When Loss Changes You | Russell Geoffrey Banks

You have to be so careful when dealing with people who have lost parents, siblings—God forbid—their own child. Because when someone goes through that magnitude of loss, they can never look at the world the same way again. It's different. Of course it is. They won't tolerate your fake energy. They won't play about peace because they've already lost some of the biggest pieces of themselves. 

 

And once you lose someone so close, you have this shift inside of you. It's never going to be the same again. It just can't be. That day, the person you used to be also left. That person is gone now. And everything is different. Even the way you smile is different because, in your head, you start feeling guilty all of a sudden. And you can't love the same. You can't, because you're so worried about losing someone. 

Even the way you breathe is different because that peace and harmony are gone now. They're gone, and they've been replaced with just sadness. And it just doesn't—no matter how many years go by, no matter what happens—that's not going to change, because grief does not leave. It just morphs into some other shape, which maybe you can deal with a little bit better.

May 24 to June 5: Fifth-Ranked Bullish S&P Seasonal Period | Wayne Whaley

My Top Ten Seasonal Model evaluates the performance of every time frame in the year, from 7 to 35 calendar days, and identifies the top 10 mutually exclusive periods.

May 24 to June 5, S&P positive in 37 of 50 years with 1.21% average return

and only one 3%+ loss, while Nasdaq averaged 1.77% with 38 up periods.

May 24 to June 5, which I refer to as the Post-Memorial Day Rally, is my 5th-ranked S&P seasonal trade of the year for both the S&P and the Nasdaq when comparing all time frames across the year. 

 

Notably, over the last 50 years, the S&P experienced only one 3% loss (1981) during this period, versus ten different years that recorded 3% gains. The last ten cases have been positive.

 

Wayne Whaley, May 24, 2026.

 

See also:

TPR (May 19, 2026) - Pre- and Post-Memorial Day Seasonal Patterns in US Stock Indexes. 

Jeffrey A. Hirsch (May 1, 2026) - May Stock Market Performance in Midterm Election Years.

S&P 500 Four-Year Election Cycle: Ranking All 48 Months | Wayne Whaley

If you are into Election Cycle tendencies, you might possibly find this study of interest. I have S&P data back to its origin in 1957 and S&P proxy data, via Dow analog, back to 1930. Dating back to 1930, I took the time to calculate my personal performance rating for each of the 48 months of the Four-Year Election Cycle, which is based on an average with outliers underweighted. The rating measure ranges from -100 to +100 in -3 to +3 standard deviation fashion.

Pre-election Januarys lead, midterm election Junes lag, with 2026 resilience challenging weak June seasonals.  

Reasonable chance of posting a win this year?

The left side of the table above contains the top 24 rated months through April of 2026 of the Four-Year Election Cycle in the sample set, while the right side contains the bottom 24 months. The 3% column is the performance in those months which had a 3% move in either direction. Likewise for the 5% column.

Four of the top ten months in this study occur in Pre-Election years, with Januarys (20-4) at the top. While four of the bottom ten occur in Midterm Election years. Owing largely to the seven Junes of those 24 in the test set which incurred 5% losses, June of Midterm Election years brings up the rear.

The S&P has exhibited a resilience to many a headwind in 2026 which, in my humble opinion, merits respect, and the weak June midterm election seasonals should be weighed against many a traditional momentum-based seasonal study that gives June a reasonable chance of posting a win this year. Tis your call.

Wayne Whaley, May 23, 2026.

 

See also:

Jeffrey A. Hirsch (December 29, 2025) - 2026 Midterm Election Year Seasonal Patterns of US Indices.

2026 Saturn-Neptune Conjunction: Global Ideological and Institutional Reset

[Partial reprint of the March 9, 2026 article.]

 

The above geopolitical cycle model developed by André Barbault correlates major transformations with long planetary cycles, especially the geocentric 36-year conjunction cycle of Saturn and Neptune, historically associated with ideological restructuring of states and political systems. 

