search elliott


  • Google
Share/Bookmark

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

FlagCounter

  • Where From?
    free counters
Related Posts with Thumbnails

« Presidential Stock Cycle Analogy | Main | Get Ready to Party Like it is 1995 »

Thursday, February 17, 2011

Comments

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

Account Deleted

ES Chart: http://niftychartsandpatterns.blogspot.com/2011/02/es-near-resistance-line.html

trendlines

Shanghai & Shenzhen Update
Reaching Resistance Zones

Last update on the Chinese indices noted bullish breakouts, and i took positions short-term. Both indices are now reaching resistance zones, and may be vulnerable to a pullback here. Support for the SZSE is around 1230. A breakout above these zones will test recent highs. Note the increase in volume with the price.

http://trendlines618.blogspot.com/2011/02/shanghai-shenzhen-update.html

Mamma Boom Boom

I hope you bulls are nimble. Because, this thing is probably going to completely demoralize you.

Neo-Mamma

Michael

"Last Friday they (STU) had drawn a line in the sand at 1341, but curiously that has dropped from sight."

Yelnick, these people are so disingenuous that I'm surprised that you still give them the time of day.

Seriously, they have zero credibility. They have no "skin" in the game, and no funds under management. Not sure why you even highlight their drivel anymore.

Allen Hahn

Can somebody please explain the assertion "if the Dow gets beyond 12444, then wave 5 would be longer than 3, and make 3 the shortest wave, which violates a core rule." The wave count on the S&P clearly has wave 1 (1010 - 1125) shorter than wave 3 (1046 - 1227). Is this a difference in the indexes or am I not following the logic in the Blog. Help!

Virgil

They're talking about the 5 minor waves since the end of January.

Suspicious behavior in the precious metals with silver poking up to new highs but gold stalled at resistance well short of its highs.

tk

Yelnick

I have to agree with Michael above. Prechter is only interested in selling subscriptions and has been so wrong it's not even funny. For him to know say it's possible we go higher after recommending double leveraged shorts is beyond laughable.

JoshinJ

I really appreciate your writing, Yelnick. I've said it before and can't say it often enough. :)

What I am hoping, based simply on symmetries and little else, is that the SPX grinds up to the 1400 area, corrects to 1200, and then launches to near 1600. Probably won't happen, but in any event we should have an idea in the next three weeks.

PR

How many alt´s are there? With futures and options you lose only money if you follow those Elliottmarketeers
Since the internet , TA is fading as technical tool.
Elliottwave never worked and every Elliott monk makes his own rediculous count like trapist beer. It's like guessing the Da Vinci code.
It's the direction and you missed it in the 90's, 2000,2003,2007 and 2009. How many time is there left in your lifetime? You are behaving like a Jehova waiting for Doomsday.

Hank

No one gets it !

Mamma Boom Boom

>No one gets it !<

No one?

da bear

here's a crazy chart showing gold since the 70's. If the Seventies move was a III, then is gold in B of IV?

link: http://www.kitco.com/ind/Aden/images/Aden_20110216_1.jpg

Or did gold not really have a B wave?

If gold's Wave A ended in 2001 then A featured an a-b-c decline. That may explain why gold made new nominal highs while silver hasn't yet. Oh, and an EWI letter in the past few months had silver in a B wave off the 1980's high.

Looks as if gold wants to hit that upper trend line.

here is the link to the full article:
http://www.kitco.com/ind/Aden/aden_feb162011.html


da bear

Mamma Boom Boom

We're in Bradley-Turn-Date-Territory. You bulls should be elated about that.

http://www.screencast.com/users/MammaB/folders/Default/media/c36ff8a5-6225-4d81-8f25-dc38dd77329d

Michael

"We're in Bradley-Turn-Date-Territory. You bulls should be elated about that."

And what you don't seem to understand, is that the correlation for "turning points" (+/- 4 calendar days) between the Donald Bradley Siderograph and the SPX has been absolutely horrible over the last several years.

http://www.amanita.at/FAQ/FragenzumBradley-Siderograph/Bradley-Siderograph/

The Bradley has had a much higher correlation with Crude Oil.


joe

"Donald Bradley Siderograph and the SPX has been absolutely horrible over the last several years."

