Solar Cycles and Inflation-Adjusted Gold Price Forecasting | Vladimir Belkin

Vladimir Belkin's latest study quantifies the relationship between solar activity and the inflation-adjusted price of Gold (1968–2025) within a Jevons–Chizhevsky analytical framework. By synchronizing real Gold prices with the ordinal structure of solar cycles—measured via sunspot (Wolf) numbers—it identifies a strong and statistically significant fit (R² = 0.9081, p = 0.0115), implying that approximately 90.8% of the variance in real Gold prices is explained by his solar-cycle model. 

 

Grouping of data by ordinal numbers of years in solar activity cycles (1968–2025).

 

Rather than implying direct causation, the results point to a cyclical transmission mechanism in which solar rhythms embed and modulate underlying economic periodicities, notably Kitchin- and Juglar-type cycles, thereby acting as a structural driver of long-term commodity price behavior.

 

Ordinal years of the mean solar cycle and inflation-adjusted Gold prices

(1968–2025); superposed epoch analysis of 58 years of observations.

The model integrates CPI-adjusted Gold price data with a superposed epoch framework, aligning multiple solar cycles into a normalized temporal structure and fitting a 6th-degree polynomial to capture the nonlinear progression of price behavior across cycle phases (chart above). This produces a phase-sensitive waveform that preserves both timing and amplitude characteristics of historical Gold price movements relative to the solar cycle. The robustness of the fit suggests a stable coupling between solar variability and macro-financial conditions—likely mediated through liquidity, inflation expectations, and broader cyclical economic regimes.

The study advances beyond descriptive correlation to a deterministic forecasting model. Each calendar year is mapped to its corresponding position within Solar Cycle 25, and forward price projections are derived using empirically observed year-to-year transition ratios embedded in the cycle structure.

Within this framework, 2026 (cycle year 7) implies a contraction in real Gold prices to approximately $2,536.35/oz (0.70 × $3,623.36), followed by 2027 (year 8) with a modest recovery to $2,587.08/oz (1.02 × prior year). 

This projected path is consistent with the transition from peak solar activity into the declining phase of the cycle, which historically coincides with reduced upside momentum, elevated volatility, or corrective dynamics in real Gold prices.

For the post-2025 horizon, the model therefore implies a nonlinear, wave-structured trajectory rather than a sustained directional trend: late-cycle topping behavior into the solar maximum, followed by cyclical deceleration into the late 2020s, and eventual reacceleration as the next solar minimum-to-maximum sequence unfolds. 

 

Forecasted development of the current Solar Cycle 25 (NASA).

 

These projections remain conditional on three factors: the accuracy of solar cycle forecasts, the stability of the regression relationship, and the interaction with concurrent macroeconomic cycles. Within those constraints, the framework offers a high-coherence, quantitatively grounded method for translating solar-cycle dynamics directly into forward estimates of inflation-adjusted Gold prices.

Reference:

Vladimir Belkin (July 1, 2026) - Solar Activity and the Inflation-Adjusted Price of Gold (1968–2025): R² = 0.91. 

 

oooo0O0oooo

 

The extension of Belkin’s inflation-adjusted Gold price forecast through 2032 applies the same chaining methodology, using average ratios from column 5 in his table above and starting from $3,623.36 in 2025. Solar Cycle 25 began in 2019–2020 (2020 = Year 1) and is expected to end around 2030–2031, with Cycle 26 beginning. 

  

Inflation-adjusted Gold price forecast through 2032.

 

The resulting forecasts are 2025 at $3,623.36, 2026 at $2,536.35, 2027 at $2,587.08, 2028 at $2,664.69, 2029 at $3,011.10, 2030 at $3,462.77, 2031 at $2,735.59, and 2032 at $3,474.20. 

 

 

Inflation-adjusted Gold price will likely peak around 2033-2034.

  

The method is unchanged, with 2026–2027 matching Belkin's paper exactly. 2031 is the Cycle 25 minimum, and 2032 begins Cycle 26 using the average Year 1–to–Year 12 ratio. All figures are real (inflation-adjusted) and reflect the typical decline into solar minimum followed by a rebound. This is a statistical historical correlation; Gold prices are also driven by other factors, and Belkin’s solar cycle timing carries an uncertainty of about ±1 year.

