S&P 500 Bear Outlook Intact: Q3 3.5-Year Hurst Cycle Low | Namzes

The big picture remains unchanged: I still expect a bear market, with a buyable 3.5-year Hurst cycle low in Q3 2026. The 20-week cycle low arrived on schedule—just one day after the ideal March 27 (Fri) window outlined in my 2026 forecast.

 Chart 1: The new 20-week cycle could run higher into late May. The current 40-day cycle is now about halfway through.

I didn’t expect new all-time highs—my plan was for a rejection at the golden pocket retracement. Instead, a mix of CTA driven mechanical buying and Trump playing the market like a violin produced the blow-off top I’d anticipated back in February. The market always finds a way to humble you. 

 

The current 40-day cycle is roughly halfway complete (Chart 1). Next week should clarify whether the rally has further upside or is topping out. In my base bear case, April 17 was flagged as a potential turning point, but so far there are no signs of buying pressure slowing. Options expiration (OPEX) often serves as a pivot—either on the day itself or shortly after.

 
From a Hurst cycle perspective, the S&P 500 may still have several percent of upside left. That said, I’m not chasing it. As in February, I’ve stepped aside—risk/reward isn’t compelling for my multi-month holding framework, especially with weekend headline risk in play.

Timing-wise, the next 40-day low is due around May 7 (Thu). That should provide clearer insight into structure—namely the depth of the pullback and the strength of the rebound into late May (Chart 2). This sequence would then feed into a larger decline toward a higher-degree summer low. Leading indicators continue to point to a more meaningful downside move in the weeks ahead, so I remain heavily in cash.

  

 Chart 2: Options expiration (OPEX) often acts as a pivot, either on the day itself or a few days after. 

Next 40-day low due around May 7 (Thu), followed by a rebound into late May.

 

Short-term models have triggered a buy signal. If you’re leaning bullish, the new 20-week cycle could extend into late May, including a typical retest of the May 40-day low. However, given the negative pressure from the dominant 3.5-year cycle, my base case is that this rally is a false breakout—likely forming another divergent top and unlikely to persist beyond April.

It’s extremely rare for a 40-week cycle (top panel, Chart 3) to undercut its prior low and still go on to make new highs. In S&P 500 history, I could identify only one comparable instance. The usual structure in such cases is an M-shaped pattern with a clear bearish bias, as highlighted by the arrows.

 

Chart 3: It’s rare for a 40-week cycle to undercut its low and still go on to make a new high.

Bottom panel shows 20-week cycle, expected to synchronize with the 40-week cycle around July. 

That’s exactly how I expected the current 20-week cycle to unfold. That said, we now need price action to confirm emerging bearish signals. A bullishly configured cycle could still extend into June. While models have triggered a buy signal, participation remains narrow and volume is light. In my view, a downside resolution over the next few weeks remains the highest-probability outcome—but it still requires confirmation. Cycles define the setup; price action and models provide the trigger. The bottom panel shows the 20-week cycle, which I expect to synchronize with the 40-week cycle around July.

To illustrate what typically happens after a 20-week cycle low when the 40-week cycle has already failed, we can look back at Q1 2022 (Chart 4). In January of that year, the price made a lower low, confirming that the 40-week cycle had failed and signaling the start of a larger-degree correction.

 

Chart 4: Typical outcome after a 20-week low when the 40-week cycle has already failed.

 

This was followed by a series of bounces that retraced some of the decline but failed to make new highs. The market then rolled over and established new lows. This pattern is typical behavior roughly 99% of the time.That’s why I’ll be watching closely to see whether the current breakout turns out to be a deviation that ultimately resolves to the downside over the next few weeks, especially with the longer 3.5-year cycle exerting downward pressure.

I'm watching for a potential Wyckoff upthrust after distribution (UTAD) to play out over the next few weeks (Chart 5). For the bulls, it's critical to keep any pullbacks shallow and hold above the 2026 opening price at SPY 685.71, as well as above the overall consolidation range. 

 

Chart 5: Watching for a potential Wyckoff UTAD to unfold in the coming weeks.

Doing so will help avoid the setup looking like a classic false breakout. I've also overlaid the 2022 bear market in yellow for reference, in case the bearish thesis unfolds and we see a similar structure develop.

