Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
The mkts seem to be dominated by option players and their interactions with mkt makers/dealers. The mechanics of an option trade are simple, but the mkt effects are confusing to an old guy like me. If someone could interpret things like DIX GEX and other things, it would be helpful.
The quant(s) at Nomura make outrageous statements that then come true, and I am left in a quandary. If anyone can help the board on an ongoing basis, please do.
Student debt created so that one can drink beer, major in video gaming and feminist studies, and other pursuits that do not provide skills are not the responsibility of society. Just the one who assumed the debt.
But the costs are inflated thru corruption and inefficiency, and that does need to be addressed.
One problem is the recycling of grant largess. In from taxpayers, out to students via loans, into schools, and partially back to legislators via campaign contributions. The more they give out, the more comes back into their pockets. Except it is not their money that they are giving out in the first place....
Deva,
Be well.
Oddlot
Sold half at 3008, holding 2973.8with stop 2953. Will look to reenter after 18day low in nominally 7days.
Oddlot
$SPX sold half at 3008, holding 1x2973.8 with stp 2953. CCI for 18day and less have all given sells, macd histogram have sold, and short term channel has been broken. Still bullish with obj 3100+, but prudence is still a good friend. Next 18day low nominally in 7 trading days will let me back for 1 unit or more.
Oddlot
Dupe post. Sorry
I have given up worrying about the end-of-world. I cant stop it from happening, and the world seems to not be concerned...except for the fact there is so much money that needs a home, and Central Bankers are being paid to hold it (negative interest rates) instead of investing it productively(?). The best(?) option is to pay the govts to hold the money and return a devalued sum 10-30 years later, because all other options are worse??
Glen, if the start of this cycle occurred in late Aug, just prior to the TL break upward, then we are in Day11. My cycle set is 72/37/18/9.... and the upmove is young. Summation of sinewaves would suggest the 18day high would occur in day13-14, or Tues/Wed, and then a pullback for a week. Support probably at the FLD72 area (2995/3000). Reversal from 18day low will set the new stops. Obj 3110-3135 in late Sept or early Oct.
Re Oct low: no projections possible, but 2800-2850 is likely to be as low as it gets. Much lower and the projections become catastrophic, which I feel would be unrealistic. And public posts are better for me, so I dont have to search for a way to answer back.
Best,
Oddlot
Agreed. The only protection is the standard one, a stop. At the point where one of the short term trends flips to negative, go to the sidelines. A long time ago, commissions were a hindrance and people held on, but now the only obstacle is the decision process itself.
New ATH, if it occurs, will panic the bears. We are so close, with many short term positive TA factors, that I think it will happen. The resulting high should be, at that time, a great short.
Good to hear from you.
I am watching various authors on twitter for their research content. Of particular note is "David F", a cycle trader using Sentient Trader to create/post charts which include nestings of highs/lows. He shows nest of highs in early Oct, followed by nest of lows in late Oct.
Northam, I have cyclic highs coming "soon" for the 43week, and a low in late Oct. The 72day ended at end of the consolidation and was a shortened 60days vs 72avg. Importantly, the target ranges for both cycles nest: 3060-3160, and 3120-3145. The intraday FLD72 has been penetrated, sustained strength will confirm. Bearish sentiment was high before the turn, and will create a melt-up into the target ranges. The drop into the Oct lows may be just as dramatic.
Your D-E-2 objective matches my area, and timing expectation matches the need for high prior to downmove into Oct lows.
Thanks for your help.
Oddlot
Thanks, again.
BOS assuming question is re SPX, not SPY, is 3300 a possibility by Nov? If one takes a double top at 2950 with interim low of 2350 (Dec2018), you might get 3300-3450 but unlikely by Nov. My scenario has a top of 3060-3160 soon, followed by low late Oct of perhaps 2700. Afterwards, a rally into 1Q2020, which MAY get you the 3400 area then, or near election time.
But by Nov2019, very unlikely in my opinion. Less likely than 3400 in 2020, which would take a lot of smoke and mirrors. I think 2000 comes before 3400.
Thanks for the question and the vote of confidence.
$SPX obj 3110-3145, assuming upmarkets from here and sustained prices above 2990 for several days.
