About a month ago, this proposal in GOLD was issued. You can find the original post at this LINK. A follow-up to the chart below appears later in the post.
 |
| GOLD Futures - 2 Day - July Proposal |
We suggested that the count might be that of an expanding diagonal lower - as messy as it is. We could see that the minute ((b)) wave could have further to go on the upside, but said that by-the-rules wave ((b)) may not go over the high of wave 4. So far, it hasn't.
Friday's job data brought a significant decline in GOLD, down about -$45 per oz. That makes the daily chart looks like the following.
 |
| GOLD Futures - Daily - Follow Up |
Based on this price action, it currently appears as if this proposal is playing out, even given the flack I received at the time for posting the proposal. Comments were made like, "I cannot understand why you would have a count for gold which cannot
possibly work for silver or miners due to 4/1 overlap. Imho, you are
way underestimating what is happening here." Meanwhile, the GOLD bulls certainly can't say they saw a nearly $50 three-day decline coming.
Yes, there will be backing-and-filling as price descends lower. And wave ((c)) must exceed the length of wave Minor 3, above, in price to indicate a diagonal, and it should also exceed the length of wave 3 in time, as well. Diagonal price action tends to be very, very choppy for long periods of time, and then lets go all of a sudden.
The next step in diagonal confirmation would be trading below the low of the prior minute ((a)) wave.
After several comments were posted, I added this chart which continues the discussion on SuperCycle IV in Gold. At this time, this is the best count I can derive that meets the principles of degree labeling. Please read the chart notes which not only better define the degrees of the labels involved, but the rationale for a triangle (including prior support levels) , but shows the unique role of a triangle in degree labeling.
As I stated when calling for the triangle as Minor 4 in S&P500 in February 2018 - this first down leg Cycle a is too long in price compared to SuperCycle II. The only structure I know of that can correct such an issue with degree is a triangle, and this is because the "net distance traveled in a triangle is always measured to its 'e' wave, regardless of degree." If you have any question as to the rationale for my calling that triangle in the S&P500 Index, you can refer to this post from back in February 12th, 2018 at this LINK.
This is the second post since Friday. If you have not read the first one, yet, you might like to view it now. Have an excellent rest of the weekend.
TraderJoe
We? Really? Condescending? Or did not you not explain yourself well - like with a chart or some data?
ReplyDeleteTJ
..also; nowhere in your first comments did you actually and explicitly say what you said above, "I was not arguing against a diagonal." Why didn't you say that at the time, so someone knows what you are/were 'actually' thinking. Maybe, "if I never understand what (you) are saying", it is because you didn't actually say it! Yes, you went on later to argue in terms of wave multiples. Fine. That is in the future.
ReplyDeleteTJ
No. I never called you a liar. Thanks for apologizing for being unclear at some point. I really 'try' to listen (or look at) what people think. I am a 'visual' person. It helps me to see via a chart. I hope not to be 'condescending'. But I am definitely not a mind reader. I was using your comment as an example of the bullish sentiment around at the time. Nothing personal is meant by it. Try running a blog some. It's very hard to please everyone.
ReplyDeleteTJ
Gold (mthly) A long term perspective (ties in with diagonal).
ReplyDeletehttps://www.mediafire.com/view/7z9u2zhqp6ujtnz/spotM.PNG/file
NH-NLs (wkly) - current
ReplyDeletehttps://www.mediafire.com/view/lh10oamxcqr6ejg/NHNLw.PNG/file
Thx for the update!!
ReplyDeleteWelcome.
DeleteTJ, hope you’r enjoying your weekend. When you say “larger B wave”’, are you referring to the expanded flat from the A wave down on 7/19? If so, target would be below 4224 for an ABCDE correct?
Deletehi chitown .. you as well. No, not referring to that. Just referring to the fact that in the first chart above - the original proposal - I could see that the minute ((b)) wave, circle-b had more room to go, and therefore, did not connect the wave marker to the terminus at that time. It was at 1,810 and it later went up to 1,830 in the second chart.