Reference:
Namzes (April 17, 2025) - S&P 500 Bear Outlook Intact – Q3 3.5-Year Cycle Low.

See also:
Namzes (January 10, 2026) - 2026 Hurst Cycles Playbook for the S&P 500. 
Namzes (January 1, 2026) - 2026 US Stock Market Forecast: 25% Bear Market and Recovery.

Krasi (April 19, 2026) - This is a 4-year cycle high—don’t get too excited.

David Hickson (April 7, 2026) - Twenty-Week Cycle Trough Or Greater? (video)

VIX Cycles: Forecasting Volatility Peaks Through 2032 | Branimir Vojcic

Seasonality within the Standard & Poor’s 500 Volatility Index (VIX) indicates that volatility typically rises toward the spring, declines during the summer months, and ascends once more into October (see chart below). 

 

Vix Seasonality.

This cyclical behavior usually runs inverse to the stock market. Crucially, this 6-month cycle aligns almost perfectly with the classic VIX seasonal pattern, reinforcing the likelihood of the next move. Chart 1 illustrates the six-month cycle that dominates the daily timeframe, aligning closely with established VIX seasonality patterns.

Chart 1: VIX - 6-Month Cycle.

Shifting our focus to longer-duration significant cycles, we examine the two-year and 3.5-year cycles (Chart 2). The latter is formally recognized as the Kitchin cycle and is observable across numerous financial markets. Although these two powerful cycles are frequently out of phase, they generally succeed in capturing significant spikes within the VIX. By combining them (Chart 3), we yield a composite cycle signal; we observe that these two cycles capture the majority of the VIX's historical movements, notwithstanding a notable failure in 2005.

 

Chart 2: VIX - 2-Year and 3.5-Year Cycles.

 

Chart 3: VIX - Composite of 2-Year and 3.5-Year Cycles.

Naturally, various other cycles—both of shorter and longer durations—simultaneously influence price action. On the monthly VIX chart, the six-year and ten-year cycles are the dominant forces, beautifully capturing multi-year fluctuations (Chart 4). It is important to note that both of these cycles reached troughs in 2005, which explains why the shorter-term cycles were unable to produce a volatility spike during that period. 

 Chart 4: VIX - 6-Year and 10-Year Cycles.

 

The integration of these two cycles further underscores their critical importance for long-term VIX trajectories. Currently, the composite cycle signal forecasts a multi-year cyclical peak in 2032, a period which may correspond to a significant low in the stock market. Finally, by incorporating the two-year and 3.5-year cycles, we add essential granularity to the composite of these very long-term cycles (Chart 5).
 

Chart 5: VIX - Composite of 6-Year and 10-Year Cycles.

 

The next significant cycle peak and trough are estimated to occur in November of 2026 and throughout 2027, respectively. Following that inflection point, the VIX will generally maintain an upside bias toward 2032. Given that stock market movements are typically inversely correlated with those of the VIX, does this imply that the equity market will decline through October 2026, rally in 2027, and subsequently enter a secular bear market until the early 2030s?

Reference:
Branimir Vojcic (February 16, 2026) - What Message is Volatility (VIX) Sending? Part 1 & Part 2. (videos)

 

See also:

Dylan O'Neill (March 1, 2026) - VIX: Wall Street's Exact Formula to Measure Fear In the Markets. (video)

2026 in J.M. Funk’s "56-Year Cycle of Prosperity and Depression"

J.M. Funk’s theory, first articulated in his 1932 pamphlet "The 56-Year Cycle in American Business Activity", posits a recurring 56-year rhythm in US economic and business conditions, driven by a chain of cause-and-effect events influenced by human behavioral traits—such as aspiration, greed, and intemperance—and modulated by external rhythmic forces akin to solar cycles.

 

The cycle transcends intervening factors like wars, technological advancements, or monetary policy changes, manifesting as three major panic periods within each 56-year span, spaced at intervals of approximately 20, 20, and 16 years. The cycle's structure is visually represented in a circular chart, originally drafted by Funk and redrawn by financial astrologer David Williams in 1959 and 1982, which delineates key phases: "Accumulating Surplus" (thrift and investment buildup), "Absorbing Surplus Production" (rising prices and sales), "Panic and Dumping" (market collapse and liquidation), "Industrial Stagnation" (depression and low activity), and "Uncontrolled Production" (overexpansion leading to renewed prosperity).