Saturn-Neptune conjunction in Aries on February 20, 2026.

It is important to recognize that in both geocentric and heliocentric mundane astrology, outer-planet cycles—such as the conjunction of Saturn and Neptune—describe broad rhythms of global historical development rather than events confined to the USSR, Russia, or any other single empire, state, nation, or civilization (as is the case in natal astrology applied to states, nations, etc.). 

 

36-Year Saturn-Neptune Conjunction Cycle (1600 to 2200 | EST/EDT). 

 

Saturn represents structure, boundaries, authority, governments, discipline, death, and the weight of material reality, as well as time. Neptune signifies dreams, illusions, disillusionment, ideology, deception, oil, religion, and the transcendent—along with spirituality. When these two planets conjoin, a collision occurs between the real and the ideal: old structures dissolve, new visions emerge, and the line between liberation and tyranny becomes increasingly blurred.

The latest Saturn-Neptune conjunction occurred on February 20, 2026 at 0° Aries, the Aries Point traditionally linked with events of global manifestation. This alignment inaugurated a new Saturn–Neptune cycle extending roughly from 2026 to 2062 and therefore marks a probable phase of systemic ideological and institutional reorganization comparable in structural significance to earlier conjunction periods such as 1917 and 1989. The broader planetary configuration intensifies the importance of this reset (see table below). Pluto entered Aquarius in 2024, a transit associated with technological transformation, mass mobilization, and redistribution of political power that lasts into the 2040s. 

Neptune is moving into Aries in 2025–2026, symbolizing ideological mobilization and the emergence of new collective narratives, while Saturn also enters Aries in 2026, imposing institutional pressure and forcing structural redefinition of political authority. At the same time Uranus enters Gemini in 2026, historically correlated with communication revolutions and geopolitical confrontation; previous passages coincided with the American Revolutionary era and the Second World War. 

The simultaneous ingress of several outer planets during the mid-2020s therefore indicates a rare generational transition affecting technological systems, ideological structures, and geopolitical balances.

 

The February 2026 Saturn–Neptune conjunction marks the opening of a new ideological cycle. The most volatile interval will be approximately 2025–2030, when structural tensions manifest through wars, crises and systemic reorganization, followed by institutional consolidation and a new world order between roughly 2032 and 2035. 

Within this configuration the latest Saturn–Neptune conjunction functions as the cycle’s ignition point. Conjunction phases historically coincide with dissolution of prevailing ideological frameworks and the emergence of new political narratives. When combined with Pluto in Aquarius and Uranus in Gemini, the interval from roughly 2025 to 2027 appears as the principal systemic shock phase. 

Short-term activations occur when faster bodies cross the conjunction degree: transits of Mars and the Sun in February–March 2026 and again during mid-2026, when Mars forms tense aspects with Uranus, represent a trigger windows during which underlying structural tensions manifest through political crises, financial disruptions, and abrupt internal, regional, and global geopolitical confrontations. 

 

After the conjunction the cycle normally enters a formative phase lasting several years. Between approximately 2028 and 2031 the developing Saturn–Neptune dynamic may manifest as ideological polarization and attempts to construct new institutional frameworks. 

» The old world is dying, and the new world struggles to be born: now is the time of monsters. «
Antonio Gramsci, Prison Notebook #3, 1930.

Uranus advancing through Gemini emphasizes technological rivalry, cyber conflict, and strategic competition in communications and artificial intelligence, while Pluto in Aquarius intensifies collective movements and challenges entrenched hierarchies of power. The interaction of these cycles suggests a period in which nations, states, and civilizations experience pronounced internal political tension while simultaneously confronting structural competition within an evolving multipolar and eurasiacentric international system.

 

By the early 2030s this cycle tends toward consolidation. From roughly 2032 to 2035 the ideological and institutional structures that emerge from the earlier crisis phase are likely to stabilize, producing revised political doctrines, new geopolitical alignments, or reconfigured economic frameworks. Historical precedents indicate that such consolidation does not necessarily imply decline; states, nations, and civilizations often emerge from these cycles transformed but institutionally durable. 

