 |
| S&P500 Cash Index - Half Hourly - Still in Minute ((c)) |
Then, yesterday, Elliott Wave International posted this incredulous statement regarding the current wave count, (paraphrase), "our best wave count is that we are in (1), (2), 1, 2" - which readers will recognize means they think we have had Intermediate (1), and Intermediate (2), and Minor 1, and Minor 2. This current wave up would be Minor 2.
The reason this proposed count is incredulous is that Minor 2 would already be a larger wave in points than Intermediate (2) - which simply flies in the face of degree labeling! You can't call a wave a smaller degree if it is, in fact, larger than it's larger degree counterpart. And it is! They think (2) where is we show minute ((b)) at the beginning of December, 2018; and (1) is where we show ((a)) at the end of October in the daily chart, below.
To counteract whatever is going on over there, I thought I would show you my proposal for the beginning of this bear market.
 |
| S&P500 Cash Index - Daily - Contracting Diagonal Lead off to Bear Market |
The reason is thus: this up wave consumed more points that the prior minute ((b)) wave did by the end of November, 2018. Therefore, it simply must be a larger degree wave. There are only two ways this can happen, and both of them are diagonals. Right now, the market is so choppy, and the Federal Reserve has implemented its "patience" plan. So it seems we might only get a choppy diagonal for the first Intermediate wave of the bear market - shown as (1) in the lower right.
I have drawn in some preliminary trend lines. They are just that. They will be adjusted as we get more waves. Perhaps Minor 3 will occur if/when the Special Counsel's report is released, and/or if Congress takes any action on it.
Until we get more information, this is the best I can do. I was dismayed to read yesterday what the professionals at the wave service thought of the count. It makes it hard for all to learn.
Have a good start to your evening.
TraderJoe
thanks have a great weekend
ReplyDeletebravo
TJ, your comments regarding EWI, to me, having followed them, subscribed to them, lost money with them, says to me we are very close to a major top! Simple questions/ thoughts.If you connect a and c1, can this be an expanding megaphone pattern? It fits very well with UVXY, as it appears is also in expanding megaphone pattern?
ReplyDeleteIt 'could' become the expanding variety. But, would need 3 longer than 1 and there is no evidence for that yet. Let's see where 3 ends.
Deletelets see where 2 ends first, right?
DeleteThanks Joe. Became obviously something of a higher degree a while back. What you showed today was my basic thought. Until we see a turn, which seems closer finally, patience as you always say. Again thanks.
ReplyDeleteThank you Joe. They are missed, soon you will get a proposition to lead the FF or FF STU.
ReplyDeleteAgree. EWI is probably the worst I’ve ever seen. They have been wrong for years.
ReplyDeleteNot just idle speculation. Hulbert's Digest consistently ranks them as the very worst forecasting publication using a hard-nosed analysis of their work.
ReplyDeleteI believe a large second wave underway is the correct count. I don't remember ever seen wave action that more perfectly fits the high degree second wave personality than what we have seen the last few weeks. This has been my suspicion for some time and as readers are aware, my eagerness to communicate that got me in a bit of trouble with Joe.
This wave has accomplished the primary purpose of every high degree second wave. Note the current herd sentiment! Have a great week-end everyone!
I encourage you guys to consider an alternative to this wave 2 count. Still too much strength at this time.
ReplyDeleteHi Todd. I think it is always a wise idea to keep an open mind as you suggest.
DeleteThe great thing about EWT is that there is always a number(with very few exceptions) that tells you when you are wrong.
Thanks Verne,
DeleteI am 99% confident that this count is not going to happen the way it is displayed. Unfortunately, I have no alternatives to offer other than to wait and see what rolls over and when. I am more interested in what the 5 yr and 10 yr bond market is going to do.
Sentiment, per the CNBC Fear and Greed index is now at 51(neutral) vs 8(extreme fear a month ago. Scale is 1-100 but a few more days of up, or even sideways action should put us back in greed territory.
ReplyDeleteHi Joe, thank you for your work of the week.
ReplyDeletenormally wave 3 should be longer than 1?
Wave 1 lost 594 points and so the 3 how much?
No dom. In a contracting diagonal, shown, wave 3 should be shorter.
DeleteBut base on degree, logically wave 3 should be longer than sub-wave C of wave 1. That means wave 3 should be longer than 453 points right?
Delete@migration; possible.
DeleteAll wave 3 needs to do is form a 3 wave sequence of some sort and break the low of wave 1
ReplyDeleteLooking at a monthly chart from the 2009 primary 4 bottom. It is just shy of 120 bars but close enough. I was wondering if anyone has an explanation of the EWO readings? No divergence for Int 5. In fact the entire move from Int 2 to the Oct 3 top looks to have a wave 3 signature. Just wondering if anyone has some insight?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
Deleteuse log chart. do you want me to ppst something
Deletetacharts@yahoo.com if interested.