DeleteTJ
I apologize, I’m referring to the ES
DeleteIn reference to the ES, the 'larger' (b) wave has become a bit less likely because of the complexity of the (b) wave, as w-x-y, already. I'm not saying 'impossible', but if it expanded to w-x-y-x-z, as a triple flat, then z could wind up only marginally below the current y. If w-x-y is a flat, and -x-z is a zigzag, then, yes, flat-x-zigzag could wind up at 4,320(1.618) or 4,280 as 2.618. BUT, again, no downward count starts until wave ii in the ES is taken out lower. We are a long way from that yet.
DeleteTJ
Thanks
Delete@BBR, a third chart was added to this post.
DeleteTJ
Re: "... but since silver and miners cannot be in a super cycle iv due to overlap,". I'm not being dogmatic or condescending here - just analytical & questioning. "Is it possible Silver would make the pattern of 'expanding diagonal' shown compared to Gold in the link below, while Gold made a regular-non-overlapping impulse. Silver is the orange line with the orange markers.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.tradingview.com/x/LapDicPq/
I'm not sure if you have heard of this pattern or not. But, it 'is' documented by Prechter & others. And many of my other readers have heard of it. It is essentially, the upward 'opposite' of the downward pattern shown on the two-daily chart in the proposal.
In case it isn't clear, I 'definitely' listened to your objection. And then I went and did the work. You did not.
TJ
Hi Joe ... I'm a visual person also, so may I ask where you have gold on a SC count? How do you label 2011? Sam from Toronto posted this count six months ago, but his triangle isn't at SC degree. Do you have IV as the triangle? If so, are you somewhere in C of SC IV, with most of C and then D and E remaining? https://imagizer.imageshack.com/v2/xq90/924/8CIk2p.jpg
ReplyDeleteSam's Elliott Wave count off the bottom is 'illegal' specially because you can't have a three-wave wave labeled "a" without a 90% "b" wave down in Aug 2018. His count breaks the 'rules'. He may not think so. He is wrong. Wave IV 'could be' a triangle, after the diagonal downward which might be (A) of the triangle. I posted my 'long term' GOLD count on here at this post.
Deletehttps://studyofcycles.blogspot.com/2020/08/one-fifth-report-on-gold.html
TJ
Thanks TJ ... Sam sometimes follow Neely and I don't. (Not that this absolves him on that detail.)
DeleteAs for your LT count from 2020, its calling for IV to be a (potential) flat. But in today's post, your first chart includes an inset "A Plausible Count for a Super Cycle Triangle" ... hence my more specific question off the top (C of IV with D and E ahead?). Basically, flat or triangle IV ... or zig zag even, as I had it back in 2014-15. I assume the answer is "yes". { :-) } But then I look to alternation, and ask where is the relevant SC II? I can make the case for 1952-1970. (Brief spike during Korean conflict). Long and shallow, hence GSC IV favors the zig zag. But so far, C of IV isn't behaving that way. I have GSC III as 1970 to 2011, with 2000-2011 as the 5 of III. Others disagree. Some use truncation around 1980, etc. I don't believe these questions are merely 'academic' exercises as they imply what is ahead for the financial system. The triangle suggests they hold it together. A zig zag with a low beneath $1000 would be more ominous.
Response to 123abc ... thanks for that. That is/was my count from 2014-15 ... so the zig zag targets the prior 4th. ET's triangle IV -- as I read his meaning -- would mean $1045 was the low at A of IV. The zig zag for IV would take that out.
DeleteAnother to 123abc, and to TJ if interested ... here is my VLT count from 2015 or so. Basically, I don't start my count with 1970.
