|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
<x-html><HTML>
<BODY BGCOLOR="#FFFFFF">
What do you think of the following elliott wave analysis by David Plonk:
<P>"'66-'82 was a wave 4 supercycle correction
<P> 8/82-8/87- Cycle Wave 1 of Supercycle 5
<BR> 8/87-5/88- Cycle Wave 2
<BR> 5/88-10/89- Primary Wave 1 of Cycle Wave 3
<BR> 10/89-10/90-Primary Wave 2
<BR> 10/90-1/92- Primary Wave 3
<BR> 1/92-10/92-Primary wave 4
<BR> 10/92-1/94-Primary wave 5 [END OF CYCLE Wave
3]
<BR> 1/94-12/94-Cycle Wave 4
<BR> 12/94-5/96-Primary wave 1 of Cycle 5
<BR> 5/96-7/96- Primary wave 2
<BR> 7/96-1/97- Intmdt. 1 of Primary wave 3
<BR> 1/97-4/97- Intmdt. 2
<BR> 4/97-8/97- Intmdt. 3
<BR> 8/97-11/97-Intmdt. 4
<BR> 11/97-7/20/98-Intmdt. 5 [END OF Primary 3]
<BR> 7/20/98-present- Primary 4
<P> So when this primary 4 corrective ends, we'll
have the grand finale up in a primary 5
<BR> starburst that will complete the 5th Cycle
wave. Primary 1 of Cycle 5 was roughly 270
<BR> SPX points, so we could see something similar
in the primary 5 rally (although it
<BR> wouldn't be much larger than the month long
rally we've just experienced, now would it?
<BR> <g> This read solves the problems you had
spotted in the prior long term count i
<BR> submitted to the thread, that being I had
the period from 7/96 to 1/97 labeled as
<BR> Primary 3 of Cycle 5, which would mean it
was shorter than both 1 & 5, a real no-no.
<P> Unless you or someone else can find a flaw
which has slipped by me, I will assume it is
<BR> correct, and thus expect this Primary Wave
4 Correction we're in to complete before
<BR> the end of December. I now have "A" of this
primary 4 correction running from
<BR> 7/20-9/10, and "B" running from 9/10-present,
with a of B from 9/10-9/28, b of B from
<BR> 9/28-10/9, and c of B from 10/9-present. Within
this c of B, I have us in wave 4 of 5.
<BR> wave 4 of 5 should complete tomorrow (with
more downward action, then we have a 5
<BR> of 5 rally into the latter part of the week
that could take us to the 1145-1155 area SPX
<BR> (9000-9100 Dow).
<P> After the completion of this rally, which will
complete wave B of Primary 4, we will
<BR> begin wave C of Primary 4, which can inflict
alot of damage or not, depending on the
<BR> fed, earnings warnings, worldwide equity markets,
etc. A move back down to the
<BR> October lows would seem well within reach.
<P> This selloff should be followed by Primary
5 of Cycle Wave 5, a several month and very
<BR> steep rally that could take the market back
to the all time highs by the end of the first
<BR> quarter next year. It should measure 2000+
Dow points if it equals its primary 1
<BR> counterpart. But a 5th wave failure/truncation
should be watched for considering the
<BR> state of our world. Once this 5th wave rally
completes, then we're ready for the '29
<BR> style crash, and then some!!"
<P>Jan
<BR>
<P>A.J. Maas wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE> <STYLE></STYLE>
Replying to your excellent
findings that there are/were indeed massive liquidity flows. What
you forget to find however is1. - where these flows are <FONT SIZE=+0>coming
from, eg who are its "owners"</FONT><FONT SIZE=+0>2. - how financialy solid
constructed they are, eg creditability of these owners</FONT><FONT SIZE=+0>3.
- what will happen with and to these massive flows AND to its owners when
markets reverses, eg turns against its owners</FONT><FONT SIZE=+0>4. -
that up till mid 1997 the Dow theory had been right 21 out of 24 times
over a period of 90 years</FONT><FONT SIZE=+0>5. - that up till Sep1998
it to be right 24 out of 27 times</FONT><FONT SIZE=+0>6. - that these Dow
techniques are 100 years old first published in 1899</FONT><FONT SIZE=+0>7.
- that these other used TA techniques have proven themselves to be right,
over and over again</FONT><FONT SIZE=+0>8. - that applying these techniques
combined will work like an insurance and can prevent any damages</FONT><FONT SIZE=+0>9.
