Replies to post #32295 on Short Term Trading Member Forum

[arjunah]

Airedale, I was afraid you were going to ask me that.

My short term cycles are still elongatating, as you might have guessed. I would note that this will always be the case when you have a cycle that bottoms at the long end of the brackets created by your measuring strip. It means that this cycle is as long or longer than any prior cycle of that nominal length, and so the smaller cycles must necessarily lengthen from their prior norms. The larger the cycle, the more lengthening is required of the smaller cycles.

Since we are dealing with a 4.5Y cycle here, which my measuring strip (based on the 9M cycles) had bracketed to bottom in a four month window (8 to 12 months out from the last 9M low), there was a difference of about 17 weeks from the short end of the bracket to the long end. Therefore the nominal 5 week cycles would have to be elongated to include up to 17 additional weeks to account for a 9M cycle that ran to the long side, compared to a 9M cycle that bottomed at the short end of the bracket. As I have noted before, the variation in my 9M cycles was well within Hurst's examples, and my average 9M cycle for the period covered was 9.6 months, very close to the nominal value.

All that being said, here's my latest phasing:

Jun 06: Last 18M Low
Mar 07: Last 9M Low
Aug 16: Last Nominal 20W Low (21 actual weeks)
Nov 26: Last Nominal 10W Low (15 actual weeks)
Jan 23: Last Nominal 5W Low (8 actual weeks)

Well, that's my story, and I'm sticking to it.