DeleteAs a novice at EW, can anyone answer a question on this count please?
ReplyDeleteIs there any reason why the next wave down, wave 3, could not happen within the next 2-3 weeks?
There's a lot of symmetry at the moment with the early 2018 decline, which was swift and deep, and we're in a Puetz crash window too.
Hello to Miss rotrot, I wonder if Joe would be happy with you copying and pasting his comments at a commercial blog? Sad.
It certainly could. But the up move so far could just be wave a or w of a more complex correction that could take us into late February or early March...of course this is also assuming we are in a down trend as I agree with Joe that we are...
Delete@dumnonia-watchman Please advise which blog, as it may be a copyright violation. Thanks.
Deletedumnonia-watchman
DeleteA word of advice. This is very disturbed individual. Best to ignore them...
dumnonia-watchman...Joe knew about it before the fact...
DeleteVerne Carty...the individual who routinely posts ET's market calls at WCI without attribution...
Here it is Joe. This Miss rotrot is just a troll I suspect:
ReplyDeletehttps://worldcyclesinstitute.com/colonel-custers-last-stand/comment-page-1/#comment-35715
https://worldcyclesinstitute.com/colonel-custers-last-stand/comment-page-1/#comment-35714
DeleteVerne Carty criticizing Joe on the website referenced by dumnonia-watchman...
dumnonia-watchman...if you were Joe, would you be happy with Verne referring to Joe on another website as a "a so-called EW guru" and further proclaiming that Joe "got really upset with me and sarcastically asked me if I had a license as a registered financial adviser, and accused me of offering trading advice!" and offering additional criticism of Joe when he wrote, "I have never seen a guy who presents himself as an EW expert offering wave counts, then takes umbrage when visitors to his site talk about actual trades they are making"...SAD!
Deletehttps://tinyurl.com/gspj2rq
DeleteI didn't see Verne's comments, which were critical of 'a blog writer' I agree.
DeleteHowever, he didn't mention Joe by name nor link to his site, Verne is a very polite chap as far as I can tell, unlike you, so are you just anti-free expression of one's opinion? Are you a blood relative of Joe, or an ex-girlfriend maybe?
That would fit with your persona, a typical female, hyper-sensitive.
As for hypocritical, not me, but you seem more than happy to try to stir up trouble yourself, by bad-mouthing Verne, may I enquire why you appoint yourself as an internet police-woman?
How ironic! The controversy with Joe arose because I disagreed with one of his counts and stated my opinion openly. This sick person then bears false witness in accusing me os stealing Joe's counts. Leave her alone...
DeleteLara Iriarte operates an Elliott Wave subscription service...Verne Carty is a long time subscriber...Verne also subscribes to Peter Temple's Chart Show...in addition, Verne professes to monitoring several other EW websites (Joe's included)...do you really think the comments Verne posts are his original thoughts?
Deletehttps://tinyurl.com/y8hbb7xb
Deleteall of (iii) gets cut off buy 0-(ii) line in your count
ReplyDeletemoving (ii) to its proper location before gap to its right
leaves long running flat
and looking like we are in ((3)) of (3) of your impulse
now, conservatively if both (3) and (5) are.618 of (1), we are likely to hit 1.618 of the A B
So this count now is predictive of 3 waves (ABC) where C>=1.618A
note that a trendline from 0 to B does not cut off any of the wave coming after B. Also note that the ewo is signalling a 4th wave very close to your (ii) as it is now plotted. So it seems that two alternative counts have us in (iii) or (v) of impulse off the low. Another alternative to explore is a double zig zag with the X wave containing all the overlap.
Deletethis is from last week
Deletehttps://imgur.com/a/sSRbdNN
It would appear to me ABC has a lot more room for (2) , an impulse has less room and is bounded but would then suggest at least another wave up in the near term following a wave down for a zig zag for (2), and lastly some sort of complex wxy would be sufficient to have a near term end of (2).
DeleteMarc .. please take a 1-hr futures chart from Jan 3 to Jan 11th, and show me how a third wave works ..your (iii) on your 6:44 pm post. I have tried about five different variations and can't get it to work without illegal overlap or degree violations. Thanks, TJ.
DeleteAlso .. in the futures .. I can not get the 0 - 2 line guideline to work.
Deletethis is best i can do
Deleteit would have a max of 2700 or so to complete impulse.
the top of (iii) is a bit left of where it ws placed, leaving that awful 4th wave AB (C=triangle). but i think its all allowable. We can also just move the (ii) on primary count? I hope this is somewhat helpful/accurate
https://imgur.com/a/1Gzmth9
Good try & thanks, but don't think so. It 'could' be right, but I just don't think that forms an impulse. The wave 2 of (v) which is supposed to be a smaller degree wave, is larger in points than the net travel of (iv) which is supposed to be a larger degree wave. That's the main problem.
