Tuesday, December 13, 2016

Elephant Head

Call me what you wish. I have a long memory. This is the OEW analysis in the Weekend Update on July 2, 2016.

Paragraph 1

"As we have been noting for a couple of months now. A Primary V in the NYSE to new highs, and an irregular Major wave B in the four major indices, would put all five of these indices back in alignment. Even though the SPX/DOW/NDX/NAZ would be labeled B wave advances. The NAZ daily chart is carrying this potential subdividing/extending Major wave B count. Medium term support is at the 2085 and 2070 pivots, with resistance at the 2131 pivot."

This "loss" of the major B wave label is confirmed in this past weekend update dated December 10th, 2016, which states, ..

Paragraph 2

"The Primary III bull market that began in February 2016 continues to make new all time highs in most of the major indices. We do not believe this advance from February is a fifth wave, as it did not quantify as a fifth wave using OEW."

Well, as you may have noticed today, the NYSE has now made that new all time high. But, as of today, the OEW weekly S&P500 Index Chart is labeled with Primary III; not major B? Hmm .. just where did that "major B" go??

Hello. Anybody there? Do you see how this OEW stuff works? You write something in July and then you just ignore that later in December. You don't apologize for it. You don't say, "something might be wrong with our system". You just continue to drive on. The point is, if I'm a reader, why would I pay any attention to Paragraph 2 after reading Paragraph 1, and seeing it contradicted by paragraph 2? In fact, why would I pay attention to either - ever?!

It doesn't make any logical sense, and I won't entertain a word about it to the contrary. Someone is out to snare people into purchasing the OEW tutoring. Someone is selling a false sense of security in bullet-proof, mistake-proof, wave labels that have no meaning whatsoever!

The fact is all of the major US markets are now in their Primary Vth wave. And this wave could go on for quite a while.

For our part. We are just going to honor the holiday spirit and provide you (free of charge) with a true Elliott wave chart you won't see published anywhere else - as far as I know - because it is completely original. Although I did show a 'partial view' of the same count in the live chat room last week, and I stated wave 5, up, is definitely not done, based on internal daily counts. Here is the weekly Crude Oil futures contract (CLF17).

January, 2017 Crude Oil Contract - Contracting Diagonal

As you can see by this weekly bar, so far, my call that wave 5, up, was not done was exactly correct. Prices leaped higher this week, prompted in part by the non-OPEC members agreement to supposedly curtail some production (yeah, right).

This count of a diagonal is currently correct in every detail. Wave 5 is currently shorter than wave 3. Wave 3 is currently shorter than wave 1. Wave 4 is shorter than wave 2, and Wave 4 overlaps Wave 1 as it should in a diagonal count. Equally important, because of overlaps each of the legs stands out as a three-wave zigzag at the present time.

Make of this count what you will. Is it the Intermediate first Wave (1) in a (gulp) OEW supposed bull market? Or is it just the Intermediate (A) wave of an (A), (B), (C) correction, upward? Or is it just the Intermediate (C) wave of an Expanded FLAT correction for a fourth wave flat that started Sep 2015?

You will have to be the judge of that. Regular Elliott Wave says it could be any of those possibilities. But regular Elliott Wave also says, many diagonals are 'A' waves. Still I will leave it up to you. Why? Because I want you to experience the true nature of Elliott Wave. There is uncertainty inherent in all wave counts. It's a game of probabilities. And, when someone says, "once a wave is quantified, it will always remain quantified" then I want to tell you it's the biggest bit of 'fake news' on the planet. Don't fall for it.

Learn to live with the uncertainties. And more importantly, learn to look for the simple invalidation points. It should be crystal clear by now that if wave 5 became longer than wave 3, then the pattern that looks like a pattern is not a pattern at all. In a contracting diagonal wave 5 is not allowed to be longer than wave 3, because wave 3 must be shorter than wave 1, and wave 3 can not be the shortest wave.

But, if wave 5 does stay shorter than wave 3, then quite a pull-back could be in store.



  1. I agree that the magic of OEW is no magic at all. Perhaps he has some proprietary indicators that help him determine the higher probability counts, but his labels frequently make no sense at all, and his absolute statements about his labels often turn out to be completely wrong. I have not seen any evidence that he has advanced EWT in any way. Nevertheless, the ultimate goal is to be on the right side of the market, and I give him credit for reversing his view this summer in regards to the direction of the market. No one is right all the time.

    1. OEW was not right at the 2015 top, calling for a much higher wave 3 of Primary III - just when a big decline in Primary IV was to begin. It was not right at the 2016 bottom calling for a huge bear market decline - just when a Primary V advance was to begin. It was not right in July, 2016 when it labeled all of the indexes in a Major B wave advance. And it is not right now when it says the market is not in a Primary Vth advance.

      I had previously pointed all of these errors out as they were made on the site.

      This is not one miss or one slip: it is a self-documented record of failures at turning points, and it's complete disdain to use Elliott Wave for what it is best at : identifying wave patterns by adhering to strict rules for pattern construction.

      As I said, I simply won't entertain any comments to contrary. The record is clear.

    2. As I said, his labels have frequently been dead wrong. Luckily, though, you can make money in the market even when you have the wrong count. Eventually, though, those wrong counts come back to kill you, which is why he's suffered some severe whipsaws.

  2. Very nice oil count ET. Thank you !

  3. Joe you are the best
    Frankly it's been a while since I did not know someone like you

    Bravo bravo for your professional work

  4. Joe -- I appreciate your observations and commentary about OEW. You're right . . . the author provides no accountability whatsoever. Intellectual honesty is important in following Elliott Wave theory. There are nearly always multiple counts and the preferred count doesn't always pan out. That's okay. Stay present with what the market is saying and adjust accordingly, but don't pretend you're never wrong.

  5. Looks like somebody has an inferiority complex.

  6. Re your Crude post, thank you so much. I have a technical question--- you are seeming to refer to only the CL Jan 2017 contract, but the wave count only works when you make it always the Front Month contract. The count does not work if you consider CL Jan 2017 all the way back in 2015 etc. I presume that you are using front months only but the post does not make that clear. Using front months, the waves are Wave 1 Feb 11 2016 to June 8 same year is 25.57; Wave 2 Aug 3 to Oct 19 is 13.03; Wave 5 Nov 14 to Dec 12 2016 is 12.31. If this is correct, then the invalidation point is 55.23 for the front month. Just checking that this is the right approach.