Showing posts with label Kitchin Cycle. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Kitchin Cycle. Show all posts

Thursday, September 24, 2026

Seasonality vs. Cycles: October is Midterm Sweet Spot—If Switch Holds

October's reputation as a crash month misinterprets the presidential cycle and midterm sweet spot playbook. Since 1950, the S&P 500 has averaged a +3.0% gain in midterm Octobers, closing higher 74% of the time. November extends that momentum, adding +2.8% with a 79% win rate. From September 30 through year-end, the midterm path averages +6.6% and yields positive returns in 16 of 19 instances. Jeffrey Hirsch's  Stock Trader's Almanac signal isn't "beware October"—it's that the four-year cycle stops leaking in October.

Seasonality Midterm October Map for the S&P 500: Midterm years leave September weaker than the all-year path—then pull away from October 1 through mid-November. S&P 500 calendar-day path from the September 14 close: crimson is midterms 1950–2022 (+3.0% in October, 74% up); navy dashed is all years 1928–2025. Late September is still the washout (window trough ~Sep 30). 2026 has already rallied +21% off the March low, so this is a Q4-bid midterm, not a crash-then-rally analog, unless 7,550 breaks.
However, the leak precedes the rally. Both the all-year seasonal map and the midterm composite sag from the autumn equinox through month-end. September 27 falls directly within that washout zone, with the midterm path averaging a trough near September 30 (−1.3% from mid-September levels). Because September 27, 2026, falls on a Sunday, the active trading window shifts to Friday the 25th and Monday the 28th. That cluster represents a dip-buying opportunity, not an immediate breakout zone.
Presidential Election Cycle in US Stocks
Yale Hirsch is most widely credited with detecting and popularizing the Presidential Election Cycle in US stocks. A market historian, he introduced the pattern in the first edition of his Stock Trader's Almanac in 1967 and refined it in later volumes. Drawing on decades of data, Hirsch showed that equity returns tend to be weaker in the first one or two years of a presidential term and stronger thereafter—especially in the third, pre-election year—as administrations shift toward stimulus to support re-election prospects. Although related political-business-cycle ideas appear in economics (notably William Nordhaus's 1975 model of pre-election stimulus), the specific documentation and popularization of the stock-market version by year of the term belong to Hirsch's Almanac work; academic testing of the equity pattern followed mainly from the 1980s onward.

Overlap with the Kitchin and Broader Business Cycles
The presidential cycle is a fixed four-year political calendar. It overlaps in length with several economic cycles of roughly three to five years, yet the mechanisms differ and the patterns should not be treated as identical. The Kitchin Cycle, identified by Joseph Kitchin in 1923, is a short inventory-driven business cycle averaging about forty months. Firms over-order in expansions, then destock, producing production swings that feed into the broader economy. Because its typical span nearly matches a presidential term, many observers refer to the dominant four-year equity rhythm as both the Kitchin and the presidential cycle; some studies even treat the observed market pattern as encompassing both. The crucial distinction remains that Kitchin is an economic-inventory process while the presidential cycle is a political-calendar effect tied to election incentives. They can reinforce each other—late-term stimulus coinciding with inventory rebuilding—or drift out of phase because one is rigid and the other variable.

The presidential cycle also interacts with the general Business Cycle through policy timing: adjustment-oriented measures early in a term give way to growth-oriented stimulus later. Stocks, as a leading indicator, historically show weaker average returns and more frequent recessions in the first half of the term and stronger performance, especially in year three, in the second half. Empirical work finds that standard business-cycle variables do not fully account for the presidential return pattern; the equity effect persists as something of a residual puzzle.

