S&P 500 – Bearish Structure and 7% Downside Setup | Justin Bennett

On the 4 hour chart, a bearish Break of Structure (BoS) confirms sellers remain in control, so the focus stays on short setups. Just below current price sits a key daily support level (equal lows), which also functions as a weekly external low—making it structurally critical.

 » On the daily time frame, a fair value gap (FVG or imbalance) stands out as a critical zone for the coming week. 

This gap has not yet been fully mitigated, leaving unfinished business in the market. «

S&P 500 (4 hour candles).

For next week, the primary setup is a rally into a daily Fair value Gap (FVG) that has not yet been mitigated. If price trades into this area—especially into premium above recent highs—the objective is to wait for a lower time frame Change of Character (CHoCH) before entering shorts. No confirmation, no trade.

 » Price always moves from liquidity to inefficiency and vice versa, or from internal liquidity to external liquidity and vice versa. «

Longer term, a weekly close below the external low would signal acceptance and a higher timeframe shift. That opens the path toward a large unmitigated weekly imbalance, implying roughly a ~7% downside move (toward the 6,000 region).

 

» The next logical target is a large unmitigated weekly imbalance left behind by a strong displacement candle. 

This zone has never been retested and represents a magnet for price. Projecting into that imbalance suggests a

potential move of approximately 7% to the downside, bringing the S&P 500 toward just above the 6,000 level. «

S&P 500 (weekly candles).

  

In short: bearish structure, wait for a retrace into imbalance, confirm weakness, then target continuation lower.

 

Reference:

Justin Bennett (March 20, 2026) - S&P 500: This Is Only The Beginning (7% Drop). (video). 

[obviously recorded before the March 20 market open.] 

 

S&P 500 (4-hour candles; March 20 market close): bearish 4-hour FVGs and Premium/Discount levels.

Nasdaq (4-hour candles; March 20 market close): bearish 4-hour FVGs and Premium/Discount levels.

 

 

    

See also:

 JadeCap (2026) - All Five ICT Entry Models Explained. 

orderbloque (2025) - Market Logic Based on Liquidity, Volume, and Inefficiency.

Michael J. Huddleston (2023) - ICT Liquidity - The Financial Market's Zero Sum Game. 

WadeFX (2021) - Market Structure and Powerful Setups.

Richard D. Wyckoff (1931) - Accumulation and Distribution Schematics.

US Stock Indexes Trigger Rare March-December Low Indicator | Jeff Hirsch

Originated by Lucien Hooper, a Forbes columnist and Wall Street analyst in the 1970s, the December Low Indicator is based on the Dow closing below its December closing low in the first quarter of the New Year. DJIA’s December closing low was 47,289.33 on 12/1/2025.

  

See the Historical Analogue 1966 vs. 2026
in @Fiorente2's "The 60-Year Cycle in US Stock Indexes Revisited."

 

The indicator also applies to the S&P 500, which closed below its December closing low of 6,721.43 (set on 12/17/2025). Historically, years when the S&P 500’s December Low Indicator was breached alongside a down January Barometer were weaker years. When the January Barometer was positive and the December Low was crossed, years tended to be stronger — which is the situation we find ourselves in today.

 

When the market has closed below its December closing low in the first quarter of the year, the market has dropped, on average, another 13.5% on the S&P 500 and 10.9% for the DJIA from the trigger point. Now that the December Low Indicator has been triggered on both the DJIA and S&P 500, some caution is in order.

 

Why This March Trigger Is Rare

Of the 36 December Low Indicator triggers on the S&P 500, this is only the fourth to occur in March, and the sixth among the 39 DJIA triggers. We’ve broken out the S&P DLI triggers by month in the accompanying tables above.

 

It’s not surprising that most January and February triggers were accompanied by a down January Barometer. Whereas all four March DLI triggers — including yesterday’s — came in years when the January Barometer was positive.

Here’s how the three trigger months compare historically:

• January triggers (24 occurrences): Average further decline of 12.92%; full year up 14 of 24 times, average gain of 1.30%
• February triggers (8 occurrences): The worst group — average further decline of 17.26%; down 6 of 8 full years, average loss of 8.13%
• March triggers (3 previous occurrences): The mildest — average further decline of 8.12%; one year up, two down, average full-year loss of 3.70%

The historical data suggests March triggers carry less downside risk than those in January or February — a meaningful distinction given today’s trigger.

