Weekly Update: Do the Little Things Matter?
As an analyst, I often wonder if I get too much into the weeds (so to speak) at times. In the final analysis do those tiny details even matter? When you’re both a full time trader for profit, and simultaneously an analyst who shares one’s work publicly, often times distraction and multi-tasking is the enemy of discovery.
Hopefully, this is not one of those times.
It’s no secret I exclusively use MACD in my analysis. To use MACD properly is to know the indicator intimately. MACD, or moving average convergence/divergence, is a trend-following momentum indicator that shows the relationship between two exponential moving averages (EMAs) of a security’s price. The MACD line is calculated by subtracting the 26-period EMA from the 12-period EMA. The result of that calculation is the MACD line or Zero-Line. A nine-day EMA of the MACD line is called the signal, which is then plotted on top of the MACD line, which can function as a trigger for buy or sell signals. That's probably more than you ever wanted to know about the indicator.
Now in my analysis I do not use MACD as a buy/sell indicator. I exclusively use MACD as a means to guide me within my Elliott Wave analysis. In doing so I have to rely on the indicator to guide me with the following:
1. Is this an A-wave within a corrective structure, or a wave 3 within an impulsive structure?
2. Is the trend concluding or persisting?
3. Is the bottom or the top of a wave structure valid, or should I expect One More High or Low (OMH/OML).
Without observing the indicator in conjunction with my Elliott Wave count, I fear I would be inaccurate in my forecasts. To say MACD is essential to my price pattern analysis is analogous to saying water is essential to life. For me, I cannot perform one without the other. However recently I noticed some very small anomalies in the indicator while analyzing price action that I hope to remember to come back and check for validity.
in the above chart I notated two bottoms in price action and how the indicator reacted to both. As I track and report on each and every tick of the ES/SPX Futures, I noticed our recent breach of 4068.75 a week go to 4062.25 was not on positive divergence. Now anyone who would say I'm way to focused on a detail that in the grand scheme of things means nothing, would get no push-back from me. But is it really meaningless? Is it a clue? Is it the detail 99% of traders would miss, and in the end...is everything?
Truth is...I don't know yet. Time will tell.
The above chart I have manually stretched the MACD indicator, but unstretched and it clearly debatable the recent bottom may not have breached the previous MACD reading and since price has reversed, to the unobservant eye, we have what could be positive divergence.
So, how do we know?
To confirm this was not a mear over estimation of one's detailed orientated skills, the price action would need to follow through lower, without making a new high. Thereby confirming this MACD reading was no random reading worthy of being overlooked. RN Elliott postulated that price action is fractal across all time frames. That's interesting to me, because of this one singular MACD reading has chosen to occupy space in my brain so much that I'm now noticing the very same anolmolies in the micro patterns as well.
Nonetheless, I have a tendency to think positive or negative divergence is either confirmed or it's not. In my current mind, this is not up for debate. Now maybe I am proven wrong as time goes on, but even if that happens, this would not be an unworthy study in what confirmation actually means.
Therefore, I will continue to wonder, IF THE LITTLE THINGS MATTER.
Best to all,
Chris
Hopefully, this is not one of those times.
It’s no secret I exclusively use MACD in my analysis. To use MACD properly is to know the indicator intimately. MACD, or moving average convergence/divergence, is a trend-following momentum indicator that shows the relationship between two exponential moving averages (EMAs) of a security’s price. The MACD line is calculated by subtracting the 26-period EMA from the 12-period EMA. The result of that calculation is the MACD line or Zero-Line. A nine-day EMA of the MACD line is called the signal, which is then plotted on top of the MACD line, which can function as a trigger for buy or sell signals. That's probably more than you ever wanted to know about the indicator.
Now in my analysis I do not use MACD as a buy/sell indicator. I exclusively use MACD as a means to guide me within my Elliott Wave analysis. In doing so I have to rely on the indicator to guide me with the following:
1. Is this an A-wave within a corrective structure, or a wave 3 within an impulsive structure?
2. Is the trend concluding or persisting?
3. Is the bottom or the top of a wave structure valid, or should I expect One More High or Low (OMH/OML).
Without observing the indicator in conjunction with my Elliott Wave count, I fear I would be inaccurate in my forecasts. To say MACD is essential to my price pattern analysis is analogous to saying water is essential to life. For me, I cannot perform one without the other. However recently I noticed some very small anomalies in the indicator while analyzing price action that I hope to remember to come back and check for validity.
in the above chart I notated two bottoms in price action and how the indicator reacted to both. As I track and report on each and every tick of the ES/SPX Futures, I noticed our recent breach of 4068.75 a week go to 4062.25 was not on positive divergence. Now anyone who would say I'm way to focused on a detail that in the grand scheme of things means nothing, would get no push-back from me. But is it really meaningless? Is it a clue? Is it the detail 99% of traders would miss, and in the end...is everything?
Truth is...I don't know yet. Time will tell.
The above chart I have manually stretched the MACD indicator, but unstretched and it clearly debatable the recent bottom may not have breached the previous MACD reading and since price has reversed, to the unobservant eye, we have what could be positive divergence.
So, how do we know?
To confirm this was not a mear over estimation of one's detailed orientated skills, the price action would need to follow through lower, without making a new high. Thereby confirming this MACD reading was no random reading worthy of being overlooked. RN Elliott postulated that price action is fractal across all time frames. That's interesting to me, because of this one singular MACD reading has chosen to occupy space in my brain so much that I'm now noticing the very same anolmolies in the micro patterns as well.
Nonetheless, I have a tendency to think positive or negative divergence is either confirmed or it's not. In my current mind, this is not up for debate. Now maybe I am proven wrong as time goes on, but even if that happens, this would not be an unworthy study in what confirmation actually means.
Therefore, I will continue to wonder, IF THE LITTLE THINGS MATTER.
Best to all,
Chris
Go to ewtdaily.com for DETAILED DAILY UPDATES on this ticker, and get a 7-day FREE trial on updates on 27 unique tickers.
Disclaimer
The information and publications are not meant to be, and do not constitute, financial, investment, trading, or other types of advice or recommendations supplied or endorsed by TradingView. Read more in the Terms of Use.