Re the daily signal, what close is required to generate the D-E-2 signal? Thanks
$SPX added second unit at 2978.8 at the close. Holding 2x 2973.9. Stop at 2953
$SPX long 1 unit 2969, will wait on second for confirmation.
Imho, somewhere 1350-1400 is the place to get long.
And 36days is currently part of my set, so you are still Right On.
Te TNX: If someone has tons of cash, there is only one reason to buy/borrow more... convinced the price/rate is a bargain. Apple is no dummy, and borrowed a ton last week.
$SPX intraday cci and MACD histogram are saying 9 and 18day cycles are heading down since early today. Buy point next week
If the cycle was shortened, as it appears, then the drop will occur AFTER the 43week high, implying late Oct.
$SPX 9-10day high is due, followed quickly by low early next week. Pullback towards 2940 area would be typical. Pnf base support 2910 and 2920. Reversal from the pullback will be the buying opportunity.
43week high is pending...
$SPX the tea leaves are settling...The end of the consolidation probably marked the low of a shortened 72day cycle (lows separated by same amount as highs, when noise is removed). FLD72 is near 2990, to give obj 3090-3120. At the 43week high, the shorter cycles will also peak, and the objs of both cycles must be consistent. 3060-3160 for one vs 3090-3120 for the other, if FLD72 is broken.
Just tea leaves, but becoming more clear...
SPX stopped on 3x2903.8 at 2961. Attitude reversal.. 43week high still pending before 43week low in late Oct. 72day low due mid Sept. Resistance 2980-3000+; support 2860-2900. Rally from nextlow to high to following low may require puke bags. Awaiting 3060 or higher, followed by sell signal on CCI65 and shortterm trendline break to time entry into decline from 3100 to maybe 2700-2800, high to low???
Dont mind me, I'm just seasick....
I expect a big drop into late Oct, but I am unsure how it sets up. Looks like a rally perhaps toward 2970-3000, and then failure. But it's a hot mess...
$SPX stopped on 2x2934. Holding 3x2903.8 with stop at 2954.
Article from ZeroHedge re Musk/futurepopulation growth.
In short, the huge global debt system is unsustainable w/o taxpayers, and food subsidies to Africa will be necessary but unaffordable. It will not be pretty...
Elon Musk continues to suggest a population collapse is in store within a few decades time...and he is 110% correct if you make two caveats...
1) focus on the young and potential child bearing populations and
2) look at the world excluding a single continent...Africa.
To begin, note the collapsing populations of young (0 to 15 years old) and childbearing populations (15 to 40 years old) across broad swaths of the greatest consumer nations on earth. Absent broad die-offs from war, pandemics, famine, etc.; population collapses begin from the decline of births that eventually work their way into declining childbearing populations.
East Asia (China, Japan, N/S Korea, Taiwan, Mongolia) childbearing population (blue line) and young population (green line), below.
Young, peaked in 1976 - declined by 138 million (32% decline) so far, projected to decline 259 million (61% decline) by 2100. This is based on the assumption of rising fertility rates...if they remain flat or fall further, the reality is likely to be far lower!?!
Childbearing peaked in 2005, declined by 96 million (14% decline) so far, projected to decline 357 million (54% decline) by 2100.
Europe (including Russia and Eastern Europe) childbearing population (blue line) and young population (green line), below.
Young peaked in 1965, declined by 48 million (29% decline) so far, projected to decline 78 million (46% decline) by 2100. Again, this decline is based on the assumption that fertility rates will do the exact opposite of the current reality and suddenly rise?!? If not, far lower births and resultant populations should be expected.
Childbearing peaked in 1989, declined by 41 million (15% decline) so far, projected to decline 105 million (39% decline) by 2100.
Latin America plus Caribbean (everything in Western Hemisphere but US/Canada) childbearing population (blue line) and young population (green line), below.
Young peaked in 2001, declined by 11 million (7% decline) so far, projected to decline by 74 million (44% decline) by 2100.
Childbearing set to peak in 2025 and projected to decline by 87 million (33% decline) by 2100.
North America (US/Canada) childbearing population (blue line) and young population (green line), below.