 

See also:

Sergey Tarassov (2026) - Gold's 7.8-Year Cycle: Historical Analysis Since 1782. 

 NOAA (ongoing) - Solar Cycle Sunspot Number Progression.

Gold–Bitcoin: 75-Day Lead-Lag Relationship | Sergey Tarassov

Analysis of the relationship between Bitcoin and Gold suggests that Bitcoin may act as a leading indicator for Gold, with an estimated lead of approximately 75 days and a correlation of around 33%.  

 

This relationship allows for a potential Gold projection based on a time-shifted Bitcoin series. 

 

In the chart, the red line represents shifted Bitcoin data, while the bold blue line represents Gold's major 7.8-year cycle. Historically, Gold has more often been considered the leading asset, making this inverse lead-lag relationship an interesting observation.

 

Reference:
Sergey Tarassov (June 19, 2026) - Gold and Bitcoin: Lead-Lag Relationship Analysis with a 75-Day Shift.

Gold's 7.8-Year Cycle: Historical Analysis Since 1782 | Sergey Tarassov

Long-term Gold data from 1782 onward was analyzed with a focus on the approximately 7.8-year cycle identified through spectrum analysis. 

 The pink-shaded chart background marks the out-of-sample projection.

 

In the monthly chart above, multiple cycle scenarios are displayed alongside the Q-Box module projections. The majority of model outputs indicate an upward tendency through year-end 2026, followed by a projected decline through late 2028.

 

Reference:

Sergey Tarassov (July 4, 2026) - Gold’s 7.8-Year Cycle: Long-Term Analysis and Projection Scenarios Since 1782.

Crude Oil and the Half Solar Cycle | Sergey Tarassov

In Crude Oil, a cycle corresponding to approximately half of the Sunspot activity cycle (Sunspot Cycle 2H, ~2,007 days, or ~5.5y) appears to be present. The cycle is detectable through spectrum analysis and was calculated using an astronomy-based model that accounts for the irregular duration of solar cycles. 

The pink-shaded chart background marks the out-of-sample projection of Crude Oil through 2030.

 

Out-of-sample testing since 2020 shows that this variable solar-derived cycle maintains alignment with subsequent Crude Oil price movements.
 

Reference:

Sergey Tarassov (June 28, 2026) - Crude Oil and the Half Solar Cycle: A Variable Cycle Analysis.

 

See also:
Namzes (June 28, 2026) - Oil Outlook 2026: Navigating the Upcoming 40-Week Cycle Low.

Corn and Cotton: Long-Term Cycle Projections | Sergey Tarassov

Analysis of Corn and Cotton identifies a ~17.75-year cycle consistent with Edward R. Dewey's work, but also closely aligned with the 18.6-year Lunar Node cycle.

The pink-shaded chart background marks the out-of-sample projection of Corn through 2036.

 

Treated as an external and irregular cycle, projections built using the Lunar Node framework outperform standard spectral projections, highlighting the importance of adhering to method rules and analytical discipline.

The pink-shaded chart background marks the out-of-sample projection of Cotton through 2050.

In monthly Cotton prices, the commonly cited ~17.75-year cycle appears to be variable rather than fixed, evolving from roughly 17.4 years historically to about 19.3 years in recent data—closer to a 19–20 year Metonic-like rhythm. Modeling the cycle as dynamic and incorporating multiple overtones produces a more accurate representation of historical price movements than a simple fixed sine wave.

Reference:
Sergey Tarassov (July 12, 2026) - Corn Cycle Analysis: 17.75-Year Cycle and Lunar Node Influence.

Sergey Tarassov (June 17, 2026) - Variable Long-Term Cycle in Cotton Prices: Wavelet and Harmonic Analysis.

Kitchin Cycle Signals S&P 500 Rise Into Late 2026 | Sergey Tarassov

Sergey Tarassov's Timing Solution charts correlate the S&P 500 with harmonics of the 41-month Kitchin cycle (currently averaging 1,267.7 days, or 3.473 years).

 

 Note: Based on daily closes, the plotted waves are band-pass–filtered components centered on the target periodicity

(Kitchin range) and subsequently smoothed via averaging/Fourier/digital filtering, suppressing high-frequency noise

and yielding a clean sinusoidal form. Accordingly, they lack utility for day trading or short-term execution.  

