The market grinds higher, and the bears still call for tops. The most immediate is the double-double level of 1334 that we touched today - a double off the 667 bottom by the two-year anniversary. Bespoke notes that a double has happened only nine times since 1928, and The Big Picture adds that a double-double (a double within 2 years) has only happened two prior times: 1934 and 1937. After those double-doubles, those markets continued higher by another 35-40%, which would put this market back to to the 1550 level, a triple-top since 2000; after which those markets fell hard back down:
The STU discussed their target levels today, as promised. Last Friday they had drawn a line in the sand at 1341, but curiously that has dropped from sight. Here they have one way to count which puts the 1341 stop out to 1346, and another which puts it in the 1352 area, where C = 62% of A. (Wave C from July 2010, wave A from the Mar 2009 bottom), with some leeway to get above 1360. In addition, we are nearing the upper trendline, which gets to 1339 on Friday, and may provide resistance after a brief throw-over. There is a lot more in this STU for those who are interested.
This upper trendline is shown in this chart from Robin Landry. He put out an update, discussing two possible wave counts, shown in green (the near-term top count) and red (the very bullish count). He notes that 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. Hence while he expects an interim top before 1244, he notes how the wave structure would turn to very bullish above that level. This was explored at length in Prechter's recent EWT as well. If we blast through that level, under these wave counts, expect this market to continue to run into 2012, and to approach the triple top at the 1550 level.
In a special added page today, the EWT looks at the large channel going back to the 1932 low, and discusses another level to watch. The STU also adds to this discussion with more detail. A line drawn from the wave 2 low (which they put in 1942) and the wave 4 low (1974) is the lower channel. A parallel line drawn off the wave 3 high in 1966 creates the upper channel. The line in the middle of those is the mid-channel. Here is their analysis:
- The 2000 high went above the upper channel, a throw-over
- The 2002 low fell to and bounced off the upper channel
- The 2008 drop broke below
- The 2009 low bounced off the mid-channel
- The Hope Rally has come within 100 pts (in the Dow) of the upper channel
This upper trendline may prove a line of resistance. It is indeed interesting that the 2002 low bounced off the upper channel and the 2009 low off the mid-channel.
So are we at the critical juncture? Either we top real soon, or we shoot to 1500? And "shoot" is the only term to use; under the bullish wave count, we would be entering the most explosive phase of a bull market, the midpoint of the 3rd of the 3rd. This market would accelerate, rising at a steeper pace.
If we grind further up past these 1340-ish or 12444 levels, but do not accelerate at a steeper pace, something else is going on. A contributor to SlopeofHope gives an alternative viewpoint that puts the level at 1361. The wave counts above pick the July 2010 bottom at 1011 as the start of the final C wave up, yet both Neely and Fractal Finance dispute that. The Flash Crash fell hard into May and then went sideways all summer long. The bifurcation out of that trading range happened at the end of August, coinciding with Bernanke's QE2 speech. Using that as the start of the final wave, we get a different picture: it is breaking not as a "5" but a "3" in a distinctive zigzag form:
A very common relationship in a zigzag is for A = C in length, which pegs C as stopping at 1361. So look for a pullback there.
Curiously, if it rushes past that level, the wave would begin to take the shape of a five-wave impulse with an extended third wave. A normal extension is 1.618x, targeting a run to 1475 area before a wave 4 pullback. A normal wave 4 retraces 38%, putting the market back down to 1361. A wave 5 would follow, and again a normal relationship is 5 = 1, which would peg the end of this whole wave at 1550.
Another curiousity is that the Hope Rally into 2012 would take the following form:
- wave A from 667 (March 2009) to 1220 (April 2010) over 14 months
- wave B from 1220 (May) to 1040 (Aug)
- wave C from 1040 (Sept) to 1590 in Nov 2011 if A = C
Sometimes the time relationship is not A=C but A+B = C, meaning C might end around Feb 2012. Food for thought, but not honey for the bears. Right now the bears are sharpening their sweet tooths on their levels between 1334 (double double) and 1361.
ES Chart: http://niftychartsandpatterns.blogspot.com/2011/02/es-near-resistance-line.html
Posted by: Account Deleted | Thursday, February 17, 2011 at 06:05 AM
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
Posted by: trendlines | Thursday, February 17, 2011 at 06:54 AM
I hope you bulls are nimble. Because, this thing is probably going to completely demoralize you.
Neo-Mamma
Posted by: Mamma Boom Boom | Thursday, February 17, 2011 at 07:36 AM
"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.
Posted by: Michael | Thursday, February 17, 2011 at 08:15 AM
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!
Posted by: Allen Hahn | Thursday, February 17, 2011 at 08:58 AM
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.
