The fallacy of this statement lies in the presumption that S/R is something derived on its own. It is not. S/R is determined by price reversal. When price pulls back from a rally into new territory, the new high is considered resistance. When price sells off and runs into the 200 sma, it's support. When the 62% FR is reached, there will be resistance. S/R is dynamic, not static. Again, if price rallies to the 50 sma, and pulls back, R=50sma. If price then pulls back to the 20 sma and reverses, S=20sma. Now I ask you, did the 50 sma "coincide" with Resistance, or was it Resitance? Did the 20 sma "coincide" with Support, or was it Support? In both questions, the answer is the latter. Sometimes an ma is S/R, sometimes a trendline, sometimes a previous extreme, sometimes the open or close, or a gap, and yes... amazing as it may seem... sometimes it is a fib retracement number, including 62%. It is not a matter of which came first, the chicken or the egg?
You may want to look at the reissue, Winning the Mental Game on Wall Street. He goes into considerable detail on the whole maps/territory subject (not my invention). That along with Fooled by Randomness make a nice duo. You're not alone in using Fib, MAs and so on, of course. But to me, they're just clutter. As I said, there's no evidence other than empirical that they provide support or resistance, and whenever they seem to, there is almost invariably previous price S/R to account for it. But hey, whatever works --Db
Here are some interesting ressources for everyone interested in this topic: <b>"Technical Trading creates a prisoner´s dilemma"</b> http://econpapers.hhs.se/paper/wopsafire/98-12-115e.htm <b>"John Maynard Smith: The Evolutionary Stable Strategy"</b> http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/06/2/l_062_03.html