The cycle projections (green, blue, and magenta lines) for 2026 in the first chart suggest that the current sideways-to-down phase in the S&P 500 concludes by mid-late-July, followed by a strong projected surge into year-end, then a decline or retracement into Q1–early Q2 2027, and a renewed rise into Q1 2028.

The pink-shaded chart background marks the out-of-sample projection of the S&P through 2028.

  

The long-term chart (2021–2028) indicates an upward trajectory in the S&P 500’s Kitchin cycle into late 2026, followed by a sharp correction in Q1 2027 and a continued rise extending through 2027–2028.

  

Reference:

Sergey Tarassov (July 11, 2026) - Kitchin Cycle and S&P 500.

See also:

Sergey Tarassov (2024) - Kitchin Cycle Suggests DJIA Decline Until End of 2025.

Larry Williams (May 26, 2026) - The Next Bullish Wave May Be Starting. 

 

Cyclical Profiles of Kitchin (41-Month) and other Dominant Cycles across Assets and Sectors. 

 

Sergey Tarassov's table classifies each asset by its dominant cyclical drivers (e.g., Kitchin ~3–4y, Juglar ~9y, sunspot harmonics, Venus synodic, 7.8y Gold) and indicates which periodicities statistically dominate price behavior. The “Profile” column quantifies cycle influence, showing the proportion or confidence of a given cycle explaining variance (e.g., “Kitchin 100%” = primary driver). Overall, it’s a multi-cycle attribution framework used to build composite waveforms and time market turning points via overlapping periodic structures. "H" notation interpreted as harmonic components (e.g., 2H, 3H, 4H of Sunspot cycle). "Venus syn" → "Venus synodic" for clarity. Consistent cycle formatting: Cycle (length) where applicable. Ranges unified: e.g., 2H–4H instead of 2H 3H 4H. Missing profiles left blank (—) rather than inferred.

 

Key Cycle Periodicities. 

The second table standardizes all cycles of the first into approximate durations in days and years. Kitchin Cycle (~3.3y) ≈ Sunspot Cycle 3H (~3.7y) explains why they co-appear frequently in the dataset. Other key dominant drivers are: 5.5y (Sunspot 2H) → strongest macro-economic driver (confirmed in GDP note), 7.8y (Gold cycle) → dominant in FX + metals, and 9y (Juglar) → long equity + credit structure. Instruments with Kitchin + 3H Sunspot + Venus synodic (e.g., crypto, grains) tend to show high volatility clustering due to cycle interference.

S&P 500 Forecast for July 2026 | Nicholas D. Savino

Here is the SPX July 2026 Forecast. Also posted is the inverse. The charts are not scaled for Price. This forecast correlates with the Bonds Forecast in that ~July 13 appears to be an important date for a Change In Trend (CIT).
 

Primary forecast pattern for July.

 

Inverse pattern for July, which is currently not favored.  

  

 

How the June Forecast played out: June has been difficult. The best right now in this

environment is that the forecast can show Change In Trend (CIT) turning points. 

Reference:

Nicholas D. Savino (June 30, 2026) - S&P 500 Forecast for July 2026.

[check for updates]

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

This market update focuses on the danger of symmetry in cycle analysis. Across all markets analyzed—S&P 500, NASDAQ, ASX, Gold, and Bitcoin—the central theme is consistent: the risk of symmetrical M shapes forming within a larger bearish cycle context. While not yet confirmed, multiple signals—failed targets, breakdowns below FLDs, and weaker second peaks—suggest increasing downside risk. Confirmation will depend on upcoming price interactions with key FLD levels.

S&P 500: The analysis builds on a major cycle trough at the end of March. In the prior update, the 80-day cycle trough was identified as likely complete. Cycles typically generate M-shaped price structures: an initial rise to a peak, a decline to a mid-cycle trough (e.g., 40-day), followed by a second peak and eventual decline into the larger cycle trough. The recent structure formed a distorted, bullish M shape, where the second peak was not symmetrical but elevated.

 

Topping in symmetrical 20-week M structure, likely heading into 18-month trough around late August. 

[current average cycle periods in stacked, color-coded boxes at bottom right.] 

