Diskussion mit dem Zyklentheoretiker Ray Merriman

verfasst von Amanito, 01.11.2002, 10:48

-->Ray,

I am really surprised you think the 4 year cycle could have bottomed.

There is no doubt 7/24 (SPX and Dow; Nasdaq 100 and German DAX: 8/5-
6) was the last primary cycle low. If 10/10 was the next one, this
primary cycle would have been only 11.1 weeks long which would be
extremely short, in the case of NDX and the DAX the cycle would have
been only 9.1 weeks. In your book"Stock Market Timing" you write
that all of the 193 primary cycles from 1929-1997 were 10-29 weeks in
length, and 92.5% 13-26 weeks.

For the SPX and Dow, such a short cycle has a probability of perhaps
1-3% which is very low (distortion due to the 4y cycle must NOT be
taken into considerations in this case - since we don't know whether
it is due BEFORE it happens).

However, taking the NDX and DAX, the probality a primary cycle of
less than 10 weeks occuring is in the 1:200 to 1:500 area. The
alternative scenario would be the 2/21 low as the previous primary
cycle low, in this case the primary cycle ending 10/10 would have
been 33 weeks in length which is in the same probabiliy zone 1:200 to
1:500 (since the longest in 193 instances was only 29 weeks).

Just based on these cycles it's against all odds that this could have
been a primary cycle low (let alone the 4-year cycle). And if it was
not a primary cycles low, the market MUST take out the 10/10 lows
within 2 months (or 3 months the latest).

I track several technical indicators and virtually none of them
confirms a 4-year cycle bottom. IMO this cycle is going to expand
into 8/8/2003 or longer. My proprietary Amanita indicator is still at
the most bearish level it can reach, and the reaction to the recent
rally is 0.

Manfred

------------------------------------------------------

Dear Manfred:

Thank you for your letter, which I am happy to reply to. Since other members
may not know what you refer to, let me explain that Manfred is referring to
me free comments on the weekly geocosmic market environment, that you can
read on several web sites, including stariq.com, astrodata.ch (Swiss), and
my own site at mmacycles.com.

Now Manfred, it order for me to answer your letter correctly, I will have to
use terminology that is unique to students of cycles studies, as well as
astrology. It is apparent that you are familiar with both studies, so you
will no doubt no what I refer to. But for others, you may have to be patient
and read for"bottom lines" in this discussion. And by the way, if anyone
wishes to ask me questions pertaining to my weekly columns, this is the
place to do it. Don't send me private emails asking to elaborate. I want all
my discussions on markets to take place primarily on the ISAR email list
financial list, for we need to get this group of intelligent financial
astrologers active again, with stimulating discussions on real ideas about
the markets from an astrological perspective.

Manfrecd writes:

"Dear Ray....I am really surprised you think the 4 year cycle could have
bottomed.

There is no doubt 7/24 (SPX and Dow; Nasdaq 100 and German DAX: 8/5-6) was
the last primary cycle low. If 10/10 was the next one, this primary cycle
would have been only 11.1 weeks long which would be extremely short, in the
case of NDX and the DAX the cycle would have been only 9.1 weeks. In your
book"Stock Market Timing" you write that all of the 193 primary cycles from
1929-1997 were 10-29 weeks in length, and 92.5% 13-26 weeks."

OK. Let's pause here. As you know, Manfred, I believe that when longer-term
cycles (like the 4-year cycle) come due, the primary cycle will more
frequently distort. And distortion means the cycle contracts before 13
weeks, or expands beyond 21 weeks.

The 4-year cycle is due. Typically this cycle lasts 36-56 months. The last
4-year cycle bottomed in September 1998 (DJIA) and October 1998 (S&P),
during the Clinton Impeachment process. It was also during the period the
Saturn opposed Neptune, which isa important, because long-term market cycles
require long-term planetary aspects to be in effect too. That is, a 4-year
or greater cycle requires the presence of a Saturn and beyond aspect to be
present, according to the studies provided in Volume 2 of my series of Stock
Market Timing books, which you refer to.

So the 4-year cycle, measured from that period, is due again between
September 2001-June 2003. Until the middle of this year, I had thought it
might have occurred with the September 2001 Terrorist attack low. But that
idea was negated when that low broke in July, which meant the 4-year cycle
was still unfolding. But, it was still in the time band when it was due,
prior to June 2003.

