Here is the current SPY chart from this morning’s pre-market update, on which I had drawn a candle based on the pre-market’s projection. SPY opened around that level and just got worse through the day. You can see my mocked up candle, which actually ended up being a large gap down from which the market kept on fading. Several indexes closed gaps (from last week) today, which is not a bad thing.
So is the A-B-C still applicable? The concept is still intact but I would have preferred to see it work down to the B over a couple more days, not just get bludgeoned there in one big drop.
Frankly, I don’t care what the market does because it is in motion and so it is manageable for people like me (as opposed to the thing that floated sideways for months on end). So we are still managing the question of whether the market will A-B-C to resistance around 2040 (204 on SPY) or drop to a test of the low sooner rather than later?
From an update on August 27: SPX @ Target #1
“The bounce has made it to target #1 . Higher potential remains at 2050 [revised to 2040], but this is a valid bounce target as well.”
From this morning’s pre-market update:
“From here we are either going to get the rise to resistance at around SPY 204 (SPX 2040) or a drop to test the recent low, which would also decide whether or not the bull market remains intact (whether or not SPX holds the October low at 1820.66).”
This is status unchanged. But if the re-test of the October lows comes right away and is successful, I am going to become more bullish on the stock market. If however, the market C’s up to resistance per the A-B-C plan, the next significant opportunity would likely be a bearish one.
Crude Oil made a big move up, got hammered today and we noted XLE’s big picture bull market in an NFTRH+ update, along with technical parameters. I found it interesting and am patiently going to keep it on radar.
I don’t like the action. Nor can I effectively interpret the short-term action. This is in line with the view mentioned last week. I am seeing regular stock markets better than I am seeing the precious metals. Therefore I am focusing on regular markets more closely.
In the best investment backdrop, the gold sector would grind its way inverse to a bearish broad market. But it is a process measured in months, even from when fundamentals began to turn more positive.
On an anecdotal note, I was sent a link to an article and video interview on a financial/conspiracy website that presented Jim Sinclair in as reverential a light as he was when he was the renowned guru (Mr. Gold) presiding over a great bull market. It made me cringe, not to mention give me pause about a new bull starting just yet.
The previous paragraph is not analysis. It is one market participant with a respect for psychology getting the willies, realizing that the true believers are still on message. The comments section of the article had its share of gold bugs right in line behind Mr. Gold and it even featured the website’s host bashing a commenter for his opinion that gold is not manipulated.
Steve (website visitor): “I used to believe in the rampant manipulation of the gold markets until i got proper information and grew up. If Gold is always manipulated to the downside, why buy it?”
Greg Hunter (website host): “Steve you grew up to be an idiot. I got “proper information” from Dr Paul Craig Roberts* who laid out an analytical case for gold manipulation. Go long the New Zealand dollar and come back and tell us how you are doing in a year.”
It’s concerning if you are a gold bug, because the bear has apparently not dug deep enough into all the bunkers to devour the most ardent holdouts.
* Above we have “Dr Paul Craig Roberts”. From NFTRH 355 (very coincidentally I was reminded of this by a subscriber this morning):
Have you noticed that the bear and/or gold communities tend to make sure they call John Hussman “Doctor Hussman”, Jim Willie “Doctor Willie”, Robert McHugh “Doctor McHugh”, Chris Martenson “Doctor Martenson” and any other Ph.D. writing about markets “Doctor”, while conveniently forgetting to label the likes of “Doctor Bernanke” as such (“Helicopter Ben”)?
I don’t know about you, but when I am reading articles and I see a writer labeling someone with whom he or she agrees (and with whom they want you to agree) “Doctor” in order to convince the reader of the material’s seriousness or worthiness I think “man, that’s cheesy”.