Thanks Joe, for taking time out of your personal schedule to do this video! Much appreciated!
Welcome, Mark. I appreciate the comment and your continued support.
Thanks for the analysis TJ. The one issue I'm having is reconciling the S&P to your DJIA count. If a P5 diagonal is in play for the S&P, then Minor C = 1.618 * Minor A = 2478. If they are in the same count at minute level, the Minor C max would be 2451 since minute iii is shorter than minute i. The 1.382 ext for Minor C = 2408.
even harder to reconcile in ES unless the S&P and ES are in minute iii of Minor C. Ironically, minute iii just hit its 1.618 ext in ES at 2368.25.
Now do exactly the same exercise on the Monthly charts from 2009 to present. Do you see how the DOW 'exactly' met it's target of Primary III = 1.618 X Primary I when counted as I have outlined all along with Primary II as the large flat? But, what do you see when you do the same for the S&P500? From a price standpoint it went beyond it's Fibonacci target, did it not? Yet, in terms of time, the market turned where the Dow said to turn, and not where the S&P said to turn based on Fibo ratios. I am 'not' saying the Dow is always correct. I 'am' saying major market indexes can trace out slightly different paths at the all-time highs because that's exactly how divergence with the advance / decline line and new highs : new lows occurs. It's the only way it 'can' occur - if different stocks peak at different times - and they will, of course, be in different indexes. The Dow is only 30 stocks. The S&P500 is 500 stocks. They simply can not trade identically all of the time, and still have the phenomenon of divergence in the market.After you review the monthly charts from 2009, now go back and review the 2000 top. What do you see relative to the Dow and the S&P?
My main pt was to suggest both indexes surely must still be in some degree of a 'third' wave. since you suggested DJIA might be in ED, then it must be minute iii of minor C. they have hardly closed red entire month of feb!
It's a bit difficult to discuss with someone who doesn't even acknowledge whether they understand the prior point or not. I showed you a degree-labeled chart of the weekly Dow in the video, based on a 1.618 extension. Why do I have to revisit the topic?
Hi Joe,I really appreciate your insights, I've been following your blog for a while now. As an amateur EW'er I appreciate your detailed and robust view of EW.I've thought for quite a while that your new count on the Dow is what has been going on the NDX chart. I think the triangle is better formed. If it is and an ending diagonal is forming for wave 5 we are basically now at A=C.https://www.tradingview.com/x/7OCw5H6o/
Nice triangle. Thanks for the look-see!
JG, yor ndx triangle is ending in july instead of Feb.
Kaviraj, you are correct so it is not the exact same as the Dow but it is a valid triangle which does allow the NDX count to synch well with Joe's Dow count.
Thank joe. You have a very soothing voice. You should record audiobooks.
Joe, thank you very much for the video! Its super helpful. If one was to do the same for SPX...whats your target?
Please see the above discussion with Steve Walker. I am very hesitant to provide a target at this time for the S&P500 because at the Primary 3 top, it "over-shot" it's 1.618 Fibonacci ratio, while the Dow adhered to it quite well. And, at the 2000 top, they diverged for quite a while. When we get down the road, perhaps that situation will clear up a bit.
Once again much appreciated! Thank you Joe.
Thanks for the update, Joe. I do have to take issue with one aspect of it, though. One of the great things that you do in this blog is show how to count waves from the smallest degree, and build them up to the largest degree. As we all know, all waves are either impulsive or corrective. They can't be both. They either subdivide by 5 or 3. If we look at the wave from the June 2016 low to the August 2016 high, you spent day after day, counting that wave from the smallest degree to the largest degree, and based on applying EW rules, you determined that it was a corrective wave, not an impulse wave. It was a 3 wave subdivision. Now, 6 months later, you have thrown out all of that very detailed and meticulous counting, and have proclaimed it an impulse wave, a 5 wave subdivision. That makes no sense to me. A corrective wave can't suddenly become an impulse wave long after the fact. So, IMO, if we're in an ABC from the Feb 2016 low, then the B wave must remain the same running correction as you had previously labeled it. Thanks again for all of the work that you share in this blog.
Good point. And a good enough alternative to consider a "confluence of Fibonacci ratios" when we get there. Thanks for the honest input.
Thank you Joe for the expert teaching.
TJ, very good analysis and finetunning. I have been counting this similarly with 2 versions: 1) the election rise from 2084 as Wave 3 of C where I assume 1.5 extension of Wave 1 of C (202 points from Brexit low to 2194 in summer) to 2387 where Wave 4 of C may happen for a correction followed by Wave 5 of C into 2479 late summer(5=1 202 points). Then we have the larger ED Wave for >300 points down, and 2) Alternative where Wave B was running correction so then the whole of Wave C starts at 2084 instead of only 3 of C as above. In any way, level 2385/2387 is significant in both that way.
Seems on track!
Thanks Joe for all the time and effort you take for sharing your insights. It's alot of work and I and many others appreciate it. I also have to agree with Vive's comment! Your voice is way better than the digital one. And, much easier on the ears when I replay your video over and over again!rose