S&P 20 weeks cycle low right translation
Are you ready to close shorts? Hurst model calls for what seems to be at list 20 weeks bottom on or about Nov 10. Market will take a bit of time between now and Nov 14 to digest US election results and high volatility is expected. Longer term nominal 80 week cycle low expected 8/2017 <imgsrc="/uploads/db9209/original/1X/eed81efbdf7df97a85c540801d463a10184ca76e.PNG" width=“539” height=“500”>
Price bottom may be in place but retest before 11/14 is likely
In another post on June 12, 2015 you wrote that Henry Lang was the teacher of Hurst.
I quote you: “There was a small, about 100 pages, manual 8 or 12 chapters , some I still remember: Future Price Line (FPL), Envelops, Bisector, Top and Bottom analysis. The name of the manual was “Cyclic Analysis of Market Prices”. When you consider duality of the nature of the “Cyclical market model” (wave cycles vs price cycles), the difference between Lang and Hurst becomes clear. For all practical reasons, one preferred price cycles synchronization and the other wave cycles synchronization”.
Could you further comment on the difference between Lang and Hurst on the two types of synchronization cycles?
I searched the web, but I could not find any news on Lang’s manual. It seems like trying the Jack Gillen’s booklet “The rhythm of the Moon”.
Gillen booklet is way easier to find. One major difference is a high precision for the composite wave. In fact composite wave can be used to confirm model’s validity.
S&P has moved too fast and too far from 20 week cycle bottom. Considering election results it is not surprising but it is also no sustainable. It should get choppy from here. Upward bias with next top week of 12/12 and pullback, what now looks like 12/19 on daily time frame.
This 40 week nominal cycle has high probability of becoming next 9 year cycle top. Watch is on.
My daily model is on target for December top which is a prelude next top in January and then a another top in April witch may only be a failed attempt to exceed January high.
Here is my latest view on the $SPX. Data analysis from 1994 and I am using my trusty $SPX model.
We’ve just seen a 40 week cycle low so there is nothing to get too bearish about. But we’ve seen a sharp move and I would be looking for a decent pullback into a 10 week low. Note the peak projected for late 2017. This has been my target timeframe for a major top and this model has consistently shown this all year. As long as this model works, I will continue to use it. I would note the expanded 40 week cycle we’ve just seen into the low with the US election.
ST shows the coming short term peak as imminent, however, it may come with the FED or linger on until almost Christmas. I will be looking to add new longs mid-January. GLGT.
NB My target for the $SPX is ~2500 which should be achieved (this - strike that - meant to say …) next year.
It seems you model and mine call for a top in April 2017, but contrary to my model your model also calls for continuation of the bull market after a correction. One of us is correct. On my part I would like to wait and see the magnitude of the correction after April high. What is the longest cycle in your model? I am using 108 year for my monthly DJIA model.
Battle of the models. Short nominal model versus classic Hurst. Very interested how this turns out myself. John, what does your model look like beyond the end of 2017?
Here is the monthly view from the 1994 start. I only have one complete 15 year cycle with this analysis. I am more focused on the 7 year when looking in this timeframe. I have tried to work with Hurst’s nominal model (eg. 4.5 and 9 year cycle) in this time frame for years and have never gotten satisfactory results. I am speaking about the larger cycles here of course.
I believe once the US markets top out next year, it will be down for a while. Always be aware that the composite line is showing you direction of trend. So there are many possibilities once US markets top out. (curt hope that gives you the right perspective).
Thanks, John. It does help give me better understanding. Use of the longer default nominal model gives about the same results (high in late 2017/early 2018 then a low in 2024) but obviously with different lows used as anchor points. See chart below stolen from David’s recent webinar. How does using the shorter nominal impact your day-to-day trading given the cycles since the 2/2016 low have been on the money with the long-term Hurst default model averages? Does that short and long term inconsistency concern you? I am not trying to be critical at all. Simply trying to learn. From a long-term perspective, my intuition is that you will get similar results using various iterations of the original Hurst nominal model, which proves the robustness of the approach. Thanks for your input.
It seems your are focusing on the price rhythm (7 year rhythm - dominant in the past). In my book 7 year rhythm is combination of two cycles 4.5 year and 9.0 year. While we approach S&P model differently and with different tools, it is interesting to see the results to be for the most part aliened.
Live long and prosper.
Why I like this model is that it helped me anticipate the early year low. Identifying a larger cycle low (eg. 7 vs 9 year Hurst) is essential in that it helps you identify a point where cycles are hard up (ie. forget shorts). That is what I was looking for earlier this year and was discussed in January’s video. So you may trade a 5 or 10 week cycle or longer, but knowing that larger cycles have likely bottomed (ie. in my view both the 4.5 and 9 year per Hurst’s nominal model bottomed in Jan/Feb) is fairly key to any analysis. Breadth was important confirmation of this as well. So now we have a 40 week cycle low behind us. The next challenge for the US market is how it winds its way into a 14 month cycle low. That may only come next spring.
One of the advantages of using a filter approach is that one does not have to choose between “nominal models.” The filter design contains enough flexibility to compensate for the variation in the average period of the price waves over long runs of data. It involves a slightly different mindset in that the relationship among the filter outputs is sometimes complex as opposed to ST’s always low synchronized, simple harmonic relationship. However, the shorter the price wave, the smaller the difference between the two approaches, eventually becoming de minimis at the very short level. It is simply one’s underlying assumption about the nature of cyclicality in the price action. If one believes that the “price waves” are intrinsic to the price action, then the filter approach is most suitable. However if one believes that the “cycles” are exogenous to the price action and merely “influence” the price action, then ST’s approach is most suitable.
I can see your point. Likewise, I am using classical Hurst model for many years and it served me well. Certainly my tools are drastically different than yours, and that is may be why I had more success with the standard Hurst model.
However, I have to admit few points do bother me. I am not that sure 18(3) month cycle have not lost domination to 27(2) month cycle. Also “Benner” cycle model points to major top in 2018 just us your model does. And I respect Benner, his model proved to be on point time and time again. I am confident the issue will resolve it self. Size of the market correction in 2017 will help one of us to adapt new market strategy.
I did some additional back testing and your “Short” model does have certain merit.
9:18:54:108:216:648(Hurst) vs 14:42:84:180:360:720(Short)
Both are harmonic models, both have failed occasionally in the past.
The key seems to be low sometime in November 2017, “Short” model picked it to be lowest low for the year and starts new trend up. “Hurst” model expects to brake November 2017 market low to continue downtrend in to first quarter of 2018.
Looks like we have a short term top forming here. One thing I am watching is the NYSE McClellan Summation Index ($NYSI). If it fails to cycle up beyond the 500 level here this month, a nice test lower is likely for the next 10 week cycle low. Can the $SPX head back down into the Inauguration week (January 20th)?
Ever since market has made new high in December of 2016 I have suspected that another model 116(2)w 232(2)w instead of standard model 78(3) 232(2) may become a better representation for the Market. It did not matter until divergence has started to effect composite line. I still believe that most of the upside action in this 20 weeks cycle is behind us, but as I indicated in my prior posts slightly higher tops in January is likely.