Sunday, January 13, 2019

Overlaps

Others have counted the chart below of the New York Composite Index differently. I thought it would be instructive to look at it today.

$NYA - Weekly - Fifth Wave Failure

Some have counted this wave as wave 1, down in February, 2018, and wave 2, up to the October, 2018 high. I believe that wave count to be in error based on where almost all of the other major stock indexes made their highs. As far as I can tell, the October, 2018 high was the fifth failure wave in the $NYA.  It is what Ralph Nelson Elliott would call the "Orthodox high of the move", versus the "Nominal High of the move".

More importantly, look now at where the $NYA has overlapped on the way down.

$NYA - Weekly - Overlap on Minute ((x))

Some think that minute ((x)) was actually the high of Minor 1. If that was the case and they are calling for a "fifth wave up, because this is the fourth wave down", the overlap suggests they are clearly in error. There are other reasons to rule this out - as I have stated before - based on degree labeling. But the above overlap is yet another reason.

OK, that is water under the bridge, but here is another overlap.

$NYA - Daily - Overlap at 2


The daily chart of the $NYA shows two interesting features. The first is that there is clear overlap at wave Minor 2. So, those now labeling this as a fourth wave in this index are likely incorrect. But, this chart also shows something else of note. Namely, there is no overlap in the minute ((a)) wave down, as there is in the S&P500 cash index. Instead, there is a rather clear wave (iv) triangle!

So, in the first instance, there is now a clear case for a diagonal downward. Such a diagonal could either be expanding or contracting! The market is doing its level best to keep the uncertainty in the wave count. 

But, in the second instance if the current three-waves up somehow expand into "five waves up", then the next best count (best alternate) will be Minor 1 down at the October minute ((a)) location, down, and then five waves up for a "running flat" for Minor 2. 

$NYA - Daily - Alternate Running Flat

While I have diagrammed the alternate, above, the reason it is the alternate is that the internals of the minute ((a)) are not really clear, in this case, and they already contain one upward failure. In addition, there is no clear evidence of five-waves-up to minute ((c)) of Minor 2. But there could be. It could be the upward waves just aren't finished yet.

So as always patience, calm and flexibility are needed until the market sorts things out. It should be clear that any downward overlap of 11.40 on this chart before making a fourth and fifth wave higher would help clearly rule out the alternate.

Have a good rest of the weekend.
TraderJoe


93 comments:

  1. Fascinating!
    I know an analyst who rejects the notion of fifth wave truncation, and as a result has concluded NYSE traced out only three waves up. I will have to point out that wave one potential overlap assuming their labeling is similar. Two other very good analysts, and for different reasons also think we gave a final fifth wave ahead. Avi Gilburt and Chris Ciovaccio. Chris argues we have not seen monthly A/D line divergence as seen in every previous market top, and Avi is using different fib targets for a final fifth wave above 3000.00 for SPX. This long-in-the-tooth as well as well as other macro-economic red flags leads me to believe the bull market is done. Having said that, I am not prepared to entirely rule out the possibility of new ATHs. Apart from the technical reasons for keeping an open mind,there is the paramount variable, which in my view, now has far more influence on market price than the "Herd Sentiment" stubbornly insisted on by EW purists, and that variable is CENTRAL BANKS
    In my humble opinion, anyone arguing that this market is being driven by retail investors needs to have their head examined. Market volume has nade that reality abundantly clear. Just my two pennies. Thanks ET!

    ReplyDelete
  2. If Avi is right and we see a new ATH in 2019, then would be awfully similar to the 1998 dip followed by the 1999 rally before topping out. I remember a lot of smart monies in the likes of Julian Robertson called the top ~1 yr too early and got run over. Eventually the bubble burst and everything rolled off as they predicted but surely that 1 year of extra pain wiped out some of the early bears. Or if there is too many folks like me who remembers 1999 scenario, then Mr.Market should crash the market starting just about now.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes. Traders who get that one wrong could find it a costly mistake. Both in terms of lost oppotunity cost for missing the top, as well as being too early with "All-In" bearish trades. It took me awhile to figure out why some folk are so cavalier about their market opinions...they don't trade them! As they say, talk is cheap...

      Delete
  3. Thanks Joe for the awesome post! On the NYA, the 3 should end roughly -33% from lat close? So that’s 1.619 of 1.