 

Nevertheless, the concentration of outer-planet transitions in the mid-2020s implies that the interval from about 2025 to 2030 represents the most volatile portion of the Saturn–Neptune cycle. In strict cyclical terms, this period constitutes the window in which all states, nations, and civilizations in the international system most likely encounter a decisive ideological and structural turning point shaping the political order of the subsequent decades.

 

See also:

Richard Smith (2026) - Three Major War Cycles Converging 2027–2032. 

L. David Linsky (2023) - War and/or Revolution in 2026. The 84 Year War Cycle. 

Bradley F. Cowan (2022) - Heliocentric Uranus Cycle and American War (2026-2033). 

Serge Bernard (2016) - From Conquest to Affluence to Collapse: The 250 Year Empire Life Cycle. 

Suitbert Ertel (1996) - Solar Activity and "Violence-from-Below" Events. 

Charles Harvey, Michael Baigent, and Nicholas Campion (1984) - Mundane Astrology. 

Alexander L. Chizhevsky (1922) - Mass Excitability during Solar Cycle 25 (2019–2030). 

Three Major War Cycles Converging 2027–2032 | Richard Smith

Richard Smith, CEO, Chairman of the Board, and Executive Director of the Foundation for the Study of Cycles, presented research on long-term cycles in war and human conflict. His analysis reveals deep interconnections between warfare, economic activity, food production, and solar phenomena, potentially mediated by solar radiation and Earth’s geomagnetic influences on biological and social systems.

» All three cycle families show rising phase conditions in the current window. A convergence appears around 2027-2032. «

16-year Dewey cycle (brown) | 26-year Mogey cycle (red) | 63-year long-wave (blue)

 

Building on the Foundation's archives and the work of Edward R. Dewey (1895–1978) and Raymond H. Wheeler (1892–1961), Smith's analysis revives and extends early 20th-century cycles research using modern tools, including AI-assisted digitization and the Foundation's Cycle Analyzer. Wheeler's landmark dataset spans roughly 2,600 years (from 600 BC onward), meticulously documenting and ranking battles by severity. Dewey, motivated by his experiences in World War I and II, identified recurring rhythms across diverse phenomena to better understand and potentially mitigate societal calamities.

Dewey observed a prominent 54-year cycle manifesting across multiple domains—including international battles, wheat prices, sunspots, tree rings, and financial instruments—with major peaks in 1917, 1971, and a projected crest in 2025. He also highlighted a 17.7-year cycle in warfare data derived from Wheeler's records through 1957. Projections of this cycle similarly converge on 2025. Unlike much of today's single-series technical analysis, Dewey's approach emphasized cycles that appeared independently across unrelated phenomena. The consistent recurrence of the same wavelengths across disparate datasets served as strong evidence of meaningful underlying rhythms.

 

» The entire vast area of human madness. «

Alexander L. Chizhevsky, 1922.

Smith has validated and extended this historical research with contemporary conflict datasets, including the Correlates of War (COW) Project, battle-related deaths statistics, and the UCDP Conflict Data Project. He also incorporated long-term economic and solar series such as wheat prices (from 1259), commodities, gold, silver, and sunspot records. Statistical analysis confirms several robust cycle families appearing consistently across war, economic, agricultural, and solar data:

 

■ 16–20 year cycle (≈18 years, the Dewey cycle)
■ 28–30 year cycle (Mogey cycle)
■ 39–40 year cycle
■ 56–60 year cycle
■ 85–100 year cycle 

These cycles frequently achieve high statistical significance (often 90%+ on Bartels tests) across independent datasets. Smith's chart above titled "Three Cycles Rising — Where Are We Now?" illustrates the combined phasing of the three most prominent cycles from 1975 to 2035:

■ 16-year Dewey cycle (brown)
■ 26-year Mogey cycle (red)
■ 63-year long-wave (blue)

 

Smith's analysis indicates that the three major war cycles will converge in a synchronized uptrend between 2027 and 2032, suggesting elevated risks of conflict, instability, and related phenomena into the early 2030s, with broader peaks potentially extending toward 2040.

