There is little question that the fundamentals have pulled the carpet from underneath this export-dependent economy, and that a slumping Asian theater demand will do nothing supportive for this currency.

However, on a technical basis, there is a possibility of a Bullish Shark reversal at the 0.81335 level. This pattern is often flanked with its acolyte, namely the 5-0 pattern, whose namesake points to a 50% retracement of the Shark conclusive swing.

Overlay of predictive/forecasting model has produced the following probable targets - listed in expected chronological visits:

1 - TG-1 = 0.81335 - 10 SEP 2014

2 - TG-Hi = 0.84838 - 10 SEP 2014

and

3 - TG-2 = 0.7866 - 10 SEP 2014

As indicated earlier this evening in the Forex Intel Room (link: https://www.tradingview.com/chat/#xsmm44S00HaO5wCZ ):

"ANZ hit target on its $NZDUSD Short circa 0.82 (Medium-Term) at a profit of +400 pips"

This major bank's relief of its bearish pressure on the $NZD supposes that a lightening up of institutional weight combined with above proposed technical reasoning, may indeed provide the mechanical lift to see it rise to the defined targets above.

I will continue to use this chart to post $NZD-related charting and technical commentaries, including occasional Forex Intelligence on major banks' FX positioning from linked room above.

Cheers,

David Alcindor

Predictive Analysis & forecasting

Denver, Colorado - USA

------------------

Twitter: @4xForecaster

------------------

"Danske's limit order to Short $AUDUSD (Short-Term) got canceled "

This is tantamount to cancellation of a $USD long position - Prepare to see major USD crosses reflexively react to a possible BEARISH $USD push. Keep an eye on this possibility, especially here, as we approach our first target:

- TG-1 = 0.81335 - 10 SEP 2014

A BEARISH $USD would indeed provide the reversal mechanism necessary to rally back to the next forecast target: TG-Hi = 0.84838 - 10 SEP 2014.

Cheers,

David Alcindor

Your comment is in reply to the comment I made earlier, which are now posted below.

Thank you for your humble understanding and flexibility of the mind.

David

The Euclidean name I gave to my module is based on the Euclidean rule, which defines the smallest divisible component able to relate itself to all other larger shapes, and capable to maintain a same relationship across all shapes that sprung from it (at least, it''s my own geometry-based definition - Original definition is simply a series of axiom proving one simple line related to a larger set of lines, all the way up to complex geometries and algebraic expressions. In this manner, the Euclidean Module is a "geometric axiom", holding one simple 2-dimentional truth of itself, and yet defining the larger price action is proportion to itself.

Nodes and Nodules are not part of the Euclidean Modules, but would need to appear as support and proof of intrinsic correspondences between these shapes. I spent lots of brain-deadening hours peeling a chart into shapes, and the Euclidean module is what emerged from it.

There is no other knowledge in this head of mine, and no other purpose but to hold it for sharing sparingly, and on other occasion to hold a hat atop it.

David

a thought flashed into my mind that asked:

Isn't the trading axiom of "Broken resistance becomes support

and broken support becomes resistance" and as such targets the next

level of a larger degree a simple example of what you're expressing

in a more complex way ???

I ask because of all the complex ways of trading I've seen, simplicity

has always given me the best results. Perhaps that is because, after

A and B's in Algebra and Geometry, I hit a brick wall with Trig and Calculus.

As always, thanks for all your great dissertations, methodologies and

helpful explanations !!!!!!

I posted these ideas as "sharewares" but do not represent a safe or sound methodology for the everyday trader. In a way, this is simple curiosity about how intricately inter-related geometries are within the market - Here is a simple video I posted a while ago (1-2 years?) illustrating the Euclidean Module, and a Nodule, and a very simple correspondence they maintain with price action:

/users/dalcindo/folders/Camtasia%2520Studio/media/7abf7f47-417c-41f0-8a88-ac423191c908#

Here in this $AUDCHF, you will see the simple projection downward was able to define a reversal. Typically, these geometries remain consistent up to a third repetition, and thereafter, they might require Fib fractions of the EM - See the darkened numbers to the left of the field:

- https://www.facebook.com/photo.php%3Ffbid%3D10151490897500036%26amp%3Bset%3Do.383867671699611%26amp%3Btype%3D1

All for fun and mental snack.

David

The most common mistake made by the majority of traders based on the mistake of mis-naming the X-A-B triangle. On a pure market-geo basis, this is what I call the "Seed" of all patterns.

In the case of the Shark, the novice trader looks for a 113% reciprocal ratio by unduly stretching a Fibonacci scale from ZERO to Point-A, and then hunt for that 1.13-Fib level. This could not be further from the true point definition of the pattern.

INSTEAD, the Shark trader should focus attention to the SEED of the pattern, namely that X-A-B component, which rules this and all other geometric off-shoots (Bat, Crab, Gartley, ... etc).

Now, at the opposite end, there is reason to look for YET another 113-Reciprocal Ratio, which would be found at Point-C, and defined as the ZERO-A extension.

Hence, the formula for the Shark is as follows:

1 - Point B = 1.131 to 1.618 * XA

and

2 - Point-C = 1.131 * XA

Such as demonstrated in the following diagrams:

Chart-1: Determination of Point-B relative to 0X:

Chart-2: Determination of Point-C relative to 0X:

Note that Point-C does not have to reside based on its 1.131 * 0X expression. It is simply that IF Point-C was to adversely excurse to extension territories, it would need to answer to this proportional expression as a matter of approximate placement relative to at least two of the seed's points.

I hope this helps clarify the pattern for you.

If you need reference, I recommend looking into Scott Carney's books, which is what I have used as a source of verification before writing this explanation out, in case I needed to state this credential.

Cheers,

David Alcindor

There are TWO primordial/derivative patterns that I heed:

1 - The Shark/5-0

and

2 - The Bat/Crab

Any other pattern have greater occurrence in the charts, but less reliability, the Gartley being the most frequent pattern of them all.

Cheers,

David Alcindor