Links to Hurst Cycles
Technical cycle analysis supplies a further parallel. J. M. Hurst's model organizes markets into a hierarchy of harmonically related nominal periods governed by commonality, synchronicity, and proportionality. The 54-week cycle is an intermediate member; longer relatives include the 40-week, 18-month, and especially the 54-month (approximately 4.5-year) cycle. Four 54-week periods nest into roughly 4.15 years, close to a presidential term, and Hurst practitioners often map the four-year political pattern onto their 4-to-4.5-year or 46-to-54-month rhythms. Historical studies, including those referencing Edward Dewey, note a roughly 46-month cycle of high regularity that aligns in period with the presidential timeframe. The political calendar can help phase or contextualize Hurst troughs and peaks, yet pure Hurst analysis remains grounded in price action and nested harmonics rather than external politics; the two tools are complementary, and presidential turning points coincide with major Hurst lows only intermittently.

Interaction with the Decennial Cycle
A still longer calendar regularity, the Decennial Cycle, interacts with the presidential pattern through systematic overlaps. First detailed by Edgar Lawrence Smith in the 1930s and later popularized in Hirsch's Almanac, the decennial pattern tracks average performance by the year's ending digit. Early-decade years (ending in 0, 1, or 2) tend to be softer—a "decade hangover"—while mid-decade years, especially those ending in 5, have been almost invariably positive and often strongly so; later years are more mixed. Because ten is not a multiple of four, the two cycles nest in shifting combinations: every decade contains two full presidential terms plus part of a third, so a year's place in the presidential sequence systematically aligns with particular ending digits. Years ending in 5 frequently fall in the first or third presidential year—both historically stronger—helping to amplify the mid-decade strength. Early-decade softness often coincides with post-election or transitional periods that overlap the weaker half of the presidential cycle. Practitioners like Ned Davis therefore treat the two as additive filters: a year that is both a strong presidential year (particularly year three) and a favorable decennial year is viewed more constructively, while alignment of weak slots raises caution.
Complementary Framework
Taken together, these patterns form a nested set of calendar and economic regularities. Length similarities produce natural correlations and frequent joint discussion, especially around the four-year rhythm shared by the presidential, Kitchin, and certain Hurst cycles. The presidential cycle functions as a political overlay that can influence or coincide with inventory-driven, business-cycle, and pure price-based rhythms, particularly around policy timing and major turning points. The decennial cycle supplies an additional independent calendar layer that modulates the four-year pattern at predictable intersections. None of the cycles causes the others; each is an empirical tendency best used as a parallel lens. Real markets approximate the historical averages but never duplicate them exactly, because exogenous events, monetary policy, and larger forces continually interact with and sometimes override the calendar regularities.
S&P 500 vs. 2026 Equal-Weight Composite Cycle (Seasonal, Presidential, and Decennial).
 
Presidential Cycle 2025–2028 and Midterm Election Year 2026 Sweet Spot:
Potential rise from September 30 (Wed), 2026 through July 19 (Mon), 2027. 
 
 2026 Is Already Off-Script
This market has diverged significantly from the historical midterm template. Jeffrey Hirsch's traditional model calls for a ~17% peak-to-trough drawdown—typically extending from late spring into mid-August—before launching into a Q4 rally. Instead, the 2026 tape printed its low early on March 30 at 6,344, rallied to 7,799 by August 13, and closed Thursday at 7,704—up +12.5% year-to-date and +21.4% off its lows. October arrives following an extended recovery rather than into a fresh, deeply discounted cyclical low.

Cycles vs. Seasonality
Running parallel to seasonality is the Hurst cycle model, which presents a more cautious picture. Across the Dow, S&P 500, and Nasdaq-100, the primary 40-week nominal trough starts at the March 30, 2026 major low, and is projected for January 9, 2027. Intermediate shared cycle troughs ahead of that window map to September 26 (40-day cycle) and October 30–31 (80-day cycle). Under this framework, the August highs are treated as the macro top for this wave segment. Until the major January trough arrives, counter-trend crests remain rallies to sell—unless a key pivot level fails, forcing an early-October alternate cycle low.

Primary Cycle Count Forward Projection and Confluence Calendar (Sep 2026 to Jan 2027).  

