Bitcoin Forum
October 15, 2019, 11:10:16 PM *
News: If you like a topic and you see an orange "bump" link, click it. More info.
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 ... 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 [272] 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Martin Armstrong Discussion  (Read 615352 times)
etoimene
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 56
Merit: 0


View Profile
June 01, 2019, 01:31:21 PM
 #5421

Both were "turning points" that doesn't mean May was the low and July the high. It would very well be that May is when it "turns" down and July is when it "turns" back up. In that sense it doesn't necessarily mean an absolute low or high - only when the trend is due to change.

We do. Armstrong says that it is based on Composite highs are where highs or lows are formed on intraday or closing highs.

Seems that sometimes it is one and sometimes the other.
1571181016
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1571181016

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1571181016
Reply with quote  #2

1571181016
Report to moderator
1571181016
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1571181016

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1571181016
Reply with quote  #2

1571181016
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1571181016
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1571181016

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1571181016
Reply with quote  #2

1571181016
Report to moderator
bikefront
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 428
Merit: 21


View Profile
June 01, 2019, 03:11:40 PM
 #5422

Both were "turning points" that doesn't mean May was the low and July the high. It would very well be that May is when it "turns" down and July is when it "turns" back up. In that sense it doesn't necessarily mean an absolute low or high - only when the trend is due to change.

We do. Armstrong says that it is based on Composite highs are where highs or lows are formed on intraday or closing highs.

Seems that sometimes it is one and sometimes the other.

And sometimes, none.
bikefront
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 428
Merit: 21


View Profile
June 01, 2019, 03:16:37 PM
 #5423

Hey all, just want to let you know that I lurk this board frequently and have been super busy with other things and haven't been able to post or comment on anything really.

It seems like there is some agreement on how to interpret Socrates and I believe we can hammer out what works and what doesn't. The reversals seem pretty legit. Is it worth the $ just for the reversals? I feel like we're missing the critical TIME element which is supposed to make Socrates stand above the others. We're either interpreting the forecast arrays and GMW incorrectly, or they're just random noise that gets it right once in a blue moon. Like the rest of you I am suspicious of the claim that they monitor "global capital flows" unless what he really means is bond volume since it makes up the lion's share of transactions as he mentions frequently.

That being said, the May "turning point" basically came to fruition the moment Trump made the May 5 tweet. There is something to be said about the alignment of that since he could easily claim in a blog post that his computer picked the turning point and wouldn't have any clue about tariff increases so therefore Socrates is magic. However I do still see that as a strange coincidence (which we have all seen often) and the testable part is now July. Both were "turning points" that doesn't mean May was the low and July the high. It would very well be that May is when it "turns" down and July is when it "turns" back up. In that sense it doesn't necessarily mean an absolute low or high - only when the trend is due to change. Again the INTERPRETATION is what may be wrong and not Socrates, but I don't even have a sub *shame* I get the info vicariously through this forum. 

There is also common agreement here that he likes to highlight when he's right and not when he's wrong, or missed a call like the massive rally from December-Apr. It's like you're always on the fence because sometimes you say to yourself "whoa he nailed it" and other times you say to yourself "he's exaggerating". Maybe it's a bit of both. That's fine for a PERSON. The same standard doesn't apply to a SERVICE with subscription $. Again he may be actually giving you Socrates but the missing piece here is how to interpret the TIME targets.

As far as my trades I saw his regular blog post with the downtrend lines for DB so I got Jan 2020 $5 puts @ $0.24. Now trading $0.31. Got a bunch won't reveal the number. My YINN $26 calls 10/2019 expiry that I bought in March cratered 90% and as far as I can see it's a total loss and I still have 4 months and 3 weeks to at least recover the losses before the Theta kills it for good.

Bike your strategy seems solid by the way. How can we talk outside this board and chat trades? (also I'm in agreement that Strike is the MAn himself =)

According to Armstrong, the turning points are supposed to be on highs or lows either on closing or intraday basis. If we expand it to a general area where the market seems to turn, then it no longer goes by Armstrong's criteria and widens the scope, which leads to a broader stop and more losses that give a higher chance of success because of the wider net phenomenon, which is bad.