Totally agree.
Joe

Nike Shox For Sale

Romance: Many women long for the days when they and their husbands were courting.

yelnick

Michael, why highlight EWI? They called the top in 2000, the top in 2007, the bottom in 2009, the top in 2010 (April) for starters.

EWI = Money down the drain

Ugh! Yelnick, for goodness sake, get off Prechter's crank! Why are you shilling for this King of Humbug??? EWI has offered DISASTROUS advice way more often than not. Fire a neuron or two. Please!

yelnick

Allen, the wave 3 they are talking about is two degrees smaller than the big wave structure from July (1011) to now:
- the wave 3 you are referring to is August (1040) to Nov (1227), wave 3 of the final C wave
- one degree smaller is the wave 3 inside the wave 5 that began at the end of Nov (1173)
- two degrees smaller is the wave 3 within wave 5 of that wave 5, which started in late Jan (1275)

Since late Jan we have had:
- wave 1 go to 1308, or 33 pts
- wave 2 go to 1295
- wave 3 go to 1325, or only 30 pts
- wave 4 to 1312
- ... and hence wave 5 should not go beyond 29 pts, giving an end of 1341

That was how Kendell counted last Friday. Hochberg looked at the same chart and came up with 1345 as the outside limit. He didn't explain the difference.

Now, as this wave 5 has unfolded, the prime count of the STU has been for several issues that of an extended fifth:
- wave 1 from 1275 to around 1287
- wave 2 to 1280
- wave 3 to 1308
- wave 4 to 1295
- .. everything after is an extended fifth wave.

This allows a higher top to end this, such as 1352-1361 range.

DG

Michael, why highlight EWI? They called the top in 2000, the top in 2007, the bottom in 2009, the top in 2010 (April) for starters.

Yelnick, the problem isn't that they didn't get those specific calls correct, it's that those 4 calls were part of a set of dozens of "top" calls, a.k.a. broken clock syndrome.

I'm sure Roger D will "call" the top of 20??, but only after already having falsely called a top nearly every week for the past year-plus.

This is something I posted on my blog in early December, saying the decline in November was an x-wave after a Symmetrical formation from the August low, and never wavered from for the past 2 1/2 months:

"By my calculation, Neely's count will fail if the SPX goes over 1240.38 cash, at which point his wave-5 will be larger than his wave-3. While I was never really all that convinced by his count, I didn't see any specific reason to come up with an alternative, since I did agree that it was all :3s. Anyway, while I agree with a comment vipul made that Symmetricals are rare, I think this alternative makes some sense. If the waterfall effect plays out, the count projects to ~1340."

Obviously, the 1340 level coming to pass could just be a coincidence, but it will be interesting to see if we have hit an important reversal point.

yelnick

DG, they cried wolf! wolf! too often from 2004-6, then settled down. Since then they called the big turns right with the one big blunder in Aug 2009 of a premature double-short position. Right now they are all over a top, so if this blows by 1361 without topping they will have two bad calls.

Dsquare

"here's a crazy chart showing gold since the 70's. If the Seventies move was a III, then is gold in B of IV?"

Not much of a chance of that, Neely has it in 5 but he is counting it correctively (still in wave 1 of 5 I think), so should see a 1st extension terminal impulse (diagonal triangle) for wave-5 by his count.

Gold stocks, might be in E of 4 (has been my preferred count) or in 2 (wave-b) of 5 (again a 1st extension terminal). This is a chart I did last year on the Barron's gold mining index using a chart of Homestake Mining to create wave 1.

http://imageshack.us/f/268/bgmiapr3010t.png/

Dsquare

Here's a link for the BGMI
http://www.sharelynx.com/chartstemp/free/fchart-BGMI.php

Dsquare

I have the HUI in a b wave (contracting triangle), now in e of e. This chart from Jan 14. http://img40.imageshack.us/img40/9640/huijan1411qq.png

Short term count here: http://www.mexicomike.ca/php/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=13597&postdays=0&postorder=&start=0

Dsquare

Remember folks, 20 years ago in the S&L bank crisis 3,800 bankers were jailed. This time? Wall Street robbed us, got away with it, are still robbing us. Hoenig asks: “Where’s the penalty for failure? … We don’t have a market economy.” American capitalism is now “crony capitalism … who you know, how big your political donation is.”

