# Elliott Wave Analysis (Archive)

• #### deagol

Posted: 27 March 2010 12:47 AM #31

deagol - 24 March 2010 03:56 PM

EW:
1.v.(3).(i).[1]: \$194.06 to \$204.31, length=\$10.25
1.v.(3).(i).[2]: \$204.31 to \$195.71, length=\$8.60, 83.9% retrace of [1]
1.v.(3).(i).[3]: \$195.71 to \$227.73, length=\$32.02, 312.4% of [1]
1.v.(3).(i).[4]: \$227.73 to \$220.15, length=\$7.58, 23.7% of [3], 88.1% of [2].
1.v.(3).(i).[5]: \$220.15 to ...

[5]=1.382*[1]: \$234.32
[5]=1.618*[1]: \$236.73

[5]=0.618*[3]: \$239.94
[5]=1.000*[3]: \$252.17

Best I can make out is we’re either in [iii] of [5] (quite bullish with targets as above) or if [5] completed at \$230.97 it’s the beginning of (ii) of (3) which already looks very complex as a combo of some sort, with the new \$231.95 high being a very low degree ‘b’ wave of the ‘A’ wave of a double flat (ii) or something like that. Need to see where it goes (damn Greece commentators f’d it up).

[ Edited: 29 March 2010 03:51 PM by deagol ]

• #### wheeles

Posted: 27 March 2010 06:42 AM #32

deagol - 27 March 2010 03:47 AM

Best I can make out is we’re either in [iii] of [5] (quite bullish with targets as above) or if [5] completed at \$230.97 it’s the beginning of (ii) of (3) which already looks very complex as a combo of some sort, with the new \$231.95 high being a very low degree ‘b’ wave of the ‘A’ wave of a double flat (ii) or something like that. Need to see where it goes (damn Greece commentators f’d it up).

Ever get the feeling that EW is more descriptive than predictive?

#### Signature

Throughout all my years of investing I’ve found that the big money was never made in the buying or the selling. The big money was made in the waiting. ? Jesse Livermore

• #### deagol

Posted: 27 March 2010 05:02 PM #33

wheeles - 27 March 2010 09:42 AM

Ever get the feeling that EW is more descriptive than predictive?

Many times. However, I feel like I’ve made quite a few predictions here, which I realize may not have been EW but a combination of my FA and a rudimentary but intuitive sense of market and AAPL investors psychology.

Mace’s and other more renown elliotticians’ EW and TA readings have turned considerably bearish precisely near the bottoms of these several \$20-\$30 swings, calling for completion of Primary 1 with targets down to \$160 and \$130. But as an outsider I’ve been able to recognize the significance of support in the \$185-\$190 area, which combined with my FA has guided my predictions of a continuation of the multi-month rally into the \$250’s and beyond.

More specifically, I think I called the late-January low as it was happening (as long as support would hold I insisted those were the lows), while Mace was pointing out bearish signals. And within this move up from there I think EW allowed me to anticipate the extent of the two small retracements in mid-Feb and mid-Apr. Without EW I would not have the confidence that this move up required the completion of 5 waves and thus it wasn’t done at those internal turning points: \$204, \$197, \$200, \$209, \$220, \$227, \$220, and \$230. It’s only here at the top, for the completion of this last fifth internal wave and given an artificially exaggerated move below one of EW’s max guidelines for a wave 4 retracement, that it messed up the plan. Maybe I should just ignore the effect of that move and stick with the plan, admitting a >65% retrace for that wave 4? This is why I just said I need to see where it goes from here to verify which count to stick with. My hunch is that we should be starting a wave 2 retracement of this 2-month rally.

In any case a potential \$225-\$230 target had been clearly identified since last year (it’s in some other buried thread now).

[ Edited: 27 March 2010 05:33 PM by deagol ]

• #### wheeles

Posted: 27 March 2010 06:14 PM #34

deagol - 27 March 2010 08:02 PM

My hunch is that we should be starting a wave 2 retracement of this 2-month rally.

In any case a potential \$225-\$230 target had been clearly identified since last year (it’s in some other buried thread now).

OK, so assuming we have either just peaked or are about to for this latest leg up, how far do you think AAPL might retrace?

As an aside, Thursday’s action looked very much like a top, but it was only thanks to a rather timely upgrade from Credit Suisse, window dressing and a short squeeze that Friday managed to post a new high. If anyone ever complains about manipulation to the downside, they should just remember Friday’s action as that was yet another example of how a “thumb on the scales” can work for the upside too.