I am on here and you can post or message me. I am on reddit trading forums as well.
psp777
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 73
Merit: 5


View Profile
June 01, 2019, 05:28:00 PM
 #5424

Revisting the recent ECM turning point. I have plotted out the ECM turning points using the red bullseye. That alone was close to the recent top. Thos that are calling BS on Armstrong, i think the longer term forecasts are better than the near term. Yes, some errors in commentary and with the arrays but this is helpful nonetheless. Also, add in the declining energy recently and failure to elect bullish reversals near the high was a clear sign to short. I did not take the trade as I am waiting for a low to form as early as June or maybe July. The next ECM turning point is in Jan 2020 at which point I believe gold will bottom and US equities will break out to new highs. Curious how others see the arrays and ECM turning points at this point in time?
Thanks

bikefront
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 428
Merit: 21


View Profile
June 01, 2019, 08:42:47 PM
 #5425

Revisting the recent ECM turning point. I have plotted out the ECM turning points using the red bullseye. That alone was close to the recent top. Thos that are calling BS on Armstrong, i think the longer term forecasts are better than the near term. Yes, some errors in commentary and with the arrays but this is helpful nonetheless. Also, add in the declining energy recently and failure to elect bullish reversals near the high was a clear sign to short. I did not take the trade as I am waiting for a low to form as early as June or maybe July. The next ECM turning point is in Jan 2020 at which point I believe gold will bottom and US equities will break out to new highs. Curious how others see the arrays and ECM turning points at this point in time?
Thanks



Well, Armstrong says the ECM dates are not to do with trading, so it doesn't really matter how they are plotted in regards to the Dow- or the Euro or gold or anything else for that matter. Also, that chart is backwards looking. Also it is unlikely that anyone actually made any profit with ECM-Dow turning point method- I would challenge anyone here to show proof. Also, many of those points were not actual highs or lows in any case. The third one from the right, you could say it was a short term low and buy it...but could you use the same methodology before when it would have produced the opposite result? If you had shorted, it would have been a huge loss because of the massive rally. These kinds of charts are common in the trading world when it is backward looking and make it seem easy but it is all hindsight analysis and it doesn't work in live trading. I don't see any point in such a chart except confirmation bias- you can look up these kinds of charts where people perform technical analysis on the crash of '29, or the one in '87, and so on. It means nothing.

So far, the only thing that Armstrong has that might actually be consistently profitable is the Reversal System but you can't get caught in his hocus pocus crystal ball cycle ECM turning point Composite Panic Cycle stuff that he always mixes in. If you look at some of MA's posts, he mentions how some of Armstrong's long term stuff was wrong. You can't just look at the right calls, you have to look at the wrong ones too. If Armstrong or anyone else is making a claim, they have to prove it. Lack of proof is not something in the favor of the one who claims, but the burden of proof is upon the one who makes said claim. You also can't make up your own methodology outside the scope of Armstrong's claims in order to fit something that may or may not work- if he never advertised it to work a certain way, why would anyone follow it when there is something else claimed in a manner that was to work?
MA_talk
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 189
Merit: 10


View Profile
June 02, 2019, 12:20:59 AM
 #5426

On Armstrong's reversal system, I believe one MUST examine the RELATIVE merits of that method against the most basics in technical analysis of support/resistance.

In a strong upward trending market, or a strong downward trending market like the current one, what you find is that every support gets broken, and then when you "plug in" the reversal system, you will find, WOW, it is RIGHT every time when the reversal level gets breached.

Imagine someone else who comes up with another system, but has 20 random reversal levels between the recent peak and current price, instead of Armstrong's reversal numbers, let's say only 10 levels.  So is that other guy going to be right for 20 times, instead of 10 times for Armstrong, and then his system is better?

Therefore, regardless of whichever system that is, it should be compared side-by-side on various kinds of stock market trends.  The methodology canNOT be just working for a strong downward or upward trending market, and doesn't work in a side-way market.

The reason is simple.  If I ALREADY know what kind of market I'm facing, then I already know how to trade it, even without being told about any support/resistance price levels.  The methodology must work for ALL market conditions.  By "knowing" what kind of market that I'm in, that is already using a hindsight that was NOT available when I try to trade.

Thus, I propose that Armstrong's reversal system should be tested on various different kinds of market condition, before we all grant its merit, and if possible, compared it to a standard support/resistance trading method to see if it's better on a relative basis.
MA_talk
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 189
Merit: 10


View Profile
June 02, 2019, 12:44:57 AM
 #5427

I suggest that we put Armstrong's reversal system to "predict" when either QQQ/DIA/SPY turns back up.

Bikefront can probably formulate this best, but I'm guessing that it should entail when
1. stock market fails to break bearish reversal level on the downside, and then
2. stock market succeed in breaking thru the bullish reversal level on the upside.

But then obviously, the forum needs to be given the reversal levels by Armstrong, which I'm assuming are not changing every day or every week.