Furthermore, we know that most 4-year cycles bottom 16-25 months after the
USA Presidential election. So the ideal time frame for this 4-year cycle
would be March 2002-January 2003. And, we know that the 4-year cycle will
bottom with a 50-week cycle bottom. In fact, there are usually 4 or 5 of
these 50-week cycles to a 4-year cycle. The September 21, 2001 low was the
third. And, the next 50-week cycle from that would be due 38-62 weeks later,
or within 12 weeks of September 6. So, one can see that we are now in a time
band for both the 50-week and the 4-year cycle.

All we need now is a distorted primary cycle, one that bottoms before 13
weeks or more than 21 weeks from the prior primary bottom, which you
correctly identified as July 24, 2002. And, we need to see it in a time band
in which there is the appropriate geocosmic signatures for such a reversal.

We may have had that on October 10. First, that was only 11 weeks following
the July 24 low, as you correctly pointed out. So if a primary cycle low did
form there, it would be a contraction. Second, there is a Saturn and beyond
aspect in force. Saturn is between its first and second passage of a trine
to Uranus. Of course this apsect will remain in force until June 24, 2003.
But historically, the 4-year cycles associated with this signature tend to
occur between the first and second passage. However, there are only 4
historical instances to draw from, as this only happens every 45 years or
so. Third, there were an impressive cluster of Level 1 geocosmic signatures
in effect between october 9-14, including: Saturn retrograde, Venus
retrograde, and Mars square Saturn. They are all big correlates to primary
and greater cycles.

But most importantly was Venus retrograde, which has a 78% correlation to
primary or greater cycles within 12 trading days, whicbn makes it one of the
strongest correlations of all in astrology to these types of big reversals.
It also has a 35% correlation to 50-week or greater cycles, which is high
for a signature like this that is not a Saturn and beyond type of aspect.

Interestingly enough, the bottom was exactly on the date of Venus turning
retrograde, in Scorpio nonetheless.

So what really makes me think that was a contracted primary bcycle low, and
thus the 4-year cycle low? Well, first, if it was a contracted primary cycle
low, then I think it could easily be the 50-week and/or the 4-year cycle
low, by virtue of the fact that they are due, and also because it would be a
distorted cycle - a good pattern to look for when long-term cycles are due.

But it is on the early side of distortion, and not the later side. I much
prefer to see long-term cycle coincide with diostroted primary cycles that
are expanded, not contracted,because it takes much more to confirm a
contracted cycle than an expanded one. When a cycle expands beyond its
normal range, yoju can almost be certain that it is the end of the move
down. That's because there is no time left. But when it happens to contract,
you can't be sure for several weeks, because the time band for abottom is
still in effect.

So you have to look at the market behavior. If October 10 was just a
half-primary cycle (they usually occur at the 7-11 week interval, and
october 10 was the 11th week), then the rally would be corrective in nature.
That is, the primary cycle up until that point was bearish, which means any
rallies would likely be modest and corrective in nature until the whole
primary cycle ended. It would not be explosive to the upside until the start
of a nnew primary cycle.

But, if you look at the charts of many stock markets since their lows of
October 10, their rallies have been explosive. The DJIA is up nearly 20%.
DAX is up 30%! You don't see these amplitudes - usually - out of a
half-primary cycle in a bearish market. And in the case of the S&P futures,
there have been two impressive gaps up in just two weeks. You don't see gaps
up like this in the second half of a primary cycle that is bearish. You see
this type of market behavior at the start of a primary cycle, noit the
middle or end.

And so I believe October 10 was a primary cycle. And since it was distorted,
I also think it was at least a 50-week cycle, and very possibly a 4-year
cycle bottom as well. But it will take time to confirm. First, prices must
exceed the 25-week moving average, which right now stands at 8751 on the
DJIA. Until it does that, my bias cannot be confirmed. Second, the market
must continue making new cycle highs after Tuesday of the 9th week, which is
December 10 (my"8-week bullish rule", also described in Volume 1 you refer
to). And third, I am concerned about Venus turning direct on November 21.
When counter-trend reversals take place on Venus retrograde, they oftentimes
revert back to the former trends around the time of the direct motion. If
that happens, Manfred, then I will conclude that this was only a 50-week
cycle back on October 10. The 4-year cycle would then bottom with the next
50-week cycle, the 5th of the 4-year cycle. That would not be due, then,
before next summer.

