Here's a short Elliott Wave video, by a person who also disagreed with Prechter at the tail end of last year, too.
Are there only two of us? Regardless, The Principle of Equivalence says that a trend change hasn't occurred until new highs are no longer made. And Ira's work suggests there is no trend change until there is a lower low and lower high under the 18-day SMA. As of this writing, there was a new higher high at 23:00 in the overnight futures session. Further, there is progress on China tariffs & there are earnings for AMZN and AAPL after the close tonight.
One thing I will add is the equity-only put-call ratio for yesterday ($CPCE on stockcharts.com) was 0.44 which is back well into the Zone of Speculation and lower than the Sep-Oct lows, but not lower than the May lows.
So, patience, calm and flexibility remain the order of the day, and local technical indications will have to provide short-term guidance.
Have an excellent rest of the day.
TJ
TJ, I'm just wondering if you'd attempt to count (B) as an impulse. Just for fun. I've tried and I can't seem to make anything legal out of it.
ReplyDeleteMeant (b)
DeleteSure, The Principle of Equivalence requires that one considers what could be the opposing structure to the (b) wave, and that would likely be an impulse. As best I can tell, it would start with that very ugly, but legal, diagonal 1st wave. And it would likely mean that the third wave is not complete yet.
Deletehttps://www.tradingview.com/x/ahf0NVgX/
There is 'some evidence' for this count. It can't be dismissed out of hand. But, in perspective of the larger count the wave would be located in the wrong position unless the Minor B wave ended with the spike down on 10 Oct.
Then, this would be the C wave up. But 'that' is contra-indicated by the fact that the NYSE A/D line just recently made another all-time high.
Hope this helps.
TJ
Absolutely helps, thank you. What I was missing was that diagonal 1st wave.
DeleteWhile I fully understand the concept of "equivalence" as regards abc vs 123 EW counts, ultimately we all agree that any count is an exercise in PROBABILITY. I think a great thought experiment would be to ask whether there are other metrics that could militate against simply assigning 50% probability to abc vs 123 EW counts. Would love to hear forum thoughts. 😊
ReplyDeleteI will offer only a starting point hint for the discussion. It is 'not' The Principle of Equality. It is The Principle of Equivalence. TJ.
Delete..and see comment above @ 11:42a. TJ.
DeleteInteresting view. Some dictionaries disagree, but I do get that a technical definition distinction may obtain. ” the condition of being equal or equivalent in value, worth, function, etc" Oxford's take. 😊
Delete