DeleteThen, the wedge breaks down, then the wedge breaks up?
No, as far as I can tell, you have to move 1 of (iii) all the way to 2,626 on 16 Jan. It would still be a diagonal, and it would still be shorter than ((i)) of an impulse count. Then, (ii) would be small enough, and we would be in 3 of (iii), up, now, on the way to 1.618.
It's also the only way on a 1.618 impulse count that I can see to maintain the trend line from 0 - 2 in the current up wave on the futures.
thanks for taking the time
Deletejoe that brings up a question. i see that wave (ii) of 5 has to be shorter than 4. suppose that we have counted three waves. does 4 have to be larger than both (ii) and (iv) of 1 and (ii) and (iv) of 3 or just the (iv)'s
Delete@Joe, on the topic of price length relating to degree, what is the correct way of obtaining the price length for:
Delete(1) contracting triangle
(2) expanded flat
(3) impulse with truncated w5
For the above example, the starting point to ending point of the wave has shorter price length than what the entire wave has covered.
Thanks a lot.
@Marc - I was 'finally' able to develop an argument as to why the minute ((a)), ((b)), ((c)) count may not be correct at this time. That is because as a smaller degree sub-wave, wave (i) would be 'longer in time' than it's larger degree ((a)) wave. That is not allowed. I will re-post this for all below.
DeleteQuestion for ET..why does ewi ignore degree violations? I don't have protectors book, does it talk about that?
ReplyDelete...prechters book...
DeleteNot directly. But they have some pictures of waves that don't "look right". Still you need to read that book to have a foundation for what is going on here.
DeleteJoe, I'm assuming that you're counting 2941-2347 as a 5:3:5 subdivision, which is why you think it's wave 1 of a LD. However, 2941-2347 can just as easily be counted as a 3:3:3 subdivision, which would be wxy, which could easily just be counted as wave A, followed by wave B back up. (The rally back up could also be another x wave for wxyx.) Finally, the extreme bearish count would be 5 down to 2604 for wave 1, and then a running wave 2 to current levels.
ReplyDeleteIn addition if 2941-2347 could just as well be counted as a 5: 3: 5, or 3: 3: 5 subdivision it could be counted as a single ABC wave. Finally, this last rising wave could be the start of a new summit. Where is my problem ???
DeleteThe basis of the ongoing count here is that primary 5 ended at the Oct 2018 high. This has been shown, by Joe, that there are no degree validations with that count leading up to the Oct 2018 high as the end of the Bull market off the 2009 low (and potentially further in time). We cannot have a new all-time high summit (unless its a large degree B wave) under that scenario.
DeleteThat is my point of view anyway. I will defer to Joe if I have explained this incorrectly
Sorry, mblcta. When you get a count that is perfect in every detail as this one is (including degree labeling) .. then one tends not to change it from a :5 to a :3 as you so often complain to me about.
Deletehttp://studyofcycles.blogspot.com/2018/10/gap-up-gap-fill-lower-low.html (copy and paste as needed).
You, on the other hand have produced "zero", aka "no" wave counts of any value since you have decided to begin writing to me to complain of the state of the wave counts. And I am counting the current wave as a "2" - which makes your last sentence all the more specious.
@Paul Beckham: the first part is the correct. The B wave bit in the second part is incorrect. Let me try to make this simple. If you go to Daneric's second count, you will see it violates degree labeling in that his Minor 5 of (3) would be larger than all of his Intermediate (1). That is, he is making a smaller degree wave larger than a larger degree wave. That is not allowed. So, the most probable case is that the market is heading lower.
DeleteThanks, I do not read Daneric's site but I will go there to better understand your example and thus determine why the B wave higher is less likely / not possible. Thanks
DeleteJoe, my post contained no complaints about your count. I was simply pointing out alternatives. The potential wave 2 that I mentioned is completely different than your wave 2, as yours is part of a LD, and the one I pointed out would be a running 2. As you know, those two types of wave 2s result in completely different future paths.
Delete@mblcta - there can't be a "running 2" here because it's b wave would be a degree violation; As a sub-wave it would be longer than all of 1. That is not allowed - and people keep suggesting the impossible.
DeleteThanks Joe. I failed to notice the degree violation.
DeleteThanks TJ,
ReplyDeleteVery nicely presented.
Can you please post a long term chart with supercycles whenever possible.
I did check even Nate has changed his count reading P5 now.
Any takes
I'm not quite ready to go longer term, yet, manu. But soon.
DeleteThanks.
DeleteI miss your weekend video updates.