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/fed-dictator-bernanke-needs-to-be-toppled-2011-02-15?pagenumber=2

da bear

My count since the March lows in the DJIA counts the rise from 6,400 and change to 9,000 as wave 1. Wave 2 retraced to 8,000 which appears to be a fairly shallow retracement, but it did retrace around 38% of the wave 1 gain. Wave 3 then takes the DJIA higher into the a-b-c decline of wave 4 last year. Since then, a final wave 5 is close to N completion (also containing five waves of lesser degree).

If the DJIA is in an A-B-C rally since March 2009 then shouldn't wave C equal close to 1.62 times the gains of wave A? If so we aren't there yet.

With my wave count, wave 1 is a quick bounce off the low, wave 2 is a swift fib. retrace, wave 3 is the longest wave, wave 4 was the "surprising dissapointment," and wave 5 has been an advancement on lesser volume.

KRG

Y : On EWI: Lets say they have now settled down as you say..

How about Gold/ Silver.. Have they been calling tops all along or did they go long any time?


yelnick

KRG, the general belief about Prechter on gold and silver is that he called tops all the way up. The reality is more complex. EWT was pretty good on gold ever since the 1980 peak and up to 2003. He had predicted a bullish rally from the gold bottom around $250 in 2001 to around $360, which happened, but then expected a fall. In June 2003 he drew a line in the sand, which was if gold broke $380 he would become bullish.

When it got near $400, in Oct 2003 he reconsidered his long count and expected gold to get to "the low $400s" before a final zigzag down, then begin a big bull market. As gold meandered up towards $450, he repeated the zigzag down prediction.

In 2005 gold reversed down for ten months, but instead of a zigzag, took the shape of a triangle. it was a head-fake. In Nov/Dec gold shot up above $500, rising $60 at one point in three weeks. It looked like the kickoff wave 1 of a big rally, but Prechter read it as a C wave of a flat (since 1984) ending the rally. He relied heavily on 96% bullish sentiment being a bearish sign, altho after a 10% rise in 3 weeks, that should be expected!

At this time he was noting the housing bubble was about to burst, a good call, but didn't pit 2+2 together on the rotation into commodities. Gold shot up over $600, and silver went parabolic. He called a top in silver around april 2006. Later that month he also called a top in gold. He again noted that the bullish case for gold was there, but he couldn't pull the trigger on it. He said if gold continued up into 2007, he would state "confidently" that gold had begun a new bull market in Feb 2001.

Well, 2007 came and went with nary a discussion of gold in the EWT. Gold kept running up to $900. We got an updated wave count a year later, in early 2008, placing gold in a bull market with wave 3 beginning in 2001. Looking back, gold had spiked up over $700 right after his top call in 2006. It corrected across the rest of 2006 but ran back up in 2007. He called a gold top again.

That is probably enough. He was very close twice to making a great call on gold (bullish) and the wave count supported those calls, but he couldn't do it.

Molecool

You continue quoting all the monkeys who keep to make bad calls (some for over a year) but you keep ignoring the ones who have been calling pretty much every swing for months now. How is that? What is your fascination with bad/faulty technical analysis?

PR

Molecool, you are the alpha monkey. You can not even make a bad call. You are short since march 2009 so don´t blame others. Yelnick is cool, so sit and quiet!

Virgil

Yelnick, in the editorial review on Amazon of 'How to Forecast Gold and Silver Using the Wave Principle' They have this snippet:

"Elliott Wave Forecasting has enabled Prechter to make some remarkably accurate calls. In January of last year, for example, he predicted gold would soon peak at just over $500 an ounce. It hit $511 on Feb. 15 and within two weeks fell to $408." --Money magazine

Not sure what year this is. I see gold moved above 500 in Dec 05 then meandered for a few months then went parabolic into May.

Mamma Boom Boom

>And what you don't seem to understand, is that the correlation for "turning points" <

Lump-A-Coal-Michael, you have no friggin idea what I understand. Why do you think I brought that up? Fool!

rc

The RUT is very close to a record high. My chart shows 856. It's at 834 now. Any day now.

Has the economy really completely (plus more) recovered, justifying a new record? Or is this just the bubble effect of gov't stimulus spending and Fed actions?

