Mr. Depew: Thank you for letting Mr. Prechter explain things and finish sentences.

Media at it's roots. Good questions simply asked, not an attempt to starlight the interviewer. Subject allowed to talk at length, not we only have one more minute so please wrap it up. Good example of the potential for sanity. Thank you.

Glad you liked it. I think there's an appetite for long-form video that is discussion-based as opposed to high-frequency soundbite "get to the point/where is the market going?" drivel. Socionomically speaking, a contraction in risk appetites and velocity also tends to correspond to longer-attention spans and quieter, more thoughtful video presentations.

20 minutes of Mr. Prechter is priceless. And, as above, thank you for letting him speak.

Great job Kevin. One of the best interviews of Mr. Prechter I have seen.

Thanks David, We need to get you on. You know a little bit about wave theory yourself. ;)

Everything I know I learned from him. When he sponsored me for my CMT I was dancing like a little kid.

Pepe,
I must concur. You did a great job in the interview. It was an actual discussion of important topics, unlike those in the main stream media. Even better than Charlie Rose or Bill Moyers, as you covered and attacked the topic from more angles, and got to the meat.

Keep up the good work!

Hope for the best, but prepare for the worst.

Thanks Kevin (and Mr. Prechter) - this is just absolute great stuff. Such a contrast to the Max Headroom style of 90% of financial video. It's clear I need to carve out time to read up on the wave theory. Thanks again.

very glad ya'll had such a nice indepth interview on the ville for us -

thanks!

Thank God, Kevin, you are in touch with mainstream reality! Media for the last 8 years or so made a judgment call that we are all viceral motivated idiots that can't think, don't want to think, and certainly don't want to learn anything or even consider anything for more than 5 or 6 minutes, if that.

jo

Excellent interview. Another reason I'm glad I've subscribed to Minyanville.

As pointed out by Brian Heyer and others, it was nice to to let Mr. Prechter finish his thoughts and espouse on them in such a simple no nonsense manner. I learned a lot.

I just hope I didn't like it simply because it fits into my view of how things will unfold...

The most amusing phrase in the interview was about being "five years early on a 200-year-old trend". Would you follow the advice of somebody who works off of alleged "cycles" which are so long, it becomes impossible to take specific investment decisions and/or verify how accurate the person's forecasts are within the length of your (or his) working career? See http://orvinfive.blogspot.com for an explanation of why Elliott Wave theory cannot work by simple logic.

http://orvinfive.blogspot.com

There are plenty of shorter term predictions upon which to judge Mr. Prechter. Reading your link, you make the mistake of believing that EW must account for the value of all "inputs". To take just one example, you discuss the importance of earnings for future stock prices. Well, it turns out that earnings LAG stock prices, they do not lead them. In addition, Bull markets don't result from increased earnings but rather from the fact that the optimistic mood which creates bull markets also induce people tp pay more for one dollar in earnings ie. bull markets are mostly caused by PE expansions.
The precise patterns seen over and over again at different scales point to two possibilities- either events are predetermined and the market "reacts" to these events the same way each time (which mainstream theory would require), or, peoples shared social mood swings cause markets to move, rollercoasters to be built, (precise correlations to market), wars to be fought etc.
The market is not a mechanical system responding to inputs. The market is not the economy, which does respond to inputs (many of which are affected by the general social mood). That is why economists are helpless in describing financial markets, which form waves as people resort to herding behavior in the face of uncertainty. The form these waves take correspond to patterns found elsewhere in nature.
Finally, if Elliot Wave Theory had NO predictive ability at all, it would still stand as a way to describe patterns of human behavior in a way no other theory can.

Well, earnings must lag stock prices. Since earnings are perhaps the most important determinant of stock values, people who correctly predict them must do better than those who don't. Hence stock prices should lead earnings. I don't judge Prechter on his predictions--I was just pointing out the following enormous the contradiction: On one hand, it is clearly the fundamentals (i.e. mainly rising earnings) and NOT emotions that in the long run prevail and cause markets to climb over decades. That only leaves the shorter term for emotions to rule. But when you point out that Prechter's prediction was off by 5 full years, he falls back on the long term (200 years) to explain it---despite the fact that this is wrong. As I stated above. In the long run it is the fundamentals and not emotions that matter. He can't rely on the short-term argument to discredit fundamental analysis, but then switch to the long-term argument when he has to explain why EWT failed over a 5-year time horizon. I disagree that there are precise patterns seen over and over again--the patterns are very imprecise and the 5-3 wave configuration is specifically designed so that it can be mapped over practically any conceivable stock index chart. I think you may be underestimating just how many "inputs" I am referring to in my essay---I don't deny that emotions are among the billions of inputs that a fundamentalist must consider. I just deny that EWT represents a perpetually valid behavioral model that reflects them. If you re-read the essay, you will see why stock movements should not mimic natural patterns, because the nature of what we're looking for ("known unknown" vs. "unknown unknowns") is different---I wouldn't call the market "mechanical" just because there are billions of inputs that would indeed explain it 99%+ if you knew them. Finally, I never denied the EWT can DESCRIBE prior movements (just as inventing any arbitraty system of pattern names can). But to me, it's just taxonomy and doesn't help in making any investment decision. -Best

We will have to agree to disagree. The rate of human progress seems to be about 1-2% per year. The growth of the averages beyond that is mostly due to Inflation, dividends, and the culling of the dead stocks out of the averages, As stated before earnings do not drive the averages, the emotion driven extremes of PEs do.
But it is good to disagree, or else there would be no one on the other side of our trades.
Best of luck to you.

Thanks. -Best Regards