And if we want to compare to another standard support/resistance method, we can do that too.  We could all eye-ball together here, or I can code something up to objectively get the price levels, and make the source and executables available for everyone here.
psp777
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 73
Merit: 5


View Profile
June 02, 2019, 12:51:02 AM
 #5428

Can someone explain to me the charts Armstrong has shown in the past with buy sell arrows or more specifically long and short signals. I believe this were generated off of reversals?

I think most wanted to follow Socrates as if was to be a thoughtless way to trade...simply follow the reversals and the arrays. Obviously we are all more confused than ever.
bikefront
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 428
Merit: 21


View Profile
June 02, 2019, 01:43:19 AM
 #5429

Well, perhaps contrary to most, I think the Reversals should in theory be the easiest thing to trade in regards to how objective they are, or are purported to be. First of all, I think we can all agree that we should NOT attempt to trade against Reversals in anticipation that they will not be elected. Because sometimes they get elected, sometimes not, and cycle timing is required in order to predict that and it just does not work. Therefore, we can make an objective analysis only on ELECTED Reversals. To reiterate the workings of a Reversal, if a Reversal closes above a Bullish Reversal or below a Bearish Reversal, it should then travel to the next Reversal in order to test it (not necessarily elect it). So if there is a large space between the Reversals, we can expect a big R:R trade. Again, in the last correction, the Reversal system worked well in knowing that the trend of the downside was continuing because the market was electing Bearish Reversals which showed that there was still more downside left and showed that one could still hold a bearish position OR close against the tested Reversal when it occurred and then re-enter after it elected the tested Bearish Reversal. And the low was actually one of the Bearish Reversals so one could have in theory closed their shorts on the low, but I can't remember the earliest Bullish Reversal. I do remember the 25100 number was a Weekly Bullish and it MIGHT have been that as the first one, but the first Weekly Bullish generated from the low and elected would have shown that there would have been a real change in trend vs a dead cat bounce. Again, I haven't checked the old posts yet and I do plan to, but if it can do that and did do that, it would have avoided being on the losing side of the trade and switched over to being bullish and at least not have tried to short the uptrend. This is all assuming that ONLY the Reversals are being used, and no cycle timing. From my memory, it did that quite well.
 
Some considerations:

-The stop? I was under the impression that the stop should be a little under the elected Reversal. So hypothetically, if the Dow elected a Weekly Bullish Reversal at 24500 and the next one was at 26500 and at the end of the week it closed at 24700, then the stop might be placed at 24400 and exit target of the long position near the 26500 mark. Perhaps a trailing stop once your desired profit target has been reached, or something, is possible.

-Major and Minors? I don't fully understand what would happen if the market elects a Minor Reversal. Does it go to the next Minor Reversal? Or does it give less validity and may have a higher chance of failure? If that is the case, it would be better to trade only Major Reversals.

-Trade or wait? This 1% rule of the market retracing when it elects a Reversal by too much of a distance means that one should wait before entry, but how often does this occur?

-Single markets such as currencies and commodities are apparently more accurate- perhaps this will affect performance among asset classes when using Reversals.

-Armstrong/StrikeEagle says that longer term trends are easier than short term trends- this being the case, we might discount Daily Reversals.
Nellayar
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 602
Merit: 36

★777Coin.com★ Fun BTC Casino!


View Profile
June 02, 2019, 05:14:28 AM
 #5430

On Armstrong's reversal system, I believe one MUST examine the RELATIVE merits of that method against the most basics in technical analysis of support/resistance.

In a strong upward trending market, or a strong downward trending market like the current one, what you find is that every support gets broken, and then when you "plug in" the reversal system, you will find, WOW, it is RIGHT every time when the reversal level gets breached.

Imagine someone else who comes up with another system, but has 20 random reversal levels between the recent peak and current price, instead of Armstrong's reversal numbers, let's say only 10 levels.  So is that other guy going to be right for 20 times, instead of 10 times for Armstrong, and then his system is better?

Therefore, regardless of whichever system that is, it should be compared side-by-side on various kinds of stock market trends.  The methodology canNOT be just working for a strong downward or upward trending market, and doesn't work in a side-way market.

The reason is simple.  If I ALREADY know what kind of market I'm facing, then I already know how to trade it, even without being told about any support/resistance price levels.  The methodology must work for ALL market conditions.  By "knowing" what kind of market that I'm in, that is already using a hindsight that was NOT available when I try to trade.

Thus, I propose that Armstrong's reversal system should be tested on various different kinds of market condition, before we all grant its merit, and if possible, compared it to a standard support/resistance trading method to see if it's better on a relative basis.

