The wave count since May has been a source of major contention. And for very good reason: How do you count the flash crash? Is it an impulse or a 3? If an impulse, does it end at the flash crash or the next leg (truncated)? Is the count a 1-2, 1-2 setting up for a massive leg down? Or is it a leading diagonal?
I will attempt to answer some of these questions, and in typical binve fashion, my conclusions will almost certainly be wrong :) But I hope the discussion will be useful and be of general benefit to this EW community.
First, I had been counting this as a diagonal for a few weeks. alphahorn was the first major blogger to call it (at least the first one that I saw call it). And I thought about it for a few days after he proposed it and then I adopted it. See here: Sloppy Joe. I give alpha full props for the identification of this option early on, and I think it will turn out to be the right one.
Whoa, whoa. Wait a minute binv. What about the 1-2, 1-2 count?
Excellent question, and let me segue into it. This was that way I was originally leaning, but there are a lot of things going against it. The main reason identified by creepy is that the second (nested) 2 is much longer in duration than the main 2. I suppose this is a 'possible' count, but I think the odds are way small on it. A nested 1-2 in an extension represents a move that is accelerating. As such the 2 should be a smaller retrace than the larger degree 2 preceding it, and the duration should be shorter than the preceding 2.
Honestly, these waves looking like alternating form corrective waves *of the same degree*, not a nested 1-2. See the chart below for thinking on this.
At this point, I really dislike the 1-2, 1-2 count and it was way down on my list of alternate counts. There is another alternate count that I like better and is not a leading diagonal. It is proposed by Kevin and Diablos. Not my preferred count, but I do like it better than the 1-2, 1-2: Always Another Option. But the reason it is not higher on my list is because the 2 was pretty shallow and short in duration in comparison to 1.
So I am going with my (and alpha's) gut: a Leading Diagonal.
Now even here, there are 2 options / schools of thought.
a) A 5-3-5-3-5 Leading Diagonal
b) A 3-3-3-3-3 Leading Diagonal
Now before anybody jumps down my throat about this: BOTH ARE VIABLE / LEGAL COUNTS!!. A diagonal is normally a 3-3-3-3-3 wave in an ending position. And it can be a 3-3-3-3-3 in a leading position in impulses and A waves in corrections. There is a valid variation in the leading position, which is a 5-3-5-3-5. I discussed this ad nauseum here: A word on Diagonals. Balan confirms the 3-3-3-3-3 and 5-3-5-3-5 are both valid LD counts.
So if your aim is to argue with me on this one: shut up and save it. I have researched it thoroughly. You have a difference of opinion, fine. But I have spent enough time looking at this a week ago that I am thoroughly comfortable in the validity of my position.
Here are the two counts that support both options. And it is not a slam dunk either way. The counts are sufficiently ambiguous to support both options. But what is nice is that they give similar targets. Between 1110 and 980
So the Leading Diagonal is my preferred count at the moment. I honestly don't have a huge preference for either option. I am just staying bearish and riding this wave further down.
There is another interesting observation that I made before, and that is the first wave of P1 was also a leading diagonal: Uncanny. I know Kevin doesn't like this and thinks it detracts from the LD case. But I am not so sure about that. An LD represents an impulse that can't quite get underway because bullishness is still very high. I think that describes the 2007 top and this top very nicely.
One last word: I am labeling the LDs as 5 minor waves above. But actually I think they are 5 Minute waves. I think the LD will end up being Minor 1 of Int 1 of P3 .... now that is something to seriously ponder.
Here is how it fits into my long term projection.