The view remains valid as far as wave IV at 13039 holds. Alternative view suggests wave V of (c) is already complete at 1.002, and the pair has started multi-month / multi-year rally.
Hence something else is represented by the price decline from IV and not necessarily wave V. Nor would this look right even if we take your ((W)), ((X)) and ((Y)) to your (c) as indicated on your chart to represent wave V.
May be I am missing something here.
In my chart I am attempting to label this, where if correct the wave (v) of V might be truncated (see my chart). However, the subsequent move of the low do not support 5 wave impulsive move up of larger multi months or year move to the upside.
If we find that the wave V low has not been formed and as you suggest possible wave (c) for form at lower level then question arises is how is the inner counts labelled from your wave IV high? How does your waves ((W)), ((X)) and ((Y)) fit in?
Surely you are not suggesting that the entire move from Feb 2011 to last low is ending diagonal as I think larger waves I and III appear to have valid 5 wave internal structure.
So there is definitely something not right with the counts as they stand and some else needs to be considered. I have been agonising over this for sometime and now do have possible outlook but wish to see how you explain yours first.
Similarly if we have wave 1 decline of Feb 2011 high then 3-3-3-3-3 ending diagonal is not likely in my view. so that still leave the question unanswered for now.
So we need to see if that clarifies with further price data.
Well thank you for your reply and time.
I note that you have labelled waves ((W)) and ((x)) following wave IV with another swing low to come to complete (c). How does all this price action since the IV top fit in when we should be looking out for 5 wave impulse down from IV top.
Secondly to suggest that wave 5 might have completed already also look rather confusing since if that was the case we fine what might be minor wave 3 of 5 looks shorter.
So would be interested in your comments on both of the above.