|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
RT's
Evidently my message in the bondposts where too muddled (like my thought process sometimes...).
Since english is my second language we have to accept that once in a while i guess.
However, see the communication below with Clyde Lee to set the facts straight.
regards
Stig
>Clyde,
>I really have to learn how to be precise. I can see that now.
>
>My "Long Wedge" gif in TBonds has a text saying "the 144 week cycle is
>very important"
>However, I did not refer to a 144 week CYCLE in bonds in the text. If you look at
>the chart you will see that we since 1984 have had a concession of tops
>and bottoms with a 36 week interval (red lines) ( 36 x 4 = 144)
>What I meant was that 144 is a very important NUMBER.
>And since 36 is a division of that number and since it loks like a 36
>week cycle we "should" have had a bottom in October.
>
>So, Clyde, is there a 36 week cycle, the way you see it???
>
>Best regards
>
>Stig
>
>
>Stig,
>
>Look at the .gif which I had attached on the post you reference.
>
>There is a column marked Pts/Day
>
>This column is a simple examination of what cycles provide
>the most profit potential on day to day (in this case week to
>week) basis.
>
>There ain't NO 36 week cycle BUT THER IS A 37 WEEK
>CYCLE AND IT JUST HAPPENS TO HAVE THE LARGEST
>VALUE FOR THIS MEASUREMENT OF ALL CYCLES THAT
>WERE PICKED.
>
>You are absolutely correct 36/37 weeks is very, very much
>of a phenomena in the bond market.
>
>If you want to you can forward this discussion to the list.
>
>Clyde
>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>Clyde Lee Chairman/CEO (Home of SwingMachine)
>SYTECH Corporation email: <clydelee@xxxxxxx>
>7910 Westglen, Suite 105 Work: (713) 783-9540
>Houston, TX 77063 Fax: (713) 783-1092
>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>To subscribe / unsubscribe from SwingMachine list
>http://www.egroups.com/list/swingmachine/
>
>After joining list the freeware SwingMachine program
>(DOS Version) is available in the VAULT at:
>http://www.egroups.com/list/swingmachine/
>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>
>
>Fra: Clyde Lee <clydelee@xxxxxxx>
>Til: realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Cc: realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Dato: 27. december 1999 04:40
>Emne: [RT] Re: Sv: TBond Futures - NW
>
>
>>The attached is the result of an analysis of cycles existing
>>in weekly bond data dating from 1983 taken from a
>>continuous series adjusted to new 6% bond.
>>
>>There are three dominant cycles of longer period -- none
>>of which are 144 weeks but there is one at 160 and another
>>with about 1/2 the 160 week amplitude at 120 which might
>>lead to the 144 guess.
>>
>>The composite of cycles shows bonds to be bottoming
>>in this general area. The bottom is so flat that it is not
>>possible to make a good guess at exactly when the bottom
>>will (or has) appeared.
>>
>>Clyde
>>> >
>>> > >Stig,
>>> > > Couldn't we have seen the 144 month (12 years) cycle this past
>>October, ref. 12 years from
>>> > >October 1987?
>>> >
>>> > I am not sure I understand your question. Are we not suggesting the
>>same thing, pointing to the possibillity of a low in October 99?
>>>
>>> NW: I didn't understand that you had said that we had made a low in
>>October. Your following analysis
>>> doesn't make it any clearer to me now. Is there a 144 month cycle or
>>isn't there? If yes, it would certainly seem to me that the US stock
>>market make an important low in mid October 1999.
>>>
>>> >
>>> > The same thing I am implying in my gigantic wedge gif?
>>> > Or rather I said, If we did not get the low we "should" have had,
>we
>>will probably have an acceleration down. ( we have two choices).
>>> > And since we evidently did not have a low, we will have an
>>acceleration down. Which we also usually have in the case of breakdowns
>>from rising wedges.
>>> >
>>> > On the other hand, your opinion (for a low in Feb) does not
>>contradict mine, since we very well could have the breakmovedown undil
>>feb 6 or 29 for a bottom and then a move up to test the lower trend
>line
>>from below ( a good buy kiss).
>>> >
>>> > > As for the Heard & Shoulders, it takes two shoulders to make a
>H&S
>>pattern. The shoulders should be at least as big, (at least in time)
>>as
>>the head. Studying your Bond chart, at best, I only see one shoulder
>>(our left). Neither alledged shoulder is anywhere as large as is the
>>>head. Just my opinion.
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > You know, Norman, my problem is that I see Head and Shoulder
>>patterns everywhere. If I remember correct I posted a H&S in March
>>TBonds this spring, warning of a decline down to a minimum (the min
>>objective in the pattern) of 112.
>>> > I received tons of mail where the sender told me it was impossible
>>to see rates above 6% the system would simply break down....