The Switch Levels Are the Entire Trade
These key switch levels dictate the structural bias: Dow Jones 51,172, S&P 500 7,550, and Nasdaq-100 30,125. On Thursday, September 24 the Dow undercut 51,172 intraday before reclaiming it by the close. The S&P and Nasdaq switch levels continue to hold. As long as 30,125 holds on the Nasdaq, a tactical bounce toward October 16 remains valid.


If the switches hold, the expected window of October 4–7 represents a sell zone to exit long positions taken off the September 26 low. If a switch breaks, a trough accelerates forward into October 4–5 as a primary buy window—the exact inflection point where seasonality and cycle analysis converge.
 
Execution Stance
Tactical discipline remains essential. Maintain light exposure heading into the Friday–Monday window, avoid initiating long positions on the Dow at current levels, do not hold the S&P 500 in anticipation of immediate new highs, and avoid over-allocating to the Nasdaq.
 
S&P 500 80-day cycle (primary): Starts at the Aug 20 trough. Wavelength 71 days. High already in on Aug 28, at 11% of the wave—left, not in the middle. Sep 21 did not beat it. Printed highs and lows as of Sep 21. "Expected" repeats that cycle's last translation. Oct 31 is the 80-day low only—the 20-day low before it is Oct 17. 80-day FLD 7,790 is still lost. The 20-week from this same Aug 20 trough does not bottom until Jan 9, 2027 (timing schematic, not a price forecast).
S&P 500 80-day cycle (alternate): Same Aug 20 start. On this count the low is Oct 5, not Oct 31, and Oct 5 is not a high. Sep 21 did not beat Aug 28.No crest between Sep 21 and Oct 5. The Nov 10 bounce is drawn smaller because this alternate cycle count does not expect it a new high (timing schematic, not a price forecast). 
DJIA 80-day cycle (primary): Starts at the Aug 20 trough. Wavelength 71 days. High already in on Aug 28, at 11% of the wave—left, not in the middle. Oct 30 is the 80-day low only—the 20-day low before it is Oct 17. The 20-week from this same Aug 20 trough does not bottom until Jan 9 (timing schematic, not a price forecast).  
 
DJIA 80-day cycle (alternate): On this count the low is Oct 4, not Oct 30, and Oct 4 is not a high. The Sep 22 bounce already failed. Next week is a bounce only if Sep 26 holds above 51,172. The high of that bounce is Oct 4, and it is a sell. It is a short, left-translated 40-day high, about a week, and it does not repair 52,364. If 51,172 breaks, next week is down into Oct 4. Then Oct 4 is the low near 50,000, not the high (timing schematic, not a price forecast).
If the switch levels hold, treat the late-September dip strictly as a tactical trade—take profits into early October, look to cover risk around the October 30–31 trough, and save major position sizing for the January 9 40-week/18-month cycle low. If a switch level fails, step aside during the bounce and buy the index at its early-October reset instead. Midterm seasonality provides a strong tailwind once a low is established—it is not a license to ignore the cycle trough. 

Dow: Oct 4 is a sell only above 51,172. Under 51,172 it is the buy.
S&P: Oct 4–7 is a sell only above 7,550. Under 7,550, Oct 5 is the buy.
Nasdaq: Oct 16 is a sell only above 30,125. Under 30,125, Oct 5 is the buy.
 
See also:

Sunday, September 13, 2026

S&P 500 Hurst Cycle Analysis

Composite Model Line (CML) through December 2026.
 
August established the multi-year high for the current cycle. On August 13 (Thu), the market peaked at 7,816.7, marking the dual 18-month and 40-week crest for the move that began at 4,835 in April 2025. This peak reflected mixed cycle translation: the 18-month cycle peaked late (at 77% of its duration), whereas the 40-week cycle peaked early (at 48%). A lesser secondary crest for the 80-day and 20-week cycles followed on August 28 (Fri) at 7,771.

From these highs, the market is trending downward toward a major nested trough projected for January 9 (Sat) 2027, which aligns the 18-month, 40-week, and 20-week cycles. Downside targets range from 7,148 on a standard 20-week retracement to approximately 6,500 if the full 40-week amplitude unfolds.
 