Manfred trhen writes:

"For the SPX and Dow, such a short cycle has a probability of perhaps 1-3%
which is very low (distortion due to the 4y cycle must NOT be taken into
considerations in this case - since we don't know whether it is due BEFORE
it happens)."

Well, I think just the opposite. Because the 4-year cycle is due, such
distortion MUST be taken into account. But we can't be admanant that it is
the case, because like you say, it is before the end of the time band in
which it COULD occur. Distortion can be either contraction (before its
normal time band) or expansion (after its normal time band).

"However, taking the NDX and DAX, the probality a primary cycle of less
than 10 weeks occuring is in the 1:200 to 1:500 area. The alternative
scenario would be the 2/21 low as the previous primary cycle low, in this
case the primary cycle ending 10/10 would have been 33 weeks in length which
is in the same probabiliy zone 1:200 to 1:500 (since the longest in 193
instances was only 29 weeks)."

That is very interesting, and ceretainly the odds - from this perspective -
favor your argument. I would not be surprised if the DAX and NDX make new
cycle lows in Decemebr, about the same time that DJIA and SPZ make a 7-11
week half-primary cycle low at higher prices than October 10. Actually I
would like to see this, as it would present a case of Intermarket bullish
divergence, where on eindex falls to a new multi-week (or multi-month) low,
and related indices do not. I consider that a very powerful bullish
indicator.

" Just based on these cycles it's against all odds that this could have been
a primary cycle low (let alone the 4-year cycle). And if it was not a
primary cycles low, the market MUST take out the 10/10 lows within 2 months
(or 3 months the latest)."

Yes, just based on that analysis, you are correct. But I am not basing my
bias just on that cycles analysis, as outlined above. And, one thing I have
found throughout the years is that when long-term cycles bottom, they do so
in the most bizarre and unexpected patterns. No one believes it, no one
expects it, base dupon their conventional studies. And yet your studies are
hardly conventional, so I respect your thoughts. But, from my way of looking
at it, this is not against all odds for a 4-year cycle. That cycle is due,
and the pattern off of the October 10 low is indicative of the starty of a
new primary cycle, not the second half of an older, bearish primary cycle.
And thus iof October 10 was a new primary cycle, it was distrorted, and this
is consistent with 4-year and 50-week cycle convergences. But I agree: the
9-weeks in the NASDAQ is awfully short. I haven't seen a 9-week primary
cycle before. So I think NASDAQ could fall again to a new low in
December-Janaury. Yet, I know the NASDAQ has a tendency to... not follow the
tendency.


"I track several technical indicators and virtually none of them confirms a
4-year cycle bottom. IMO this cycle is going to expand into 8/8/2003 or
longer."

None of my indicators confirm it either. They won't until prices rise above
8750 area, and continue making new cycle highs after December 10. But I
can't wait for a confirmation as a trader. By the time I get confirmation,
half or more of the move up will be over. I don't expect the rally of this
new (or next) 4-year cycle to last more than 8 months, although I can make a
case for up to 30 months.


"My proprietary Amanita indicator is still at the most bearish level it can
reach, and the reaction to the recent rally is 0."


You could be correct, Manfred. Time will tell. And I reserve the right to
return bearish if the S&P fills that first gap up between 807-815. Until
then, my bias is bullish, and that the new 4-year cycle has started. But it
is a bias, not a confirmation by a long shot. It will be interesting to se
ehow the market behaves in this October 27-November 3 geocosmic cluster
zone, which is also very important. If it is the end of a correctivew
decline, I think we will, see another huge rally follow. But if it is a new
cycle high, we copuld see a mulit-week decline follow.

Thanks again Manfred, for sharing with us. I can't wait to meet you at ISAR
2003 and hear about your methods of analysis related to astrology.

All the best, Ray

------------------------------------------------------

Ray,

thanks for your deliberate response.

I am well aware that the 4y is due yet from the technical side there
is almost nothing that supports this. Several key sentiment
indicators were more bearish (which is bullish from a contrarian
perspective) in early September 1998 after just 6 weeks of
(comparably shallow) decline - now we have the most serious
bearmarket since 1929-1932 with the Nasdaq down 80% and yet these
indicators are still not in buy territory (e.g. Wall Street
strategists equity allocation still near the ATH).

