Jump to content



Photo

Still doing the big stretch


  • Please log in to reply
18 replies to this topic

#1 da_cheif

da_cheif

    Member

  • Traders-Talk User
  • 10,362 posts

Posted 29 December 2006 - 10:12 PM

http://www.elliottwa...n...4&lesson=92

#2 jawndissedi

jawndissedi

    Member

  • Traders-Talk User
  • 1,018 posts

Posted 30 December 2006 - 01:13 AM

http://www.elliottwa...n...4&lesson=92

For a better understanding of Elliot wave analysis, click here.
Da nile is more than a river in Egypt.

#3 Jnavin

Jnavin

    Member

  • TT Member*
  • 2,126 posts

Posted 30 December 2006 - 05:43 AM

That presentation is accurate about the present lack of new highs in the SP500 and Nasdaq versus the year 2000...a glaring divergence. Whether Elliott Wave is a pseudoscience or not is irrelevant to that issue.

Edited by Jnavin, 30 December 2006 - 05:47 AM.


#4 swinger

swinger

    Member

  • Traders-Talk User
  • 545 posts

Posted 30 December 2006 - 09:19 AM

http://www.elliottwa...n...4&lesson=92


The lynchpin of his 'Silent Crash' theory appears to be the relationship between the SPX and gold--or what he calls 'real money'.

On 10/10/02 the SPX bottomed at 768
On 10/10/2002 an ounce of gold was $320

Today the SPX is at 1418 +84.6% gain from 10/02
Today gold is 638 a 99.4% gain from 10/02

Approximately 15% difference in gold/SPX performance. Not exactly a silent 'crash'.

Some folks could argue that the SPX has another 15% of rally ahead based on the same data interrelationship.

Another perspective...

A share of RIMM cost $4.51 on 10/10/02
--today that same share is worth $127.78

RIMM is over 27 times more valuable now than then...and there are plenty of other similar examples.
 

#5 da_cheif

da_cheif

    Member

  • Traders-Talk User
  • 10,362 posts

Posted 30 December 2006 - 09:34 AM

That presentation is accurate about the present lack of new highs in the SP500 and Nasdaq versus the year 2000...a glaring divergence.

Whether Elliott Wave is a pseudoscience or not is irrelevant to that issue.

"glaring divergence"....where is it written that "divergence' has anything to do with stock market analysis.....its nothing but a fools game....like 3 peeks in dome house n other nonsense like that.......sigh

#6 cgnx

cgnx

    Member

  • Traders-Talk User
  • 2,103 posts

Posted 30 December 2006 - 04:43 PM

I think that was an excellent presentation. I believe he is absolutely correct about most of his beliefs . This is a poor excuse for a stock market. The scenario that could play out that he missed would be if the price of gold rises therefore bringing more into balance the ratios he saw that were out of whack. It's very hard to believe that 2000 was not a serious end to a sick party that should take alot longer to heal. Valuations are still on the high side and fundamentally the numbers are weak. I like Da-chief but basing his stocks to da moon theory on pure liquidity reasoning and some short term clx analysis is a little hokey. Mutual Fund cash? Great point Chief? How many great investments are out there? Not many. I see you mentioning some penny stocks here and there and man if those are your investment picks, close to pathetic. mmam????? vlnc? Prechters anaysis is fantastic. Facts. I love it.
If it can be cornered, it will.

#7 wallyw

wallyw

    Member

  • Traders-Talk User
  • 135 posts

Posted 30 December 2006 - 04:55 PM

That presentation is accurate about the present lack of new highs in the SP500 and Nasdaq versus the year 2000...a glaring divergence.

Whether Elliott Wave is a pseudoscience or not is irrelevant to that issue.

"glaring divergence"....where is it written that "divergence' has anything to do with stock market analysis.....its nothing but a fools game....like 3 peeks in dome house n other nonsense like that.......sigh


in spite of all your harrumphing, you have to admit that gold and commodities have been better investments than stocks for quite some time and isn't that what investing is all about - making money. your devotion to stocks is laudable but probably misplaced for most people. he's right about where the average guys money should have been.

#8 Woody

Woody

    Member

  • Traders-Talk User
  • 1,498 posts

Posted 30 December 2006 - 04:58 PM

The Market will keep going up as long as excessive liquidity exists to prop it up, While I agree with the eventual deflationary hypothesis, the timing is the tough part, COT longs on Copper are the highest since 1989......similar situation on $CDN, I'm wondering what happens when liquidity doesn't matter any more...ala Japan style (assuming liquidity is measured by interest rates) its all long term stuff and keeping an eye on the st, int term still important

#9 Vector

Vector

    Member

  • Traders-Talk User
  • 1,828 posts

Posted 30 December 2006 - 05:12 PM

"3 peeks in dome house". LOL, what a joke that is. Like a mirage. Fools gold. Neggi D garbage and rolling over look could go on for months... Pssst, avg of all stocks is still deeply undervalued. That's not based on "my feeling" or guess but on pure cold hard facts. How many great investments are out there? Tons more than is considered just enough to put together a well diversified portfolio. That's all you need to be successful. No more and no less. How much do you want? :lol:

Edited by Vector, 30 December 2006 - 05:22 PM.


#10 S.I.M.O.N.

S.I.M.O.N.

    SIMONForecast

  • Traders-Talk User
  • 802 posts

Posted 30 December 2006 - 05:25 PM

"3 peeks in dome house". LOL, what a joke that is. Like a mirage. Fools gold.


might as well throw darts on a board... in a domed house...;)
*previously known as pnfwave