Gold completes the 20 week nominal peak (at least) and hits our target of 1850 in a relatively standard bearish retrace. The 'beacon' component at 55 days is now due a trough, read on for more detail.
Hello David thank you for the update. In case the longer component became dominant (around 75 days) instead of the 56 days, and price kept drifting down towards the 1780 area, would the 1900-1950 target still be intact or should we redefine it in terms of reduced amplitude given the increased bearishness displayed? Have a good day. Alessandro
Price came down to the 20 week FLD as mentioned above, I would maintain those targets due to the expected 20 week component. The beacon at 55 days is certainly overdue and is the most coherent signal for months but can , like all the smaller components, become attenuated in larger moves.
GMorning D. Re Uranium from 1/10 update: We look at the evidence for the incoming 18 month nominal low losing amplitude as the zone progresses. This amplitude will return with force when the 18 month component makes it’s low,looking like mid February and should be an excellent chance to exploit a bullish part of the anticipated sideways (neutral) underlying trend for a few months…looking like mid February…Assuming that the 18 month nominal low is to come a short into that low is viable for the move into mid February. Subsequent to that the 18 month nominal low will be a strong bullish move for a few months.
Can you update subscribers David, re strong bullish move for a few months there’s been a good deal of positive fundamentals recently. Thanks David
Possible the 18 month component formed in Dec, see update of 10th Jan:
'The next 80 day nominal low is the one to watch then, for both scenarios. Should the 18 month nominal low be still to come the shape of this cycle should be bearish, perhaps finding support as anticipated at the 54 month FLD around 17. Should the 18 month component have occurred, (which would imply a significant frequency modulation of the 20 and 40 week components from the ST analysis), we can expect a higher low in mid February.'
Regarding 'fundamentals', we assume those are integrated into price action (the result of market interpretation of these fundamentals) and within any periodicities present.
Hello David thank you for the update. In case the longer component became dominant (around 75 days) instead of the 56 days, and price kept drifting down towards the 1780 area, would the 1900-1950 target still be intact or should we redefine it in terms of reduced amplitude given the increased bearishness displayed? Have a good day. Alessandro
Price came down to the 20 week FLD as mentioned above, I would maintain those targets due to the expected 20 week component. The beacon at 55 days is certainly overdue and is the most coherent signal for months but can , like all the smaller components, become attenuated in larger moves.
Thank you David
GMorning D. Re Uranium from 1/10 update: We look at the evidence for the incoming 18 month nominal low losing amplitude as the zone progresses. This amplitude will return with force when the 18 month component makes it’s low,looking like mid February and should be an excellent chance to exploit a bullish part of the anticipated sideways (neutral) underlying trend for a few months…looking like mid February…Assuming that the 18 month nominal low is to come a short into that low is viable for the move into mid February. Subsequent to that the 18 month nominal low will be a strong bullish move for a few months.
Can you update subscribers David, re strong bullish move for a few months there’s been a good deal of positive fundamentals recently. Thanks David
Morning Jeffrey, this is the Gold Market Update
Uranium (or at least URA and some others) I had a quick sweep of a few days ago, tweet here: https://twitter.com/TradingHurst/status/1625843227566788609?s=20
Possible the 18 month component formed in Dec, see update of 10th Jan:
'The next 80 day nominal low is the one to watch then, for both scenarios. Should the 18 month nominal low be still to come the shape of this cycle should be bearish, perhaps finding support as anticipated at the 54 month FLD around 17. Should the 18 month component have occurred, (which would imply a significant frequency modulation of the 20 and 40 week components from the ST analysis), we can expect a higher low in mid February.'
Regarding 'fundamentals', we assume those are integrated into price action (the result of market interpretation of these fundamentals) and within any periodicities present.