Russell

[Steely Dan]

I suggest looking at Tom's long term S&P chart at the start of the S&P500 thread before examining the chart below. Caveats include this chart being made with spread better's data not actual market quotes. The main point I would like to make is that as with the S&P the move to the March 2009 low looks to be 3 waves which has been the assumption underpinning our expectation of one more visit to or below 666. The Russell looks similar but is it? At a current 836 it is only 21 points from the Jul 2007 high and should that high be exceeded the apparent 'b' wave to the 2009 low could not infact be a 'b' wave at all and would shake my belief in the long term S&P count.

The only other observation is that my data source does not stretch back far enough to cover data before Oct 2006 so it is possible the Russell is working on a radically different count.

IF it is working to a similar count to the S&P it should be the first index to give us a stunning risk/reward trade so keep this on your radars imho.

[finster869]

Steely- I think you are right. If Russell makes a new high, then chances go up that 666 on spx was a 4c. On the long term chart, it looks like a well proportioned 3, a, b, 4c (at 666).

Anyway, here is a 20 year chart of SPX, RUT and Australia's stock market. Color code is in the top left. You can see that they have all been lock step since 2006.

   

[Steely Dan]

Hi Finster, Thanks for the chart. I was actually thinking that the Wiltshire 5000 would be an even better barometer. I suspect every bull out there will look at the S&P and conclude 3 of 3 of 3 rapid rise, now I may be grasping at straws here but the Russell underperformed the S&P and Dow markedly in the last hour so that is something worth watching come next week.

[Perry]

Well, if you want to open that can of worms…The S&P Midcap 400 made a new high in mid January, so why not the Russell 2000 next?

[finster869]

(02-19-2011 12:03 AM)Perry Wrote:  Well, if you want to open that can of worms…The S&P Midcap 400 made a new high in mid January, so why not the Russell 2000 next?

Great point, Perry. Ok, I added Wilshire and s&P400. S&P 400 only has data to 2000, but it appears to have the same fractal as the others since then, especially the trip down to the low in March of 2009 which we had been calling 3-a-b with us in a 4c.

Is S&P midcap 400 on a different count than the others, or is it showing us that the other indexes now have to make new highs? Same with RUT. If RUT makes a new high, and we have it happen twice, then doesn't our primary count have to be that they all make new highs???

   

[Perry]

(02-19-2011 07:40 AM)finster869 Wrote:  ... Is S&P midcap 400 on a different count than the others, or is it showing us that the other indexes now have to make new highs? Same with RUT. If RUT makes a new high, and we have it happen twice, then doesn't our primary count have to be that they all make new highs???

Hi finster,

As an FYI, you charted MidCap Growth Index. S&P MidCap 400 is $MID.

I’m not sure about the “have to” make new highs, but I think if the Russell 2000 also makes a new high; it does increase the probability that the S&P 500 will also at some point (and maybe not go below the Mar 09 low). Thus, the Mar 09 low may turn out to have been a Cycle C.

Time will tell…

Perry

[Steely Dan]

Perry, You bring up a very good point. Pre NewR I thought of waves as predetermined with lthe structure visible giving us the necessary clues to predict future events. There is a caveat using elliott waves however which is a market has to show broad participation and not have a few dominant players in order to reflect sentiment accurately, which is not the case with the FED's orchestrated and massive meddling, I suppose the Harare index outperforms all others. Seeing as commodities are sometimes thinly traded I suspect the position is even worse there and forex is the last free market left.

Just a quick edit to add that the effect of propping the market up in effect turns what would be a wave 1 or A down into a 4C of one lesser degree thereby allowing a new high - what has not been tested subsequently is whether the revisit of the 4C level (666 S&P500) can be postponed indefinitely. I'm starting to suspect it can, but the price paid for bringing this about may be a very high one.

[TS Hennessy]

I would advise strongly the counting of individual instruments as each to their own.

Indices of special makeup may have an influence which pertains at one time to
the general market but which may have specific gravity leaning in a new
direction due to new influences which only affect that index.

Remember there are other camps which base their ( ultimately ) blown
counts on correlated market "confirmations". Yes they sometimes mean
something but sometimes is not what we do. We actually count.

Also remember...

When a new high is threatened it has not been breached. A wave c of an RTB
4th in a bearish C or 5th wave may come within 1 point or pip of the start of
that C or 5th wave's start. I have personally seen this many times and I seem
to recall a thread called "C4s as a brick wall" which describes the benefits of
this behavior.

Just my 2 penniesworth.

PS. Please reread the first sentence.

[TS Hennessy]

(02-18-2011 11:32 PM)finster869 Wrote:  On the long term chart, it looks like a well proportioned 3, a, b, 4c (at 666).

Finster I highly disagree with this considering where the basing of this bubble
market really began, not one decade but several decades ago.

I won't be dogmatic about the proportions of waves because they do what
they will.

I would only insist that if this is a counting method it is a poor one.

It is my hope that things which I have posted such as the thread, "A Case
for Hanging Tough" which shows a thing other than true counting have not
encouraged something other than being definitive based upon the best
available evidence and efforts.

[Steely Dan]

I think I should have added a caveat to my posts. Yes I'm still of the opinion that in extreme situations a market can be rigged by debasing it's currency sufficiently, but this is not of the significance to me that it once was because yes we do count and in doing so we look for favorable entry points in terms of risk to reward. I suppose the proximity to 2007 highs also has me looking to see if I can sense a change in the winds of sentiment, here I think I can with the turmoil in the middle east coinciding with sharp rises in the price of oil.