>>>
>>> NW: I agree. Studying your previous anaslysi, I did get the
>impression
>>that you liberally anoint many chart patterns with the Head & Shoulders
>>mantle. I think most market technicians have this tendency. Perhaps you
>>have had good success with this approach? I found it more helpful to
>use
>>very well defined and strict parameters to categorize market
>>> patterns. The authentic H&S pattern is actually rather rare. The
>>almost look alikes can be called quasi-H&S which usually fail are are
>>often found as part as a Elliott Wave IV correction.
>>>
>>> >
>>> > This of course does not imply that we ARE having a Head and
>Shoulder
>>pattern as I describe it for sure. On the other hand, can you really
>>correctly say that it is NOT a Head and Shoulder Pattern??
>>>
>>> NW: I have no problems saying that it doesn't look like a proper H&S
>>pattern to me.
>>>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > NW
>>T-Bond Update
>>> > >
>>> > > Watch for the 88 to 88-16 area to go long T-Bonds in February.
>>Market may bottom Feb. 6 - 10, but safest time to buy for a bounce will
>>>be circa Feb. 29 as there is likely to be a double bottom or at least
>>two attempts at establishing the low. This is an update to my earlier
>>>forecast for a Feb. 29 low for T-Bonds and US financials. When I
>>> > >posted this, I had overlooked that a close cousin to the the Feb.
>>29 event will occur on Feb. 6. This should set up a double bottom
>>>senario, i.e. Feb. 6 & Feb. 29.
>>> >
>>> > Norman
>>> > On Feb 28, in my computer ephemeris (time set to GMT+1), I see
>>> > Pluto sextile to Venus
>>> > Pluto square to Mercury
>>> > Pluto trine to March
>>> > As seen from Earth
>>> >
>>> > Is that the cousin to the feb 5 event?
>>>
>>> NW: FIrst of all, you have stated all these mutual aspects backwards.
>>The faster planets always aspect the slower moving planets and are
>>always stated accrodingly, i.e. NOT Pluto sextile Venus but Venus is
>>sextile Pluto. Also, all the aspects you have listed are mostly small
>>events, not the stuff that would make for a important Bond change in
>>> trend. The two related big aspects I am looking at for the important
>>change in trend for T-Bonds is found in the aspects to the USA natal
>>chart. Please don't ask me to post the USA natal data publicly.
>>>
>>> >
>>> > Solar Eclipse and Sun conjunct Uranus
>>> > In other words On a straight line we have Earth the Moon, Sun and
>>Uranus?
>>> >
>>> > Do they both indicate a bottom or just a trend change?
>>>
>>> NW: Nice confirmation for my big aspect to the USA..
>>>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > >Feb. 10-11 also looks very powerful for a change in trend for the
>>markets. I guess this means that the Fed wiill raise interest rates
>when
>>>the FOMC meets in earlry Feb.
>>> >
>>> > If the FED raises rates early Feb as you suggest does that make
>Bond
>>prices rise?
>>> > I thought it was the other way around.
>>> > or
>>> > Is it a relief rally?
>>> > Are you suggesting a smaller hike than expected?
>>>
>>> NW: Interest rate hikes in the short term usually make bonds go
>lower
>>as dealers see their cost
>>> of carry go up they liqudate longs. Longer term, as higher rates slow
>>the economy, bonds become
>>> a safe haven to preserve investment income. If the Fed only raises
>>rates 25 basis points, it may be perceived that this is not enough to
>>slow the economy sufficiently. Then bond players will worry that
>>> more rate hikes are coming, causing the bond market to go lower in
>>anticipation of a higher cost of
>>> funds.
>>>
>>>
>>> > Regards,
>>>
>>> Norman
>>>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Best regards
>>> >
>>> > Stig
>>> >
>>> > >Bondingly,
>>> > >
>>> > >Norman
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > >Stig O wrote:
>>> > >
>>> > >> In my opinion we have now had enough of "False" breakouts and we
>>are now in for the real thing. We should be heading down and it could
>be
>>wave 3, hence a rather steep decline - in line with the breakdown from
>>the gigantic rising wedge from 1984 posted earlier.
>>> > >> the gif you see was posted in October when the DEC TBond was
>>trading 112.22 the close on Dec 21 1999 was 111.02. In other words, if
>>we don't have a rally before years end, the breakdown of the large
>>rising wedge put the odds in favor of declining prices in the future.
>>and breakdowns out of rising wedges tend to be fast ones. (like a
>>W:3s ).
>>> > >>
>>> > >> Now look at the Dec H6S gif and remember that the last low
>CLOSED
>>3 times below the first break of the neckline of the large Head and
>>Shouldr pattern in TBonds.
>>> > >>
>>> > >> Hence this pattern also indicates lower prices.
>>> > >>
>>> > >> please read on ...
>>> > >>
>>> > >> Stig
>>> > >>
>>> >
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>-
>>---
>>> > >>
>>> > >> Name: Long wedge.gif
>>> > >> Long wedge.gif Type: GIF Image (image/gif)
>>> > >> Encoding: base64
>>> > >>
>>> > >> Name: Dec H&S.gif
>>> > >> Dec H&S.gif Type: GIF Image (image/gif)
>>> > >> Encoding: base64
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
|