Armstrong's reversal system is really helpful to determine what might happen in the market. As of now, the trend is going upward but eventually, it will go on reversal way. I believe that if we will study this kind of strategy, we can find a way on how to fight unusual downfall or we can easily hold the moment of bull run market.
s29
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 57
Merit: 0


View Profile
June 02, 2019, 11:38:03 AM
 #5431

Hey all, just want to let you know that I lurk this board frequently and have been super busy with other things and haven't been able to post or comment on anything really.

That being said, the May "turning point" basically came to fruition the moment Trump made the May 5 tweet. There is something to be said about the alignment of that since he could easily claim in a blog post that his computer picked the turning point and wouldn't have any clue about tariff increases so therefore Socrates is magic. However I do still see that as a strange coincidence (which we have all seen often) and the testable part is now July. Both were "turning points" that doesn't mean May was the low and July the high. It would very well be that May is when it "turns" down and July is when it "turns" back up. In that sense it doesn't necessarily mean an absolute low or high - only when the trend is due to change. Again the INTERPRETATION is what may be wrong and not Socrates, but I don't even have a sub *shame* I get the info vicariously through this forum.  

There is also common agreement here that he likes to highlight when he's right and not when he's wrong, or missed a call like the massive rally from December-Apr. It's like you're always on the fence because sometimes you say to yourself "whoa he nailed it" and other times you say to yourself "he's exaggerating". Maybe it's a bit of both. That's fine for a PERSON. The same standard doesn't apply to a SERVICE with subscription $. Again he may be actually giving you Socrates but the missing piece here is how to interpret the TIME targets.

Armstrong seemed right on his May call, although he kept mentioning as the main reason the EU-elections, which didn't seem to effect the markets at all (maybe even a net positive). On the other hand; markets didn't do something really special, it didn't even retraced 38.2% from the recent historic Dec-April rally (markets usually correct 4 to 10% after a 25% up move). Still would like to see a 38.2% to 50% retrace before getting back in long.

Revisting the recent ECM turning point. I have plotted out the ECM turning points using the red bullseye. That alone was close to the recent top. Thos that are calling BS on Armstrong, i think the longer term forecasts are better than the near term. Yes, some errors in commentary and with the arrays but this is helpful nonetheless. Also, add in the declining energy recently and failure to elect bullish reversals near the high was a clear sign to short. I did not take the trade as I am waiting for a low to form as early as June or maybe July. The next ECM turning point is in Jan 2020 at which point I believe gold will bottom and US equities will break out to new highs. Curious how others see the arrays and ECM turning points at this point in time?
Thanks

https://www.tradingview.com/x/zhgshvgu/

Only the last time it worked with the stock market so far Cheesy
bikefront
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 428
Merit: 21


View Profile
June 02, 2019, 03:49:43 PM
 #5432

On Armstrong's reversal system, I believe one MUST examine the RELATIVE merits of that method against the most basics in technical analysis of support/resistance.

In a strong upward trending market, or a strong downward trending market like the current one, what you find is that every support gets broken, and then when you "plug in" the reversal system, you will find, WOW, it is RIGHT every time when the reversal level gets breached.

Imagine someone else who comes up with another system, but has 20 random reversal levels between the recent peak and current price, instead of Armstrong's reversal numbers, let's say only 10 levels.  So is that other guy going to be right for 20 times, instead of 10 times for Armstrong, and then his system is better?

Therefore, regardless of whichever system that is, it should be compared side-by-side on various kinds of stock market trends.  The methodology canNOT be just working for a strong downward or upward trending market, and doesn't work in a side-way market.

The reason is simple.  If I ALREADY know what kind of market I'm facing, then I already know how to trade it, even without being told about any support/resistance price levels.  The methodology must work for ALL market conditions.  By "knowing" what kind of market that I'm in, that is already using a hindsight that was NOT available when I try to trade.

Thus, I propose that Armstrong's reversal system should be tested on various different kinds of market condition, before we all grant its merit, and if possible, compared it to a standard support/resistance trading method to see if it's better on a relative basis.

Armstrong's reversal system is really helpful to determine what might happen in the market. As of now, the trend is going upward but eventually, it will go on reversal way. I believe that if we will study this kind of strategy, we can find a way on how to fight unusual downfall or we can easily hold the moment of bull run market.

