Following is a brief technical synopsis of the interpretation I would make, given an asset giving off signs of reversibility from my predictive/forecasting model, as well as from a "Game Theory" approach by way of reverse engineering a high-probability set-up given the current set of conditions, in a "forward retrospective" fashion.
PREDICTIVE ANALYSIS/FORECASTING MODEL BLIPS (ALMOST) GREEN:
On its own, the predictive/forecasting model has posted an early reversal sign, pending its signal confirmation in $DUST.
In fact, IF the model were to generate a Market reversal confirmation signal, it would offer the following overhead target potentials - Again, signal confirmation remains pending at this time:
1 - TG-1 = 32.97 - 12 SEP 2014
2 - TG-2 = 37.76 - 12 SEP 2014
3 - TG-Hi = 41.23 - 12 SEP 2014
WAVE'S FLAT AND EXPANDED FLAT:
While data is still crackling in the old Apple Macintosh Plus, it is worth taking a few steps back and first define the trend (DOWN) and strength (TAPERING) of the current market conditions. This is one step I prefer to include using both the H4 and DAILY timeframes, as they tend to provide a synthesis of both retail and institutional footprints in terms of price action.
The H4 timeframe (not included) indicates that price is currently recovering at 1.131-Fib from the prior down swing. If you consider the wave counts, you might realize that a set of two 3-wave patterns generate an upswing, then a down swing, leading us to the recent lower-low.
If you know the basic EWP pattern options, this leaves up with a corrective Flat option, of which TWO come available:
1 - The Regular Flat, whose wave count comes as 3-3-5 via A-B-C points, respectively
2 - The Expanded Flat, whose wave count and points are similar except that Point-B would exceed the point of origin of Wave-A, and Point-C would exceed the point of origin of Wave-B.
Here is a link to visualize what I am describing:
These flats are corrective, in the sense that they move counter to the major trend, which in this case is DOWN. This, the net result would lead these patterns to move UP as they reach their last point of completion.
THE BIGGER PICTURE:
Now that we have defined the two sorts of Flats, there is one detail that I thought might now just to your mind's eyes, which is that a larger Flat (the "Regular" kind) could potentially develop as well. In fact, independent from the predictive/forecasting model, a proprietary pattern (Euclid Pattern) also defines a "Worst Case Scenario" which is colored in purple in the chart. It defines this outer most level as:
- TG-x = 52.76 - 12 SEP 2014
Running the model in that "Worst Case Scenario", it yields the following nearby value of 51.32:
- TG-MODEL= 51.32 - 12 SEP 2014
Here is a link to the same chart, projecting that LARGER Flat:
A Market Reversal Confirmation Signal remains pending. Until then, above analysis remains to be proven. For this reason, I will keep TradingView's Directional indicator as "Neutral". However, a recent analysis I released on $XAUUSD (see "Related Links" below) would tend in that direction as well.
Feel free to chime in, report pertinent fundamental and technical events as you wish. This is free access, and I will join in whenever I can with pearls, lessons and relevant information as it comes through.
Predictive Analysis & Forecasting
Denver, Colorado - USA
Alias: 4xForecaster (Twitter, LinkedIn, StockTwits)
Signal Service or Private Course - Contact: MarketPredictiveAnalysis@gmail.com
All updates on https://twitter.com/4xForecaster
I can only infer the tone of your frustration regarding these vehicles, and I understand that they may represent a different challenge to trade. However, in my experience, these assets have remained consistent in their response to the model as any other moving asset.
It appears that their intrinsic magnified move by virtue of their 3x power has had no impact on the implied geometry which it shares with other positively correlated asset as a common denominator - at least not in a matter that would have impaired or crippled the predictive analysis or forecast generated by the model.
I appreciate your opinion and your challenge to rethink it, though, but in my experience with 2x or 3x powered ETFs, the model remains robust and reliable so far.