Back in March, when the price was about to break the year trend, I fell back to the multi-year trendline as a guide to my charting. The idea being that the 'reverse parabola' was supported by this line, and so too the price. Both the parabola and the trendline have proved very useful over the course of the year in predicting the course and nature of the correction, and yet that trendline may have come to the end of its usefulness.
If the multi-year trendline was of use in the medium term, it's the log growth curve that is useful in the longer term. In the course of this fourth quarter, I think price will track sideways across the trendline, further establishing a solid base for another run up to the log growth curve at a later date [2021?]. In this transition from the medium to the long term, its the parabola that will provide the support - what was originally a reverse parabola in the correction will develop into a parabolic spike at some point further on.
Given the nature of the logarithmic scale, and the growth curve, linear concepts and traditional ideas about charting need to defer to relative ones in my opinion. Ideas of forces, fields, zones, curves etc come to trump the more familiar ideas of support, trends, and resistance etc.
if you draw the line more carefully with the daily chart then you will notice that there arent just a number of touches during 2015-2017, youll also notice that this line acted twice as resistence during 2012. its the same line in both cases.
christophercolumbus
⋅
@moviestar, The rigid application of a trendline to an organic structure such as the log growth curve is problematic.
moviestar
⋅
@christophercolumbus, oh come on. there a more detailed level where you could have applied the line which gives a more clear direction we are heading to. end of the story.
if you draw the line more carefully with the daily chart then you will notice that there arent just a number of touches during 2015-2017, youll also notice that this line acted twice as resistence during 2012. its the same line in both cases.