Stop loss at 1995.4, as breach of this high would invalidate the triangle count.
There is one possible scenario that may be occurring that would still fit within the triangle view: if wave "e" is a triangle, its actual end would be where its own "e" wave completes. If the "e" wave ultimately terminates at or below the "c" wave peak of 1993.6, despite the highs and lows that its "a", "b", "c" and "d" waves reach before that point, it could still be considered valid.
I will be watching closely to see whether this is the case or something else is happening.
I also think it will be interesting to see whether the critical juncture in the chart pattern arrives even before the Fed announces its intentions.
It is very significant that the rally hit 2021.2, as that is exactly (within 1/10th of a point) the 61.8% retracement of the decline from the all-time high of 2137.1 to 1833.5. That Fib retracement is typically associated with 2nd waves, rather than 4th waves.
If the price had not immediately snapped back down below my aforementioned key level of 1936.6 and have been languishing there until now, I would be more inclined to change my label from 4th wave to 2nd wave for this whole correction since 1833.5. However, call me stubborn, but at the moment I still see allowable room for even this latest development to fit within the boundaries of a valid "e" wave of a 4th wave triangle if "e" is itself ending as a triangle which could still terminate below 1993.6.
that are reasons why neowave is here, of course not perfect, but can handle some anomalies, like diametric waves f and g
i would expect according to Neely last wave g up and blast C down, i take your target, no problem :)
Here is an example of what I saw in EURUSD. On July 17th, I called for a rally from a bullish triangle from 1.0818 to 1.18. What we finally saw was a rally to 1.17, which was close, on August 24th.
In that forecast, I labeled an example of what I considered an "e" wave that exceeded but then terminated within bounds of the preceding "c" wave. You can check it in the lower notes and up-close charts I added at the bottom of this posting: