This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
S&P Update
Submitted by Nic Lenoir of ICAP
Following Last night's after-hour break, we have reached and slightly bypassed our topside target of 1,063 on the future. The market seems to be consolidating here. There is on a 5 minute chart a H&S in formation but one would need a break of 1,062.25 to trigger it. However looking at the 5 minute RSI we have consolidated quite a bit, so we would observe this past level as a support in the very term and only recommend selling on a break.
If we do not break and extend, the Elliott wave 5 target of the move extension initiated yesterday morning is 1,075 on the nose, and the target for the move on 10/02 at the lows is 1,073. Given the previous highs are at 1,075.5, barring a break of 1,062 in the next few hours of trading it seems we are due for a retest.
Good luck trading,
Nic
»
- 5755 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
A fella I worked with had a gizmo to tell him which lottery numbers to pick. If this idiot wave worked, everybody would use it and hence nobody could get any arbitrage so nobody would use it.
sheesh
Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean that it doesn't work. What do you do, read financials?
Tech analysis is worthless when the printing presses are on.
fun to see prior employment numbers revised to the worse side as usual.
Keep smoking hopium and drinking the juice.
More doublespeak too:
"The fourth drop in new claims in five weeks is a sign the labor market is slowly healing. But employers are reluctant to hire new workers and the unemployment rate is expected to keep climbing well into next year."
New Claims are dropping because we have few jobs left to lose. Plus, the corporate version of "trimming the fat" has pretty much run its course. After this, they will have to either increase sales, improve efficiency (if still possible) or head for the end of the runway.
This really is so much crap---You can FEEL the sentiment wants to take the market higher and thats what governs, not some stupid hope and a prayer chart pattern. EW guys are getting their head handed to them because they first believe the market SHOULD go down and then second use TA to try and support it that contention. Clearly, if you look at the charts just cursory, the trend is up not withstanding 'waves'.
Uh wrong. Elliott wave predicts right now that the bears are fucked. The downturn last week was possibly a wave 3 but the fact that we rebounded hard off 1025 means that our new target is 1100-1200.
I like you Nic you're a brave man.
Thank you for posting your view of the market.
can we get down to 500 so we can get to 10,000 S&P already?
I agree with Nic. US indices look a lot like the Shanghai index from July 28 to August 4th, the top for that market.
wave counts are wrong
Wave counts are not wrong----they will just be changed. Elliott Wave is amazing in hindsight, just relabel and everything is fine. Using it to trade or to forecast markets, however, is insanity----you are better off just flipping a coin.
to be fair, wave counts used to work, trust me they worked perfectly until march this year. They simply lag behind when we have a demento corrective market; I never use them anymore until I see confirme impulsive moves down. But they do present good threshold limits for different possibilities out there.
Even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while.
you dont know that for a certainty...cant just throw around proverbs that are untested. I could easily say that a skunk that smells like flowers will get eaten alive by bees but that doesnt make it true or applicable to the stock market.
In conclusion, we're all blind squirrels.
the author's wave counts are incorrect. EW works.
fundamentals ARE improving
YES THEY (oops had caps lock on, sorry) are but...higher stock prices are keeping p/es' in stupid land.
Yes, that's right pick the p/e formulation that you want to justify your case...I pick toooooooo high...is this ever gonna end?
tj3
The only problem with wave counts is nobody knows which is a major or minor wave. It's so easy to spot them looking back.
Next?
Livin' La Vida Loca.
Right at the 88 week MA.
I believe 89 is more accurate (29.53 x 3 and rounding to 89), so I use 89 day MAs.
Jupiter turns direct on October 13 at 17 degrees Aquarius...
Good work scary, seems like you got it. You know about the Wesley Scar right? http://jupiter.samba.org/
so, i reckon from here it can either go up, or maybe down ,
You forgot sideways...
It depends on whether you view the current xyz wave as a correction of the B wave inside the 3rd wave of the larger 5 wave or as a continuation of the c wave of the 123 correction.
Vibrating strings, man. It's all vibrating strings.
Or maybe up, then down, or not so down and then more down, like a wave. And then up, but it depends on if there's a reflected wave or not, which causes all kinds of shit.
As usual I suspect it is "all of the above."
SPX 88 week MA at 1066. Make or break here. New Bull Market and 1120, 1200 year end, or a failure and we go back to 900-950 zone and test the 200 DMA.
Elliot waves?
You must be kidding?
Forecasting the market using methods buildt on the rhythmical nature of human behavior sure makes sense given how the the trade volume is totaly dominated by computer algorithms.
So while you are at it,
do you have any tea leaves or tarot card readings i can base my trading on?
Elliott waves are funneh.
To give you another market visual what we are looking at is an MC Escher staircase in "Relativity"
Marketeers are climbing circular stairs to nowhere. Wouldnt we all be better off if everyone just went fishing for a month?
http://www.nga.gov/fcgi-bin/timage_f?object=54256&image=13392&c=ggescher
Prechter speaks with such conviction...it's hard not to go along. A good buddy of mine followed him early 2003 - built a bomb shelter - and stayed there until the all clear - late 2007. He then went long. Ok, so prechter was a little early. He may have his due coming, though.
To give you another market visual what we are looking at is an MC Escher staircase in "Relativity"
Marketeers are climbing circular stairs to nowhere. Wouldnt we all be better off if everyone just went fishing for a month?
http://www.nga.gov/fcgi-bin/timage_f?object=54256&image=13392&c=ggescher
ew seems to work much better in bear markets (just my opinion) i think its because when markets are liquid, the market tends to buy support and sell resistance whereas when things are chaotic the wave theory tells you to sell breaks etc..
