In the video, Neely posed to us that the rise since 2009 is only a 'corrective wave' possibly of a triangle in some form. He called it wave "d". I understand why Neely is doing this based on his time rules, but what if one or more of Neely's time rules is not exactly correct, as he states it?
Let me pose this question to you with a different diagram, and a differently worded question. How long in price length does a wave have to be, before it simply can not be considered a wave of the same degree as the previous waves? Here is the diagram. Let me explain.
|S&P500 Cash - Monthly - Measurements Matter|
If you look at this monthly chart, and the Fibonacci ruler shown, you can see that the up wave since 2009 is more than 2.618 times the length of wave b. Is this really a wave d? I mean from price length perspective, how long can this go on? How long does Neely allow it to go on before saying something like, "Uncle!, OK you got me. It's really a new bull market."
And, if the length in price points alone doesn't do it, how about time? From 2009 - 2018 is nine years in length. But from 2002 to 2007 (the b wave ) is only 5 years. How does a wave become shorter, like the c wave, being only two years, and then become longer again like the purported d wave, and still be of the same degree? And if price and time don't do it, how about both of those together with a pretty clear five-wave form?! Not enough for you? What about if the "middle segment" of the rise from 2009 to 2018 is simply "too long" to be a sub-wave? That would be a degree violation. Conflict! (Here I am referring to the fact that from 2011 - 2015, price rises more than all of the b wave!)
This is not logical.
This is one of the reasons why - while I respect Neely very highly, and think he has made a number of vital contributions - either he hasn't finished his work or his reasoning, or doesn't explain why this should be so. Or, perhaps he is incorrect in the application of his own written rules to the current market situation. Remember, the new Neely patterns (such as diametrics, neutral triangles, etc.) were not invented when Mastering Elliott Wave was written. Did he 'invent' such patterns to 'cover his tracks'?
Neely runs a fund. Prechter runs a newsletter service. I certainly have seen Prechter and Hochberg not follow even the rules of Elliott Wave analysis - let alone the guidelines. Is this possible for Neely too? I don't know for sure. I have nothing against either of these gentlemen, or their companies - just the opposite. I have a lot of respect for them.
But, when I see things that don't make sense or somehow leave a mysterious unexplained void, I will ask questions with ardent fervor.
Have a wonderful day.
P.S. Chart below added after the open on Dec 06th.
|SP500 Cash Index - 30 Minutes - Trend Line Break is Wave i|
More than likely, as Neely suggests, the new trend starts after the failure - which we have discussed for many days now, and after the trend line break. Not before. The first wave down is wave i, and the deepest retrace since the trend line break is wave ii. It would then make sense that the gap is part of or most of wave iii. There is no evidence yet that wave three is over (that is what > means).
Each of the above waves would go into making wave minuet (i), down.
|SP500 Cash - 5-minutes - v < iii < i|
Chart added at end of day. Probable barrier triangle where d can be higher than b, as long as it does not close above b.
|Probable Barrier Triangle to make b longer in time than a|