Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

TSLA Technical Analysis

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
Look at what I see...
The only problem is that these ascending triangles on shorter timer-frames are much less reliable than the beast we just witnessed.

Screen Shot 2017-07-24 at 11.15.09 PM.png
 
Last edited:
Well, I will admit I have no idea what any of that is.

Yeah, it ain't easy (I moved my answer to TA, since it really belongs here).

Took me an equivalent of a month or two to go through Prechter's little book on Elliott Waves. Figured that poster sounded like he/she was using all the lingo for Elliot waves so was hopeful I could get some feedback on some E-W thoughts... but no... oh, well.

As for what it is.

Elliot Wave is wave analysis. Elliot's (the guy who first popularized this) idea is that stock prices move in a wave-like fashion*. There is a primary trend (bull or bear), and the stock will move in a pattern to follow the trend... independent of the news... it's a giant sentiment wave to a large extent. I assumed the poster was alluding to this with his/her comments about the news not being relevant.

If it's a bull trend, there will be 5 total waves: three up (motive), and two (corrective) down waves. Within each wave will be smaller waves which follow the primary pattern. All up wave cycles are made up of smaller 5 wave patterns, down wave cycles are smaller 3 wave patterns. Flip the whole thing for bear markets.

There are a whole bunch of rules to identify which wave is which. One of the most important is that the lowest price of Wave 4 can never be lower than the peak of wave 1. That's what I'm watching here. If the SP falls below the peak of Wave 1 (287.39, Feb 14), then it would violate this rule and disqualifies the current corrective pattern as Wave 4.

The importance of this is that if this is not Wave 4, then the movement since December 2016 becomes one giant Wave 1. If this is Wave 4, then the next series of upward waves becomes Wave 5, the final wave (for now). Then once Wave 5 peaks, the larger corrective waves will be predominant (which is what we experienced from 2014-2016, IMHO). Obviously if this one giant Wave 1, we still have the full motive up cycle to go through [wave 2(down), 3(up), 4(down) and 5(up)]--with obviously MUCH higher peaks and ultimately SP.

The confusing thing is that way back when, in mid-early 2014 there is a wave pattern which everyone instinctively calls wave 4... except it completely violates the rules. This was the one that Curt Renz showed Prechter (the guy who wrote the book) and he equivocated. If that squiggly line was wave 4, then the whole pattern changes. That's why I was bugging the other poster about it. If we assume that that was wave 4 (which I've seen other EW folks post as the case on other websites), then we would definitely be in a current new Wave 4 with a maximum bottom at 269.34 (April 7, 2016). Once it bottoms then we would be in Up-Wave 5 and we would recalculate the peak based on Fibonacci rules.

Sorry, long answer which probably didn't help, and likely confused the crap out of you. At least it's in the TA thread...

*This was originally built on Dow Theory, I believe of Dow-Jones (I could be wrong).
 
TSLA was more or less at the upper band yesterday... so I don't know if that counts as being above the upper band. Maybe Monday will allow continuation to roam above BB before papafox's 2 day rule comes into effect?
Also, when TSLA finishes towards the top of a long green daily candle, the chances that it continues the next trading day morning is strong. Combine that with usual Monday exuberance ... and I feel good about TSLA.

Brought it over here to the TA section:


IMG_0104.PNG


IMG_0105.PNG


Tesla on top, Walmart on bottom. Tesla finished well today, above the upper bands.

I put Walmart as a comparison from recent price action. You can see how it popped above the band and stayed there for 3-4 days (closing prices). The last day, barely above/at the band was a small spinning top. Then, while the price continued to climb, the SP candles are getting more mixed...

So IMHO, Tesla is looking bullish. Also refer back to @TrendTrader007 's posts about comparisons to NVDA. I believe it is quite apt.
 
Full disclosure, I'm short TSLA and I'm only so-so on TA - I agree that human psychology never changes and that short-term human reactions to share price moves will be, generally, the same over the generations so TA does have something to tell you. But I also believe that fundamental analysis will crush TA every time and I can think of several billionaires who made their money through fundamental analysis (Buffett, Soros, Lynch - he may not be a billionaire) but none who did so through TA. Also, full disclosure, I have not read more than 2% of the posts on this thread. So I am being unfair, I know, and also something of a jerk, but I can't think of a nice way to put this to you or I would try to put it more gently.

I always thought that people who traded based on TA had no interest in what a company actually did, what industry it was in or who it was run by. They didn't care whether the stock was going up or down, only what the charts told them it was going to do. But reading, the few, posts I did on this thread it looks like everyone here is long the stock and is looking for confirmation in the tea leaves that the share price is going to go higher. Is that unfair? Is there anyone posting here who does not know who Elon Musk is or what Tesla makes? Please save me from reading all 800 posts, has there ever been one where someone said get the hell out of Dodge (and yes, up until last month that would have been a bad bad call)? I did read, on another site, that going from 386 to 308 over the course of a fortnight was extremely bearish (there are now a large number of weak holders who only want their money back and they'll be cool). Is that wrong?

thanks, feel free to be mean back to me.
Anyone heard from Howard recently?
i wanted to send shorts a sincere love note, so there is no confusion
 
Last edited: