I've subscribed to 20 newsletters at one time (starting in 1998) and have narrowed it down to four really good ones. They all use a different approach (fundamentals, technicals,Elliot wave, Gann theory) but I've seen these last 6 months all have been spot on with turns in the market almost exactly the same time. What are the chances of one newsletter writer subscribing to another totally different philosophy to reinforce his own?
I'll tell you what Nkhoi, you pay me half of the money I've blown on my education process with newsletters (I'll settle for $2k from you) and I'll tell you what they say to me.
I hear where your coming from but how about this, a fundie telling me about Fed repo's, money supply models, companies cash flow,price to sales models,local employment numbers and city budgets,and telling me the employment number will surprise on the downside and will not be bought by wall street and should be shorted. All are totally different in their approach and the bias is that they are right but "exactly right" at the same time?
Because within a timeframe technical indicators tend to be highly correllated, it is not uncommon for technical analysts to arrive to the same conclusion using different indicators. Show me someone who can forecast a market bottom with fundamentals, and I will show you a fraud.
I've noticed the same thing plumber and I think it's not a "random" coincidence. If you really understand Gann (and apply it correctly) then you know why and when Elliott- Fibonacci works. It's possible to use Elliott as a confirmation of your Gann setups, but I personally have noticed no significant increase in profitability. Of course in your case, when your Elliott and your Gann newsletter agree is a signal they are doing a good job and you can increase your confidence in their advice. My guess is that fundamentals work (to an extent) because the smart money/insiders are already discounting them and Gann and Elliott are just picking up their footprints. I don't know which "technicals" you are talking about but in my opinion a lot of commonly used "patterns" are just manifestations/effects of phenomena described in Gann theory.