Young peaked in 1965, zero growth since '65, projected to grow by 9 million (14% increase) by 2100. I have detailed repeatedly why given current fertility rates, trends, and immigration patterns, this growth is highly unlikely and continued flat to outright declines should be the base case. Since 2007, US fertility rates have been in freefall and in 2018, the US hit a record low fertility rate of 1.72 and is still falling fast...with Canada even lower at 1.56. There is no sign nor logical rationale to anticipate a rise in fertility rates in North America.
Childbearing projected to grow 13 million (11% increase) by 2100. Again, this is premised on unrealistically high fertility rates and immigration rates above the current reality...this is also highly unlikely and near zero growth should be the base case.
ASIA (excluding East Asia) childbearing population (blue line) and young population (green line), below.
Young peaked in 2018, projected to decline 275 million (34% decline) by 2100. This is India, Pakistan, Vietnam, Thailand, Indonesia, etc. plus all of Western Asia (Iraq, Iran, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, etc.).
Childbearing projected to peak in 2038 and decline by 240 million (20% decrease) by 2100.
Africa childbearing population (blue line) and young population (green line), below.
Young projected to rise 400 million and peak around 2090!?!
Childbearing population projected to grow nearly 1 billion through 2100.
Consider:
Since 1980, Africa has grown from 11% to 17% of the worlds total population
Since 1980, Africa has grown from 17% to 30% of annual global births
In 1989, annual global births (excluding Africa) peaked and have declined 15% since (and still falling)
The 3+ decade decline in global births (excluding Africa) has nearly (but not quite) been offset by increasing births in Africa
By 2023, the worlds childbearing population (excluding Africa) will be in indefinite decline...and only Africa's childbearing population will continue growing
A declining childbearing population (excluding Africa) with deeply negative fertility rates (excluding Africa) is highly likely to see births fall at an accelerating rate (far more than the gradual decline predicted by the UN)
However, over the past five decades, African income per capita has risen just 240% compared to Upper Middle income nations (China, Brazil, Russia, etc.) rising 950% and high income nations 410%...Africa is clearly losing ground
By the best proxy for true economic activity, energy consumption, suggests Africa has grown from just 2.4% to 3.6% of global energy consumption...and the future there is not brightening.
Africa's economic growth is dependent on global growth (x-Africa)...but with declining global markets for exports and significant overcapacity, Africa's export driven growth potential is very low
Lastly, Africa (particularly Sub-Saharan Africa where most of the population growth is occurring) has one of the lowest emigration rates of any poor region.
By 2030, Africa will be 22% of the worlds population, be 200% of annual growth among the childbearing population, and be responsible for 38% of global births...but still just estimated to be 4.6% of global energy consumption.
In short, when excluding Africa, births have already collapsed and due to the imminent decline in childbearing population, far larger declines (also known as collapse) are imminent
That is to say, Africa is all the growth in the childbearing population and births...but with minimal increase anticipated in energy consumption or global economic impact. There is essentially no transfer mechanism from the first world wealth to the poor of the third world nor is there a strong avenue for emigration. The global economy will impact Africa but Africa is very unlikely to impact the global economy. And as the UN noted recently, the end of global population growth is now in sight and the global population is likely to peak around 2100, under 11 billion persons (detailed here, HERE). The collapse of populations in East Asia, Europe, and Eurasia is already a done deal.
The Big Picture
Annual global population change, excluding Africa, peaked in 1988 and growth has decelerated since. However, growth really decelerates from here and is projected to end entirely by 2055...and global depopulation (excluding Africa) is the primary global feature there-after.
But focusing on the 15 to 65 year old working age population (x-Africa) which drives the global economy and consumption, the halving of growth in millions (and 2/3rds decline in percentage) is already in the rearview mirror. By 2040, global working age population growth is estimated to end entirely and a persistent decline (depopulation) among potential employees/consumers persists indefinitely there-on.
Why point all this out? Because it is the annual growth in the global childbearing population (excluding Africa, blue columns below) that drives demand, inflation, and the Federal Funds interest rate (yellow line). From 1950 to 1980, it was the accelerating rise in the childbearing population of potential consumers (above and beyond existing capacity) that pushed prices upward (more demand than supply) just as the Fed was hiking the cost of servicing debt (reducing growth in potential capacity). Then from 1981 to present, the deceleration of growth among the same population coincided with decelerating inflation (decelerating demand with accelerating supply from lower interest rates). The imminent declines in the same population will coincide with outright deflation (declining demand against a flat to potentially rising capacity thanks to a return to ZIRP or even NIRP).