Funk's chart illustrates historical alignments across centuries, with years marked along concentric rings and "needles" connecting equivalent points in successive cycles. For instance, sequences such as 1801–1857–1913–1969 and 1817–1873–1929–1985 highlight recurring panic epochs, while subcycles (e.g., 9-year intervals) link shorter-term fluctuations. Prosperity emerges from post-panic thrift, fostering confidence and investment; however, extended booms breed overproduction, fictitious credit, and speculation, culminating in collapse. The depth of ensuing depressions mirrors the prior expansion's scale, with stock market drawdowns historically ranging from 25% to 40% during panic phases.

According to the cycle's alignment, late 2025 corresponds to the "Panic. Dumping." phase, characterized by high prices giving way to forced selling, bank strains, and commodity price collapses—echoing historical precedents like the Panics of 1857 (30% NYSE decline amid railroad overextension) and 1913–1914 (40% drop triggered by European liquidations). The chart's central long needle explicitly ties 2025 to this vortex, projecting a major bear market. An outer-ring marker at 2024 signals "High Prices. Sell Save," aligning with the S&P 500's peak on November 29, 1968, and suggesting a comparable crest in late 2024. This transitions into 2026, marked on the inner ring as "Low Prices. Buy," corresponding to troughs in January and May 1970 and indicating the onset of recovery.

Observed drawdowns during prior "Panic and Dumping" epochs:
■ The Panic of 1857, corresponding to the 1857 position on the chart, saw the New York Stock Exchange decline by approximately 30%, driven by bank failures, railroad overextension, and commodity price collapses.
■ The 1913–1914 crisis, linked to the 1913 marker, resulted in a roughly 40% drop in stock prices by August 1914, precipitated by European liquidations and heightened geopolitical tensions.
■ The 1968–1970 bear market, directly analogous to the 2025–2026 projection via the cycle's 56-year rhythm, featured a 37% decline in the S&P 500 from its peak on November 29, 1968, to its trough on May 25, 1970.

Quantitative projections draw from the 1968–1970 parallel, shifted by precisely 20,454 days (equivalent to 56 solar years): The S&P 500 declined 37% from its November 1968 high to its May 1970 low. Despite the panic designation, the decennial pattern of US stocks introduces nuance: 2025, as the fifth year in a decade, historically yields positive returns (breaking a rare negative streak seen in 2005), potentially mitigating the downturn's severity. 

 

Supplementary analyses from related frameworks, such as Hurst cycles and seasonality (not part of Funk's original model), suggest the most probable initiation of a sustained contraction in late 2025, extending into Q1 2026—specifically January—with potential acceleration from seasonal weaknesses before stabilization. Magnitude remains speculative but could mirror the 37% 1968–1970 precedent, moderated by contemporary factors like Federal Reserve policy. 

See also: 

 TPR (2024) - 2025 in J.M. Funk’s "56-Year Cycle of Prosperity and Depression".

TPR (2015) - 2015 in J.M. Funk’s "56-Year Cycle of Prosperity and Depression". 

"Cosmic Cycles of Global Conjuncture" & Outlook into 2035 | Vladimir A. Belkin

Vladimir Belkin's 2014 study "Cosmic Cycles of Global Conjuncture" (КОСМИЧЕСКИЕ ЦИКЛЫ МИРОВОЙ КОНЪЮНКТУРЫ) synthesized the interconnections between solar activity cycles and global economic fluctuations. Belkin posited a robust inverse relationship between peaks in solar activity—measured via Wolf sunspot numbers—and subsequent declines in world output and US GDP growth, drawing on the fields of Heliobiology and Helioeconomics. Employing correlation and lagged regression analyses over extended historical periods, he demonstrated cyclical alignments with Juglar (7–11 years) and Kitchin (3–5 years) business cycles to forecast economic deterioration in 2014–2015.