 

Attention now shifts to the larger 20-week cycle, which is also forming an M shape. The first leg ran from the late-March trough to a peak, followed by a decline into the mid-June 80-day trough. A key analytical risk is symmetry: a perfectly symmetrical M shape typically indicates a neutral market. However, the presence of an upcoming 18-month cycle trough—expected around August—implies a bearish context. When a cycle concludes into a higher-magnitude trough, the resulting M shape is typically bearish, characterized by a lower second peak and a stronger decline.

Following the June 80-day trough, price should rise before eventually turning down into the 18-month trough. The concern is that the current price action may be forming a symmetrical structure, signaling weakness. Price has struggled to rally, reinforcing this risk.

 

Examining interactions with the 20-day FLD (Future Line of Demarcation), price crossed above it after the 80-day trough (an A-category signal), but failed to reach its projected target—a first bearish sign. Subsequently, during formation of the 20-day cycle trough, price broke below the FLD instead of finding support, marking a second bearish signal. While not conclusive, this raises the probability of a bearish cycle. The next confirmation would be a failed attempt to reclaim the FLD. 

 

 

The thick blue dashed composite model line, which reconstructs price behavior based solely on cycle inputs, illustrates the symmetry risk clearly: a period of compression followed by a breakdown into the 18-month trough. This model is not predictive but conditional—if cycles persist as analyzed, this is the expected trajectory. The broader context includes a 54-month trough in October 2023 and an 18-month trough in April 2025, with the next 18-month trough projected for August.

The NASDAQ mirrors this structure. Its 80-day trough formed slightly earlier in June, followed by a move above the 20-day FLD that failed to meet its target and then reversed below it—again producing two bearish signals. A symmetrical M shape is also forming here, with similar downside risk into the 18-month trough.

 

Mirroring S&P with a failed FLD sequence, rolling over toward an August 18-month trough.

 

A remote bullish alternative exists: a triangular consolidation could represent a final base, with price breaking upward and shifting the 80-day trough forward. However, this would imply an extended cycle length (around 87 days vs. the typical 68), weakening the analysis. Confirmation would require a strong upward move through the FLD with target achievement.

The Australian ASX provides confirming evidence through Hurst’s principle of commonality, which observes that global markets tend to form troughs synchronously. The ASX identified the 20-week trough earlier than US markets and also formed its 80-day trough earlier. It now shows a similar setup: a potential bearish M shape with a lower second peak and a projected decline into an 18-month trough around late July or early August.

 

Late-stage M structure with residual strength, direction unresolved but biased down into late July–early August.

 

However, the ASX differs in that it successfully achieved certain FLD targets and even exceeded one, indicating residual bullish strength. Despite this, it later broke below the FLD again, signaling vulnerability. The next expected interaction (E-category) will determine direction: success implies continued strength; failure reinforces bearish symmetry. Notably, the composite model underestimated the recent peak, suggesting more bullishness than expected and raising the possibility of misidentified longer cycles.

In Gold, a major peak earlier in the year has maintained bearish pressure. A potential 80-day trough was identified, but price failed to confirm it by crossing above the FLD. Instead, price repeatedly found resistance at the FLD (GH interactions), leaving the trough unconfirmed.

 

Unconfirmed 80-day trough with repeated FLD rejection, likely weak bounce before continuing lower over the near term.

 

If a trough is forming, it would imply an unusually long cycle (~93 days), which is plausible for Gold. Confirmation requires a clean break above the FLD and target achievement. The composite model suggests a near-term bounce followed by renewed decline.

Bitcoin presents a more complex case. The prior analysis suggested a 20-week trough may have formed in early June, but this remains uncertain due to subsequent lower lows. If that trough is valid, the current 20-day cycle is exceptionally bearish—an early warning of broader weakness. Price initially crossed above the FLD (A-category), but failed to reach its target and then broke below the FLD, producing two bearish signals.

 

Structurally weakening; either already in a bearish 20-week cycle or still topping, with downside 

pressure building into the next few weeks to months within the current 18-month cycle.

 

Alternatively, the 20-week trough may still be forming, in which case the earlier FLD signal was anomalous. Cycle timing supports this ambiguity, as current price action aligns with expected trough timing based on average cycle length (~19.6 weeks).