15 to 40 year old population growth (as a %) versus federal funds rate, below.
Looking at the global childbearing population (excluding Africa, blue line below) versus 0-15 year old young (x-Africa, red line), the divergence is plain to see below. The total size of the two population sets were essentially identical in the late 1960's. However, outside of Africa, the global population of young is clearly in decline...and soon, the global childbearing population (x-Africa) will follow.
Below, the annual change in the global childbearing population (x-Africa, blue columns) and annual change in the global population of young (x-Africa, red columns) versus the Federal Funds Rate (yellow line). The shape of the rate curve should make more sense when matched against the real world changing demand of potential consumers. The rationale for rate cuts, ZIRP, and sooner than later, NIRP should also be clear as we are at the end of population growth driven demand increases. The onset of secular declines among the nexus of economic activity is inevitable and imminent. From a growth perspective, the sky has truly fallen...and will only continue to fall faster.
Broadening out to view the global annual childbearing population growth, world (excluding Africa, blue columns) versus Africa (red columns, below). The 90% deceleration of the annual growth of the childbearing population (excluding Africa) versus the doubling of the childbearing population growth in Africa has not resulted in rising economic activity.
Below, global births annually (excluding Africa, blue line) versus births in Africa (red line). Global annual births (x-Africa) peaked in 1989 and have declined by 17 million (-15%). Over the same timespan, annual births in Africa have risen 18 million (+178%). Trading a poor soul for a relatively wealthy soul (essentially a 1:1 population trade but a 90%+ downgrade in purchasing power) ultimately means global consumption is in big trouble, as rate cuts and debt burdens have reached their full potential.
Africa consumes 3.6% of the total global primary energy supply. From 1980 through 2016, Africa's portion of global energy consumption has risen from 2.4% to 3.6%.
Below, 1980 through 2016, year over year change in global total primary energy consumption. World consumption (excluding Africa, blue columns) versus Africa (red columns). The deceleration of global annual growth with little to no offsetting demand growth from Africa is clear.
As growth ends among the world (x-Africa) and shifts solely to Africa, the differential and disparity of income per capita between the groups that make up the world versus that of Sub-Saharan Africa doom further economic growth. The population rise in poor Africans is only offsetting the declining population of the rest of the world. The chart below details that the average African can consume just 3% what a single high income nation resident would. The average African can consume just 18% what an upper middle nation resident (China, Mexico, Russia, Brazil, etc.) would...and only 70% what a lower income nation resident (India, Pakistan, etc.) would consume.
Total population among each age segment below, green line is the young (0-14yr/olds), blue line is the child bearing population (15-44yr/olds), and the grey line is the "post breeding stock" (45+yr/olds).
Noteworthy is the peak population of young (x-Africa) was hit over 2 decades ago, and the worlds population of young is in active decline. Prior to 2030, the global childbearing population (x-Africa) will likewise begin it's secular decline.
Looking at population growth (x-Africa) by age groups but on a year over year change basis, below.
Super noteworthy is the 90%+ deceleration of annual population growth among the childbearing population of the world (x-Africa). And by 2023, the childbearing population will begin declining. BTW - the annual growth of the childbearing population (x-Africa) is very closely mirrored by the Federal Funds Rate. The accelerating growth of this population drove demand above and beyond existing capacities, pushing organic inflation and the deceleration in growth of this population is the death of organic, demand based inflation (too much accelerating capacity thanks to automation, AI, robots, etc. versus decelerating demand growth). Inflation is now a synthetically engineered currency event, not demand based.
The impact of a shrinking population capable of childbearing with significantly negative fertility rates (x-Africa) will collide...likely producing a must sharper decline in young (x-Africa).
Next, Africa is nearly all the population growth, but little of the global immigration...
Sources of Global Migration
Since the source of population growth is pretty much solely Africa, the sources of migration should also be clear. The chart below shows the primary sources of migration, per five year periods (1950 through 2015), by global region. Some key takeaways:
Sub-Saharan Africa has been a relatively insignificant source of immigration since the 1980's...and even then it never rivaled the migrations from Latin America (primarily Mexico) or presently from S. Asia. Essentially, what happens in Sub-Saharan Africa stays in Sub-Saharan Africa.
