|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
<x-html><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML>
<B>WARNING :Please treat all post as Educational. If you decide to use
the info please do so at your own risk and peril.</B>
<BR>Mentorspeak extracts"
<P>We have now to make some minor adjustments in our count of the Dow.
The
<BR>overall analysis remains unchanged. The IVth is still not complete.
<BR>After the completion of the IIIrd at 7400, the movement from 7400 to
<BR>8182 was the a-wave of the IVth. 8182 to 7467 was the b-wave
of the IVth
<BR>and we are currently in the c-wave of the IVth. This is what
it appears
<BR>to me. As I explained earlier, the 61.8% retracement level of
the IIIrd
<BR>wave is 8186 and any marginal movement above this level (say 30,40
or
<BR>50 points) will virtually guarantee the failure of the Vth wave, i.e.
<BR>the Vth wave will not break the 7400 level.
<P>Maybe this is a good time to talk about DEGREES. This is a slightly
<BR>difficult concept for a beginner in the study of wave analysis but
<BR>nevertheless is very important. The Wave Principle is undoubtedly
<BR>dynamic but changing a count when you are more or less on the right
<BR>track involves shifting the count by usually only 0ne(1) Degree.
Let me
<BR>explain. In our current scenario - downwards from 9367 - waves
I, II,
<BR>III, IV and V are of the same degree. Let us call this degree
(x).
<BR>We were previously taking the wave from 8182 to 7530 as the 1st wave
of
<BR>the Vth wave. Now the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th waves of the
Vth are
<BR>of one lower degree, i.e. (x) - 1. We were then taking the movement
<BR>from 7530 to 7880 as the a-wave of the 2nd of the Vth, from 7880 to
<BR>7467 as the b-wave and the upward movement from 7467 as the c-wave.
<BR>Now the a,b and c waves of the 2nd of the Vth are of one more lesser
<BR>degree, i.e. (x) - 2. So to recap we were counting a wave of
2 lesser
<BR>degrees than the Ist, IInd, IIIrd, IVth and Vth waves. We are
now making
<BR>a correction in our count. This correction should reduce the
degree we
<BR>are counting to (x) - 1. I have now taken the current movement
upwards
<BR>from 7467 as the c-wave of the IVth. As I just explained the
Ist, IInd,
<BR>IIIrd, IVth and Vth are of (x) degree. So the a,b and c waves
of the
<BR>IVth are (x) - 1. If all this confuses you - just forget it.
I don't
<BR>think I'm conveying what I want to say very well.
<P>Anyway, the IVth wave will in all probability finish in the vicinity
of
<BR>8186. The b-wave of the IVth wave (8182 to 7467) was 91% of the
a-wave
<BR>(7400 to 8182). Even if the c-wave fails, i.e. does not cross
the
<BR>8182 level, the pattern does not have any dramatic implications.
The
<BR>pattern is known as a double failure and is basically a neutral
<BR>corrective pattern.
<P>My trading strategy would be to start going short at every rise above
<BR>the 8180 level. Book your losses if the market crosses the 8300
level.
<BR>If in profit - ride it all the way to 7450.
<P> </HTML>
</x-html>From ???@??? Tue Oct 13 12:04:14 1998
Received: from 204.246.137.2 (204.246.137.2)
by mail02.rapidsite.net (RS ver 0.3) with SMTP id 20153
for <neal@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 15:02:43 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from majordom@xxxxxxxxx)
by listserv.equis.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id BAA26632
for metastock-outgoing; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 01:57:43 -0600
X-Authentication-Warning: listserv.equis.com: majordom set sender to owner-metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx using -f
Received: from freeze.metastock.com (freeze.metastock.com [204.246.137.5])
by listserv.equis.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id BAA26629
for <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 01:57:40 -0600
Received: from diabolic.geo.ukans.edu. (diabolic.geo.ukans.edu [129.237.236.132])
by freeze.metastock.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA04535
for <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 12:02:56 -0600 (MDT)
Received: from falcon.cc.ukans.edu (port04.mclouth.idir.net) by diabolic.geo.ukans.edu. (5.x/SMI-SVR4)
id AA15139; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 12:54:37 -0500
Message-Id: <3623933A.C900916@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 12:51:55 -0500
From: Bob Wiseman <bwiseman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I)
Mime-Version: 1.0
To: metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: These funds are no fun
References: <362348E6.E8F76DBB@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
X-Loop-Detect: 1
Bill:
Made the same move about a year ago. Fidelity sector fund comissions were
killng me since I trade very short term. Then discovered ProFunds with
twice the Ursa "bang-for-the-buck." Also, more move on ProFund's
UltraBull than on Nova. So for the same analysis/trading work you get
more money in ProFund. You might want to check it out.
Also, agree with you on the lack of exciting sectors in Rydex. Don't know
if it is true for fidelity.
For what its worth, my models show as good a return on Rydex electronics
as on Nova. Wish we had longer track records on the Rydex sectors. Do
they correlate with the old fidelity sectors?
Good trading,
Bob Wiseman
Bill Saxon wrote:
> I felt I could simplify my life by transferring all my sector money
> from Fidelity to Rydex. There are fewer sectors to follow and I can
> get my money out without penalty. In back testing, with what I look
> at, the return is about the same. I don't even look at Selects
> anymore.
>
> I can not find one single Rydex Sector Fund that I would want to own.
> The only one that comes close is Energy. In the past, using surrogate
> groups to mimic the actual fund, if at least 60% (excluding Energy,
> Energy Service and Gold, who march to their own drummers) are not
> positive it bodes badly for the Market.
>
> I consider myself an intermediate term investor. I am comfortable (I
> think) in Ursa and cash until around the 19th when several cycle
> bottoms are due (quote McClellan). I'll take a hard look then.
>
> What do you folks think?
|