Zooming out, Bitcoin has followed Hurst cycle rhythms closely. A 54-month trough formed in late 2022, followed by an 18-month trough in August 2024 (~593 days, slightly extended) and another candidate in February (~547 days, near ideal length). If this structure holds, Bitcoin is now in the final 18-month cycle of the current 54-month cycle. The first 18-month cycle was strongly bullish, the second moderately bullish, and the current one is showing early bearish characteristics—raising concern that the broader trend is turning down into the next major trough expected in 2027.

 

Reference:
David Hickson (June 29, 2026) - The Danger of Symmetry - Hurst Cycles Market Update (video)

 

See also:
David Hickson (June 15, 2026) - Hurst Cycles Update: SPX, NDX, ASX, NIFTY, DAX, Gold, BTC.

Christopher Grafton (June 29, 2026) - S&P 500 E–Minis (ES) - heading towards the next 20 day cycle peak. Up.

Silver Outlook 2026: 40-Week Cycle Low and $48–$49 Retest | Namzes

The August 2025 projection is pointing to a low forming around now, with the pink area representing the out-of-sample forecast. Concurrently, a 40-week cycle low is due now (see bottom panel), though it could result in a choppy bottom. Given the current dollar strength and its potential for a breakout, any upward move in precious metals might turn out to be a short-lived counter-rally. This setup could lead to new lows around October, where the next 20-week cycle low is scheduled to drop.

On the positive side, seasonality (middle panel) turns favorable next week, as July is historically a bullish month for the metals sector. 

 

Silver, Midterm Year Seasonal Pattern (1973-2024).

 

Silver is currently in an intermediate downtrend, with a likely retest of the $48–$49 former all-time high serving as the final destination.

On the hourly chart, price is basing. I want to see acceptance above 59, which could allow it to retrace toward 63 at the 200-hour moving average, and then eventually up to around 70 near the 200-day moving average. Ultimately, the 73–77 zone remains the golden pocket.

The dollar (DXY) is currently driving the metals complex, meaning a pullback would be highly constructive for precious metals. My main thesis for 2026 is that the dollar should put in an 18-month cycle low in Q1 and start a sharp rally lasting into early fall (see bottom panel). That low formed right on time on January 27, and we are now in the peaking phase of the second 80-day cycle. Following the next 80-day cycle low, I expect a powerful upward move into the fall toward the 105 area.

 

From a structural standpoint, the Wyckoff accumulation pattern suggests a consolidation and retest of the 100 area is ahead, acting as a Last Point of Support (LPS) before the next leg higher. Because persistent dollar strength has been a major headwind for metals, if the USD weakens over the next few weeks, it should trigger a solid counter-rally across the metals sector.

 

Namzes, June 28, 2026.

Oil Outlook 2026: Navigating the Upcoming 40-Week Cycle Low | Namzes

18-Month Cycle & Major Lows: The 18-month cycle low that I was anticipating for mid-December 2025 arrived right on schedule (see middle panel). We likely also have a major 4-to-5-year cycle low in place, meaning we are in the very early stages of a new macro up-cycle.

Impending 40-Week Cycle Low: We are currently due for a 40-week cycle low, which historically carries a wide range but averages around 228 days. Over the next few weeks, we could see the market retest or slightly undercut recent lows, potentially filling the $67.83 gap on WTI futures (note that the Brent gap has already been filled).

 

 

 
Next Leg Higher: Once this low is firmly established, I expect the next leg higher to carry into the fall, aligning with typical seasonal strength through roughly October.

 

 Crude Oil, Midterm Year Seasonal Pattern (1984-2024).

Short-Term vs. Long-Term Technicals: Price is currently trading within the 20-week projection range—the half-cycle offset is illustrated in blue and purple (h/t Peter Eliades for bringing his excellent service to TradingView). To trigger the upside projections, price needs to reclaim its 200-day moving average (DMA), represented by the white line. Reclaiming this level is crucial to repairing the otherwise weak short-term technical picture.

Path to $150+: While the long-term structure looks like a textbook bullish breakout and retest, short-term momentum remains firmly to the downside. We need to see price recapture the 200 DMA and ultimately break above the diagonal resistance levels in the $80s, establishing a constructive structure of higher lows and higher highs on both the daily and weekly charts. The $120 level remains a massive overhead resistance; however, a clean close above it unlocks a move toward $150–$160, which remains our primary target for the coming months.