 

The January Barometer Still Points Higher

When the S&P 500 January Barometer is positive — as it was this year — the full year is up 41 of 46 years (89.1% of the time) for an average gain of 16.95%. The next 11 months are up 87.0% of the time for an average gain of 12.24%.

 

When it’s down, the year is up only 50% of the time with an average loss of 1.75%, and the next 11 months average a paltry 2.07% gain.

 

Bottom Line

While the current situation suggests the market is likely to go lower in the near term, the positive January Barometer and the broader fundamental and macro backdrop remain supportive. When the indexes and your spirits are down and contrary sentiment indicators reach extreme bearish levels — a VIX above 40, Investors Intelligence Bearish % exceeding Bullish % — that’s historically the point at which the market turns higher again. Stay cautious in the near term, but keep the longer-term odds in perspective.

 

Reference:

Jeffrey A. Hirsch (March 13, 2026) - Iran Conflict Triggers a Rare March December Low Indicator.

 

What happens once the SPY closes down four weeks in a row.

 

What happens once the weekly RSI(2) closes at 5 or below. 

See also:

@Fiorente2 (March 16, 2026) - Historical Analogue: 1966 vs. 2026. In: The 60-Year Cycle in US Stock Indexes Revisited.

20-Week Cycle Low in the S&P 500 and US Stock Indexes | Major Low in July

The projected 20-week cycle low arrived today, Thursday, March 19, at 9:35 AM, 118.12 days after the 40-week cycle low on Friday, November 21, 2025, at 10:30—in the expected price zone. 

 

 SPY (daily candles): 20-week cycle from November 21, 2025 into March 17-19, 2026.

[Projection as of February 22, 2026.] 

 

  SPY (daily bars): 20-week cycle from November 21, 2025 into March 19, 2026.

 

The final nominal 5-day cycle low within the nominal 20-week cycle was projected from the S&P futures low at the open on Sunday, March 15 at 5:00 p.m. (EDT) into the nested 20-week cycle low on Thursday, March 19 at 9:35 a.m. All projected times and dates of highs and lows in the thick blue summation lines, also shown in the charts below, are derived from current cycle periods and are—within the cyclic composite model—mathematically precise to eight decimal places. Cycle periods during the most recent 20-week cycle have been exceptionally stable and reliable; however, they may contract or expand by fractional harmonic offsets (IBPs and ITWs in Delta-lingo).

Tomorrow, March 20, 2026, at 10:46 a.m. EDT, Mercury stations direct precisely at the spring equinox as the Sun enters 0° Aries, with the New Moon conjunct Saturn and Neptune in early Aries.  

 

This creates a strong geocosmic reversal zone. Cycle lows or significant momentum shifts are likely in stocks, metals, grains, and interest-rate markets. 

 

Schematic trajectory of the current 40-week cycle from November 21, 2025 into the 18-month cycle low in mid-July (±).

At the same time, March triple witching and options expiration may drive higher volume and support a bullish turn in the US stock market into the next 10-week cycle, with an early April lower high. Lower highs and lower lows are expected into a major low of at least 18-month cycle magnitude by July 2026.

 

The upcoming 10-week cycle (80-day cycle).

 

Reference:

TPR (February 22, 2026) - S&P 500 Hurst Analysis: Projection into Mid-March 20-Week Cycle Low. 

TPR (2025) - Insights into J.M. Hurst's 40-Week Cycle AKA the 9-Month Cycle.

 

The principle of harmonic nesting and the synchronicity of lows:

Hurst Method Nominal Market Cycle Chart by Richard Russell, Dow Theory Letters, 1985.

See also:

@Fiorente2 (March 16, 2026) - The 60-Year Cycle in US Stock Indexes Revisited.
TPR (March 16, 2026) - Louise McWhirter’s Forecasting Theory: The US Stock Market Through 2028. 
Larry Williams (February 19, 2026) - 2026 Market Update: Crude, NatGas, Metals, Stocks, Cocoa.