IMO in a downtrend cycles tend to expand (i.e. when the market lacks
the power to turn up) and since all long-term cycles (K-wave etc.)
are now down, this alone advocates a late 4y bottom.

Saying that this distortion is not a problem because it is caused by
the 4y bottom is an invalid circular statement: the conclusion is
based on premise that has yet to be proved. I agree that cycle
contractions are not very likely in this case.

From a chart perspective the advance since 10/10 has been as
unhealthy as I can imagine (no consolidations), and the magnitude was
mainly caused by futures manipulations prior to the elections (and
also by the funds year-end 10/31).

No (!) primary cycle bottom in the past two years was lead by the
Nasdaq (the NDX bottomed 10/8 before the Dow 10/10), all of them were
half-primary or smaller cycles (the Nasdaq strength is a sign of
bullishness which usually means there is no follow-through).

Listen to Peter Eliades on
http://aegeancapital.com/freeservices/archives1/Guests/Eliades/pg1.htm
, he explains his indicator, all 4y bottoms in the past 80 years were
characterized by a reading below 1 - and now it is around 1.80 if I
remember correctly.

For almost 1 year I have singled out 10/29/2002 +/- 1 day as the
decisive date. If the market rises beyong this date I'd say the odds
you are right are perhaps 50:50.

I am currently working on my outlook 2003, and June 2 stands out as
an extraordinary date for the 4y to bottom out. It is also a hit from
the 1929 high in the Spiral Calendar (TM) of Chris Carolan which is
based on the moon rhythm.

I enjoy these discussion, and time will tell which arguments are
correct.

Manfred



-----------------------------------------


Manfred writes - and I hope no one minds that Manfred and I discuss this in
technical terms with this list....:

> Ray,
>
> thanks for your deliberate response.
>
> I am well aware that the 4y is due yet from the technical side there
> is almost nothing that supports this."


OK. Let's first see if we can agree on the difference between technical and
cyclical or even astrological signals. Technical signals are lagging
indicators, or at best, coincident indicators. They will never confirm a
cycle bottom or top has ended until after it has taken place. They might
indicate ahead of time that a bottom or top is approaching. But they never
confirm until well after the fact, and thus by their very nature, they
cannot support a 4-year cycle bottom as it is happening. It is only after
the indicators have started showing something positive that you can confirm
with technical studies, and that will be after the fact.

Do you agree?

On the other hand, cycles and astrological factors are leading indicators.
They tell you far in advance when a change in trend is likely. But as you
enter that time band, especially with astrology, the technicals do not
indicate the trend is changing. Well, maybe that it could change at any
moment, but it is not until the trend has actually started to reverse that
they will show it to be be possible.


> Several key sentiment indicators were more bearish (which is bullish from
a contrarian perspective) in early September 1998 after just 6 weeks of
> (comparably shallow) decline - now we have the most serious
> bearmarket since 1929-1932 with the Nasdaq down 80% and yet these
> indicators are still not in buy territory (e.g. Wall Street
> strategists equity allocation still near the ATH).


Manfred, there are literally thousands of technical indicators one could
look too, right? The ones you mention are still bearish. Yet the pattern of
price amplitude in the rally following October 10, and the fact that the S&P
has made not one, but two gaps up periods.... are these consistent with the
start of the second half of a primary cycle that is bearish? Can you show me
a market whose 11-week bottom (half-primary) has taken out the start of the
primary cycle (which means it is in a bearish primary trend), that has
exhibited such a pattern? Those types of patterns are suggestive of the
start of a new primary cycle, not the end or middle of a bearish primary
cycle.

So, let me ask this: are you questioning whether or not October 10 was a
primary cycle? Or a longer-term cycle (like the 4-year)? Or both? Because if
you not questioning October 10 being a primary cycle, then you have to admit
it is a distortion of the normal cycle. And, I suppose, you would then have
to consider it as being a higher probability for a longer-term cycle
culmination. At least I do.

But it sounds like you are of the opinion that October 10 was not a primary
cycle, and therefore distortion is not an issue at this time.


> IMO in a downtrend cycles tend to expand (i.e. when the market lacks
> the power to turn up) and since all long-term cycles (K-wave etc.)
> are now down, this alone advocates a late 4y bottom.

I haven't observed the difference between downward and upward markets. I
have observed, however, that distortions of expansion are more common in
stock indices than contractions, while the opposite is true of precious
metals. I wonder if this relationship holds true with financial markets
versus commodity markets? I suspect so.


