The market is seeing something we dont see yet—

[volpri]

This is just the Fed making some money. Thats all.

 

[JSOP]

Just to clarify, although they are all interrelated, US budget for spending may have to keep on going but the money that banks were almost "forced" to lend out because of fed fund rate being in negative territory can reverse. Most of the money gets created out of thin air this way (banks lending out money not from savings but what the fed allows them to). Which is why I mention not enough money to push the market higher as a result of money supply decreasing.

Exactly and if they REALLY want to push the market higher than they are going to have to do it by increasing the real value of money via productivity: We need to work our a$$ off in the new year!!

 

[eurusdzn]

QQQ in 2001/2 moved somewhat like Scat said. 120ish top to 90 to 60 to 30 each wave a larger percentage move. QQQ 20ish was a good buy.

 

[MKTrader]

the market is seeing something that we are either ignoring or just dont see yet. Markets just dont crash this far and this fast for no reason. Bulls will always say its an overreaction but reality may be pointing to something more ominous.

Well, I heard the same thing in 2011 and 2015-16. The most extreme "bear" (but not really bear) market was in 1987-88 as no recession occurred and the S&P 500 recovered its 33% loss in less than 2 years. I monitor a lot of economic data and it's not signalling a recession right now.

 

[FriskyCat]

Chasing shorts late is usually hazardous.

I'm thinking the next relatively conservative place to short will be after W2 (correction) has completed a 50-62% retracement of the decline... if that's the kind of correction there is.

That's true. In fact, I believe the market tagged almost to the tick the .618 retrace off of the W1:1 on that flagpole rally into and post 2018 elections (11/7).

 

[vanzandt]

Years ago I studied EW. Even got a software program for it. EW devotees sometimes think they can describe and trade "every wiggle" with EW. I never found that myself. But the notion of "5 Wave" patterns is real. There is also the "rule of alternation". In a 5 wave pattern, there will be two major corrections. The rule says they will be different from each other. That is, one may be an "a-b-c flat" (which looks like what we've had this time), but the other will be some other type. Often times, that will be a triangle of "a-b-c-d-e" form... there are other kinds also.

So... if my potential read is correct, we're only half-way in the 1st of 3 legs down*. EWs always leave more potential possibilities than you'd like, but as time and waves play out possibilities are eliminated one-by-one until there are only 1 or 2 left.

*The major(only?) rule about the size of each down leg... is that W3 can't be the smallest. So if you're trying to read the wave count and yours has a 3rd wave smaller than both 1 & 5, that's not correct and you need to reconsider.

Did yesterday fit into this in any way?

 

[Scataphagos]

Did yesterday fit into this in any way?

I believe so. My best read right now was that yesterday was either part or all of "W4 of 3 of 1" in the new bear market. (There is a protocol for describing the labels with larger numbers, brackets, parentheses, etc. I'm too lazy for all of that. I only care about what I believe to be the "most important picture right now". Sometimes it's not clear at all, but eventually becomes more so.) Since the high in early October, the "count" has been as close to clear as it ever gets. We'll see.

Prector's EW work in the '70s was done before we had "interventionist markets". I often wonder if those kinds of things will make the major notions of EW invalid. Not yet AFIK.

 

[vanzandt]

I believe so. My best read right now was that yesterday was either part or all of "W4 of 3 of 1" in the new bear market. (There is a protocol for describing the labels with larger numbers, brackets, parentheses, etc. I'm too lazy for all of that. I only care about what I believe to be the "most important picture right now". Sometimes it's not clear at all, but eventually becomes more so.) Since the high in early October, the "count" has been as close to clear as it ever gets. We'll see.

Prector's EW work in the '70s was done before we had "interventionist markets". I often wonder if those kinds of things will make the major notions of EW invalid. Not yet AFIK.

 

[Scataphagos]

Sometimes it's not clear at all

Pardon for quoting myself... but to give you an idea of how complicated EW can be... I once had EW software which would run all of the possible counts and highlight its "best" and "alternate" counts. I remember one time the software indicated it had run "94 MILLION" possibilities. I recall the software nailing it only 2 times.

 

[FriskyCat]

I believe so. My best read right now was that yesterday was either part or all of "W4 of 3 of 1" in the new bear market. (There is a protocol for describing the labels with larger numbers, brackets, parentheses, etc. I'm too lazy for all of that. I only care about what I believe to be the "most important picture right now". Sometimes it's not clear at all, but eventually becomes more so.) Since the high in early October, the "count" has been as close to clear as it ever gets. We'll see.

Prector's EW work in the '70s was done before we had "interventionist markets". I often wonder if those kinds of things will make the major notions of EW invalid. Not yet AFIK.

Have you ever checked out Miner's book on E-Wave? I think that it's a bit more refined than Prechter's book.