Will look into it, though from my previous investigation only Safcom and the NSE 20 Share index were showing clear Elliott Wave patterns.

...
Monopoly priviledges stifle innovation, so when monopoly power is removed, an industry is allowed to develop. In contrast, upon every single antitrust action against successful non-monopoly corporations (read Safaricom), innovation did (does) not
immediately burst forth. The reason is that each of these successful companies, in a climate of free competition, was precisely the one responsible for the immense innovation (e.g. Mpesa, introduction of High Speed Mobile internet) that had already occurred. These disparate results confirm the difference between the two types of entities.

We can now see that the principle behind the government's actions with respect to these disparate entities is the same: At tops, the government initiates force to stifle free competition and success ( attacks on Safaricom on alleged dominance); at bottoms, it removes force that has stifled free competition and success. This latter impetus takes two forms: withdrawing antitrust actions against successful non-monopoly companies and dissolving actual monopolies. With this knowledge, we again have the ability to do some limited probabilistic forecasting both in terms of predicting actions against monopolies and predicting major social mood changes when those actions occur

Pp 164



Thus, if Safaricom survives the bear market, we should expect governmental attacks against it to reduce as social mood once again turns positive (i.e when the NSE 20 Share Index bottoms and starts the leg up, and if by then it will not have been broken up as intended by the gov., then the impetus to break it up will dissolve).

On the other hand as the bear market probes a bottom, we should expect monopolies such as Posta and Kenya Power to be broken up and new entrants to compete directly with them.

You might expect that the crunch of a recession would lead people to put off having kids. It sounds obvious, and conventional wisdom would be on your side. But you’d be wrong.

The truth is that people begin to conceive fewer children before major economic contractions. That relationship is counterintuitive, yet it is exactly what my colleague Robert Prechter suspected he would find 19 years ago when he charted data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and Dow Jones & Co. going all the way back to 1908.

Prechter observed that conceptions tended to rise and fall with the stock market. Like the stock market, they are a leading economic indicator, sounding the alarm well before the economy contracts.

Like the NBER team, Prechter recognized the economic implications of his research, writing in 1999, “the trends of the economy lag trends in both the stock market and procreation.” But why is that the case? Prechter’s socionomic theory, which motivated his research, provides an answer.

The theory proposes that trends in social mood regulate trends in social behavior, including those in conceptions, the stock market and economic growth. A positive mood prompts feelings of friskiness, daring and confidence, inspiring people in the aggregate to have more children, to send stock prices higher and to become more productive economically. A negative mood prompts feelings of somberness, defensiveness and fear, inspiring people in the aggregate to have fewer children, to send stock prices lower and to become less productive economically. Because people generally can express their friskiness in their trading accounts and in bed sooner than they can expand or contract business, trends in stocks and conceptions tend to lead trends in the economy.