|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
John -
After our exchange today, I went back over the past few months of my
archives published at http://start.cgirealm.com/signal/ to see where I
had used the interim symmetric wave technique. As it turned out, there
were four applications which forecasted the support correctly in the
time frame which I checked. These were:
9/23/99
10/18/99
11/2/99
11/23/99
and one application which didn't work at 11/15/99.
Clearly it doesn't follow the rules spelled ot by Gur Dillon's method or
your SymWave method. However, I have been quite enthused with it's use
over the past year in identifying credible support areas.
Thanks for your instructive remarks. They have helped me to better
understand your approach which, as I mentioned to you some time ago, was
what originally piqued my interest in this approach.
Regards
Ned Markson
G.John Boggio wrote:
>
> Realtraders,
>
> Below is some analysis of the S&P 500 cash market in which Ned Markson
> and I were discussing. It pertains to symmetrical relationships and my
> outlook on current market conditions. I am posting it on the RT Forum for
> your review.
>
> Hope you find it interesting,
> John Boggio
> PS The attached chart can be used for a reference with respect to my
> conversation with Ned. (Note, the chart was generated by Ned)
>
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> Ned,
>
> I now see what you did, BUT if you are basing your wave analysis method
> on Michael Gur Dillon's method or my SymWave method, then your projection
> of wave 2.3-2.4 is incorrect. Reason, the high of 12/10/99 (wave 2.3 high)
> needs to be greater than the 2.1 high on 12/3/99.
>
> Based on your snapshot of the .gif, there really is NO analysis that
> could be conducted. Actually, based on the .gif, you would still need to
> wait for one of two things to occur. 1 - If we make a new high, then the
> wave 2.1-2.2 will become a measurable wave. Or 2nd - if the market
> declines BELOW the 2.2 low, then you would be able to measure a rally wave
> or bounce. At the present time, this rally would be measured FROM THE 2.2
> LOW to the 2.3 HIGH (not a very big wave).
>
> Finally, when I look at the broader market since the October 18th low,
> there are NO wave structures except for the current high on 12/3/99 and the
> low of 12/9 (as you identified with wave 2.1-2.2). But as I said above,
> the bottom of 12/9 is not guaranteed UNTIL THE MARKET RALLIES ABOVE THE
> 12/3 HIGH.
>
> Further, when I try to find the next compete wave 1-2, I have to go all
> the way back to the July high (wave 1) and the October low (wave 2). Since
> the December High is greater than the July high and it has begun to roll
> over, then we can temporally say that the 12/3 high is NOW A WAVE 3
> HIGH. If this wave were to come to fruition, then the market would have to
> retrace all the way down to 1262 (186 pts +/- 20% or 37 pts). Note, I do
> not see this magnitude decline in the immediate future. Personally, I
> believe this market has unbelievable strength and any declines will end
> quickly. At the present time, I believe a worst case scenario decline
> would take us down to approximately the 1340-1360 area. At which point the
> 12/3 high will still be Wave 1A and the bottom of say 1350 will be Wave
> B. And again provide a strong springboard for the market to rally well
> into the first quarter of 2000. Finally, if we do not get a selloff of any
> type between now and the end of the year, then I suspect the decline will
> begin approximately 2 weeks into the new year. This decline will start
> when it is recognized that the Fed has begun shrinking the Money Supply (M2
> / M3). Once they do this, your decline will begin. At which point the
> market will sell off and probably retrace approximately 50% of its rally
> since the October low, thus taking us to that 1340-1360 area. From there,
> I would look for a retest of the highest high and then some sort of failure
> which should occur sometime in the first quarter of 2000. This failure
> could then result in our biggest broad market decline in years, measuring
> anywhere from 20-37% (both of which are based on past symmetrical wave
> declines AND ARE STILL VALID.
>
> Let me know if you have any questions or thoughts,
> John Boggio
> PS I might post some or all of the above analysis on the RT Forum if you
> don't object.
>
> At 10:49 PM 12/16/99 -0800, you wrote:
> Hi John -
>
> I attached a gif that hopefully explains what I was looking at on the
> 15th. The picture has now changed, of course :) but this illustrates
> what I saw at that time.
>
> Ned
>
> G.John Boggio wrote:
> >
> > Ned,
> >
> > I went to your website to see your symmetrical wave relationship but
> > could not find it. Could you give me a few more specifics on this
> > wave, I can't find it when I look at my charts.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > John
> >
> > At 12:46 PM 12/15/99 -0500, you wrote:
> >
> > There is symmetric wave support for the SPX at 1366 which
> > corresponds to a 38.4% retracement. Support on either side
> > of
> > this level exists at 1352 and 1380. If I had to guess, and I
> > do
> > every now and then, this range of support looks like the
> > levels
> > we are heading towards for this leg down.
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Ned Markson
> > http://www.erols.com/cnedgo
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Name: Snag-001.gif
> Part 1.2 Type: GIF Image (image/gif)
> Encoding: base64
|