#### Signature

Throughout all my years of investing I’ve found that the big money was never made in the buying or the selling. The big money was made in the waiting. ? Jesse Livermore

• #### deagol

Posted: 27 March 2010 10:24 PM #35

wheeles - 27 March 2010 09:14 PM

OK, so assuming we have either just peaked or are about to for this latest leg up, how far do you think AAPL might retrace?

Looks to me \$220 ?1.5% as a likely level to find support over the next 2-3 weeks. I don’t think the gap gets filled.

• #### capablanca

Posted: 27 March 2010 11:04 PM #36

Where is our buddy, Mace?  He is missed.

• #### Mace

Posted: 28 March 2010 02:14 AM #37

capablanca - 28 March 2010 02:04 AM

Where is our buddy, Mace?  He is missed.

Reading passively.  Deagol is right that \$225-\$230 has been the target for a long time.  So long AAPL is closing above max pain on OE, multi-month rally is intact.

#### Signature

Stay Hungry. Stay Foolish.  - Steve Jobs

• #### Mace

Posted: 30 March 2010 01:43 PM #38

Noted moderator had removed the past posts.  In any case, badly need an update.  Assuming impulse began from \$78.20 (still confused whether it has started from \$78.20 or \$82.33), the intermediate wave counts for Primary degree wave 1 is as follows:

1.i=\$78.20 to \$103.00, length=\$24.80
1.ii=\$103.00 to \$82.33, ret=83.3% of ii
1.iii=\$82.33 to \$208.71, length=\$126.38, about 5x i
1.iv=\$208.71 to \$190.25, ret=14.6% of iii
1.v=\$190.25 to ...

Targets :eg::

v=i, =\$215.05 (passed)
v=1.618 of i, =\$230.38 (passed), passed the target for extended third wave, wow!
v=1.618 of (i+iii), =\$401.42 (hmm ...), AAPL gunning for extended fifth wave?  If you believe so, should load up LEAPS 12 when AAPL performs a wave 1.v.(2) retracement.  Wave (1) appears to have completed, should I make such forecast?  If I’m right, nobody send me any \$ but if I’m wrong, they criticise me.  What should I do :-(?

#### Signature

Stay Hungry. Stay Foolish.  - Steve Jobs

• #### \$Billyall

Posted: 30 March 2010 02:30 PM #39

right or wrong you are contributing your thoughts, I appreciate all your posts, no one can fault you for that. 8) I dont rely on EW when I make my investments but I can see value in getting many different perspectives and I enjoy a lil math every now and then.

• #### CaptainBoom

Posted: 30 March 2010 03:35 PM #40

Mace - 30 March 2010 04:43 PM

v=1.618 of (i+iii), =\$401.42 (hmm ...), AAPL gunning for extended fifth wave?  If you believe so, should load up LEAPS 12 when AAPL performs a wave 1.v.(2) retracement.  Wave (1) appears to have completed, should I make such forecast?  If I’m right, nobody send me any \$ but if I’m wrong, they criticise me.  What should I do :-(?

I’ll believe it. Not being conversant in EW, what ballpark would a 1.v.(2) retracement put us in? My tax refund is looking for a home.

• #### deagol

Posted: 30 March 2010 06:38 PM #41

Mace - 30 March 2010 04:43 PM

[...]Assuming impulse began from \$78.20 (still confused whether it has started from \$78.20 or \$82.33), the intermediate wave counts for Primary degree wave 1 is as follows:

1.i=\$78.20 to \$103.00, length=\$24.80
1.ii=\$103.00 to \$82.33, ret=83.3% of ii
1.iii=\$82.33 to \$208.71, length=\$126.38, about 5x i
1.iv=\$208.71 to \$190.25, ret=14.6% of iii
1.v=\$190.25 to ...

Targets :eg::

v=i, =\$215.05 (passed)
v=1.618 of i, =\$230.38 (passed), passed the target for extended third wave, wow!
v=1.618 of (i+iii), =\$401.42 (hmm ...), AAPL gunning for extended fifth wave? [...]

You’re back, excellent!  8-)

I thought we had decided \$78.20 to \$103.00 looked like 3 waves. Also, that triangle wave 1.iv looks fine in a weekly chart, but on a daily I see its internal waves (B) and (D) looking like impulses to me (I’ve mentioned this before) but still not sure. Anyway this is the count I was working with, starting at \$82.33.

1.i=\$82.33 to \$133.50, length=\$51.17
1.ii=\$133.50 to \$119.38, length=\$14.12, 27.6% of i
1.iii=\$119.38 to \$208.71, length=\$74.29, 274.9% of i
1.iv=\$208.71 to \$188.68, length=\$20.03, 27.0% of iii
1.v=\$188.68 to ...

v=1.000*i: \$239.85 (Tue HOD \$237.48)
v=1.618*i: \$271.47
v=2.236*i: \$303.10 (I’m exploring this 2.236=2*phi-1=sqrt(5) fib target in various scenarios)
etc.

