black, thanks for the kind words, but imho don't try to figure out why sometimes the actual market action diverges from the cyclical ideal; as airedale pointed out, Hurst's intention was to develop a robust TRADING SYSTEM based on cycles, and NOT to explain every single market action by cycles to the point where there is no disagreement about anything - and he specifically developed "tools" and plan of action when the market action moves away from the cyclical ideal.
therefore, my humble suggestion is to focus more on trading based on cycles based on ALL of Hurst's principles and recommendation on how to go about trading by cycles, and less on "academic" discussions as to why the market action is diverging from what the cyclical ideal says ought to happen.
that's why I can't stand reading Prechter's analysis - he has had this unbelivably bearish bias towards the markets since 1987, and NO matter what the market is doing, he is going to come up with some convoluted count or some convoluted explanation as to why the market keeps doing the exact opposite (i.e. rallying) of what he has been predicting (i.e. sell-offs) - but of course he can do that becuase he does NOT trade his funds, and only make money (millions annually, actually) from his newsletter, so he can pontification on as to what the market should be doing, as opposed to what the market is actually doing, and then blame the Fed, the PPT, God, who-knows-who when his prediction fall apart.
but had he be forced to trade by his analysis, I guarantee you that he would either fail miserably, or be forced to start being more honest in his outlook.
why poeple still subscribe to his newsletter is beyond me.
AI
