break also as a "3". Â Given that we might find the first wave up from Mar09 to Apr10 as an impulse, this marks the Hope Rally as a zigzag."

Yelnick!!

The current upmove can least likely be the B wave after the assumed ABC from 2000-2009 considered as the First Wave of FLAT.Its becos since B is a corrective wave it has to take more time than the A wave,which effectively means that this B wave has to take more than 9 years to complete followed by a C wave which will take yet another few years taking the correction beyond 2025.Looks least likely for S&P to spend so much time doing nothing.

I would rather go with Neely Neutral Triangle count(with reverse Alternation) since 2000 year with 2000-2003 being A Wave.2003-2008 being B Wave.We are currently in the C wave which could be breaking itself into a Triangle with 2008 being A wave of the Triangle and we could be currently in the B Wave.This also satisfies the condition of a Neutral Triangle that C wave of it has to be the most time consuming and complex wave.Neely allows for C wave of a Neutral triangle to be a Triangle itself.This developement could be followed by D and then E wave.

Alternatively we couldve completed the C wave of the Neutral Triangle since 2000 in March 2009 and could be currently in D wave of this Larger Neutral Triangle to be followed a time consuming E wave.But This rationale seems to be a little bit weak considering that C wave is way to short in TIME to be comfortable.

Regards
VB

[yelnick]

VB, Neely may believe a B wave of a flat has to be slower than the A but stats say otherwise. Normal time relationships in flats besides A=B=C include A+B=C or A=B+C. In any event, this B may have a ways to go. Its (a) wave might go into late 2011, then correct, then continue on in a (c).

The triangle count may still be possible. Given B went more than A, this is a running triangle. You would need to count the 2007-2009 wave as a "3" to call this wave a triangle inside a triangle. I know Neely does, as well as some other ewavers, but it counts easier as a "5". Even with a "5" to kick it off, it could be in a zigzag. The B wave of the zigzag (the hope rally) has gone back a longways, and zigzags need to stay within channels. I have seen ewavers create a large channel that we are barely still in. Maybe if we reverse in January this count can remain.

I agree with you that calling the the C leg of the triangle from 2007-09 (or late 08 to keep it a "3") complete seems wrong as Cis too short.

All in all, my preferred count is that the 2000-09 period was a flat, and the Hope Rally is an X wave.

[Account Deleted]

Yelnick !!

Yet again there are isssues if u consider the Hope Rally as an X Wave.X waves are basically breathers or pauses separating two combinations.SO logically they are corrective in nature(basically corrects the previous ABC) it cannot be faster than the previous Corrective.And also if X wave retraces the previous wave by more than 0.618 then X Wave has to take more TIME.

[yelnick]

VB, an X wave after a flat is usually a zigzag and almost always retraces faster than the flat took, since it is a shorter wave in time & in a sideways move (flat to flat or flat to triangle) would tend to retrace all of the preceding flat. EWI says fairly little about X waves. Neely says a bit more, and in particular that they do not need to follow the strict rules of a corrective wave - both in form (that surely fits the Hope Rally) and (I presume) in the need to trend slower than the wave they are correcting. If a correction follows an impulse, it should run slower; but this is a corrective wave following a correction, a different circumstance.

Maybe he has defined them more precisely than in MEW, but I don't have the time to go thru all of his Q&A to find out. In any event, because this Hope Rally is defying easy wave interpretation, and yet is running like a zigzag, it makes the sense to consider it an X wave. It may turn out we don't need to do that, as this might be the start of a big B wave (with 2000-2009 the A wave).

[Elliott Wave Technology]

Forecasts,Counts, and Trading Systems for 2011 >>
http://elliottwavetechnology.blogspot.com/