Posted by: Virgil | Thursday, February 17, 2011 at 09:24 AM
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.
Posted by: tk | Thursday, February 17, 2011 at 09:53 AM
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.
Posted by: JoshinJ | Thursday, February 17, 2011 at 10:04 AM
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.
Posted by: PR | Thursday, February 17, 2011 at 10:16 AM
No one gets it !
Posted by: Hank | Thursday, February 17, 2011 at 10:26 AM
>No one gets it !<
No one?
Posted by: Mamma Boom Boom | Thursday, February 17, 2011 at 10:35 AM
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
Posted by: da bear | Thursday, February 17, 2011 at 01:52 PM
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
Posted by: Mamma Boom Boom | Thursday, February 17, 2011 at 02:45 PM
"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.
Posted by: Michael | Thursday, February 17, 2011 at 02:56 PM
"Donald Bradley Siderograph and the SPX has been absolutely horrible over the last several years."
Totally agree.
Joe
Posted by: joe | Thursday, February 17, 2011 at 04:14 PM
Romance: Many women long for the days when they and their husbands were courting.
Posted by: Nike Shox For Sale | Thursday, February 17, 2011 at 04:27 PM
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.
Posted by: yelnick | Thursday, February 17, 2011 at 04:58 PM
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!
Posted by: EWI = Money down the drain | Thursday, February 17, 2011 at 05:18 PM
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.
Posted by: yelnick | Thursday, February 17, 2011 at 06:32 PM
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.
Posted by: DG | Thursday, February 17, 2011 at 07:24 PM
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.
Posted by: yelnick | Thursday, February 17, 2011 at 08:11 PM
"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/
Posted by: Dsquare | Thursday, February 17, 2011 at 08:40 PM
Here's a link for the BGMI
http://www.sharelynx.com/chartstemp/free/fchart-BGMI.php
Posted by: Dsquare | Thursday, February 17, 2011 at 08:47 PM
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
Posted by: Dsquare | Thursday, February 17, 2011 at 08:54 PM
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
Posted by: Dsquare | Thursday, February 17, 2011 at 08:59 PM
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.
Posted by: da bear | Thursday, February 17, 2011 at 09:28 PM
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?
Posted by: KRG | Thursday, February 17, 2011 at 09:43 PM
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.
Posted by: yelnick | Thursday, February 17, 2011 at 10:55 PM
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?
Posted by: Molecool | Friday, February 18, 2011 at 01:14 AM
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!
Posted by: PR | Friday, February 18, 2011 at 04:16 AM
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.
Posted by: Virgil | Friday, February 18, 2011 at 06:25 AM
>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!
Posted by: Mamma Boom Boom | Friday, February 18, 2011 at 07:07 AM
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.
Posted by: rc | Friday, February 18, 2011 at 07:28 AM
virgil. the gold drop from $511 to $408 was Jan 1983.
Posted by: yelnick | Friday, February 18, 2011 at 08:41 AM
"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.
Posted by: Michael | Friday, February 18, 2011 at 08:53 AM
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.
Posted by: yelnick | Friday, February 18, 2011 at 08:59 AM
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.
Posted by: yelnick | Friday, February 18, 2011 at 09:02 AM
Spot on Michael. They sell an illusion and the average Joe ends below in the food chain.
Posted by: PR | Friday, February 18, 2011 at 11:13 AM
"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.
Posted by: vipul garg | Friday, February 18, 2011 at 11:14 AM
Everybody's getting brave. I love that.
Posted by: Mamma Boom Boom | Friday, February 18, 2011 at 12:13 PM
----------- 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.
Posted by: Mamma Boom Boom | Friday, February 18, 2011 at 12:57 PM
@vipul
If not ABC, what we have since 2000 then and what is your forecast now?
Posted by: forPPP | Friday, February 18, 2011 at 01:12 PM
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
Posted by: Mamma Boom Boom | Friday, February 18, 2011 at 01:27 PM
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
Posted by: Hockthefarm | Friday, February 18, 2011 at 01:58 PM
I see Neely is now bearish in all time frames.
Neo-Mamma
Posted by: Mamma Boom Boom | Friday, February 18, 2011 at 02:01 PM
Selling was more intense, today, than what it appeared on the surface.
Neo-Mamma
Posted by: Mamma Boom Boom | Friday, February 18, 2011 at 02:36 PM
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
Posted by: joe | Friday, February 18, 2011 at 04:25 PM
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?
Posted by: yelnick | Friday, February 18, 2011 at 05:10 PM
"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
Posted by: joe | Friday, February 18, 2011 at 05:27 PM
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.
Posted by: Greg | Friday, February 18, 2011 at 08:39 PM