"Iran Must Destroy Israel to Survive or It Will Be Nuked" | Paul Craig Roberts

The real issue in this conflict is the Zionist agenda of "Greater Israel." Nobody in the Western media mentions it, but it is the central fact that explains the war. As long as Israel maintains that agenda, there can be no peace, no mediation, and no negotiated settlement. The nuclear issue is merely the pretext. The real objective is to remove Iran as an obstacle to Greater Israel—just as Iraq, Libya, and Syria were removed before it. This war is part of the same process.
 

» There is no room for Iran, no room for Turkey, no room for Saudi Arabia.

Either Iran prevails, or Iran is destroyed. There is no middle ground. «

 

The Zionist agenda historically envisioned Israel stretching from the Nile to the Euphrates. Now the concept has been expanded even further. In such a vision there is no room for Iran, no room for Turkey, no room for Saudi Arabia. If that agenda is pursued, the continued existence of Iran as a sovereign state becomes incompatible with it. That means Iran cannot negotiate its survival. How does a country negotiate its own disappearance? If Israel maintains the Greater Israel agenda, there is only one outcome: either Iran prevails, or Iran is destroyed. There is no middle ground.
 

» Iran cannot negotiate its survival. «
March 16, 2026: Iran's 57th barrage of Khorramshahr and Zolfaghar missiles with cluster warheads strikes Israel, overwhelming

Iron Dome, Patriot, and THAAD. With about 2,500 missiles and layered tactics, Tehran could sustain attacks for months.

Yet the Iranian leadership has repeatedly made the same fatal mistake. They wait to be attacked. They waited to be attacked once. They waited to be attacked again. And now they risk waiting until nuclear weapons are used. This is not how wars are won. Every successful general in history understands that victory belongs to the side that takes the initiative. Napoleon understood it. Robert E. Lee understood it. George Patton understood it. Iran does not.

» Waiting to suffer catastrophic destruction before acting makes no sense. «

March 16, 2026: US-Israeli missiles bombing Tehran.

 

Iran waits until it is hit, until it loses men, facilities, and cities, and only then responds. That is not strategy. That is paralysis. If Iran has the capability to respond after a nuclear attack, then it certainly has the capability to respond before one. Waiting to suffer catastrophic destruction before acting makes no sense. The strategic reality is simple: Israel has nuclear weapons. Iran does not. That alone places Iran at a severe disadvantage if it continues to leave the initiative in Israeli and American hands. Therefore Iran faces a stark choice. Either it destroys the military capacity threatening it, or eventually those forces destroy Iran. There is no diplomatic solution to a war whose real purpose is the elimination of your country.

» Russia and China are useless as allies. «
March 16, 2026: Yan Xuetong, Chinese political scientist, confronts Israeli general at a conference, accusing
Israel of killing 70,000+ Palestinian children; the general denies, citing efforts to avoid civilian casualties.

At the same time, Iran finds itself essentially alone. Russia and China talk about multipolarity, they talk about cooperation, they talk about organizations like the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), and Iran is even a member of that organization. Yet when a SCO member is fighting for its survival, Russia and China stand aside. They issue statements. They talk about trade. They talk about negotiations. But when it comes to confronting the United States and Israel directly, they disappear. This demonstrates that Russia and China are useless as allies. They are governed by leaderships that appear to have no strategic vision. They behave as if trade deals are more important than geopolitical survival. They think in terms of commerce while their partners face existential threats.

» Russia, China are not Iran's friends. Russia is an occupied
country. PUTIN is a traitor in bed with the Chabad Lubavitch. «

A few words from Moscow and Beijing—such as a mutual defense commitment—could have prevented this war from ever starting. But those words were never spoken. Instead, Iran stands alone while Russia and China pursue negotiations and trade arrangements with the very power that is trying to destroy Iran. That means Iran cannot rely on anyone else for its survival. It cannot rely on Russia. It cannot rely on China. It cannot rely on international institutions. It can only rely on itself.

» Waiting for the next attack—especially when the enemy possesses nuclear
 weapons—is not a strategy for survival. It is a strategy for extinction. « 

March 16, 2026: Israeli white phosphorus munitions exploding over Khiam in southern

Lebanon. Its use against civilians is prohibited under international humanitarian law.