    ReplyDelete
  4. https://imgur.com/CYay7Lg
    https://imgur.com/q4zkheZ
    https://imgur.com/VtiGjUh
    https://imgur.com/dkqndtX
    https://imgur.com/TNwIT29
    https://imgur.com/QOxzXF9

    ReplyDelete
  5. The price action this morning continues the ridiculous pattern. Downside price gaps feverishly bought up immediately. Does anyone think this is normal market behaviour, fueled ONLY by supply/demand metrics of the investing and trading "herd"?
    We are seeing many more "combination" patterns in waves recently, which I attribute directly to relentless CB meddling. Of course one can always go back and re-label waves after the fact, but the notion that one can ALWAYS predict price movement based solely on EW theory seems to me not to be supported by the success rate of those who make any such claim. Don't get me wrong, RNE made a fabulous discovery. What the methodology can and cannot do in an era of CB hegemony I think is misrepresented by some folk. Just one man's opinion.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wish there was a 'Like' button for your post, Verne lol

      Delete
    2. Verne, As Bill Clinton would say," I feel your frustration" lol
      Keep in mind EW has never claimed to be predictive. It is backward looking. Any forward extrapolations are yours not EW's. EW is a reflection of mass investor psychology. Given all the uncertainties looming out there (trade wars, Govt shutdown, political vitriol, the breakdown of journalism) added to the complete initial insensitivity of the FED to the message the markets were sending, I think the EW is doing exactly what it should be doing. Meaning that it is reflecting the utter confusion in the markets as to the future.

      Delete
    3. Exactlty PT!
      I have never understood why I sometimes get blasted by some EW practitoners for stating the obvious!
      Some of them consider me an EW heretic! :-))

      Delete
  6. Quitcherbellyachin' traders and look for either a running triangle or a i, ii lower.

    https://invst.ly/9s1og

    TJ

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The ((E)) wave, down, has just overlapped the a wave up, legitimizing a "running triangle"; or the start of a i, ii down. Sorry, but they are valid alternates. The ((E)) wave of a "running triangle" must always overlap it's A wave or it's 3 wave to be corrective to it.

      Delete
    2. For the triangle, the ((C)) wave should not be taken out lower.

      Delete
    3. I am playing it safe and waiting for a VIX CLOSE back above lower B band AND gap higher which we WILL see ahead of a wave down of the degree we are expecting. Between now and then, I frankly don't care a rat's petootie what Mr. Market does...it is ALL smoke and mirrors! :-))

      Delete
    4. I will never ask or 'expect' you to do anything, period! Your decisions are yours and yours alone. I am only trying to show how waves can be counted. Nothing else.

      Delete
    5. Potential triangle update; alternate not needed.

      https://invst.ly/9s233

      TJ

      Delete
    6. Now over top of ((B)) wave, legitimizing triangle.

      Delete
    7. Triangles "usually" precede the last wave in the current direction.

      Delete
    8. A signal to begin counting downward, now occurs below the ((E)) wave of the triangle.

      Delete
    9. Understood ET
      You do not need to tell me that I, and I alone, am responsible for my own trading decisions. That my good man, is ElEMENTARY!!! :-))

      Delete
    10. ET you said Triangles "usually" precede the last wave in the current direction. Do you mean the last last c

      Delete
    11. I mean that 'sometimes' smaller triangles are part of larger triangles. And, when they are, they don't immediately precede the last wave up.

      Delete
  7. "V-Bottom case with no retest eventually led to massive losses"
    Interesting analysis of bullish/bearish different cases of the near past in the video here in Chris Ciovacco site
    https://www.ccmmarketmodel.com/short-takes/2019/1/11/what-does-history-say-about-the-stock-markets-v-shaped-bottom

    We will have to hope for a retest, so.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It could be interesting to differentiate among the Wave patterns that were present at the market V-Bottoms, just to show that what visually seems "almost the same" in reality was a different Wave.

      Delete
  8. FWIW, I doubt we will see a turn during the cash session. Mr. Market will behave in such a way as to mislead the majority of traders, and for a deep downside dive, that implies a bullish spurt just ahead of that event. Again, just one man's humble opinion... :-))

    ReplyDelete
  9. I don't know about the rest of the traders on the site, but I was taught that sideways consolidation entered in a short term up-trend usually presages additional movement UPWARDS out of that sideways consolidation. So while a 1,2 count might well fit a legitimate EW pattern, as a trader I would not consider that for one second based on the pattern I see unfolding. Again, just one simple man's opinion!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Verne,
      I'm not seeing an inconsistency between the two.
      The gap down is the 1 wave.
      The first up thrust is a of 2.
      The sideways consolidation (triangle) is b of 2.
      This is being followed by a final up move out of the triangle for c of 2
      Delete

      Delete
    2. PS. This final up move has overlap so it could turn out as an ED for C of 2, which can be allowed to fail. It sure doesen't look like it has any oomph to it.