How the clock is set.
 
 
Forward Projection & Confluence Calendar.  
 
Position-horizon CML: Weekly S&P 500 from the March 23 (Mon) 2020 9-year trough June 2030. 
 
September: Initial Decline
September represents the first leg of this broader decline rather than a continuation to new highs. A 20-day trough printed on September 10 (Thu) at 7,580. Provided this support holds, the only remaining minor crests are a 5-/10-/20-day cluster on September 14 (Mon), September 15 (Tue), and September 18 (Fri) near 7,710. Subsequent low projections follow in close order, beginning with the 5-day low on September 16 (Wed), followed by the 10-day low on September 21 (Mon), and concluding with the 40-day low on September 26 (Sat), which marks the midpoint of the active 80-day cycle.

October: Continued Downside
October continues the downward trajectory rather than initiating a late-stage rally. The 80-day cycle—whose crest is already locked in at 7,771—is due to trough on October 31 (Sat) (with an expected window spanning October 24–Nov 7), following a breakdown below its Future Line Demarcation (FLD) on September 9. Initial measured support stands at 7,562, followed by the 20-week FLD at 7,482.
 
Alternate Cycle Projection 
If the 7,482 (the July 31 close) support fails, an accelerated alternate resolution brings the 18-month low forward to October 5 (Mon) near 7,000, bypassing the January window entirely. There is no structural path to an October all-time high; the 8,469 projection went unfulfilled in August, and the 40-week cycle has already passed its crest.

Alternate composite, different nest: 18-month / short 40-week into Oct 5 (Mon) 2026, no
mid-October 40-week crest. Key dates: Next crest August 28 7,771.4 (40-day / 80-day / 20-
week already in), working 20-day bounce September 18 · ~7,710, then October 5 trough
~7,000. If October is a deep break instead of a moderate 80-day, this is the path.
With the 80-day uptrend breaking on September 9, this down-cycle represents an immediate risk tied to a one-third division of the major 54-month or 4½-year cycle that began in April 2025. Because that fractional cycle projection matures this fall rather than early next year, the market risks shifting into a deeper low target around October 5 (near 7,000) if the S&P closes under 7,482 before reclaiming 7,720. 
 
While January remains the principal nested low under the condition that 7,482 holds, breaching that support level invalidates the January timeline, favoring a sharper autumn selloff over extended rangebound consolidation into the new year. 
 
Dominant Cycles (in calendar days).
 
Current Cycle Positions.
 
Hurst Diamond Chart: Stacked diamonds at nested troughs from Jan 2025 through the Jan 9 2027 projection. Filled = observed; hollow = projected. Verticals mark 5+ degree synchronic lows. Apr 7 (Mon) 2025 is the in-sample 54-month / 18-month / 40-week origin. 9-year (2020), 18-year / 54-year (2003) and the 1949 54-year anchor sit off this window. 2009 is not an 18-year. 
 
See also:
 
 S&P 500 spectrum composite forecast by Sergey Ivanov via Timing Solution (September 13, 2026). 
 
Claudio Fialdini applies the Delta Phenomenon's super-long-term 19-year (228-month) and long-term cycles to the S&P 500, proposing 14 alternating waves of tops and bottoms culminating in a major peak and deep crash. Anchored to the Metonic cycle, historical turning points include 1929, 1947, 1966, 1987, and 2007, with Wave 14 projecting a terminal peak in 2026. Waves 1–13 comprise the secular advance; Wave 14 marks the final crest before liquidation. The green baseline traces cycle support through the 2009 GFC (Wave 1), 2011 (Wave 3), 2015–16 (Wave 5), and 2020 COVID (Wave 7) lows, followed by a projected decline toward the multi-decade trendline.

Wednesday, July 15, 2026

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).
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.
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).
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:
 
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:

Tuesday, July 14, 2026

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.
  
 
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.

Monday, June 29, 2026

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.