Some of you have asked me why expect wave c to subdivide into 5 waves, why not end it as a complex correction in wave y? While it is always possible to end something as complex, the first choice or preference for wave count is c=a and then y=w, and both amount to going back to the parallel channel. The choice of a truncated move is always done in hindsight because we never know if that is the case. It may happen but not necessary. If there is a clue in price patterns you may consider otherwise. Like if a triangle forms in wave b of y, then yes it can end in a-b-c because wave b is often a triangle and wave ii is mostly not so. I hope that answers the question.
So on this chart we are ending wave iv of c up and starting wave v of c today that can go to the top end of the parallel channel near 74.24. Then we will watch out for the next major leg down.
Another question that was put to me was on marking this recent bounce back since September as wave B. Why not an X wave as below? Yes on a monthly and weekly chart the marking below appears valid but I faced one problem. Inside wave Y the first decline before the triangle was 3 waves down and the second one was 5 waves down based on daily charts. I was not able to resolve this on the daily charts. At the back of my mind, both are therefore open. and the nature of the next decline might decide which one is correct. At this stage resolving this did not matter because both wave C down next or Z down next have the same expectation in terms of trend, a move to the lower end of the falling channel below. So the marking does not change the view and therefore can be worked out later.