Chart 1 above ("Kitchin and Juglar cycles of world output as a function of solar activity, 1961–2013.") illustrates Kitchin and Juglar cycles in world output (1961–2013) against lagged solar activity. Dual axes show Wolf numbers (left, solid line) peaking inversely to output growth (right, dashed line, one-year lag), with visual mirroring and R² ≈ 0.99 in segments, confirming short-term solar-driven volatility.

Extending this, chart 2 ("Kitchin and Juglar cycles in US GDP as a function of solar activity, 1798–2013.") applies the same to US GDP (1798–2013), demonstrating remarkable persistence over two centuries. The inverse pattern—solar peaks followed by GDP troughs—spans industrial revolutions and institutional changes, with a correlation of –0.88, underscoring the robustness of heliobiological influences on economic history.

Chart 3 ("Strong inverse relationship between cycles of world output and cycles of solar activity.") depicts the strong inverse between normalized world output cycles and solar activity (1961–2013 extended), with Wolf numbers (solid) and lagged growth index (dashed) as near-mirror images. A correlation of –0.87 highlights how solar rises precipitate growth falls, validating Belkin's claim of solar activity as a primary cycle determinant.

Focusing on extrema, chart 4 ("Strong inverse relationship between monthly extremes in Wolf numbers and annual world-output growth with a one-year lag.") presents a scatter plot of monthly Wolf peaks (x-axis) against annual world growth one year later (y-axis, 1964–2009), with a downward-sloping regression (R² = 0.7597). Higher solar maxima predict deeper slowdowns, offering a precise metric for crisis intensity.

Chart 5 ("Strong inverse relationship between the long cycle of world output and the long cycle of monthly solar-activity maxima.") addresses long cycles, plotting world output growth around solar maxima years (1968–2000, black line) against average Wolf numbers. A stepwise decline in growth per successive maximum (correlation –0.85) reveals secular trends, where weakening solar cycles since 1968 coincide with diminishing global expansions.

Complementing the above charts, Table 1 quantifies post-maxima declines: for solar peaks in 1968, 1979, 1989, and 2000, world growth fell by –2.90%, –2.01%, –2.42%, and –2.19% within two years, respectively. Belkin projected –2.38% for 2013 (delayed Cycle 24), forecasting a 2014–2015 downturn to ~2.0% growth, aligning with emerging-market vulnerabilities.

Collectively, this substantiates high statistical significance, with lags explaining physiological delays (e.g., geomagnetic storms reducing blood flow by 32–40%, fostering pessimism). Methodologically, Belkin employed:

• Lagged correlation analysis: Economic growth is regressed against solar activity with a one-year lag, reflecting delayed physiological impacts (e.g., solar maxima precede growth troughs). 
• Cycle decomposition: Juglar and Kitchin cycles are isolated via smoothing and differencing, then overlaid on solar series to visualize inversions.
• Regression modeling: Scatter plots with fitted lines quantify relationships, reporting R² and correlation coefficients (e.g., –0.87 to –0.88 overall).
• Forecasting via extrapolation: Historical patterns inform projections, adjusted for NASA solar forecasts (e.g., delayed Cycle 24 peak in 2013–2014).

Applying Belkin’s methodology to current solar forecasts yields the following calibrated projections for 2025–2035:

• 2025–2026: Cycle 25’s prolonged maximum (SSN peak 160.8 in Oct 2024, extending to mid-2025) signals imminent slowdown via the lagged inverse correlation (r ≈ –0.87; chart 3); expect global GDP deceleration of 2.0–2.5% from 2024 levels to 1.5–2.0%, mirroring Table 1’s –2.38% post-peak drop, with initial geomagnetic volatility worsening emerging-market risks (as in Belkin’s 2013–2014 forecast).
• 2027–2030: Cycle 25 minimum (2029–2030) reverses the trend, producing upswings similar to post-minimum recoveries (charts 1 and 2); secular weakening (chart 5) moderates amplitude, but growth should accelerate to 3.5–4.5% by 2029, driven by solar quiescence and reduced crisis propensity.
• 2031–2035: Cycle 26 onset (2029–2032 start, moderate SSN max ~131–160 ca. 2040–2043) brings rising solar activity that erodes gains per the inverse linkage (chart 4, R² = 0.76), yielding 1–2% cumulative drag by 2035 and possible mild recession if the cycle exceeds forecasts; overall 2025–2035 average growth 2.5–3.0% (chart 5 declining envelope), contingent on astrophysical accuracy.