 

Reference:
Richard Smith (March 24, 2026) - Cycles of War. (video)

 

  

» The tallest peak, and hence the strongest average cycle, is at the 4th fraction of 214 years (top scale), or 53.5 years (bottom scale). [...] Could this cycle be the well-established 54-year cycle? «

Edward Dewey, 1967.

"Cycles in War and Peace" by Richard Mogey (Cycles, Vol. 41, No. 1, 1990).

 

CIA. 9 October 1953. CONFIDENTIAL. 

MEMORANDUM FOR THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE.
SUBJECT: Mr. Edward R. Dewey - Cycles Analysis.

 
See also:

Edward R. Dewey and Og Mandino (1971) - The Patterns of War. 

Edward R. Dewey (1967) - Systematic Reconnaissance of Cycles in War. 

Raymond H. Wheeler (1943) - The 500-Year Cycle.

Raymond H. Wheeler (1943) - 100-Year Cycle: Climate, Regime Change, and War. 

Alexander L. Chizhevsky (1922) - Mass Excitability during Solar Cycle 25 (2019–2030).

  

Published during World War II in 1943, this info chart "Business Booms and Depressions Since 1775" reflects an era when

US corporations and financial institutions were striving to forecast, adapt to, and navigate the looming postwar economy.

The 32-Day Cycle: High-Accuracy Edge in S&P 500 First-Hour Structure

This 32-calendar-day cycle is a fixed periodicity in the S&P 500 cash index (SPX), in which ‘Early Highs’ and ‘Early Lows’ during the first 60 minutes (9:30–10:30 a.m. ET) of the New York regular trading session follow a precise pattern.

 

Projected Early Highs and Lows, Daily Bias, and Day-of-Week notes for the SPX (May and June 2026). 

 

Empirically derived from Jeffrey Tennant's daily forecasts, this cycle demonstrates a 99.3% repeat rate (136/137 valid pairs) across a 13-month sample from late April 2025 through May 2026, spanning a full spectrum of typical market conditions.

 

Jeffrey Tennant forecast for May 22, 2026. 

[Note: The scope here excludes the MEJT system and focuses solely on the 32-day cycle (dates in blue).] 

 

Early Low days exhibit a strong bullish bias, with Close > Open in 69.5% of cases (average return: +0.34%). Tennant frequently characterizes these sessions as 'typically bullish, with a final-hour high.' By contrast, Early High days show a mild negative-to-neutral bias over the sample period (average: −0.09%). This edge is materially amplified on specific weekdays: Monday Early Low stands out as the highest-conviction setup, with a 74.1% bullish close rate, an average gain of +0.45%, and the strongest asymmetry in the dataset. Conversely, Friday Early High represents the clearest cautionary signal (41% bullish, average: −0.17%).

 

 

Early Low and Early High Days Performance by Weekday.

■ Early Low has the strongest bullish edge on Mondays (74.1% positive days).
■ Early High on Fridays shows the clearest negative bias (only 41% bullish days, largest average loss).

Validated via direct sequence matching and daily OHLC backtesting (with 30-minute or lower timeframes being optimal), this cycle enables consistent projection of high-probability intraday structures and daily directional bias. The sequence, or similar 32-day patterns, likely extends to other trading sessions and instruments.

 

S&P 500 Average Open-to-Close Change & Average Daily Range by Weekday (June 2025 to May 2026):

■ Monday Strongest: +12.66 points (+0.19%).
■ Monday Calmest: 56.30-point daily range.
■ Thursday Weakest: -10.65 points (-0.15%).
■ Thursday most Volatile: 69.73-point daily range. 

See also:

Jeffrey Tennant (2011) - The MEJT System: A New Tool for Day Trading the S&P 500 Index.

