Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : News Links and Chart Links -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Les H who wrote (8107)	7/12/2003 6:55:21 PM
From: Les H	Respond to of 29599

Amanita Free Market Commentary -- July 11, 2003 -- amanita.at The Bradley still is the big magnet on amanita.at, so I have prepared another update, this time with an analysis of the past to to convey a deeper understanding of the underlying patterns. A strange but rather consistent feature of the siderograph is that after times of a good predictive quality it suddenly drops out, only to shine again after some time. I want to demonstrate this phenomenon with the aid of the charts of the past 3 years. Let's start with 2001 (always based on the S&P 500 close and the standard model): The medium-term high on 1/30/01 (red line 1) was called in the inversion mode, the model had a major low on 1/27/01 (inaccuracy: 3 days). Inversion means that a Bradley high correlates with a stock market low, and vice versa, i.e. the date is right but the polarity (high/low) is wrong. The bottom on 4/4/01 (red line 2) was again predicted in the inversion mode for 4/8/01 (inaccuracy: 4 days). Then we had one of these drop-outs, the medium-term reversals on 5/21/01 and 9/21/01 were missed, it started to work again at the double-top 12/5/01-1/4/02 (red line 3) with the Bradley forming a double-bottom on 11/11/01-12/3/01 (inaccuracy: 2 days). In short, 3 of the 5 intermediate-term reversals were predicted but all three with the wrong polarity (high/low). Now let's move on to the year 2002: The inversion mode apparently continued to work, the double top 3/11/02-3/19/02 coincided with a Bradley low on 3/5/02, so with an inaccuracy of 6 days the normal time window of +/- 4 days was not met. The bottom on 5/7/02 (which is, according to my defintion, not of intermediate-term significance) was, for the first time, called with the right polarity, as the siderograph bottomed on 5/11/02 (inaccuracy: 4 days). In other words, the inversion series was over. The 7/23/02 bottom was again predicted with the correct polarity (inaccuracy: 4 days). And the same was observed at the 10/9/02 low which was called almost to the day (inaccuaracy: 1 day). The "winning streak" continued at the 11/27/02 top, the Bradley top came a little bit early on 11/24/02 (inaccuaracy: 3 days). Now back to the present, the year 2003: The 3/11/03 low was nailed, too (inaccuracy: 2 days). The Bradley high on 7/2/03 can now be interpreted in two ways because the S&P 500 made the high on 6/17/03. dropped into 6/30/03 and rose to a lower re-test high on 7/8/03. (1) In my preferred interpretation the 7/2/03 Bradley turn was indicative of the 7/8/03 re-test high that was a higher high for the Nasdaq. The Bradley siderograph is a mass psychology model and since the Nasdaq still is the most emotional market (the playground of the small investors), this divergence makes sense. (2) The market exceeding the 7/8/03 highs, however, would mean that the 7/2/03 Bradley turn was a low (inversion), and much higher prices are ahead. Indeed, the pretty high inaccuracy of 6 resp. 15 days can be interpreted as a sign of an approaching drop-out or inversion, like in 2001 and 2002 (Initially, I expected the correlation already to invert in May, but surprisingly the market kept on rising in June). Another comment: I see several Bradley commentators insert dates just some days apart (e.g. one turn on 6/23, the next on 6/26 etc.) which is not serious in my opinion because it pretends a time accuracy that by no means withstands an empirical testing. The normal time window is +/- 4 days, it may extent to +/- 6 days or more in some cases, so by definition it can't be applied to short-term swings. The Bradley 2004 has been uploaded for subscribers.