      Delete
    3. Generally, I agree. But I expect the upward thrust, based on the duration of the consolidation to negate the 1,2 count. I certainly could be wrong on that score but that is the way I see it at the moment PT...

      Delete
  10. The markets try to do whatever they can to get the most people on the wrong side of the trade. The put call ratio was Heavy over the weekend with Traders betting on the short side. What we're saying is the market try to unwrap that and then hit them when they become more bullish. This is exactly the sentiment that will hit if we don't see a big town day today everybody will start thinking the market is invulnerable or at least very resistant. The Elliott waves that we count our reflection of all of this

    ReplyDelete
  11. This is 'possible' and the turn would come at the apex of the triangle.

    https://invst.ly/9s3f2

    TJ

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You'll notice that wave b as a triangle was necessary to keep wave 4 from making a degree violation. If, say, a 'b' wave ended where ((A)) of the triangle was shown, then wave 4 - a smaller degree wave - would have exceeded it in time: which is a degree violation. Smaller degree waves can not take more time than their larger degree counterparts.

      Delete
  12. Not sure about EW significance, but since the high on the 10:55 bar on a 5 min chart we are traveling in a near perfect channel.

    ReplyDelete
  13. ET do you consider the gap filled

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. NO. Not at all, dandrew. Only the close-to-open gap matters.

      Delete
  14. Joe,
    It looks to me like the c wave diagonal is still in play just with your 1 shifted to where your 3 label is located

    ReplyDelete
  15. The ((E)) wave of the b wave triangle was just exceeded lower, proving out the a-b-c count upward.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Futures have gone below the ((B)) wave of the triangle in the after hours.

      Delete
  16. Absent a clear and decisive break of the lower wedge boundary, imho a short side entry is NOT warranted!
    Have a great evening everyone!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Verne are you a registered investment adviser?

      Delete
    2. Nope! Just sharing my own observations with fellow amateurs. I sure hope that does not offend anyone.
      So far as futures go, I have learned the hard way that they are not always predictive of what develops in the following cash session. Again. just one man's opinion.

      Delete
    3. If you are not a registered investment adviser (and even if you were) it is not legal for you to provide others with buy, sell, hold recommendations. I'm going to be patient with you, and ask you to consider this: you have no ideas what others are doing. For example. Someone might have looked at the 'c' wave up today, shorted it there, and rode it down into the close. Then, that makes your advice just plain 'wrong' for that person.

      The fact is you only see 'your' time frame, and 'your' way of trading. And I'm not criticizing you for that.

      But, while on this site, you simply may not provide buy, sell or hold recommendations at any time on any security. Period. Again, it is not lawful, and you are not providing the person with the required disclaimers, etc. This is an educational wave-counting site 'only'. No buy, sell or hold recommendations are provided.

      If you can not abide by these guidelines, then I will have to spam your comments, close your access here, or I will have to take the whole blog into 'moderated' mode where no-one's comments get published until I review them.

      Have I made myself clear?

      Delete
    4. I know when I am being insulted Mr Joe.
      I have been trading far too long to accept your sanctimonious Bullshit.
      There is not a competent trader on your site that would take my comment as "trading advice" Feel free to spam away. I have made my last post here my friend. See ya!

      Delete
    5. The problem is, Verne, that there could be some incompetent ones - or worse, new ones that don't know any better

      Delete

    6. You are right Walter, and I do apologise for my reaction.
      I just did not want his readers taking a bearish trade on that count.
      It is Joe's forum. I will depart peaceably.

      Delete
    7. Verne. There is no reason to depart. I respect your market wisdom. Please just don't use the words buy, sell, hold, or short, or go long or anything like it ..and we're good. It's perfectly fine to say things like, "there could be another wave up in a wave five without a clear trend line back test," etc.

      Delete
  17. Looks like the common wedge back test today.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Thanks TJ for the intraday analysis. By the way, "Quitcherbellyachin traders" was the funniest thing I've heard all day!

    ReplyDelete
  19. ET i like this site and i ve learned alot from you...don t let one disgrunted and disrespectful person get to you Just Sayin

    ReplyDelete
  20. Joe, I also enjoyed "Quitcherbellyachin traders" and I hope you don't close the Comments. A lot of learning goes on intraday; for example, your posts above. Thank you!