 Larry Williams (2022) - How Markets Move: The Natural Cycle of Range Change. 

Scott Hoffman (2012) - George Taylor's Three-Day Trading Cycle.

 Linda Raschke (2001) - Swing Trading: Rules and Philosophy.

 

Pre- and Post-Memorial Day Seasonal Patterns in US Stock Indexes

Memorial Day weekend (May 23-25, 2026) has become the unofficial start of summer for many Americans, marking a notable transition in financial markets. In recent years, trading activity typically begins a gradual decline shortly afterward—barring major external events—toward a later summer low. 

 

Over the past 20 years, the Thursday before Memorial Day has delivered the strongest average gains across major indices (DJIA +0.07%, S&P 500 +0.18%, NASDAQ +0.34%, Russell 2000 +0.32%). Friday shows a solid percentage of up days—particularly for the NASDAQ (66.7%, +0.38% average)—but with more mixed overall performance. Wednesday is the weakest, with negative average returns. The dataset includes 2025; both median returns and win rates also tend to favor Thursday in several cases.

Market participants refer to this summertime slowdown as the summer doldrums, characterized by anemic volume and often uninspired, range-bound trading on Wall Street. Seasonal volume patterns since the 1960s for the NYSE and 1970s for the NASDAQ show this typical lull, with daily trading volumes frequently dropping 20-40% from winter peaks, reaching troughs particularly in late July and August as vacations reduce institutional participation.

In the lead-up to the holiday, historical performance presents mixed yet distinctive results. Thursday before Memorial Day has consistently delivered the strongest average gains across the DJIA, S&P 500, and Russell 2000 in 21-year analyses. Friday, the last trading day before the long weekend, records a higher proportion of advancing sessions for most major indexes, with the NASDAQ standing out at a 66.7% win rate, an average gain of 0.38%, and nine up closes in the last ten years. That said, this Friday session also tends to feature lackluster, light-volume trading. For the DJIA, results have been essentially neutral over extended periods, with an even split of up and down closes and a modest average decline of approximately 0.05%.

 

 May Stock Market Performance in Midterm Election Years:

Early May Strength Turns to Chop Until Late Month Pop.

Following the holiday, market behavior often turns more muted and, in recent decades, weaker. The Tuesday after Memorial Day has shown notable softness, with the DJIA and S&P 500 declining in seven of the last nine observed years, alongside more frequent losses in the NASDAQ and Russell 2000. Broader post-holiday windows, including the full trading week after Memorial Day, performed robustly from the early 1970s through the mid-1990s but have since weakened considerably, with reduced frequency of positive returns and smaller average gains, especially since the late 1990s and after 2010. An event study of returns spanning three days before to three days after the holiday generally aligns with long-term daily averages, showing no pronounced anomaly.

Beyond the immediate sessions, the broader period from Memorial Day to Labor Day (September 7, 2026) has historically produced net positive, albeit modest, results for the S&P 500. The index has advanced in roughly 70% of periods since the early 1970s, with average gains typically ranging from 1.6% to 2.8%. This summer window fits within the broader “Sell in May and Go Away” tendency, during which overall returns tend to be softer than in the November-to-April period, even as the Memorial Day-to-Labor Day segment itself often contributes positively amid the lighter volumes of the doldrums.

 

 S&P 500 Midterm Election Year Seasonal Patterns, 1949-2024.

 
In midterm-election years such as 2026, these summer patterns can intersect with the broader presidential cycle, which historically features heightened volatility and often subdued returns. Midterm years frequently see notable market lows forming between late July and mid-August, aligning with the depth of the summer doldrums, reduced liquidity, and pre-election political uncertainty. Such periods have at times served as bottoming phases, setting the stage for stronger recoveries later in the year or into the following pre-election period, though outcomes vary with prevailing economic and geopolitical conditions.

