DOW1932 bottom vs. NAZ2002 bottom.
The following is a collection of previous posts on other boards, updated with current market data. They are based upon my analysis of the 1932 bottoming process of the DOW. I study this period because I believe it represents how the market goes about efficiently deflating an extra exuberant bubble.
In 1932, the DOW bottomed at 714 trading days from its peak -- by my count September 24 is the 639 trading day (adjusted) since the NAZ top. DOW29 top plus 639 trading days was about March 18, 1932. If you believe that this NAZ 2000 bubble is deflating in a manner similar to the DOW 1929 bubble, then we are about 75 trading days away from a comparable DOW32-like bottom -- roughly in a December 2002/February 2003 window.
The July bottom of DOW32 occurred on the 714th trading day. Overlaying and aligning DOW 1929-1932 and NDX 2000-2002 charts indicates that we are in the Mar/Jul32 final flush.
If you study the DOW's final flush, it lasted about four months and removed about 10% to 15% of the final value (calculated off the high) from the DOW. That means about 500 to 750 points could possibly be subtracted from the Aug NAZ high of 1425. That's a 675 to 925 bottom -- and in an envelope within which many TA-type's bottom targets fall.
Also, this final drop of the DOW appears to have been the scariest drop of the entire 29/32 period. It appears that EVERYTHING dropped -- stocks, bonds, commodities, etc. Nothing escaped and both bulls and bears were decimated. The only thing left standing seems to have been cash (at the time, one could not legally possess gold). As of today, I still have not seen everything (DOW, NAZ, bonds and commodities) drop together, and I certainly have not seen the fear that one would experience when they realize there is no safe place to hide.
As an aside, I have noticed that the decent of the NAZ has been less volatile than the 29/32 DOW drop. The end % drop is the same (bubble gets deflated back to its pre-bubble base) -- just NAZ has been smoother and more organized in it's decent. I'm wondering if this could be the result of a more experienced FED and maybe a little PPT influence?
Hope this information is helpful.