It would _seem_ that breaking the record after the astonishing run-up since Sept 1st, let alone March 2009, would be the appropriate time for at least a pause if not a correction. And, this is near the 2 year anniversary of the bottom.

Personally, like many of you no doubt, it's hard to imagine this relentless market ever going down.

yelnick

virgil. the gold drop from $511 to $408 was Jan 1983.

Michael

"That is probably enough. He was very close twice to making a great call on gold (bullish) and the wave count supported those calls, but he couldn't do it."

Yelnick,

Your continued defense and fascination of Prechter and Elliott Wave and all of their bad/faulty calls over the years is bordering on bizarre, and I'm not the only person on your blog that has been pointing that out over the last year.

The "rationalization" that you embark on in defending Prechter and his calls on Gold/Silver, or the SPX is nothing short of an ACADEMIC exercise.

What you fail to realize, is that in performance based REALITY, there is simply no excuse for having been a broken clock for years . . . How long do you think Prechter and Hochberg would have lasted at a premier Wall Street Hedge Fund like Quantum or Duquesne or Tudor with this kind of "broken-clock" performance?

Yet, you conveniently choose to ignore that. Instead, you continue to be fascinated by EWI and Prechter, and more importantly continue to defend his track record. And now you say that Prechter has "settled down" and you claim that he's only had one bad call in equities since August of 2009???

You've got to be kidding.
It's one thing to be merely fascinated by Prechter . . . but to defend him? Really???

Last week here you defended critics of Prechter's horrible performance by saying that he called the April Top. This week, your readers find more "rationalization" of a guy that has absolutely no "skin" in the game and who is nothing more than a newsletter writer using a failed methodology in your latest explanation of Prechter's Gold calls.

He's missed out on one of the greatest moves in Gold/Silver, Commodities, and Equities in decades . . . and what you conveniently ignore is the fact that his "theory" and methodology have been the basis for that.

I suggest that the value of your Blog might be helped out considerably with some market strategists or economists( or God forbid Traders ) who have actually been BULLISH and correctly been on the right side of these markets since 2009.

It would certainly provide some "balance" and add value and facilitate credibility, instead of seeing one "Top Picking" article after another with pundits that use the word "Bubble" top describe any kind of market activity that they are not able to understand when there are more buyers than sellers.

I thought that perhaps you'd sing a different "tune" on your Blog at the turn of the New Year in order to produce a more BALANCED approach to your analysis of the economy and the markets. Unfortunately, it looks like I am wrong in that regard. Your analysis is clearly biased.

Best wishes.

yelnick

rc, I have been pondering the disparity of bearish wave views to a bullish market and I think it comes down to this: ewavers have not grasped that we are in a big sideways market since 2000. 


In a flat, for example, the wave B almost always goes more than 78% of A, and more than half the time goes above 100%, sometimes to as much as 138%. Hence in a sideways market we should EXPECT a huge 80% retrace and even a new high. Similarly, triangles often are running, where the B leg goes higher than the start of the A leg. After that they converge. 


Once it was clear that the 200-02 fall was a "3" not a "5". this market was destined to have a rebound of 80% or more if not a new high - which happened.


It took EWI until 2006 to change their view to a B wave, at which point Prechter predicted it could go to new highs, as much as Dow 16K (ie. 38% above 100%). 


When we fell in a "5" into 2009, he should have been confirmed in the big flat scenario, since it fit. That then made the bounce off 2009 not a P2 but either a start of a new bull (Tony Caldaro's view) or a continuation of the sideways market, which is my view.


On this site I tend to report other views (and yes molecool, sometimes yours!) and so reported orthodox ewave of the P2 count. One of the easiest predictions I ever made in 2009 was we would get back above Dow 10K, a mere 50% retrace, which even a P2 would have to do.


Hindsight is a terrible thing to waste. I should have simply stated that if this were sideways, we should triple top. Mea culpa. 


But once we busted past 62%, P2 became very low odds. Call it dead. Since then I have been expecting a continuation of the up move. As I hope my posts have made clear, I see the various near term bearish tops like 1341 or 1361, but do not expect them to be much more than way-stations on a rise to a triple top. . Not sure if this is an X wave or a start of wave B of the sideways correction, but either scenario means we SHOULD get back up at least 80% if not 100% of the prior big drop. 


