Today from the open we counted most or all of a five-up wave. If that's the case, what was yesterday? Below is the chart of of the ES/SPY (CFD) on the 1-Hr timeframe.
All of the waves up, yesterday, and in the overnight, were so incredibly overlapping that the likely structure up was that of a contracting leading diagonal. The waves have the right length and the right form, and the up wave from 06:00 yesterday to the cash open - which was never seen in the SPY cash - is then well accounted for. This morning's roller-coaster machinations at the open become a b/ii wave. And, so far, the up wave is in a parallel.
Also, as we discussed yesterday, we came almost up to the prior high and almost made yet another double top. As stated earlier, there is significant risk of going over the prior high and/or the prior all-time high.
But nothing has clearly invalidated yet, so it remains to be seen what transpires.
Meanwhile, back at the 4-hr Dow futures (YM), there appears to be a better formed five-waves-down & an upward slanting parallel after it which might bear some watching. The parallel is a smaller version of the one on the ES. But the ES does not count as nicely downward as a five-wave structure.
The market has a very strange feel to it - like every possible excuse for a wave is being used to avoid a decline. Said another way, it feels like the Smart Money knows if a decline is allowed to begin it might quickly get out of control. A similar way to say the same thing that some prior Elliott analysts use is that it is as if the market were waiting for a news story to provide the cover for a decline. Until that happens, it just hasn't, and we'll watch and count patiently.
Have an excellent start to the evening,
TraderJoe
Thanks Tj.
ReplyDeleteIsn't this arrogance?
Whivmch Ew book has this count?
https://www.neowave.com/tradingblog/blog.asp?bid=127
I mean is this count even valid?
DeleteThe self-delusional crowd contending that equity prices can be wholly divorced from global political and economic reality are about to learn differently. Stunning that any thinking person would fail to see a global recession a foregone conclusion, and a global depression rapidly become an increasing likelihood. So much for EW so-called gurus! Lol!
DeleteLol, you got a chart of that?
Delete"Analysis Paralysis" A chart no cure for ignorance! 😉
DeleteWithout a chart you're just guessing. Remember how viciously bearish you were last November.
DeleteHow does a chart, any chart, alter the reality of loss of 20% of Global Oil supply? Remember when Greenspan uttered his famous "Irrational Exhuberance" comment? Was he wrong? How long after his observation did the marker continue higher?
DeleteUnless you can translate that into profit in a timely fashion, your comment is just gas.
DeleteOn that we certainly agree!! Lol!
DeleteAlso, note in manu's link, right below Neely's chart is an advertisement for the forecasting service. Notice how the structure of the (E) wave has changed dramatically from being basically at the low of an expanding diagonal, to now being squeezed into a wedge. His 'short-term' forecast was wrong, incorrect, and would have cost one big bucks. And this is from a guy who insists he doesn't change his counts. Okayyeeeee.... TJ.
DeleteIn the evening around 8:35 - 40, the end of the "5-up" we were counting today was confirmed by price trading below wave 4 at ES 7,577 before trading over the high again. It took a very, very long time. And it also came very, very close to the high where it would have invalidated.
ReplyDeleteBelow is the equivalent in the CFD.
https://www.tradingview.com/x/nb8Ykdki/
TJ
Neely makes a valid point about proportionality. The move prior to 2000 was a massive, multi-decade secular bull market. Neely’s argument that a 26-year Neutral Triangle is required to properly correct that degree of trend makes sense. Under the orthodox view, treating the brief 18-month crash of 2008 as a complete Cycle Wave IV feels disproportionately short.
ReplyDeleteNeely seems to be ignoring the waning momentum aspect that lines up with an ending diagonal.
Neutral triangle of more than 6000 points? The massive move before 2000 does not quantify both points or percent age of moves after 2000. I dont remember March 26 low was even a 10% correction to mark as e for completing that running neutral triangle. It is like Trump doing Ew.
DeleteWhat's Trump got to do with it? This supposedly is a non-political blog.
DeleteNoted. Thanks
Deletesee @ 9:13 am below, on proportionality. TJ.
DeleteThe QQQ rallied back to its 18ma yesterday and the middle of it's consolidation. If it's going to break down, this would be the place to do it.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.cnbc.com/2026/07/09/meet-sk-hynix-the-trillion-dollar-chipmaker-debuting-on-us-markets-.html
DeleteRobert, no follow through yet, either.
DeleteRestricting speech is bad manners.
ReplyDeleteAs my mother used to say, "don't make me get out that wooden spoon."
Delete...and dad always said "don't make me pull this car over"
DeleteI waited until there was a new high this morning to make the following comment. Neely says, "If you have a 1, then for 2 to be corrective it should 'take more time' than 1. Well, look what we documented yesterday. Wave 1 took 21 bars. Wave 2 only took 7 bars.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.tradingview.com/x/VxHHa8Gd/
We didn't have to do any 're-labeling' which he is so critical of. We started out counting a/i, b/ii, c/iii until there was a non-overlapping fourth wave which there was. And now a fifth wave up in the a-h. Then wave iv 'is' longer than the total time in wave iii - which he also posits as a guideline.
So, now here's the question. Could one re-label the chart in Neely fashion to 'force' a second wave that is longer than 1? Let's do that, below.
You have to start by putting a famous Neely 'truncation' at the low, because 1 must be in five-waves. Then you'd get a "running' w-x-y wave for wave 2 that is lo-and-behold longer in time than wave 1. Perfect, right? No. The 'x' wave in this case - while shorter in price than wave 1, is, much, much longer in time that the wave 1, the previous higher degree wave in the same direction, and that breaks the degree definition guidelines that he cited in his interview.
https://www.tradingview.com/x/fYEIFB7q/
The point is sometimes you simply 'can not' have both. Sometimes, you can't have your cake and eat it too. I don't think Neely fully resolved his logical conflicts, and he is trying unsuccessfully to make up for it with bizarre patterns that have nothing to do with Elliott Wave. In other words, he may be trying to apply an 'absolute logic' framework to a pricing mechanism which is chaotic.
The 'early' Elliott Wave literature often described 'short two's' and 'long fours'. I grew up with that logic, and it was completely reinforced by an EW book by Steve Poser, titled, "Applying Elliott Wave Profitably" which is still available on Amazon. Probably the one concept I remember from that book is "short two, long four".
But if you DO YOUR HOMEWORK - as we just did above - you can prove to yourself which of Neely's tenets are likely true and which are not. From what I can demonstrate "absolute proportionality & adherence to degree definitions" are not always logically compatible in a chaos market.
TJ
Daily QQQ - If a triangle was finished on the 8th, I would expect much more gusto to the upside.
ReplyDeletehttps://schrts.co/QFHiCMzB
ES 1-hr: downward overlap in the futures.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.tradingview.com/x/nxRRC8hO/
TJ
SPX 7508 flash intra low "Said another way, it feels like the Smart Money knows if a decline is allowed to begin it might quickly get out of control"
ReplyDeleteVix Gap filled at 15.40 from June 4th
ReplyDelete"what flash crash?" they just erased it with a wave over the top. TJ.
ReplyDelete