Were crystal clear
ET where can i look at your video
DeleteFormidable Overhead Resistance
ReplyDeleteUpper Rising BB ---------- 2697
Trend line from Oct top - 2705
100 MA ----------------------- 2732
200 MA ----------------------- 2741
I was 'finally' able to develop an argument as to why the minute ((a)), ((b)), ((c)) count may not be correct at this time. That is because as a smaller degree sub-wave, wave (i) would be 'longer in time' than it's larger degree ((a)) wave. That is not allowed. I will re-post this for all below. Therefore, it is likely this count is of the impulse up.
ReplyDeleteThanks TJ!
DeleteTJ, I think I can count an expanded diagonal without breaking any rules. From ES 2567-2677. Can this be the ((v)) of the impulse?
Delete@Erik - cash or futures? And what are all of the terminals?
DeleteFutures: 0=2567, 1=2600, 2=2580, 3=2626, 4=2596, 5=2677
DeleteJoe does that mean it would invalidate your second chart count of the contracting diagonale down ???
Delete@Erik; while it is possible to count it that way, the down legs are not 'clear' zigzags. They can be 'fudged' to be if one wants, but there is a simpler way to count with a running second wave. Regardless, an interim top is due relatively soon.
Delete@Dandrew, no it doesn't invalidate the overall count of a diagonal lower - just likely puts us in minute ((a)) of 2, instead of all of 2.
DeleteAgree TJ, especially the 1st downward zigzag
DeleteErik and ET, I've noticed that suspicious looking expanding diagonal as well. Possibly the same formation on YM, NQ and RUT futures. Maybe preceded by a triangle.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteIf it would be a time degree violation between (i) and ((a)) it would also be time degree violation between (i) and ((i))? Which means (i) has to be ((iii))?
DeleteSomething else I've been considering:
ReplyDeletehttps://imgur.com/zBhCIsG
https://imgur.com/MrNZbPW
Your labels are confused. The double zz are labeled as w,x,y, starting by w. You are starting with X ?
DeleteBilly, you can't have a subwave y - which is claimed to be of smaller degree - larger in price points than the larger Minor A or 1. Can not happen.
DeleteOkay, thank you for the clarification. Is it possible to advise what option/s I have for what appears to be an irregular low on the Sydney chart which I have labelled "y"?
ReplyDeleteDISTILLING DOWN THE POSSIBILITIES
ReplyDeleteSometimes EW is more predictive and sometimes it is less predictive. It is my opinion, and the only opinion I will offer, that this is one of the times that EW is less predictive. I will attempt to enumerate the possibilities as I see them in a logical way.
THE FACTS:
It is irrefutable that we have 3 waves down form the Oct 3 top.
The internal counts of the motive waves (the down waves) are unclear. Some want to count them as 5’s and other’s want to count them as 3’s. This point will only be resolved and clarified with the passage of time when the larger degree pattern develops.
We are smack dab in the middle of an extremely wide range between the Oct high and the Dec low which leaves room for a number of possible patterns to develop with no close by invalidation points.
POSSIBILITIES
I view the possibilities as being divided into 2 camps.
The Oct high was “The Top”
The Oct high was not “The Top”
OCT WAS “THE TOP” POSSIBILITIES
We would be operating with a downward count scenario. Due to overlap, an impulse has been eliminated. That leaves only one other possibility.
1. A leading diagonal with wave 1 down complete and wave 2 up in progress.
OCT WAS NOT “THE TOP” POSSIBILITIES
Under this scenario we would be presuming that the Oct top was Primary 3 rather than Primary 5. We would then be evaluating a Primary 4 correction in an upward count.
1. The 3 wave move from the Oct high was a (5-3-5)zigzag representing all of Primary 4.
2. The 3 wave move from the Oct high was a (5-3-5)zigzag representing the first leg of a double zigzag.
3. The 3 wave move from the Oct high was a (3-3-3) Int wave (1) of a Primary 4 triangle.
4. The 3 wave move from the Oct high was a (3-3-3) the first wave of a flat or complex Primary 4
I’m quite sure there are endless ways to pick apart each of the listed possibilities and quite frankly I’m really not interested in hearing them. These are the possibilities as I see them and you of course will do your own evaluations.
Ah, you'd better state what your Primary 1 and Primary 2 are under the condition of the Oct high as Primary 3 so that it's degree labeling can be checked.
DeleteSeems a mis stating of degree error on my part. Primary is meant to be Int and Int is meant to be minor. Will re post with correct degree
DeletePitts tom. If your interested in another alternate, try the 2018 rally as a B wave. Then this sell off from the oct high should end up being 5 waves for the C of big 4. Likely an ending diaganol. Just an idea.
ReplyDeleteA new post has been started for the next day.
ReplyDelete