Solar-timing uncertainties (e.g., exact Cycle 26 start) require integration with endogenous models, and post-2025 validation will refine accuracy.

Reference:
Vladimir A. Belkin (2014) - Cosmic Cycles of Global Conjuncture.
(КОСМИЧЕСКИЕ ЦИКЛЫ МИРОВОЙ КОНЪЮНКТУРЫ).

Vladimir A. Belkin holds a Doctorate in Economic Sciences and is a leading research scientist at the Chelyabinsk Institute of Economics, Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, and Professor of Economics, Finance, and Accounting at the Chelyabinsk Branch of the Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration. Renowned for pioneering helioeconomics, his extensive publications—over 90 since 2008—explore inverse correlations between solar activity cycles and global economic fluctuations, with recent works (up to 2025) analyzing GDP growth, US federal fund rates, and commodity prices.

See also:

Vladimir A. Belkin (2024)  - Economic Crises and Solar Activity Extrema: Calculation of the Fall in the World GDP Growth in 2025. 

Vladimir A. Belkin (2024) - Strong Inverse Correlation between Ap Index and Gold Price. 

Vladimir A. Belkin (2024) - 2025-2027 Oil Price Decline Linked to Solar Cycle Activity.   

Aleksander Valkov (2025) - Helioeconomics: Solar Cycles as the Hidden Pacemaker of Global Economic Fluctuations.

Leonty Miroshnichenko (2023) - Kondratiev Waves Aligned with Solar Cycles.  

Tatiana Alexandrovna Zenchenko & Tamara Konstantinovna Breus (2021) - The Possible Effect of Space Weather Factors on Various Physiological Systems of the Human Organism.

A 2020 first-light video from the Daniel K. Inouye Solar Telescope captures solar granulation at unprecedented 30 km resolution in 705 nm light, revealing convection cells approximately the size of Texas, where hot plasma rises in bright centers and sinks along dark intergranular lanes, driving surface heat transfer while tiny magnetic bright points channel energy to the million-degree corona. Amid Solar Cycle 25's heightened activity—having peaked in late 2024 with elevated sunspot numbers exceeding initial forecasts—such high-resolution observations continue to refine models of solar flares and space weather impacts. 

Long-Term Commodity Cycles: Unraveling the Big Picture | Ahmed Farghaly

Cycle analysis, based on J.M. Hurst's framework, streamlines financial market navigation. Synchronized cycles—from long-term Methuselah, Enoch, Hegemony, and Kondratieff waves to short-term fluctuations—reveal historical patterns shaping current and future commodity market trends.

 

Methuselah Wave = 972-Year Cycle = three 324-Year Enoch Waves

Enoch Wave = two 162-Year Hegemony Waves 

Hegemony Wave = three 54-Year Kondratieff Waves

Kondratieff Wave = three 18-Year Kuznets Waves

Kuznets Wave = two 9-Year Juglar Waves 

Juglar Wave = two 54-Month Kitchin Cycles 

Kitchin Cycle = three 18-Month Cycles = six 40-Week Cycles

 

Long-Term Cycle Foundations

In July 1949, the 972-year Methuselah Wave, the 324-year Enoch Wave (starting 1673), the 162-year Hegemony Wave, the 54-year Kondratieff Wave, and all shorter cycles converged at their lows (see list above). The current Enoch Wave is projected to trough again around 2263, the Hegemony Wave around 2107, and the Kondratieff Wave, which last bottomed in March 2003, around 2055. These synchronized cycles frame long-term commodity and market trends, with the Enoch and Kondratieff waves signaling sustained commodity appreciation through 2100 and 2032, respectively, while the Hegemony Wave suggests a future correction.

Commodity Price Index (yearly bars) from 1250 to 2025:

 324-Year Enoch Waves, 162-Year Hegemony Waves, 54-Year Kondratieff Waves, 18-Year Kuznets Waves.