Deletehttp://goldtadise.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/PvL_EW2015j_Gold.png
@pedro .. your count breaks all kinds of degree definitions. For example, if your supposed wave I is the 'larger' degree wave, then your supposed wave 1 of III - which is claimed by you to be a 'smaller' degree wave (since 1 is a smaller symbol than I) is actually larger in price. And that violates the very meaning of the term degree. Another example: your claimed 'smaller degree wave 4' is actually larger in price than your claimed wave II which you are claiming is of larger degree: because 4 is a smaller symbol than II. Do you get it? The wave count shown is what I call an Elliott Wave 'cartoon' - just numbers and letters placed on a chart without regard to the meaning of the term 'degree'. I don't mean any disrespect but I can not be repeating this issue continually. What you are showing does not fit the definitions of wave degree - at all.
DeleteTJ
Yeah, that chart was from 2014-15, well before I began reading your blog.
DeleteWhere does TIME factor into degree labeling? Or doesn't it?
Delete@pedro .. yes, it does. But it is too long to explain here.
DeleteTJ
And yeah, I'm not at all crazy about his "triangle C wave". Is it valid to have a symmetrical triangle as the ending diagonal like that even? Anyhow, its your take on IV that interests me, not dissecting Sam's. Thanks for your time and lessons!
ReplyDeleteNo, Sam's triangle is not valid by the rules. A different triangle is valid and I have added the chart to the main post. Please see above.
DeleteIWM (wkly) - Trendline insights -
ReplyDeletehttps://www.mediafire.com/view/6u990bu7egscdyx/IWM.PNG/file
A new chart was added to the main post after the ensuing discussion and comments. Degree labeling forces me to come to one conclusion, and it is shown in the third chart in this post.
ReplyDeleteTJ
A different view of the effects of weighting [if interested] -
ReplyDeletehttps://www.mediafire.com/view/rd8m1ywy8lkiryv/weighted-unweighted.PNG/file
I have no idea what the long term count is in gold, but the 5 wave down June reversal of the April-May rally reinforced the direction of the trend, so it's not surprising that Wednesday's recovery high from the June low was strongly rejected at the 50% retracement level. Also, the wave formation from the August 2020 high to Friday's close is identical to the wave formation that occurred after the September 2011 high. In other words, the initial decline stopped at the 20 month SMA and bounced hard and then came right back down to the 20 month SMA. Friday's close is already below that monthly MA, but because it's a mnthly chart, the bar doesn't become official until the end of the month, which is still a long way away. Nevertheless, I think the next destination is the 50 month SMA.
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of 50% retracements, folks should take a look at the bond market. Both TNX and TYX were strongly rejected at the 50% level of the August 2020-MArch 2021 rally. IMO, those rates re done going down and are headed for new highs.
You may be right. But TNX has support down at .95 - 1.0
DeleteThe 50% retracement level coincided with the 20 month SMA in both TNX and TYX, so I think the countertrend decline in yields is done.
Deletembicta, I agree. I'd posted before February is the longest bar, we need to find support there. So far we are near the 20 month avg below the alligator's balance line. I think a slow upward movement is expected however a break out move will take some time.
DeleteEvery now and then fundamental realities can powerfully inform ultimate outcomes, notwithstanding current narrative. or even short term technical analysis. Shrinking top and bottom line corporate revenues (vaxx creators excepted in the short term) and balooning, unsustainable global debt, both corporate and government, imho means a deflationary depression i ultimately unavoidable, with consequent implications for rates in the long term.
ReplyDeleteUUP/CRB (wkly) - early signs -
ReplyDeletehttps://www.mediafire.com/view/gd2d3gyklofb1qh/UUPCRB.PNG/file
HYG/TLT (mthly) - worth keeping an eye on -
ReplyDeletehttps://www.mediafire.com/view/wrtzrpfq7wcil2x/HYGTLTm.PNG/file
..just fyi - GOLD is getting slammed tonight down about -$55-to-$60.
ReplyDeleteThere is a new post started for the next day.
ReplyDeleteTJ
hello Joe, could you please update the gold chart
ReplyDeleteShouldn't SC IV take at least 100% of the time of SC II?
ReplyDelete