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 : Classic TA Workplace -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: bcrafty who wrote (70839)	4/8/2003 1:41:12 PM
From: At_The_Ask	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 209892

I had put together an "epistle" responding to your post about the big c theory but IE froze and you were spared. The jist of it was that I don't think it's possible for the ndx to make a big c without the spx and dow doing the same. Essentially the question as to which index was in a "big C" doesn't make sense from my POV. Big rallys and sell offs are broad based, tech isn't going too far without the dow and spx and vice versa. A basic tenet of ewave is that when a count is unclear check a related market. Dow, spx, russel2k, compx, wilshire 5k, are all broad based and related. None of them support the c from february count. Also I think that basing a large market call solely on the ndx which is a rather narrow index is perilous. The "big C" from feb that has been the topic of so much discussion has been invalid from day one based on everything other than the ndx. The tail doesn't wag the dog. Everyone seems to be suffering from suspension of disbelief WRT to that count. The obvious wedge thing from 12-2, (which is visible and plain on every broad index), has been ignored in favor of a count that is tenuous at best. The only correct way to count ndx if you want to believe that it's in a c from february is 1-2-1-2, but I keep hearing about 5 of c and even the "small fry" should just know that that's not valid by now. If anything is in a C then wave 1 starts in march not feb and I find it troubling that so much time and energy has been wasted on a count that is so obviously flawed. Not to mention undocumented since few annotated charts of it's structure have been posted. Everyone has been going on about this thing for weeks and it just doesn't exist.