    ReplyDelete
  21. ET I appreciate the way you manage your site TY

    ReplyDelete
  22. It seems like most are bearish here. Is anyone bullish? I am thinking we are wrong in our bearishness. Charts are too strong. Nothing is rolling over with new lows except a select few such as Macy's and some airline stocks.

    ReplyDelete
  23. All comments should have the following disclaimer: I am an absolute fool and that makes you a greater fool if you make trading decisions based on my foolish views.

    ReplyDelete
  24. https://invst.ly/9serc Does anyone have any thoughts on this triangle being a termination pattern up to 2610-2620 for a turn. That is also the three up extension target of a ABC since the December low

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't know if it violates any rules or not, but I really like your triangle here. Looks like a nice thrust out of the e wave ending.

      Delete
  25. Looks like we're back to this kind of pattern. Barrier triangle or ending diagonal.

    https://invst.ly/9sex3

    TJ

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There's a higher high now, possibly for wave (iii) of the diagonal. And, 2,604 futures has finally been upwardly overlapped (just as in $NYA).

      Delete
  26. The good old 4th wave conundrum! :-)

    ReplyDelete
  27. Joe, It broke 2603, so activates your potential count posted Wednesday, January 9, 2019?

    ReplyDelete
  28. Here's a further update.

    https://invst.ly/9sf5b

    TJ

    ReplyDelete
  29. Joe,

    I am really sorry for what seems to be a simple question but I have been following quite some time and really enjoy your posts. I am trying to figure out the significance of the overlap at 2603. It seems to me that 2603 overlaps the (a) wave on your January 9th post. Does the overlap indicate that we are on wave 2 and the count as shown on January 9th is the most probable count meaning that the wave (iv) is invalidated?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. By wave (iv) I mean the the wave (iv) up from the December low that we were trying to count at the beginning of January.

      Delete
  30. it seems to me we are in a zigzag from bottom and working on 5 up still - that may be complete - but i dont think all of 2 can be done

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. joe, these neely charts may help
      https://imgur.com/a/uALDjPl

      Delete
    2. time frames are weekly, 2 days, 1 day, 4 hours. ignore the times above charts

      Delete
  31. Replies
    1. wave 1 2613 - 2607
      wave 2 2610 - 2608
      wave 3 2608 - 2605
      wave 4 2605 - 2607
      wave 5 2607 - 2605
      1 > 3 > 5, 2 > 4, 4 overlaps with 1, timing of 2 and 4 is little dicy.

      Delete
    2. Low of wave 5 should be taken out by 2.15, for it to hold.

      Delete
    3. Not sure if it qualifies as LD as the low of 5 was taken out after one bar.
      Any thoughts ET ?

      Delete
    4. Now at 1.618 of LD from the retrace.

      Delete
  32. It does look like an awful lot of work at assessing different indexes in order to shoehorn something in to the rules. I have seen this approach before with other analysts (using alternate indexes- Daneric in 2015 etc) and the results were not good for those attempts. Perhaps you are on the right track to some degree but I believe with these marginal approaches it means that more is going on that does not fit conventionally in real time concerning EW theory and demonstrates EW failure to compute in a practical manner for trading purposes... just my thoughts on the current situation.

    ReplyDelete
  33. basically the only thing that gets shortened is the length of the waves when you step back and compare EW vs. ET

    ReplyDelete
  34. 0-2 trendline on DJI is broken so IF DJI is doing an impulsen from 26/12 bottom it has to be 1>3>5

    ReplyDelete
  35. Well if today's price action doesn't turn everyone into Bulls nothing well. Which means we're probably just about done with this correction :-)

    ReplyDelete
  36. Replies
    1. 96 bars on hourly - ewo hints at impulse -
      higher highs - higher lows -
      why are we not talking about an impulse?
      am i missing something ?

      Delete
    2. Marc - To be flexible, I think we should keep both a-b-c and an impulse on the table. To your point, the impulse would have wave 1>3>5. I believe Joe already mentioned the impulse as an alternate above.

      Delete
  37. I show the AO peaked in late December on hourly SP500 and has been diverging since. https://invst.ly/9sjm7

    ReplyDelete
  38. yes. pulled back on wave 2 and wave 4. this is not an impulse with extended 3 wave and wave 1 will be longest. no reason to rule it out

    ReplyDelete
  39. An update has been posted for the next day.

    ReplyDelete