The rise to a new all-time high today has caused change to the desirability of some wave counts.
Beginning with the long-term picture as usual, there is likely an impulse wave higher winding down that began at the [C], or [E] low in 2011. This can be part of a larger impulse wave or wave c of a zigzag. It is not clear which is correct.
Taking an impulse higher from [C] begins with trouble. The the 3-wave nature of [D] and [E] make it unnatural and difficult to work into an impulsive structure, but it is possible. 5 waves higher from [E] likely terminates at (1) or A of (3) where the structure of [3] is essentially set in stone. Termination at (1) is the worst of the two choices because the structure of (1) works poorly as an impulse wave and it requires an impulse higher underway since (2) which is quite complex due to all the subdivision required.
An impulse from [E] to A of (3) is better, but it requires an impulse wave from [4] to A of (3) that is odd; its 4th wave in the (2) position is deep and retraces the entire core of the 3rd wave. It also requires a sideways structure from A of (3) to (4) that really must be a flat with structural problems. For instance, the 'c' wave of this flat must be an ending diagonal with sideways 4th wave (very rare) and 5th wave truncation. Its wave 'a' also is a very upward-stretched running flat with very little retracement. This is especially strange since an impulse from [4] to A of (3) requires truncation of its 5th wave which usually brings sharply lower prices.
Even with the problems of an impulse from from [E] to A of (3), it has been improved with elimination of "weak". This is due to the large size of (5). If price reaches 1975.65, the ending diagonal options from the [4] or B of (1) low will be invalidated. This point is not far away and (5) is now larger in time than (3). An ending diagonal higher from (2) can still remain valid if 1975.65 is reached, but it would be very weak as it is very unusual to see the 3rd wave longer than the 1st wave in an ending diagonal.
In an interesting development, a sideways pattern like a flat from the (1) high is now a weak option again. This is due to the new requirement that it use the poor flat option from A to (4) where there is a single zigzag higher unfolding from the wave (4) low (a zigzag higher from (4) is now very unlikely).
With the possibility of an impulse wave higher from X to [a] looking very solid, the rise to a new all-time high today suggests an impulse or double zigzag higher underway from the wave (4) low. The small size of [b] of Y in relation to [a] of W to X suggests a sideways correction beginning at [a] is incomplete should the impulse option be correct. If there is a pullback for a sideways correction since [a], this would make the size of the sideways pattern larger than X and probably [b] of W which creates a proportionality problem and is not the tendency of waves.
As mentioned some time ago, the triangle pattern in the wave [b] of W location works perfectly with the waves and has no structural problems. It now does require wave X to be a zigzag-family pattern which is perhaps not the most natural interpretation of those waves.
If waves do continue higher for an impulse from the wave [b] low, action since (4) will look much better as a double zigzag from that time.
Structurally, it does appear most likely that there is an impulse wave higher from the wave [b] low. A this time, a complete zigzag-family pattern must be forced on the waves. Higher prices might make the option look better, but the size of the wave higher today from 1940 is already large compared to any previous wave higher that began after the wave [b] low.
Read more and our consensus at http://ewaveanalytics.com.
blog comments powered by Disqus