Custom Search

Friday, July 2, 2010

Weekend Charts and Stuff

The bullish percent chart on Stockcharts is a nice stand-alone chart representing sentiment measures.   Though this is not a survey it works just as well as this reflects the percentage of stocks configured in a "bullish" manner using Point and Figure charts. Its real money in action and not talk. If a chart is configured bullish, it will be reflected cumulatively in this chart representing the S&P 500 stock index. There are other BP-type charts for most every index but since most EW technicians settle on the S&P as the standard, I've largely only used this.

So what good is it? Well certainly its good for determining extremes.  As in any chart, comparing previous peak and low points is a useful endeavor.  But it really becomes useful when you comparing similar wave structures.

The advantage of having a 5 primary wave count in a cycle wave c is that both Primary wave [1] and Primary  wave [3] should have 5 Intermediate sub waves each. This is a tremendous advantage as since we propose Primary wave [1] has completed in March 2009, we have a solid "roadmap" on how not only the Intermediate subwaves traced but the also the Minor and Minute subwaves traced on the BPSPX chart.

I think your getting the idea. Look at what P[1] did, and extrapolate that information in coming up with reasonable targets for waves in P[3]. The problem is that P[3] in theory will be a much longer, stronger wave than P[1] so we cannot simply do a direct comparison. We have to try and use wave theory guidelines to help us in our comparison analogies at each point in the structure.

The first comparisons have already been made with Minor 1 and 2 waves.  Since the first Minor 1 wave was coming off a major top, a direct comparison with Minor 1 of (1) down in 2007 of the b cycle wave high was a valid comparison to the Minor 1 down coming off a Primary wave [2] high in 2010.  And you see the results.  Minor 1 bottomed in 2010 pretty much near the level of Minor 1 in 2007.  Minor 2 of (1) in 2010 topped at exactly the BPSPX level that Minor 2 of (1) topped in 2007. So that proved useful.

But here is where we must change things up a bit because both Minute [i] of 3 and Minor 3 itself of Intermediate (1) in P[3] should, in theory, be a bigger animal than [i] of 3 of (1) of P[1]. Minor 3 of (1) in P[1] was not a barnstorming down wave. We expect Minor 3 in 2010 to be a barnstorming wave.  Indeed Minor 3 in 2010 should be close to an outright crash wave comparable to 2008's Minor 3 of Intermediate (3)

Hence, the best comparison to be made now is not the Minor 3 of (1) in P[1], but perhaps Minor 3 of Intermediate (3) of P[1]. You see what I am getting at?

In short Intermediate (1) of P[3] should best be described as a hybrid crash wave that has many elements of the entire P[1] wave packed into just one Intermediate-sized wave (1) of Primary [3].

Why would I say this? Well, the guideline that I am using (and you may not see this in a book) is that the first subwave of a wave three of any degree, should ideally, advance prices more than the previous wave one of next higher degree. Think about that for a second. Now what does this mean?

This means that Intermediate wave (1) of P[3] should in theory have a price low of under 666 SPX or close to it. Now obviously there is no hard rule on this. But for instance we wouldn't think that (1) of P[3] would end in a "high" price of say 880 would we?  Would that make sense if P[3] is supposed to do major damage to the markets?

[Incidentally if things go horribly different than we expect, we could start to rule out that this is a P[3] wave perhaps - but nothing yet has happened that suggested anything other than P3 - in fact the decline so far has reinforced the notion of P[3]!]

So that implies that Intermediate (1) of P[3] is expected to reasonably take a lot of points off the SPX. From 1219 to near 666 in one Intermediate sized wave implies a crash wave near the size of the 2008 crash wave from Septmeber 2008 of that year to its 2009 March low. And since we assume this is already Minor 3 of (1) of P[3], then Minor 3 has its work cut out for it!

Getting back to our SPX chart, we then can reasonably start comparing from here on out our BPSPX "target" price levels to that of Intermediate wave (3) of P[1] since that was the crash wave of 2008 that did the most price damage.

So are you seeing how splicing in elements of the 2007-2009 decline on this chart is projected to the current chart's targets and why? Making sense? I am no longer doing a direct comparison of just (1) of [1] in this chart, I am taking elements of (3) of [1] of this chart to make a target mapping of (1) of [3].

Anyways, its a good way to keep track of the waves. If things go wildly in an unexpected direction, this will help clue us in. So far though everything is well on track in my projections for the playing out of Intermediate (1) of Primary wave [3].

Ultimately Minor 3 of (1) of P[3] should have a pretty darn good "oh shit" moment coming, or the "third of a third". This precise point will be iii of (iii) of [iii] of 3 of (1) of [3] and it should in theory be one of the top 10 panic points in the bear market to date from 2000.
blog comments powered by Disqus