Which brings the situation back to the fundamental reality: the existence of Iran is incompatible with the Greater Israel agenda. As long as that agenda exists, Iran will remain a target. Therefore Iran has only two possibilities. Either Iran destroys the forces threatening it, or those forces destroy Iran. There is no negotiation that resolves this contradiction. There is no mediation that reconciles it.

Iran must recognize that it is fighting for its life. It cannot continue to sit back, absorb blows, and respond after the fact. That approach only invites escalation to nuclear weapons. If nuclear weapons are used, the conflict will not remain regional. Once that threshold is crossed, the danger becomes global nuclear war. That is why the initiative matters. Waiting for the next attack—especially when the enemy possesses nuclear weapons—is not a strategy for survival. It is a strategy for extinction.

Reference:
Nima R. Alkhorshid (March 16, 2026) - Paul Craig Roberts: Iran is Winning. (video)

Paul Craig Roberts (b. 1939) is an American economist, columnist, and former public official who served as Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy under Ronald Reagan. A proponent of supply-side economics, he helped shape the Reagan administration’s economic program. Roberts later became a syndicated commentator and author, known for strongly anti-neoliberal critiques of globalization, US foreign policy, and the financial system.

March 16, 2026.

 

March 16, 2026. 
 

See also:

Paul Craig Roberts (March 16, 2026) - Either Iran or Israel Has to Go.

Col. Lawrence Wilkerson (October 5, 2025) - "If I Were Iran, I’d Wipe Israel Out Preemptively."

The 60-Year Cycle in US Stock Indexes Revisited | @Fiorente2

Multiple long-term cyclical frameworks suggest that US equity markets may be entering a period of heightened volatility and potential trend transition during 2026. The convergence of several key cycles—including the 60-year cycle, the 22-year cycle, and planetary timing structures involving Saturn, Venus–Uranus, and Jupiter–Saturn—points to a series of possible inflection points beginning in March 2026 and extending through mid-year. Measured from the April 2025 market low, these cycles begin to cluster between March and July 2026. While the February 2026 highs across several indices may represent an important crest, the possibility of cycle inversions or secondary tops remains open.

 

Long-Term Cycles

A central structural reference is the 60-year cycle measured from the April 2025 low. Historically, this cycle has corresponded with major turning points in US equity markets. Notably, the NYSE Composite reached a comparable high exactly 60 years earlier. However, the present market has not yet produced the decline typically associated with this cycle. Instead, market behavior may be following the 22-year cycle more closely, suggesting a gradual and phased decline that could extend into mid-August 2026.

Chart 1 — NYSE Composite and Long-Term Cycles: Interaction between the 

60-year and 22-year cycles measured from the April 2025 market low.

An earlier trough may occur near the end of June, corresponding with approximately 15 degrees of heliocentric Saturn movement measured from the April 7, 2025 low. A late-June to early-July 2026 trough would also coincide with three Venus–Uranus heliocentric oppositions projected from the April 2025 bottom. Within this framework, a shorter-term inflection point appears around March 13, 2026, where a temporary rebound may occur.

Dow Jones Industrial Average

The DJIA exhibits several notable cyclical alignments. The index reached a peak in early February that squared out along a Saturn 1×2 timing line, aligning closely with the equivalent date 60 years earlier. In addition, the heliocentric synodic cycle of Venus and Uranus has tracked recent turning points with remarkable precision, with several inflection points occurring within only a few days of major price reversals.

Chart 2 — DJIA Saturn Timing and Venus–Uranus Synodic Cycle: Alignment of Saturn timing

lines and Venus–Uranus heliocentric aspects with recent market turning points.

 

S&P 500

Applying Saturn timing lines derived from prior highs and lows to the S&P 500—combined with the Venus–Uranus synodic cycle—suggests the index may be declining toward a potential trough around mid-March 2026 during an initial corrective phase. This move could represent the first leg of a broader cyclical decline associated with either the 60-year or 22-year cycle. Historically, these cycles often move in similar directional phases for extended periods, reinforcing the prevailing market trend.

Chart 3 — S&P 500 Cyclical Timing Structure: Saturn timing lines and the Venus–Uranus

synodic cycle suggest a possible corrective phase developing in early 2026.