>
> Saying that this distortion is not a problem because it is caused by
> the 4y bottom is an invalid circular statement: the conclusion is
> based on premise that has yet to be proved. I agree that cycle
> contractions are not very likely in this case.


I think it has been demonstrated that the probability of a primary cycle
distrorting is much greater when a longer-term cycle comes due, than
otherwise. In the book you refer to, Volume 1 of the Stock Market Timing
series (page 180), I think it was quite evident that the probability of
distortions in a primary cycle is less than 20% in the S&P futures. Yet in
every case of a 4-year cycle bottom, the primary cycle distorted. In only 1
case of the DJIA since 1970 has it not been with a distorted primary cycle.
One of them (1974) was a contracted 10-week primary cycle. It is not very
likely to be contraction. But it is possible.

>
> From a chart perspective the advance since 10/10 has been as
> unhealthy as I can imagine (no consolidations), and the magnitude was
> mainly caused by futures manipulations prior to the elections (and
> also by the funds year-end 10/31).

One could make the same observation following the last 4-year cycle bottom
of 1998. There were no healthy corrections following the last 4-year cycle
trough of October 8, 1998, until November 24, 1998. Interesting how the
timing of that 4-year cycle fits the periods of the Venus retrograde and
direct of 2002. It was also an election season, and probably just as
manipulated by the election politics climate.


>
> No (!) primary cycle bottom in the past two years was lead by the
> Nasdaq (the NDX bottomed 10/8 before the Dow 10/10), all of them were
> half-primary or smaller cycles (the Nasdaq strength is a sign of
> bullishness which usually means there is no follow-through).


Well, but then again, we don't ecpect the chart patterns of the past two
years to be as bizarre as the ones that unfold when a 4-year cycle comes
due. The longer-term the cycle that is due, the more bizarre and difficult
it is to pinpoint the bottom as it happens, especially by means of technical
or pattern recognition studies. That's a given, a rule, with cycles. That's
why distortions are more common in primary cycles that coincide with the
longer-term cycles. The lonnger the cycle, the more distorted the cycle
period and pattern is likely to be. If it was easy, everyone would be able
to spot these golden investment opportunities that happen once every 46
months, +/- 10 months.


>
> Listen to Peter Eliades on
> http://aegeancapital.com/freeservices/archives1/Guests/Eliades/pg1.htm
>, he explains his indicator, all 4y bottoms in the past 80 years were
> characterized by a reading below 1 - and now it is around 1.80 if I
> remember correctly.


I like Peter. But like most of the people on this list who do analysis, I
trust my own in dicators best of all. I think you do too, right:-)).


>
> For almost 1 year I have singled out 10/29/2002 +/- 1 day as the
> decisive date. If the market rises beyong this date I'd say the odds
> you are right are perhaps 50:50.

Well, let's see. I won't even move from a"bias" to"confirmation" myself
unless prices are rising after December 10, based on the 8-week rule I
mentioned last letter.

But Octoebr 29 is important to me too. In fact, the whole period within
three trading days of November 1 is important. If the market slides down to
a corrective low during this period, I expect another huge rally to follow
into November 21 period. That is, if this is the start of a new 4-year
cycle. But on another view, I oftentimes find that the first corrective
decline following a long-term cycle bottom, happens on a critical reversal
date that I would have previously thought could be the primary cycle itself.
November 1, +/- 3 trading days (which includes your October 29) is such a
period. A decline into this period would be the first correction of the move
up since October 10. To me, that would be a powerful buying opportunity - if
October 10 was indeed the 4-year bottom.



>
> I am currently working on my outlook 2003, and June 2 stands out as
> an extraordinary date for the 4y to bottom out. It is also a hit from
> the 1929 high in the Spiral Calendar (TM) of Chris Carolan which is
> based on the moon rhythm.


If October 10 was a 4-year cycle trough, then that date would fit my studies
for a possible 4-year cycle crest, after which I would consider the
possibility for the worst decline in the DJIA since 1929-1932 could start.


>
> I enjoy these discussion, and time will tell which arguments are
> correct.

You can count on it! But, I am not attached to my forecasts. I also reserve
the right to change my mind, pending data as it unfolds. I trade on them, I
invest on them, but I also exit when data suggests that I my bias is
incorrect. You have to be willing to have a flexible mind if you wish to
make money trading. But you also need a good track record of accuracy if you
wish people to pay for your analysis. And I do wish that.