Internal waves of v:
1.v.(1)=\$188.68 to \$215.59, length=\$26.91, 134.3% of iv
1.v.(2)=\$215.59 to \$194.06, length=\$21.53, 80.0% of (1)
(ending it at \$190.25 makes the start of wave (3) a little odd)
1.v.(3)=\$194.06 to ...

(3)=1.000*(1): \$220.97 (passed)
(3)=1.618*(1): \$237.60 (Tue HOD \$237.48)
(3)=2.236*(1): \$254.23
etc.

Assuming we’ve just completed (3) at \$237.48 (or about to), then internal waves of (3) are:
1.v.(3).(i)=\$194.06 to \$204.31, length=\$10.25, 47.6% of (2) (seems too small thus my alternative count below)
1.v.(3).(ii)=\$204.31 to \$195.71, length=\$8.60, 83.9% of (i)
1.v.(3).(iii)=\$195.71 to \$227.73, length=\$32.02, 312.4% of (i)
1.v.(3).(iv)=\$227.73 to \$220.15, length=\$7.58, 23.7% of (iii)
1.v.(3).(v)=\$220.15 to ...

(v)=1.000*(i): \$230.40 (passed)
(v)=1.618*(i): \$236.73 (passed, but aligns with previously mentioned targets for v.(3) and v)
(v)=2.236*(i): \$243.07

Assuming (3).(v) completed at \$237.48 then targets for (4) are:
(4)=0.382*(3): \$220.90 (norm, price range of previous lower-degree (iv) wave)
(4)=0.500*(3): \$215.77 (max, also top of gap, end of (1) is \$215.59 but an overlap in wave v is allowed)

Alternative count: assumes wave just completed (or about to complete) is not (3) but just (3).(i). Same count as above changing (i), (ii), (iii), etc. for (i).[1], (i).[2], (i).[3], etc. Only real difference is once (i) completes we’re looking at targets for (ii) now instead of (4):

(ii)=0.382*(i): \$220.90 (expected, price range of previous lower-degree [4] wave)
(ii)=0.500*(i): \$215.77 (just above top of gap)
(ii)=0.618*(i): \$210.64 (just below bottom of gap)

Couple more alternative counts:
- Consider iv ends at \$194.06, and this recent move represents 1.v (implies sharp drop from here) or 1.v.(1) (most similar to Mace’s count quoted above).

- Consider iv ends at \$195.71 (roughly symmetrical triangle with preceding waves modified slightly to accommodate this) and only two waves have completed for v so far:

1.v.(1)=\$195.71 to \$227.73, length=\$32.02, 161.1% of iv
1.v.(2)=\$227.73 to \$220.15, length=\$7.58, 23.7% of (1)
1.v.(3)=\$220.15 to ...
(3)=1.000*(i): \$252.17
(3)=1.618*(i): \$271.96
(3)=2.236*(i): \$291.75

[ Edited: 30 March 2010 06:45 PM by deagol ]

• #### danthemason

Posted: 30 March 2010 08:03 PM #42

Honestly I love you guys.

• #### Gtrplyr

Posted: 30 March 2010 08:15 PM #43

Is there a price that wasn’t covered ?

Can’t understand a word, but I enjoyed seeing \$401 in there somewhere : )

• #### deagol

Posted: 31 March 2010 04:46 AM #44

Gtrplyr - 30 March 2010 11:15 PM

Can’t understand a word, but I enjoyed seeing \$401 in there somewhere : )

Gtrplyr (is that GatorPlayer?), you’re so right that it all looks like gobbledygook. But the gist of all of that number crunching and multiplicity of price targets is quite simple: I’m looking at a short-term (next couple of weeks) correction to about \$220 or so, and a mid-term (next few months) continuation of the rally towards \$300 or so. After that, a deeper correction might be in the cards (it’s anyone’s guess how deep and for how long but I have “faith” in FA that it shouldn’t be more than 20% deep) and then a much stronger longer-term continuation towards \$500 and beyond (a few years).

Sometimes it’s possible to consider a scenario where the short-term and mid-term moves (weeks and months) can be assumed to have happened already, and thus we might hypothesize that the deeper correction is upon us, and speculate on such trading opportunities as a 25% drop from here and a double from there.

Hope this plain english explanation helps.

• #### CaptainBoom

Posted: 31 March 2010 11:31 AM #45

deagol - 31 March 2010 07:46 AM

Hope this plain english explanation helps.

It’s very helpful for me. Thank you.