[RT] Re: US Bonds weekly

["BobR" <bobrabcd@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

How about changing the topic from EW to where the H&S interest rate pattern
fails.  At what interest rate level would you consider the H&S no longer an
H&S pattern but one of consolidation with higher yields in the future?
Likewise, if the H&S pattern remains valid, then what is the downsided
projection for yields.

Thanks,
BobR

----- Original Message -----
From: "Don Ewers" <dbewers@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, September 18, 2000 4:31 AM
Subject: [RT] Re: US Bonds weekly


> All, please understand, "we" are not arguing view points here (Scot, Steve
> and any others that have expressed "their" view points on bonds and I
> welcome that), "we" are just trying to figure out what the major trend is
in
> bonds is here, maybe a bigger picture is unfolding and "let us all" get on
> the right side of it.
>
> I was offering up what one of the software packages I utilize was
> "potentially seeing". This is "not" a software admonishment, counts can
> change and do sometimes more than I would like, but this is a discussion
on
> direction  . .. . not software, hopefully understood. I am interested in
> other opinions particularly if they are backup by some substance. One
> interesting fact is when counts do change (for instance wave 5's changing
> to wave 3's), you are still on the right side of the market for the next
> trade and with proper money management still make $$$.
>
> I see bonds hit 97-23 in the night session as I write this, lets continue
> the dialog.
> don ewers
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "t-bondtrader" <t-bondtrader@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2000 3:55 AM
> Subject: [RT] Re: US Bonds weekly
>
>
> > While all this may pan out, this is a very poor EW count.  EW is shaky
> >  enough as it, but one must at least use this method correctly.  Your 2
> >  lasts for five weeks and your 4 for 32, hardly the same magnitude.
> >
> > >From the above statement, Earl Adamy says:
> >
> > "...... The moderators seem to feel that free speech takes precedence
over
> > civility."
> >
> >
> > Just what was uncivil about that statement?    Surely, from Scot's
> analysis,
> > it was a matter of his opinion, which he is entitled to put to the list
> and
> > many on the list will no doubt benefit from what he has said.  After
all,
> > while many do not think that EW has much predictive power, but is good
at
> > seeing where the market has been and might go eventually, it does  have
a
> > set of rules, doesn't it?   EW does have major and minor counts, doesn't
> it?
> > Presumably one has to compare like with like. doesn't one?
> >
> > The comment was, as I see it, on the way the count was being made
against
> > the rules that most EW practitioners would expect the count to be made?
> > Yes?  No?  Scot was simply pointing out what he thought and as far as I
> can
> > make out, did it in a very civil manner.   What exactly is your beef?
> >
> >
> > Bill Eykyn
> > t-bondtrader@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

Attachment Converted: "c:\program files\qualcomm\eudora\attach\TYX2.gif"