 

Reference:
Jeffrey A. Hirsch (May 19, 2026) - Trading Mixed Before Memorial Day Weekend.
Jeffrey A. Hirsch (May 1, 2026) - May Stock Market Performance in Midterm Election Years.
Jeffrey A. Hirsch (July 8, 2024) - Summer Doldrums Have Arrived - Market Volume Likely to Continue Fading.
Jeffrey A. Hirsch (December 29, 2025) - 2026 Midterm Election Year Seasonal Patterns of US Indices.
Meghan Nalty-Roach (May 01, 2025) - How Memorial Day Impacts the Markets.

 

 

» The bull capitulation is almost complete. «

 

See also: 

David Hickson (May 18, 2026) - Hurst Cycles Update: SPX, NDX, ASX, DAX, NIFTY, Gold, Bitcoin. 

TPR (May 1, 2026) - Cosmic Cluster Days | May 2026.

Hurst Cycles Update: SPX, NDX, ASX, NIFTY, Gold, Bitcoin | David Hickson

Global equity markets are diverging: US indices may have already formed an 18-month cycle trough, while others likely have not. Despite this, all markets are synchronously declining into an 80-day cycle trough expected into late May or early June. S&P 500 and NASDAQ show strong bullish signatures suggesting a possible completed 18-month trough, yet are now rolling into 80-day lows. ASX and DAX still point toward pending 18-month troughs, with ASX clearly bearish and DAX more neutral. Gold is bearish post-January peak, and Bitcoin is descending into a synchronized 80-day / 20-week trough.

 

S&P 500: A confirmed 20-week cycle trough occurred on March 30 (Mon), potentially aligning with an unconfirmed 18-month cycle trough. In Hurst cycle analysis, tracking shorter cycles allows to infer longer-cycle behavior. To maintain analytical clarity, this update sets aside longer-cycle markers to focus on the confirmed 20-week trough.

S&P 500 (daily candles), March to June 2026: Downside into an 80-day trough into late May remains the base case. 

Prior bullish excess suggests underlying strength, so declines may be muted, but a break below the 20-day FLD is still expected.  

[ Actual average lengths of the nominal 20-day, 40-day, 80-day, 20-week, and higher-order cycles of

each instrument are indicated in the stacked, color-coded boxes at the bottom right of the charts. ] 

 

On April 29, a 40-day cycle trough formed. Instead of breaking below the 20-day Future Line of Demarcation (FLD) to meet its downside target—as expected under normal conditions—price found support at the FLD. This resilience signals underlying bullishness, likely driven by a high-amplitude 20-week cycle or the larger 18-month cycle trough.

The next major milestone is an 80-day cycle trough projected for late May. Price is currently testing the 20-day FLD in what appears to be an F-category interaction, implying an imminent breakdown toward a downside target. Although recent bullish momentum could truncate this target, an 80-day trough rarely forms at the 20-day FLD level; thus, the base case remains a move lower.

Timing Metrics: 48 days have elapsed since the late-March trough. Given a nominal 80-day wavelength (historically 68 days, but recently averaging 60.5 days), this trough may arrive slightly early, narrowing the target window to late May. 

NASDAQ: Unlike the S&P 500, the NASDAQ's 18-month cycle trough lies ahead, highlighting broader long-term uncertainty. However, shorter cycles offer actionable clarity. Following a late-March trough, price crossed above the 20-day FLD and significantly exceeded its upside target, signaling intense bullish momentum.

NASDAQ (daily candles), April to June 2026: Stronger than the S&P, with prior momentum overwhelming

normal cycle behavior. Now rolling into an 80-day decline, likely shallow relative to typical cycle moves.

 
The 40-day trough likely formed early. Price failed to even retrace to the 20-day FLD during this phase—a classic indication of exceptional strength rather than analytical error. Price is now returning to the 20-day FLD for an F-category interaction. At 48 days post-trough, the NASDAQ is poised to decline into its 80-day cycle trough alongside the S&P 500. 

 

Australian ASX: The ASX anchors the global divergence thesis. Its 18-month cycle trough lies ahead, creating a structurally bearish backdrop. While the 20-week trough occurred slightly ahead of the US and boasts a highly reliable (74.4%) FLD interaction sequence, the index recently failed to reach its upside breakout target.