Nasdaq Composite

Because the Nasdaq Composite did not exist 60 years ago, the analysis relies primarily on the 22-year cycle. A Saturn planetary fan projected from the January high provides a framework for estimating potential downside trajectories should the current downtrend continue. While the 60-year cycle likely influences the broader market environment, its historical behavior cannot be directly evaluated for the Nasdaq. The Venus–Uranus heliocentric synodic cycle projected from the April 2025 low nevertheless identifies several well-defined inflection points that align closely with recent price movements.

Chart 4 — Nasdaq Composite with Saturn Planetary Fan: Potential trend pathways

using Saturn planetary fan geometry and Venus–Uranus timing.

Historical Analogue: 1966 vs. 2026

A striking historical comparison can be observed when examining the 1966 market cycle. In 1966, the Dow Jones Industrial Average reached a peak near 1,000 on February 9 and subsequently declined to approximately 500 by October 10. Overlaying the current 2026 decline from the February 9 peak onto the 1966 pattern reveals a broadly similar percentage trajectory thus far. While historical analogues should be treated cautiously, the comparison provides a useful framework for evaluating the potential magnitude of the present correction.

Chart 5 — DJIA Historical Comparison: 1966 vs. 2026. Overlay analysis shows

similarities between the 1966 decline and the current market structure.

Planetary Time Clusters

Market volatility often increases when multiple planetary geometries and transit aspects occur within a narrow time window. The chart below aggregates cumulative hard aspects (0°, 90°, and 180°) of planetary transits together with major planetary geometries. These elements form Time Cycle Clusters, which historically correspond with periods of heightened volatility and increased market activity.

Chart 6 — DJIA and Planetary Time Cycle Clusters: Periods historically associated with elevated market volatility.

Jupiter–Saturn Structural Cycle

Another important framework is the long-term Jupiter–Saturn cycle. Projecting three Jupiter–Saturn cycles forward from the October 1966 market low produces an alignment in May 2026 corresponding with the original 1966 trough. This alignment could represent either a high or a low. However, because the second Jupiter–Saturn cycle corresponded with a market peak, the probability may favor a cyclical trough around May 2026.

Chart 7 — DJIA Jupiter–Saturn Cycle Projection: The chart projects three full Jupiter–Saturn cycles

forward from the October 1966 market low, resulting in a precise alignment marked in May 2026 

that corresponds to the original 1966 trough.

 

The Jupiter–Saturn synodic cycle measured from the October 10, 1966 low—using 90-degree increments—aligned closely with the 2007 market peak, occurring just 13 days before the October 10, 2007 high. Extending the third segment of this cycle projects forward to May 20, 2026, which occurs 18 years and 7 months after the 2007 peak. This represents 1080 degrees of Jupiter–Saturn motion, or three full cycles measured from the October 1966 low.

Since 2018, several major market crests—including those in 2021, early 2022, and February 2026—have aligned with a Jupiter planetary line drawn through these peaks. If this pattern continues, the February 2026 high may represent an interim crest similar to the 2022 peak, with a potential trough forming between April and July 2026. The current decline may represent only the initial phase of a broader corrective structure similar to the 1966 market decline, although confirmation remains premature.

Macroeconomic conditions remain relatively resilient, and a rapid improvement in geopolitical conditions could quickly restore bullish sentiment. Such developments could produce a secondary market top within the April–June window. At present, the balance of cyclical evidence suggests that the February 2026 peak may represent an important market crest. However, as with all cyclical models, inversions remain possible and should be considered within the broader analytical framework.

Reference:

@Fiorente2 (March 15, 2026) - Gann Master Cycle: The 60-year cycle revisited, Part 2. 
@Fiorente2 (March 8, 2026) - Gann Master Cycle: The 60-year cycle revisited, Part 1.

 

See also:
W.D. Gann (1950s) - Major Time Cycles in the Stock Market. 

Louise McWhirter’s Forecasting Theory: The US Stock Market Through 2028

Louise McWhirter first presented her theory in her 1937 book "Astrology and Stock Market Forecasting." The model in the chart below demonstrates her claim that primary trends in business volume, finance, and stock prices are systematically delineated by the retrograde motion of the lunar North Node (NN) through the twelve signs of the zodiac. 

The draconic period of the true (osculating) lunar North Node is 18.612958 years (6,798.383 days). On average, 
each 30° zodiac sign is traversed in 566 days, or one year, six months, and nineteen days (1.55108 years).

