Hello every one,
i have a question regarding the future cycles’ troughs time expectation when its period alternate from the nominal model by minus or positive in period, let’s say the associated 80D cycle is 62D in period in sentient
so when i calculate the underlying trend line should i use the nominal model priod for the next 80D trough or the actual one which is 62D?
Hi Sherif. That’s a great question. I’d love to hear what others think about it. My approach is this:
When calculating underlying trend if I am doing it to know what the UT is on a particular trade … then that trade is made on the assumption that a trough has formed, or that a peak has formed. I therefore work out the UT assuming that trough or peak has formed and I don’t use either the nominal wavelength or the recent wavelength.
On the other hand if I’m just working out UT to get an idea of what the pressures are on the market then I generally use the nominal wavelength, because an assumption that cycles will continue to deviate from nominal is more likely to be wrong than an assumption that the cycle will return to nominal.
Based on the principle of variation of Hurst cyclic theory. I believe you cant make an absolute determination about it but definite the future cycle through would lie in between 62D and 80D if nominal model.
thanks David for the guideline as it was actually making a confusion for future UT calculation if the time to calculate it lies between the nominal model cycle trough and after the expected cycle trough based on sentient earlier analysis.
thanks nasryusuf, your approach is also make some sense, i will try your approach and the nominal model approach as a trial.