The Club!

I just thought about the DJ and his 22.090.xx. but did not ask anything. But I'm intrigued. With real inflation!

https://etfdailynews.com/2017/02/26/...s-bull-market/

The story says what it says ... but it's always a probability

is this the answer?

historical Dow to Gold ratio

thanks for the great article

or maybe DOW to GDP ratio

(which automatically adjusts to inflation)

You can only produce out of debt bubble! Isn't it so?

historical debt to GDP USA



historical industrial production USA




OK, why are we celebrating as is there no tomorrow?

Production at 2007 levels, debt to GDP at historical highs..........


oh wait there is a printing press somewhere (whatever it takes).......

Sixer,

is it right that you think Markets should drop somewhere in middle 2018 or end 2018?

just noticed that the charts had no title

I edited the posting

It is right that my actual assumption is that stock market could top at the end of 2018 beginning of 2019.
I assume that the new tax regulation and the cancellation of Dodd/Frank will bring higher stock quotes.

My elliott wave count based on the Delta cycles, shows that the stock market top would be the end of wave B of wave "IV" since 2000 which will be followed by wave C. The reason why there is no interaction of waves LTD-4 and LTD-1 in wave c (blue) are the QE activities of the Fed.

Sixer

that is only in NASDAQ

In SP500 or Dow you have an ABC flat from the 2000 top to the 2009

For me it is high probability, that the 2007 to 2009 move is an impulse in the DOW, the SP500.

The DAX may be best counted as a triangle from the 2000 top to the 2011 low. But here we would now also be in the final stages of the wave 5

Dear Sixer,

now I gave my best to give you the time


Here we go for the SP500


either the black 5 of blue 5 of red 3 is already finished, or we may see a last pop towards the 2500

hope you will enjoy


daily TF


2 daily TF

Quick reminder regarding wave 2 / wave 4 alternation:

from Swannells work:

OK, eyes back on EURUSD

nearly all Eliotticans have switched from bearish to Über-bullish views

Time to play the contrarian:

This is the bearish chart I can come up with

And to make it more bearish: place a major C above the red 5

12h TF

Thanks for your explanations and charts.

You are still closing your eyes to consider the factor "time" in your counts of the indices especially in the Big Picture as nearly all elliotticians. Your count assumes that wave "IV" was finished with the low 2009 after an a-b-c correction since the high of 2009.

Have a look at the Dow cout of EWI since 1930: The last undergrading wave "iv" lasted 13 years - a wave "IV" in a higher level can`t be finished after 9 years already ! We are are still in wave "iv" which i consider as an Irregular Flat.
The reason that the indices went lower in 2009 and are now well above the 2000 high is the immense market manipulation of the Big Money. Especially such money printing never occured during the livetime of Master Elliott.

You can adjust the Elliott Theory with new ideas.

Which outlook do you have if the impulse pattern since 2009 is finished ? A wave "2" (corrective pattern) of wave "V" ?
I expect a wave "C" (impulse) of "IV".

Sixer

Hi Sixer,

good morning :-)

OK, long post. Make sure you have your coffee and cookies :-)



You havn't read the postings carefully, haven't you?

https://www.forexfactory.com/showthr...3#post10158833

With this posting and the two before that one, I showed, why the Elliotticans, especially Prechter, was wrong in 2000.

My main count is the one I linked above.

Wave blue 2 lasted 9 years, wave blue 4 lasted 10 years. Since "only" 62% of wave2 / wave4 show alternation this is within the frame.


What makes you believe the following:

The last undergrading wave "iv" lasted 13 years - a wave "IV" in a higher level can`t be finished after 9 years already

How many charts have you studied? How many waves have you counted to decide that this is not possible?


The one and only source we, the Elliotticans, have, is, some observations from Prechter, Elliott, Frost etc, but the only more scientific approach is that of Swannell, who researched systematically the waves, price wise and time wise.

Glenn Neely was another one with his Neowave. If one has read his book, there was many interesting to discover. But it had so many rules and guidelines, that most abandon that approach

I am wondering, why Prechter does not come up with a similar work than Swannell.

I tell you something: Elliott Wave is only so good as the technical analyst is who uses it.

Face it: it is all not an exact science, there will constantly be a rest of doubt.


People can twist and turn the Elliott Wave Principle as they like. Since the fluctuations in market are fractal, they will all end up with the same shortcomings as the original EW.