Speculator Capitulation: Speculative positioning has dropped significantly across both Brent and WTI (green line in bottom panel). This washout in positioning strongly supports the idea that a bottoming process is underway. There is a massive amount of dry powder in terms of financial barrels that can be aggressively added back the momentum shifts to the upside.
 

 

 

China Import Anomaly: The most critical variable to watch—and the primary reason oil prices haven't surged higher—is Chinese oil imports. China has essentially cut its imports in half, a reduction that effectively neutralized about 50% of the lost production and supply disruptions in the Gulf. They achieved this either by cutting refinery runs or aggressively drawing down their underground inventories (though without full data visibility, the exact mix remains speculative).

Macro Inventory Gamble: How long can China sustain a drawdown of 5 to 6 million barrels per day (MBD)? That is above my pay grade, but the global market is clearly continuing to deplete its inventories. The market is essentially betting on a normalization of the Strait of Hormuz and a return to regular production levels, which would theoretically allow countries to refill their Strategic Petroleum Reserves (SPR) at lower prices.

 

 
Trump-Xi Geopolitical Quid Pro Quo? This massive inventory drawdown directly coincided with the recent Trump-Xi summit. It raises an interesting geopolitical question: Did the Trump administration quietly trade a policy of non-intervention regarding a China-Taiwan reunification in exchange for Beijing drawing down its inventories to suppress oil prices during this crisis? Given that China appears poised to move on Taiwan in the next few years anyway, Washington may have decided to extract a major economic concession while they still could.

 

The most important thing to watch, and the reason oil prices never went higher, is China's oil imports. They essentially cut imports in half, neutralizing about half of all lost Gulf production and supply. They did this either by reducing refinery runs or drawing down underground inventories (which remains speculation due to a lack of visibility).

How long can they continue drawing 5–6 MBD? That is beyond my pay grade, but the world is clearly depleting inventories—effectively betting on Hormuz normalization and a return to normal production levels that would allow SPR refills at lower prices.

This also coincided with the Trump-Xi summit. Did Trump trade non-intervention in a China-Taiwan reunification for China drawing down inventories during this crisis to keep oil prices lower? China will take Taiwan in the next few years anyway, so they might as well get something out of China in exchange.

 

With the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) running at maximum levels in June and China cutting its imports in half, trapped tankers are now trying to exit the Strait of Hormuz simultaneously, putting heavy downward pressure on the spot market. However, looking a few months out, the picture becomes far less rosy.

 

 
First, the current SPR release will stop shortly, and those borrowed barrels must be returned with interest. Second, while Gulf production needs to ramp up, Iran is actively trying to control and slow down traffic; recognizing that the Strait of Hormuz is their primary leverage, they are attempting to restrict shipping lanes to their side of the strait, as shown in the chart above. Third, China will eventually have to normalize its imports, which will reintroduce 5 to 6 MBD of incremental demand to the market. Finally, the world has drawn down over 1 billion barrels of inventory that must be replenished, leaving nations with very little cushion for further emergency SPR releases in the event of any future escalation.

 

Is the grand TACO real? Iran won the war and Trump capitulated, giving Iran everything they asked for. Knowing Trump, it is very possible he signed an MOU just to open the strait and lower oil prices, without any intent to keep his side of the agreement.

Iran will try to keep Hormuz traffic constrained to avoid giving up their oil card, so expect periodic escalations. Furthermore, Israel doesn’t want this deal to be signed, so they will continue escalations in Lebanon; since Lebanon was included in the agreement, this undermines any long-term peace deal. If escalations continue, Iran would be inclined to seek nuclear weapons as the only long-term deterrent against the US and Israel. Ultimately, we should expect more back-and-forth escalations rather than one grand deal or reopening.

 

Bottom line: There is no easy solution and no fast path to normalization. Iran holds the cards and won’t give them up at this stage. Oil trading sub-70 is a function of short-term flows of trapped barrels out of Hormuz, SPR releases, the China import boycott, and a speculator positioning unwind. Looking a couple of months out, the risk-reward is heavily skewed to the upside.

Namzes, June 28, 2026.