Kuznets Cycle and Historical Parallels

The current Kuznets cycle, an 18-year wave, began with a trough between March and June 2020, mirroring the 1720 cycle that drove a 61-year commodity rise peaking in 1781. Now 5.33 years into this phase, the cycle aligns with late 2008, following the 2003 post-SARS trough. Since 2020, sharp advances in equities and commodities, alongside rising inflation, reflect historical post-trough patterns. Extended cycles indicate the current commodity uptrend may peak near 2100, with sustained inflationary pressures and geopolitical tensions persisting, punctuated by seasonal corrections within the Hegemony and Kondratieff waves.

 

Commodity Price Index (quarterly bars) from 1750 to 2025: 

 972-Year Methuselah Wave, 162-Year Hegemony Waves, 54-Year Kondratieff Waves, 18-Year Kuznets Waves, 9-Year Juglar Waves.

Kondratieff Seasons and Projections

The last Kondratieff Summer peak occurred in 1980, seven years after the 1973 energy price shock, with the current summer peak projected around 2032, coinciding with the Kuznets peak in the second cycle of the 9-year Juglar wave. A 5–6-year correction is anticipated into around 2037, followed by a commodity recovery marking the Kondratieff Fall Season, characterized by disinflation and equity bubbles. Winter deflation is expected to follow, driving declines in commodities and equities.

 

Commodity Price Index (monthly bars) from 1900 to 2025: 

54-Year Kondratieff Waves, 18-Year Kuznets Waves, 9-Year Juglar Waves.

 

Short-Term Cycle Dynamics

Within the Kuznets cycle, commodities and equities align with nested 9-year Juglar and 54-month Kitchin cycles. The current Kitchin cycle post-2024 is expected to drive a 26-month commodity rally, peaking around 2028 in its third 18-month subcycle, mirroring 2008–2011 patterns. Six 18-month subcycles and twelve 40-week cycles provide granular short-term projections. The commodity index is projected to rise through Q1 2026 and into 2028 before the first Juglar-wave correction.

Commodity Price Index (weekly bars) from 1995 to 2025:

 18-Year Kuznets Waves, 9-Year Juglar Waves, 54-Month Kitchin Cycles, 18-Month Cycles, 40-Week Cycles.

 

S&P 500 (quarterly bars) from 1800 to 2025: 
162-Year Hegemony Waves, 54-Year Kondratieff Waves, 18-Year Kuznets Waves, 9-Year Juglar Waves.

 

» The principle of confirmation [20-week VTL] on display. «

 Dow Jones, S&P 500, and NASDAQ 100 (daily bars) from July 2024 to October 2025. 

18-Month Cycles, 40-Week Cycles, 20-Week Cycles, 80-Day Cycles, 40-Day Cycles, 20-Day Cycles.

 

» Assuming the S&P 500 is in the first bullish half of the third and last 18-month cycle within the current 54-month cycle (which allegedly began in October 2022), and there is no uplifting and dominant influence of the 9-year, 18-year, or 54-year cycles, the upcoming 40-week cycle peak, anticipated around late September to early October, would be a long-term market top. «  

 

Implications and Geopolitical Context

All cycles except the Hegemony Wave signal continued commodity price rises, with the Kuznets cycle supporting a 26-month rally, the Kondratieff wave projecting growth through 2032, and the Enoch wave indicating strength toward 2100. Current trends diverge from historical analogues, suggesting higher peaks. Inflation is expected to persist through 2032, with a commodity correction into 2037. The final Kuznets swing within the Hegemony Wave may trigger significant disruption, potentially signaling the decline of an old world order and the rise of a new one. Rising commodity prices continue to reflect heightened geopolitical tensions.

 

Reference:
Ahmed Farghaly (October 17, 2025) - Long-Term Commodity Cycles: Unraveling the Big Picture.

 

 WWII's effect on commodity prices counteracted the expected post-1919 bear market, 

resulting in a higher-than-expected 1949 low which J.M. Hurst termed a "straddled trough."

» Inflation will persist until century's end due to a long-term cycle. «

 

See also: 

Ahmed Farghaly (October 6, 2025) - High Inflation: We are in Kondratieff's "Summer of Summer". 