- that the air pumped into the markets one day will lead to an outburst
right 'explosion'</FONT><FONT SIZE=+0>10.-that P/E ratios already have
doubled since the early 1990 days when the markets for 3 years in a row
couldn't</FONT><FONT SIZE=+0> be pushed
up at all, and with a mere 40-50% of the companies now shooting off profit-warnings
at the markets,</FONT><FONT SIZE=+0>
clearly implying over-rational relative P/E divergences</FONT> <FONT SIZE=+0>Along
with the fact that the USs Total Credit Market Debt(TCMD) is in the region
of over</FONT><FONT SIZE=+0>20 trillon US$ and negatively diverging from
its underlying base, the Gross Domestic Product, which</FONT><FONT SIZE=+0>is
at the 8.5 trillion US$ level. This then makes you wonder when this balloon
will burst when in 1970</FONT><FONT SIZE=+0>these statistical figures were
at a </FONT>ratio of 1.5 to 1 and in 1980 4 to 3 and in 1990 12 to 6....................The
Latin American countries do have a name to keep up of living on credits,
but 200% financingincome flows that aren't there or declining......................... To
me that sounds like the US broad domestic market alone is a "small(?) hedge
fund" by itselve.<FONT SIZE=+0>Add 1+1 together, and you'll have 2 as the
outcome as to why a technical correction is desperatly</FONT><FONT SIZE=+0>needed
to get the total markets P/E Ratio back into a non over-rated situation,
eg to somewhat more</FONT><FONT SIZE=+0>natural levels in the P/E15-30
band widths lower/middle part. Then when the companies are</FONT><FONT SIZE=+0>reporting
(much) bettering figures upose to the current average to minimum to nil
growth, then a return</FONT><FONT SIZE=+0>to the band widths upper 20-30
level is also 'over-rated' but acceptable in this high conjuctures era.</FONT> Above
facts are based on charts + comments as can be seen in the Iris Ltd publication
of theIan McAvity's "Deliberations on World Markets" "Issue #617b - September
9, 1998",a 3 weekly Technical Analysis by Charting publication issue.In
this, Ian McAvity based his statistics for the TCMD on the latest Sep98
FED's Flow of Funds Report. His publication can be subscribed to at
an annual rate of US$225 for 18 issues.IRIS Ltd.P.O. Box 40097Tucson,AZ
85717, USA. http://www.topline-charts.com/samples.htm In
Europe:225 US$ + 6% VATEUROTRADERGouden Leeuwstraat 269111 BelseleBelgium.Tel:
(32) 03 772 6080 (> 18.00 h)Fax: (32) 03 772 6070 Regards,Ton Maasms-irb@xxxxxx <FONT SIZE=+0> </FONT>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message -----
<DIV style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color: black"><B>From:</B> <A HREF="mailto:dgard@xxxxxxxxxxxxx"; title="dgard@xxxxxxxxxxxxx">David
Gardner</A></DIV>
<B>To:</B> metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<B>Sent:</B>
zondag 8 november 1998 23:20<B>Subject:</B> Re: Dow Theory</DIV>
I've been a bear since 1996. I have been wrong. Anyone that thinks
this is just a trap to lure in the unwary bulls doesn't understand the
massive liquidity flows that laugh at out 1970s and 1980s "used to work"
techniques.
<P>David Gardner M.D. Ph.D.
<BR>dgard@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<BR>K6LPL</BLOCKQUOTE>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
</BODY>
</HTML>
</x-html>From ???@??? Mon Nov 09 20:18:23 1998
Received: from listserv.equis.com (204.246.137.2)
by mail02.rapidsite.net (RS ver 1.0) with SMTP id 17981
for <neal@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Mon, 9 Nov 1998 23:05:29 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from majordom@xxxxxxxxx)
by listserv.equis.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA17812
for metastock-outgoing; Mon, 9 Nov 1998 19:01:50 -0700
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 TAA17808
for <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Mon, 9 Nov 1998 19:01:47 -0700
Received: from smtp02.wxs.nl (smtp02.wxs.nl [195.121.6.60])
by freeze.metastock.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id TAA03677
for <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Mon, 9 Nov 1998 19:16:27 -0700 (MST)
Received: from escom ([195.121.39.33]) by smtp02.wxs.nl
(Netscape Messaging Server 3.6) with SMTP id AAD20E7
for <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Tue, 10 Nov 1998 03:05:57 +0100
Message-ID: <00fc01be0c4e$66d6fb20$ae2679c3@xxxxx>
From: "A.J. Maas" <anthmaas@xxxxxx>
To: "Metastock-List" <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Question from a newcome - Fw: LET OP DOW ELWAVE
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 03:02:02 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00F2_01BE0C56.7DCD9B60"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.0810.800
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.0810.800
Sender: owner-metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
X-Loop-Detect: 1
X-UIDL: 95ee8fa5468f4cc6fefcd270fdcab6a9
>Guys,
>I am a very newbye in TA and so, as suggested from many of you, I am
>studying hard on books, following markets and paper trading.
>Also I follow this list, that I find very valuable for learning and
>widening my points of wiew: almost every night I look for your very
>valuable insights.
>Now a question.
>From one side I see your constant efforts and researching for
>indicators, systems etc.
>From the other side I know there are some softwares widely acclaimed as
>very effective (GET, ELWave etc).
>If these are so much good, why your efforts?
>Where are the tricks and
>where the traps?
>TIA very much.
Find attached an simple ELWAVE analysis chart as an example,
that I received today.
I find it very effective to see the market from lots of different angles as
the one can then confirm the other.
In general remember that not all trades or investments will return straight away
or that they all will be the winning trades. You win some you loose some.
Thats also generaly speaking.
Regards,
Ton Maas
ms-irb@xxxxxx
Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\dow2.jpg"
|