 

The zodiac wheel is divided into four quadrants: "above normal," "normal," "below normal," and directional zones marked "prices up" (Leo through Libra) and "prices down" (Aquarius through Aries). Prominent arrows labeled "NODE TREND" and "TRANSITION PERIOD" indicate the clockwise retrograde flow, with gradual shifts occurring across defined transition zones near Scorpio–Sagittarius and Taurus–Gemini. Four pivotal turning points occur when the North Node enters the fixed signs, corresponding symbolically to the four heads of the cherubim in the Book of Ezekiel:

 

■ Aquarius represents the extreme low of business activity and the bottom of the cycle.

■ Leo signifies the extreme high of business activity and the top of the cycle.

■ Taurus marks the point at which business activity reaches a normal level while the overarching trend remains downward.

■ Scorpio indicates business activity reaching a normal level while the trend is upward.

 

The intervening signs provide precise transitional and amplifying effects:

 

► Aquarius: Extreme low of business activity, the bottom of the cycle.
► Pisces: Business activity approaches the bottom of the cycle.
► Aries: Business activity starts to fall below the normal level.
► Taurus: Business activity reaches a normal level, but the trend is going down.
► Gemini: Business continues to fall lower towards the normal level.
► Cancer: Business activity fades from the top.
► Leo: Extreme high of business activity, the top of the cycle.
► Virgo: Business activity goes even higher.
► Libra: Business activity starts to go above the normal level.
► Scorpio: Business activity reaches a normal level, and the trend is going up.

► Sagittarius: Business continues to go higher towards the normal level.
► Capricorn: Business activity turns up from the bottom.

 

These phases are not instantaneous but unfold within the broader nodal transit and transition periods shown on the wheel. The following ingress dates, drawn directly from the established nodal cycle, demonstrate the theory’s practical application across recent and forthcoming years:

 

► November 11, 2015: NN enters Libra. 

► May 9, 2017: NN enters Virgo. 

► November 6, 2018: NN enters Leo. 

► May 5, 2020: NN enters Cancer. 

► January 18, 2022: NN enters Gemini. 

► July 17, 2023: NN enters Taurus. 

► January 11, 2025: NN enters Aries.  

► July 26, 2026: NN enters Pisces.

► January 27, 2028: NN enters Aquarius. 

► August 2, 2029: NN enters Capricorn. 

► January 26, 2031: NN enters Sagittarius. 

► October 2, 2032: NN enters Scorpio. 

► April 2, 2034: NN enters Libra. 

► October 25, 2035: NN enters Virgo. 

[The intervals reflect the variable motion of the true North Node, ranging from 542 to 623 days while averaging to the theoretical 566.532-day mean.] 

As of March 2026, the North Node resides in Aries, a phase in which business activity begins to fall below the normal level within the “prices down” quadrant. This downward pressure persists until July 26, 2026, when the Node enters Pisces. Throughout the remainder of 2026 and the entire year of 2027, the Pisces transit prevails, during which business activity steadily approaches the bottom of the cycle. The subsequent ingress into Aquarius on January 27, 2028 will mark the extreme low, completing the descent that commenced in Aries.

 

Louise McWhirter’s Nodal Cycle theory
parallels Gann’s Financial Timetable.

 

McWhirter’s model suggests subdued business volumes, contracting financial activity, and a prevailing downward bias in prices through 2027. While this part of her theory does not specify intra-sign turning points and acknowledges that secondary factors (such as other planetary cycles or policy interventions) may modify outcomes by up to 20%, it supplies a disciplined structural overlay that contextualises shorter-term technical, fundamental, and sentiment indicators. 

 

See also:

TPR (2018) - Louise McWhirter's Theory of Stock Market Forecasting. 

Louise McWhirter (2018) - S&P 500 Short-Term Forecasting Method.

TPR (2015) - S&P 500 vs North Node: Louise McWhirter's Theory of Stock Market Forecasting.

TPR (2025) - 2026 in W.D. Gann’s "Financial Time Table." 

 TPR (2012) - W.D. Gann's "Financial Time Table" Extended and Adjusted ( 1784 - 2121).

    Graham Bates (1994) - US GNP vs North Node: A Projection into 2025.