All the best,

Ray



--------------------------------------------------------

Hello Ray:

1. Technical signals are lagging indicators, or at best, coincident
indicators.

I disagree. In my toolbox there are indicators of all three types,
lagging, coincident, and leading, in all three categories
fundamental, technical, and astrological analysis. E.g., I mentioned
the closing TRIN of <0.40 in early April which as been a very
reliable (though not perfect) indicator of market tops within 9 days,
thus it is leading price. Fundamentally, total bank borrowings from
the Fed are a very good leading indicator.

All 4y bottoms of this century were *** preceded *** by NYSE volume
90% down days and 90% up days (unfortunately I can't give proper
credit since I can't remember who conducted that study - was it Tim
Wood?), yet the September decline didn't have a single 90% down day
and also no real 90% up day (89.4%). So the lack of this technical
signature suggests the 4y bottom can't be close.

2. IMO only taking out the 8/22 highs would indeed confirm the
bullish stance.

3. I question both this was a primary cycle low and a 4y bottom.
I think I should add that when I refer to"the" primary cycle low I
am referring to an idealized cycle of the major US and European
indexes. Let's assume that the Dow does hold above the 10/10 lows
until January yet all other indexes (NDX, SPX, Eurostoxx, DAX) make
new lows than"the" primary cycle low would be the new one, and I
would use the divergences to narrow the time to arrive at the next
primary cycle low.

4. >distortions of expansion are more common in stock indices than
contractions, while the opposite is true of precious metals. I wonder
if this relationship holds true with financial markets versus
commodity markets? I suspect so.

That's a very interesting observations! I will review my spreadsheets
to get further insights.

Let me put the circular argument that way: you say that the
distortion should be expected (conclusion) because it was the 4y
bottom (premise). However, your premise is only true when the
conclusion is also true which constitutes a circular statement. Let's
do the logical test: if this was not the 4y bottom, both the premise
and the conclusion are false which confirms it indeed is a circular
argument.

Greetings from Sir Karl Popper, the well-known Austrian
philosopher. ;-) His approach is great to sharpen the mind.

5. I have the 1974 low on 12/9 and the previous one on 9/16 which is
12 weeks, not 11 (again this is idealized: this date was the DJI
closing low and SPX intraday low was, the DJI intraday low on 12/10,
and the SPX already made slightly lower lows on 11/4-5.

6. the 1998 bottom: I have uploaded a chart of the Dow on:
http://members.chello.at/manfred-zimmel/dji1998.gif
As you can see the Dow had a very healthy consolidation for 4 weeks
before taking off. Moreover, the Dow bottomed on 9/2 and the SPX in
October which produced a bullish divergence. A similar same
divergence could be observed in 1994.

In 1998 Alan Greenspan didn't pour a truckload full of money every
week into the fiat money system (which is doomed to fail, as many
channelling sources confirm) - see
http://www.321gold.com/fed/temp_bank_res.html

I received an e-mail today on my very long-term prospects, he focuses
on the the 72-year cycle (72 = 360/5 = quintile) and is referring to
this article: http://www.amanita.at/e/reading/00/e-0005-jupsat.htm:

Right now I'm reading the"Next 100 Years..." one and was struck
by the wave notations that are exactly as I see it, not that the
interpretation is unique perhaps, but because I have not seen it
elsewhere, yet. I too see the significance of Adam Smith, America &
the free market system, invisible hand and all, as the structure for
the ensuing extended wave 3 lasting some 210-218 years which brings
me to my point.
I have assigned anchors to the 72 year Presidential cycle as before
the system of Capitalism could start it needed a legal framework with
the Constitution that appeared after the failure of the initial
Articles of Confederation.
The Constitution and form of government became a reality when George
Washington was elected in 1788. Since then @ 72 year intervals, a new
paradigm president has been elected. Abraham Lincoln (Civil War) in
1860, Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1932 (New Deal) and??? in 2004.
Additionally, each election in the series has been at the bottom of a
deflationary depression period - in share prices at least - and this
one seems on track as well..

Needless to say that I respect your many years of experience with
astro-cycles...

Manfred

Thread gesperrt

 

gesamter Thread:

• Diskussion mit dem Zyklentheoretiker Ray Merriman - Amanito, 01.11.2002, 10:48