Looks like they are doing everything they can to keep the USD above 76.00. In after hours I think it got down to 75.44 (the red phone started to ring at BB's).
Using a weekly TLB has a reversal at 1068.30 which will undo the reversal from last weeks lower close. Also the halfway point between the 38.2% and 50% retrace of the S&P is 1067.79. That's the closing price needed to push higher to the 50% at 1121.
Meanwhile, Benny's Shift+F12 keystroke for the USD ramp-up intraday seems to have failed. Gold and Silver didn't buy the headfake too much, though oil did more so at the moment.
looks like gold = market for a while
until they change it, or sucker everyone in first befor the whipsaw
Another push on the dollar should take out the 88 and 89 week averages on the SPX. Not to forget crude!
As you will see, Oil support held at the 89 MA on the 8 hour chart 3 time frames ago. Fibonacci works well with synodic cycles.
Looks like they're running out of paper gold to sell and defend the USD at 76.
It just ain't happenin' Ben.
The reasons for higher prices include fundamentals, positive sentiment, easy money, the need to finish the year higher, the up trend, the need to prove to the media/people socialism works and to pass the bills in Congress (the changes are working). When it becomes more difficult to issue $120 billion of new Treasuries every two weeks, equities will be topping.
Anyone notice the footrace between the spx and gold? The SPX/GOLD ratio has support at one. My thesis is that the more one starts winning, probably stocks, the more the other will start to lag behind.
Hmm... I think it's time we bring in Mulder and Scully. They'll solve this.
For the quacking ducks in the gallery who don't understand technical analysis, it is an art not a science - therefore it's interpretation will vary and it's wide use will not yield the same result from every "artist." Thanks for the call Nic.
I'm very frustated with these strong markets, they just don't make any sense.
So if everybody could join hands and repeat after me please :
The markets are plummeting, the markets are plummeting, the markets are plummeting
It would be highly Appreciated. Thank you
The elliot wavers did a fine job in summer 2008. It's a long cycle-you don't daytrade off of this info. This is fundamentalist trading-not momo trading. At some point they are correct(and not everyone is. Not a lot of people were calling for a total meltdown in 2008.)
Use the information for what it is: Longterm intermediate cycles. You know where it's going eventually, even if the stimulus can coke up the markets 2 months longer than expected. Look for post-Halloween and bad retail numbers to show who is boss in the q4 earnings dept. Then reality sets in that a gunned stock market doesn't mean money in consumer hands. Look, the confidence numbers keep disappointing, the Baltic Dry rate is toast, people are running out of money. IT WILL SUCK and the market makers will get nuked at the right time.
Nic - I'd leave off the EWT next time. IMO, it is a great tool to use to describe the exact position and direction of the market and that is about it. If you use classic TA first and then describe the moves with EWT labels it works a lot better. Just MHO. Love your work and thanks for sharing.
"If
Notice immediately that the conditional clause structure [if...] lacks the complementary “then.”
we
avoid using personal voice in formal writing.
do not break and extend,
The main verbs the matrix clause break and [sic] extend lack a direct object
the Elliott wave
when referring to proper complex nouns both particulars must be capitalised.
5 target of the move extension
objective genitive ‘[move extension] requires hyphenation
initiated yesterday morning is 1,075 on the nose,
in ref. to [on the nose]: avoid colloquialisms.
and the target for the move
word choice: unclear language
on 10/02
never write dates as such; rather, 2 October is preferred.
at the lows
[lows] is impossible. change to [low]
is 1,073. Given the previous highs
again, [highs] is meaningless. change to [high]
are
if something is [previous] then the correct verb tense ought to be past, specifically the perfect. thus change [are] to [were]; but whereas the above dependent clause retains a singular subject, the verb ultimately should be [was].
at 1,075.5, barring
The english language does not allow for multiple ablative absolutes; that is [given. . .1,075.5] must refer to another dependent clause that begins with a relative noun.
a break of
a break from what? lunch? be specific.
1,062 in
certainly you mean within, and not [in]?
the next few hours of trading
insert comma
it
what does this [it] refer to? avoid dummy pronouns in general.
seems we are due for a retest.
[retest] what? BE SPECIFIC.
"
"If
Notice immediately that the conditional clause structure [if...] lacks the complementary “then.”
we
avoid using personal voice in formal writing.
do not break and extend,
The main verbs the matrix clause break and [sic] extend lack a direct object
the Elliott wave
when referring to proper complex nouns both particulars must be capitalised.
5 target of the move extension
objective genitive ‘[move extension] requires hyphenation
initiated yesterday morning is 1,075 on the nose,
in ref. to [on the nose]: avoid colloquialisms.
and the target for the move
word choice: unclear language
on 10/02
never write dates as such; rather, 2 October is preferred.
at the lows
[lows] is impossible. change to [low]
is 1,073. Given the previous highs
again, [highs] is meaningless. change to [high]
are
if something is [previous] then the correct verb tense ought to be past, specifically the perfect. thus change [are] to [were]; but whereas the above dependent clause retains a singular subject, the verb ultimately should be [was].
at 1,075.5, barring
The english language does not allow for multiple ablative absolutes; that is [given. . .1,075.5] must refer to another dependent clause that begins with a relative noun.
a break of
a break from what? lunch? be specific.
1,062 in
certainly you mean within, and not [in]?
the next few hours of trading
insert comma
it
what does this [it] refer to? avoid dummy pronouns in general.
seems we are due for a retest.
[retest] what? BE SPECIFIC.
"