Time will tell - for now I don't have any fundamental reason for gold to go up but for now the chart seems "wiped out" enough for a rally to create a new pattern of "euphoria".
Tim 9:19PM EST 1307.48 -3.29 last Sunday, August 10, 2014
are you using elliottwave cycles for this analysis...?
Your levels are perfectly aligned with fibonacci extension and retracement levels! It seems you have also included the rules of alternation with the 1365-70 retracement to 1240.
This is a masterpiece - Thanks for sharing!
Good luck to you & everyone!
It looks ambitious (taking elliottwaves to the next level); I think I must be missing out on something grand here?
As far as the forecast is concerned; this 10% spike up could perhaps mean that geopolitical conditions are going to get worse...maybe after all these sanctions on Russia - perhaps they are finally going to ask for all further payments of gas to be paid in "gold" (or something along those lines...)
As for the forecast, Russia has been buying up gold as fast as possible, but I always know it doesn't matter what the real fundamentals are because gold is a perception. Gold is merely a psychological shift from the need for stability/certainty and the need for growth/investment. But, markets exist to balance out these needs.
I prefer to just do my best to catch waves and find patterns and thankfully, report them here when I can for all of us to see. Hopefully I get it right once in awhile!
I'm sure you are well aware that any new idea that comes and deviates from the "status quo" has its fair share of criticism and skeptism annoted towards it. That is exactly how I felt when I heard of "neowaves" and I honestly just dismissed it; because I'm happy with elliottwaves and have learned to cope with its limitations.
However now that you've said that you knew him personally & know that he has been successful with his forecasting; I'm more than willing to look into neowaves and perhaps improve my understanding of the "the already amazing/fascinating" elliottwaves...
The article that you wrote is it on the internet? I'm definitely going to add "mastering elliott waves" to my reading list. You said that "Glenn followed the rules of elliott and added some logical extensions to it"; does that mean that neowaves can stand on their own? or does one need a thorough knowledge of elliott in order to work with neowaves? Could the overlap lead to any confusion? Lastly I'm curious; where does the work of Scott Carney and his harmonic waves fit in with the neowave theory?
I share the same sentiments about the markets in general...and that is why "patterns" and "waves" play a core part in my trading!
Not many people give credit to where its due Tim! Thank you again for giving credibility to neowaves & of course for all your hard work.
The article I wrote on Neely is available the Foundation for the Study of Cycles website. It was in 1989. It looks like they charge for copies of old articles. I recall what I wrote: Essentially, Glenn requires an extended wave for impulsive waves to be confirmed. Glenn allows wave 2 to be a running correction and finish above the high of wave 1. Glenn found that post-pattern action has to confirm the pattern. Most analysts don't seem to require a strict adherence to the rules. I've seen wave 3 drift across the 2-4 trendline in many counts through the years. That's the gist of the article (from 25 years ago, it's still in my head).
As for NeoWave and the book, it is a bit more complicated than you can imagine, so I found other ways to come up with trades that aren't as complicated. But I understand the key components to Glenn's NeoWave and would highly recommend it to anyone with a serious interest in Wave Counts. I do not know anything of Scott Carney and his harmonic waves.
Many thanks again for your nice comments.