Ahmed Farghaly (2016) - The 162-Year Cycle in Stocks and Commodities Since 1509.

Ron William (2022) - Is the Big Cycle Turning? 

Nikolai Kondratieff (1926) - Gold Production Mirrors the Long Wave, It Doesn’t Drive It.

The S&P 500 Has Just Triggered a Death Cross | Guilherme Tavares

On April 14th, the S&P 500 triggered a 'death cross.' This occurs when its 50-day moving average falls below the 200-day moving average, historically signaling potential declines, as seen in March 2022, though not always predictive of major downturns.

» That's it folks. Place your bets. «

Guilherme Tavares, April 17, 2025.

However, the S&P 500 Shiller CAPE ratio (P/E Ratio CAPE), exceeding two standard deviations above its long-term trend, suggests overvaluation, aligning with past market peaks in November 1929, October 2000, and March 2022. Previous instances of this combined signal preceded significant longer term market corrections.

The S&P 500 Shiller CAPE Ratio, also known as the Cyclically Adjusted Price-Earnings ratio, is calculated by dividing 

the current price of the S&P 500 by the 10-year moving average of its inflation-adjusted earnings.

The March 2022 and the April 2025 death crosses in the S&P 500 (daily bars).

S&P 500 Forward Returns when there is a 'Death Cross' (1953-2022).

» Should we care? Yes, we should. The forward-looking data isn't the best going out 6 months (red box). «

Grant Hawkridge, April 7, 2025.

The above table lists death cross events in the S&P 500 from 1953 to 2022, and provides forward returns over various time horizons (6 days, 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, 1 year) after each event:

• Short-term returns (6 days) are volatile, with 11 of 18 instances showing negative returns. The average loss is small, suggesting the immediate impact of a death cross is inconsistent. For example, the +8.63% gain in 1962 contrasts with the -11.51% loss in 1978, indicating no clear directional bias in the very short term.
• One-month returns lean bearish, with 13 of 18 instances negative. The worst case (-12.75% in 1929) aligns with the Great Depression’s onset, while the best case (+8.66% in 1978) shows occasional rebounds. The negative average suggests a death cross often precedes short-term weakness, though not always severe.
• Three-month returns are more consistently negative, with 14 of 18 instances showing losses. The -22.13% drop in 1929 reflects extreme market stress, while the +14.91% gain in 1962 is an outlier. The stronger negative average (-3.16%) indicates that death crosses often signal broader market declines over a few months.
• The six-month period shows the most pronounced bearish tendency, with 14 of 18 instances negative. The -35.97% loss in 1929 is the worst, tied to the Great Crash, while the +28.21% gain in 2020 reflects the rapid recovery post-COVID crash. The -4.81% average loss, emphasized in the table, suggests a death cross is a stronger bearish signal over this horizon, though exceptions exist.
• One-year returns are mixed, with 10 of 18 instances positive. The +64.41% gain in 2020 is the highest, driven by post-COVID stimulus, while the -44.95% loss in 1929 is the lowest. The positive average (+1.97%) suggests that, over a year, the market often recovers or stabilizes after a death cross, reducing its long-term predictive power.

NDX's powerful 3.5-year cycle suggests the bigger trend should

be down into mid 2026. Branimir Vojcic, April 17, 2025.

3 dominant cycles on NDX daily chart say up into late May. 

Branimir Vojcic, April 17, 2025.

Composite of the S&P 1965, 1998, and 2018 analogues (pink line), Namzes, April 18, 2025.

S&P 1998 vs 2025 Analogue (correlation = 96.6%; Lag = 9,695 days = 26.54 years),

Namzes, April 18, 2025.

See also:

Guilherme Tavares (April 14, 2025) - What Follows a 9%+ S&P 500 Day Below the 200-DMA.

Namzes (April 16, 2025)  - S&P 500 1965 vs 2025 Analogue = 89% Correlation.

Moore Research (April 10, 2025) - DJIA 1926 vs 2025 Analogue = 97% Correlation.

Yuriy Matso (April 8, 2025)  - S&P 500 1969 vs 2025.

Subu Trade (April 18, 2025)  - Markets Report: is the worst over for stocks? We're in Phase 3 of the bottoming process.