ASX (daily candles), April to June 2026: Structurally bearish into a pending 18-month trough. Failed upside targets

and expanding cycles confirm weakness. The 80-day trough is imminent or aligns into early June.

 
An unfulfilled bullish target is a vital diagnostic signal confirming underlying bearish pressure. Furthermore, a displaced nest of lows indicates expanding shorter cycles (delayed troughs), typical of a bearish environment.

Timing Metrics: 56 days have elapsed since the March trough. With recent cycle wavelengths averaging 57.8 days, the 80-day trough is imminent, though global synchronization could defer it to late May or early June.

German DAX: The DAX exhibits rigid, less fluid price action, but the principle of commonality allows for reliable cross-market tracking. A major trough formed on March 23, aligning with the ASX. Its 18-month trough remains ahead, supporting a long-term bearish framework.

 

DAX (daily candles), March to June 2026: Balanced and orderly. Moving into an 80-day trough,

likely slightly lagging the US, with no clear bearish distortion—expect moderate downside.

However, the DAX appears more neutral than the ASX; its FLD interactions have been clean and balanced, meeting targets with high reliability and no immediate bearish distortion. Following a recent F-category interaction, price is heading lower into an 80-day cycle trough, projected slightly behind the US timeline.

Indian NIFTY-50: The NIFTY remains analytically ambiguous, with the 40-week trough tracking to either February or early April. Shorter-cycle analysis offers some guidance, though low interaction quality (52.4% reliability rating) suggests analytical distortion or heavy interference from longer cycles.

 

NIFTY 50 (daily candles), April to June 2026: Uncertain structure and weak signal quality. Likely a short bounce

from a 40-day trough, then decline into a delayed 80-day trough in June. Key: reclaiming the 20-day FLD.

 

A 40-day trough likely just formed; expect a brief rally toward the 20-day FLD before a deeper decline into an 80-day trough in June—lagging global markets by roughly two weeks. A failure to reclaim the 20-day FLD will signal that this downward leg is already underway.

 

Gold (XAUUSD): Gold remains intermediate-term bearish. While a 40-week trough formed on March 23, a prominent late-January peak continues to exert downward pressure.

 

Gold (daily candles), February to June 2026: Bearish phase intact. Repeated failure of bullish targets

confirms pressure. Now declining into an 80-day trough, potentially forming slightly early.

 
Recent price action confirms this underlying weakness: an FLD upside breakout met its target but lacked follow-through, subsequent rallies have faltered, and recent bullish targets were missed entirely. Following an F-category cross below the 20-day FLD, gold is moving toward an 80-day trough, likely arriving just ahead of late May. 

 

Bitcoin (BTCUSD): Bitcoin closely tracks its composite cycle model. After a bounce off the 40-day trough, price peaked precisely as modeled before reversing. It has since broken below the 20-day FLD in an F-category event, hitting its initial downside target.

 

Bitcoin (daily candles), February to June 2026: Tracking its cycle model. Already in decline

toward a combined 80-day / 20-week trough. Further downside likely before completion.

 
The market is now compressing into a synchronized 80-day and 20-week cycle trough. Because of the larger 20-week cycle's magnitude, this trough should run deeper than the prior 80-day low. Despite realized losses, further downside is expected before the cycle bottoms. 

 

Reference:
David Hickson (May 18, 2026) - 80-Day Cycle Trough Ahead - Hurst Cycles Market Update. (video)

See also:
David Hickson (May 4, 2026) - Markets Diverge as US Entered New Hurst 18-Month Cycle.

Christopher Grafton (May 19, 2026) - The Macro Brief: US Dollar Up (->20D peak). Ten Year Notes Down (->20W trough). 

Christopher Grafton (2022) - J.M. Hurst's Future Lines of Demarcation (FLDs). 

David Hickson (2014) - The FLD Pullback.