Northern Africa has been a more significant source of migration since the 1990's but the regions birthrates (2.8 children per female) are falling more in-line with Europe than Sub-Saharan Africa (4.9 children per female).
Latin America was the primary source of migration but this has hugely decelerated, with Mexico experiencing a 10 fold decrease in immigration since 2005.
The S. Asia region, (primarily India, Pakistan, Bangladesh) are producing the bulk of the worlds migrants.
This whole scenario seems to suggest not just a global slowdown is imminent, but an outright collapse in demand, birthrates, and global populations is more likely than not.
Population data from UN World Population Prospects 2019, Migration data from UN 2017 International Migrant Stock; Primary energy data from EIA, GNI per capita via Atlas method, World Bank.
277
91176
Show 277 Comments
Footer menu
Discrimination Notice
Privacy Policy
Copyright ©2009-2019 ZeroHedge.com/ABC Media, LTD
That's my game, but it is resilient. Disappointed today.
SPX added again at 2898, now holding 5x2903.5. Next event is low 9/10-9/16.
SPX added at 2906, now short 4 with avg 2904.8. Will add another at 2898.
Cycles would suggest several conflicting items. Rates should bottom on a LT cycle, and the dollar should go down. Gold as should peak later this year if not SOON.
Perhaps, the USA becomes not as attractive for foreign capital, relative to other choices. Reduced flows hurt SPX and restrict need for USD to buy SPX, so USD falls leading to bond losses and bonds get sold. If everyone panics gold gets a boost.
Not a prediction but just thinking how everything might work together to fit the cyclical scenario...
Odds of Recession
62,602 views|Jun 30, 2019,11:53 pm
Current U.S. Recession Odds Are The Same As During 'The Big Short' Heyday
Jesse ColomboContributor
Markets
The current U.S. economic expansion turned ten-years-old in June and is poised to become the longest U.S. economic expansion in history in July. Considering all of the threats that the economy has faced in the past decade, it’s practically a miracle that the expansion has gone for so long without any hiccups. Unfortunately, there are an increasing number of signs that are warning that the expansion is soon coming to end and that a recession is not far away. Particularly alarming is the fact that the New York Fed’s very accurate recession probability model is warning that the current odds of a recession in the next year are the same as they were in July 2007, which is when the subprime debt crisis kicked into high gear.
The New York Fed’s recession probability model is currently warning that there is a 30% probability of a recession in the next 12 months. The last time that recession odds were the same as they are now was in July 2007, which was just five months before the Great Recession officially started in December 2007. July 2007 was also when Bear Stearns’ two subprime hedge funds lost nearly all of their value, which ultimately contributed to the investment bank’s demise and the sharp escalation of the U.S. financial crisis.
New York Fed Recession Model
New York Fed Recession Model JESSE COLOMBO
Though a 30% probability of a recession in the next 12 months may not seem very high, the reality is that the New York Fed’s model has had a strong tendency to underestimate the probability of recessions in the past three decades. For example, this model only gave a 33% probability of a recession in July 1990, which is when the early 1990s recession started. It only gave a 21% probability of a recession in March 2001, which is when the early-2000s recession started. It also only gave a 39% probability of a recession in December 2007, which is when the Great Recession started.
The New York Fed’s model has underestimated the probability of recessions in the past three decades because it is skewed by the unusual recessions of the early-1980s that were caused by Fed Chair Paul Volcker’s aggressive interest rate hikes that were intended to end the persistent double-digit inflation at that time. I’ve found that this model gives more accurate estimates of recession probabilities when only data after the early-1980s is considered and normalized so that the highest reading during that time period is equivalent to 100%. This methodology warned that there was an 85% chance of a recession in December 2007, which is when the Great Recession officially started (the standard model only gave a 39% probability). According to this new methodology, there is a 64% chance of a recession in the next 12 months.
NY Fed Recession Probability Model (data after 1985)
NY Fed Recession Probability Model (data after 1985) JESSE COLOMBO
The New York Fed’s recession probability model is based on the 10-year and 3-month Treasury yield spread, which is the difference between 10-year and 3-month Treasury rates. During economic expansions, the 10-year Treasury yield is higher than the 3-month Treasury yield. Right before a recession, however, this spread inverts as the 3-month Treasury yield rises higher than the 10-year Treasury rate – this is called an inverted yield curve. As the chart below shows, the yield curve has inverted before all modern recessions. The 10-year and 3-month Treasury spread inverted in May, which warns that a recession is not far off.