Walking thru the gold calls of EWI was illuminating. Prechter saw the bull market but could not pull the trigger to call it. Similarly, after his 2006 B wave call, he saw the big flat and still couldn't pull the trigger to call for a much bigger retrace in 2010.  


So I think bearish ewavers are influenced by the Prechterian bearishness to hedge too much what they have been experiencing: a relentless move up that is typical of a sideways market, just at much bigger scale. 

yelnick

Michael, I wrote that gold piece for KRG not to defend Prechter, but to bury him. I have also disagreed with his P2 call from the beginning. What I am responding to are comments like yours that Prechter has been absolutely horrible.

PR

Spot on Michael. They sell an illusion and the average Joe ends below in the food chain.

vipul garg

"longer term i like 1375.

Posted by: vipul garg | Friday, October 08, 2010 at 10:53 AM"

since everybody seems to be highlighting some forecasts, i ll also follow suit.
spx was 1150 then , and i almost donot remember anyone talking of 1350+ levels then.

and i can say with assurance that there is no flat ABC Since 2000 that many have analysed.and ofcourse the bear market low willnot be broken now.

Mamma Boom Boom

Everybody's getting brave. I love that.

Mamma Boom Boom

----------- Radar Logic -------------

The RPX Composite price declined 1.6 percent from November 16 to December16, 2010, after declining only 0.3 percent from the beginning of October to November 16. The only time the RPX Composite price has declined more from November to December was during the housing bust of 2007 and 2008.

forPPP

@vipul
If not ABC, what we have since 2000 then and what is your forecast now?

Mamma Boom Boom

Lawrence Wilkerson, former chief of staff to Colin Powell, appeared on "MSNBC Live" last night and said he believes that Former Vice President Dick Cheney's office "manipulated" Powell into justifying the case for war and that "the Secretary of State was not told the complete truth." He went on to state his belief that the Bush Administration was "using" Powell due to his respected reputation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-hYorNi0nA&feature=player_embedded

Hockthefarm

That didn't take long!

CAIRO – Egypt has agreed to allow two Iranian naval vessels to transit the Suez Canal to the Mediterranean, a military official said Friday, ending several days of confusion over their planned passage, which Israel's foreign minister has labeled a provocation.

An Iranian diplomat has said the vessels were heading to Syria for training and that the request to move through the canal is in line with international regulations.

It would be the first time since Iran's clerical rulers came to power in the 1979 Islamic Revolution that naval vessels from the country have passed through the canal to the Mediterranean.

Hock

Mamma Boom Boom

I see Neely is now bearish in all time frames.

Neo-Mamma

Mamma Boom Boom

Selling was more intense, today, than what it appeared on the surface.

Neo-Mamma

joe

Yelnik,

I see what you mean about a potential long term 3X top.
Do you think a pull back now is likely to stay in the channel? Probably 6% or so - and probably within the next three weeks.

There was a divergence in the transports today.

Joe

yelnick

Joe, yes, any pullback will stay in channel. Question is which channel? The narrow one for the wave since Nov, the bigger one since Sept, or the big one since July?

joe

"Question is which channel?"

That is exactly the question.

Don't let these guys ride you about Prechter - anybody that has read your stuff knows better than to think you are anything but independent.

I think we will be in for a very interesting few weeks.

Rock on, Yelnik.

Joe

Greg

Michael put together a convincing criticism of Yelnick’s insistence on denying Prechter’s irrelevancy. Yelnick strikes me as a smart fellow and I can’t accept the fact that although so many of us see the bias he, in some way, interprets the reality of EWI performance differently as if it were still in dispute. One explanation is probably the business model of this blog – and I am speculating here. In my naivete I wonder why would a smart guy like Yelnick spends his time to baby-sit this blog which in my view is probably as demanding as a full time job. Connecting the dots could help one realize – and accept – that the blog may have certain obligations around some reference points…Prechter, Neely and others included. If true, we could still get, and contribute, value to the site as long as we learn to discount the biases originating from the blog’s business model. Also, if true, we should still be thankful to Yelnick for all his efforts since there is definitely value is his market analysis or summary of different views.

The comments to this entry are closed.