Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Booms, Busts, and Recoveries -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: westpacific who wrote (3028)	4/14/2001 7:39:01 PM
From: westpacific	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74559

It took from the beginning of the Republic until 1987 for the federal budget to reach $1 trillion per year. Since 1987, the budget has added close to another trillion to 2.0T. Source: Office of Management and Budget. Congressional Budget Office Tax cuts mean nothing as surpluses grow as they mean the budget has to be funded. That money comes from your pocket. So the tax cut is a total joke. Politicians are driving America and its people into massive debt. We are farked folks longer term - the next generation is going to pay a heavy price. West

To: westpacific who wrote (3028)	4/15/2001 1:46:25 PM
From: Stcgg	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74559

E-Wave Evidence of Nasdaq 500.. Double retracement .......more We have stated earlier often that the Composite’s breech of 1665 blew up most of what we have been following for the Comp. We can no longer put things in neat little piles, at the end of every week and feel confident of what we say or do. That of course was until last weekend, when we went back to the books as we said we would and find out what in the hell we missed. We appeared to have found it. Double retracement. Elliot Wave Principle by Frost and Prechter has been our Gospel, so we started there. After reading thru it twice, nothing new came out. Then something in the Authors Note caught our eye. "In co-authoring this book, we have not been unmindful of the little girl who, after reading a book about penguins, said, " This book has told me more about penguins than I really care to know." We have tried to explain the theory of the Wave Principle in simple, concise terms and avoid, for the most part, extensive elaboration and detailed examples of technical points." Why in the hell would that catch our eye? Because it appears to us, that by that statement, we have not been given the whole story of the Wave. Turns out, we were not. Double retracement is mentioned only once on page 59, and the complete lack of detail in this book regarding it, is a crying shame. With our previous analytical tools, we were only able to assume that the March high was the end of a fifth of a fifth of a fifth wave. Absolutely nothing about the mania event that started from the Oct 98 lows fits any kind of 5 wave structure we have been accustomed to seeing. It is just ugly. So we proceeded under the assumption that we are dumb for not being able to, and proceeded to look at the ABC correction we felt we were in. Things were going along well until 1665 was broken. It turns out, that Double retracements, when applied to this situation, fit like a glove, and therefore allows us to re-label the decline from the Mar top in a way that makes sense. As always, attention to detail makes things go much smoother. Elliott Wave Explained" 1995 by Robert C Beckman When we went looking for answers to details, we found this book to have the answer we were looking for. The following is a quote from this book. " If I accomplish anything in this, my third important attempt at rendering the Wave Principle a tool that can be employed in a manner as equally rewarding as my predecessors, I hope it is to bring into focus the Wave Principle as it was originally conceived by its author. I am saddened by the manner in which the Wave Principle has been diluted and prostituted in the interest of mass appeal. As I have been wading through some of the contemporary material produced by those interested in marketing paper piffle rather than useful investment literature, I see the omissions of valuable tenets and distortions of others, completely devoid of any meaningful application to the real world of investment, or what Elliott had ever intended for his theories" This is not a slam on Prechter, it is just that we are unaware of any of his work giving any details of Elliot. Double retracement according to the basic tenets of the Wave Principle, most 5th wave extensions are followed by a double retracement. Double retracements are reserved for extended fifth waves, never occurring during extensions that appear in 1rst or 3rd impulse moves. The Definition of Double retracement given by Elliott is "the travel of a described movement between two specified points which is covered again" In other words, a corrective down wave and subsequent resumption of the trend would therefore represent a double retracement. After a 5th wave extension, the first retracement will occur as an immediate 3 wave down. It should also end in the vicinity of where the 5th wave extension started, usually where the second wave of the extension ended. It may take some time for the second retracement to develop. The second retracement will travel beyond the peak of the original extension. This now gives us an extra 2 waves that do not fit into any wave count? How do we treat these 2 extra waves? Elliott made it clear that these double retracements would later fit into conventional overall patterns. It should be treated as an "irregular top" The first retracement should be counted as an A wave, and the second as a wave B. So this move is treated as being motive and corrective at the same time. This move is then followed by a C wave with 5 waves downward. This wave C is likely to take on dramatic proportions and be extremely fast moving (sound familiar) So what the hell does all this mean? It means that we can finally put our long term count together, something we haven't been able to do since we started. It means that coming off the 90 lows, we have wave 1 into the 92 peak, wave 2 to the mid 92 lows (which was a weak bear move, a tell that a fifth wave extension may occur)wave 3 to the 94 high which about the same in length as wave 1 (another tell that the fifth may become extended)wave 4 into the 94 lows (a weak bear market, once again forecasting a fifth wave extension)wave 5 into the 95 peak, which is where it should have stopped at 1000 then put in a correction to the 800- 690 area or worse yet the 456- 322 area. From 1000 wave 5 extends to the 98 peak just over 2000. The "Asian Crisis" was the first retracement, and the move to the Mar 2000 top was the second. So we delayed the bear market by 5 years, but the target s still remain intact 690 to 804 and 322 to 456. Time will tell us which long before we get there. New Bull market? Not a chance. This should be all over by fall of 2002 at the latest. The double retracement to this very high degree allows us to give the proper method for counting down from the 5132 top on the COMP. In other words, rather than the 5-3-5 ABC type correction we have been looking for, we are allowed to count just one single extremely large degree 5 wave, of which we probably still in the middle of wave 3. When we finish our thread, hopefully things will make sense to all. This is not yet finished : Jim will post more later in the week-end on eufinancial.com >><<