10-year/3-month Treasury yield spread
10-year/3-month Treasury yield spread JESSE COLOMBO
I am very concerned that the coming recession will not be a typical, garden-variety recession because an incredible number of new bubbles have formed in the past decade thanks to global central banks’ stimulative monetary policies. These bubbles are forming in global debt, China, Hong Kong, Singapore, emerging markets, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, European real estate, the art market, U.S. stocks, U.S. household wealth, corporate debt, leveraged loans, U.S. student loans, U.S. auto loans, tech startups, shale energy, global skyscraper construction, U.S. commercial real estate, the U.S. restaurant industry, U.S. healthcare, and U.S. housing once again. I believe that these bubbles are going to burst violently in the coming recession, which will make the recession much stronger than usual – possibly even worse than ’08.
One of the bubbles that I am warning about is the U.S. stock market bubble. This bubble has caused the S&P 500 stock index to soar 300% in the past decade:
S&P 500
S&P 500 JESSE COLOMBO
The S&P 500 rose at a much faster rate than corporate earnings, which means that the U.S. stock market is quite overvalued now. Overvalued stock markets eventually fall to more reasonable valuations again, which results in bear markets. As the cyclically-adjusted price-to-earnings ratio chart below shows, the U.S. stock market is almost as overvalued as it was in the Roaring Twenties right before the 1929 stock market crash and Great Depression.
Cyclically-Adjusted PE Ratio
Cyclically-Adjusted PE Ratio JESSE COLOMBO
Overly inflated stock, bond, and housing prices have resulted in a massive bubble in U.S. household wealth, which is at extremely high levels relative to the GDP. Household wealth experienced surges and subsequent crashes during the dot-com and housing bubbles, so the current bubble is certainly a reason to worry.
Household Net Worth vs. GDP JESSE COLOMBO
To make matters worse, Goldman Sachs’ Bear Market Risk Indicator has been at its highest level since the early-1970s:
Goldman Sachs Bear Market Risk Indicator GOLDMAN SACHS
To summarize, U.S. recession risk is rising at an alarming rate and there are an incredible number of dangerous new bubbles that are poised to burst in the coming downturn. This is the time for vigilance, not complacency. Central banks have lulled everyone to sleep in the past decade with easy money, but that easy money has created an artificial economy and tremendous distortions that are going to rear their ugly heads very soon.
Jesse Colombo
Jesse Colombo is an economic analyst, registered investment advisor, and Forbes contributor who warns about bubbles and future financial crises.
Jesse works for
…Read More
Loading ...
Also on Forbes Markets
Workday BrandVoice: Just Eat: Building A Business From Inception To IPO
MARKETS#StockWatch
What Amazon's One-Day Delivery Means for UPS, FedEx, Walmart and Target
© 2019 Forbes Media LLC. All Rights Reserved.
AdChoicesPrivacy StatementTerms and ConditionsContact UsJobs At ForbesReprints & PermissionsForbes Press RoomAdvertise
Add $SPX shorts on stops at 2909 and 2898, with protective stops at 2934. Mkt is just above point where slope of 9day avg will turn negative, implying when it occurs that the 18day cyclic high has occurred. IF the lows are going to occur 9/10-9/16, then a high will have to occur. The cycles pertaining to those lows are of sufficient length and amplitude to imply a significant drop, which would then trigger statistically significant signals for further large drops. It's a daisy chain of signals and inferences, but that is the mkt...
$SPX the confluence of expected lows continues 9/10-9/16 followed by mid Oct. The mkt doesn't budge. The pnf trend changes start below 2850, with the cliff at 2800 or so. The FLD216 is moving higher, up to 2840 area, so if broken, the obj remains under 2700, with pnf obj a lot lower.
So it either will happen very soon, or not at all. For anyone not involved, you should consider an entry on break below 2900, with stop over ma50, say 2950.
Holding shorts SPX avg 2904.5
Agreed
Gold has pnf obj for both daily/weekly of 1850-1900. Won't happen without a pullback first, but looks like great trend buy on pullback.
Oddlot