People claiming they have a better EW than the original is ridiculous, because: where is the proof, where is the track record?

Prechter has made many outstanding calls, but also crappy ones. So what?
Neely has made outstanding calls, but also very crappy ones. (Neowave)
Ian Copsey has made outstanding calls, but also very crappy ones (Harmonic)

and then there are others, like Wolve Wave and the one, who claims he has found the missing link in EW (can't remember his name) who have never shown real track records.


OK, back to my question to you? How came you up with that expectation?

In Swannells work we can find, that the bulk of all time and price relationships between wave 4 and wave 2 are ranging between roughly 30% and 180% (that is the 20% and 80% percentile). That means 60% of all wave 4 / wave 2 relationships are between 30% and 180%.

And that also means, that wave 4 can be equal in price and time to wave 2, or be even shorter.


One has to be very careful with the guidelines Frost and Prechter gave in the EW principle, because many are based on only few observations.

Anyhow, when I would like to ask an Elliott Wave regarded question, I would ask Prechter before every other. And Prechter was once, as I have told you before, big in the cycle business and tried to combine it with EW, but abandoned that approach after many years completely, stating, that the cycles would mostly not work.

Why should I question him in this regard? Prechter is earning very serious money with EWI, and when they had discovered cycles that would work, they certainly would use it for their work. EWI is the biggest technical analysis company on earth.


OK, once again back to your count:

so you think, that we are in a B-wave flat (up), where the starting point was the 2009 low? (Variant A)

How can that be? For me the 2007 to 2009 is clearly impulsive.

Or do you count the 2009 low to the May 2011 high as the wave A of the flat up? (Variant B)

Or, by looking at the NASDAQ count you gave yesterday, I assume, that you are in Variant A (please note: even here we can count the decline from 2007 top impulsive)



So if the 2003 to 2007 high was wave A, 2007 high to 2009 low B (assuming it was corrective and not impulsive), and we are now up in C:

let us look at the high probability wave ratios for a flat (lower value is the 20% percentile, higher value the 80% percentile):

wave C/A 99-197%
wave C/B 84-173%
wave B/A 82-152%

then wave C would be now around 230% of A (in the SP500)

and

then C would be now around 204% of B (in the SP500)

Now you are already in low probability scenario with regard to the wave relationship, and in very low probability mode with regards to the wave 2007-2009 (which is high probability impulsive and not corrective),

especially when looking at the NASDAQ:

then wave C would be now around 350% of A (NASDAQ) (Swannel found max. 300%

and

then C would be now around 407% of B (NASDAQ) (I would say impossible, because Swannel only got very few examples up to 283%, and that could be counting faults)


You wrote, that Elliott never experienced money printing like today. Since he invented EW in the late 1920's he should be well being aware of hyperinflation and printing presses in the 1920's.

But it is curious: first people accused the Elliotticans in 2000-2007 to not being open minded and advising them to change the count, then when they changed to wave 5 modus in the last years, people come out and accusing them on not being open minded, because the non-Elliotticans suddenly see endless B-waves of a flat (up)

Maybe it is them being part of the herd wishing higher and higher and higher


How can you say I am closing my eyes regarding time?

Yesterday I have worked hard to present you a count, which makes it possible to rally into 2018, maybe 2019 (after a setback, which might set in soon).

And I presented you a count hardly one Elliottican has ever shown (link above), which pushes the doomsday of grand supercycle end maybe 2 decades or more away


Sixer, Sixer, you give me headaches

Thanks for your long explanation. Sorry, that i gave some headache.

My opinion is that Prechter has Zero knowledge how to count Elliott waves and cycles correctly. Thats why he wrote/writes books.

I agree with you that Neely and Swannell did of a lot of extensive research more than copying letters from Elliott.

It is the 1st time that i see an elliott count of the Dow as shown in your post #23212. It makes a lot of sense for me.
Did you cover it as a secret in your safe at home until now ?
What is your price target for wave 5 (blue) / wave 3 (red) ?

It proves that the crash indicator i`m using will give a correct signal for the end of these waves !!

It is correct that we will see a correction shortly but the "setback" you can see in the chart of the frontrunner Dow Jones Transport. The correction
lasted 3 weeks only.

Sixer

From Herd Behavior to GroupThink to Market Bubbles

NYSE Margin Debt Peaks… Now Rolling Over?