Bearish Weekly Reversals have been elected and the market is going down recently; it seems like Socrates thinks we will be headed lower. In the long term, up
s4k4p
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 5
Merit: 0


View Profile
June 03, 2019, 05:54:18 AM
 #5433

Can someone explain to me the charts Armstrong has shown in the past with buy sell arrows or more specifically long and short signals. I believe this were generated off of reversals?

I think most wanted to follow Socrates as if was to be a thoughtless way to trade...simply follow the reversals and the arrays. Obviously we are all more confused than ever.

Yes it has to do with reversals trades.  On the Pro level commentary they talk about "being currently hypothetically long x number of positions".  I asked about how to follow this and they said that feature is not yet in place.
etoimene
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 56
Merit: 0


View Profile
June 03, 2019, 09:35:10 AM
 #5434

It's easy to follow. Open (election of reversal) or close and open (reverse) (election of opposite reversal) positions on the market close, based on weather reversals are elected. If no election, no trading.
What is not easy is to trust the system. My backtesting on a daily so far produced very good results.
I wonder what will happen when some choppiness comes. Armstrong wrote that this system is not good for congested market trading.
s4k4p
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 5
Merit: 0


View Profile
June 03, 2019, 09:59:59 AM
 #5435

It's easy to follow. Open (election of reversal) or close and open (reverse) (election of opposite reversal) positions on the market close, based on weather reversals are elected. If no election, no trading.
What is not easy is to trust the system. My backtesting on a daily so far produced very good results.
I wonder what will happen when some choppiness comes. Armstrong wrote that this system is not good for congested market trading.

The thing that threw me was the number of hypothetical positions seemed to change at an unusual time (i.e. not at end of fractal period) and they said to use intermediate and major reversals not others - and am unsure which ones are intermediate.
etoimene
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 56
Merit: 0


View Profile
June 03, 2019, 10:27:57 AM
 #5436

From what I can see, number of positions is not indicated currently. I assume one position per election day. If multiple reversals are elected, I use only one.
Also, Socrates is still quite buggy, so ....
rosousa
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 19
Merit: 0


View Profile
June 03, 2019, 02:40:38 PM
 #5437



We have already shown how turning points are inaccurate


... or how we don't know how to read them ...

We do. Armstrong says that it is based on Composite highs are where highs or lows are formed on intraday or closing highs. So for example, if it shows that October is a turning point on the monthly level, it means that it is supposed to be the the lowest close for the month or the lowest intraday, or highest close or highest intraday. Same can be done on the weekly level. Many have followed Armstrong on here for years including MA and myself and we both have concluded that turning points don't work, and we have shown why that is the case on this thread.

There´s a misconception about the meaning of "turning point" because people confuse it by the english dictionary meaning. But turning point can be a low/high or simple a breakout in the same direction of the trend. How you use that information is the key point as their value is very limited before the fact and you only have enough information, after the fact. After the fact everyone knows what happen in the past, just need to look at a price graphic on the asset :-)

RS
https://twitter.com/ricardosousaIA
MA_talk
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 189
Merit: 10


View Profile
June 03, 2019, 07:49:28 PM
Last edit: June 03, 2019, 08:04:49 PM by MA_talk
 #5438



There´s a misconception about the meaning of "turning point" because people confuse it by the english dictionary meaning. But turning point can be a low/high or simple a breakout in the same direction of the trend. How you use that information is the key point as their value is very limited before the fact and you only have enough information, after the fact. After the fact everyone knows what happen in the past, just need to look at a price graphic on the asset :-)

RS
https://twitter.com/ricardosousaIA

So let me see if I get this correctly about "turning point":

1. If it's a high, it's a correct hit.
2. If it's a low, it's also a correct hit.
3. If it's a breakout in the same direction that is going higher, it's also a correct hit.
4. If it's a breakout in the same direction that is going lower, it's also a correct hit.
5. And if there was a low, and Armstrong's model didn't call it, that doesn't mean that his model is wrong, because he doesn't call out every low.
6. And if there was a high, and Armstrong's model didn't call it, that doesn't mean that his model is wrong, because he doesn't call out every high.
7. And if there was a breakout in the direction that is going higher or lower, and Armstrong's model didn't call it, that doesn't mean that his model is wrong, because he doesn't call out every breakout.
8.  YET, his ECM & Socrates observe GLOBAL capital movement, and nobody questions WHY he is NOT calling every low/high/panic cycle when he "can"?

So do you want to tell me, how it is possible to even disapprove anything said by Armstrong?  And what kind of trading information (or MIS-information) does such "turning point" add?

Isn't that like the global warming crowd, saying that
1. If the weather gets hotter, then it IS global warming.
2. If the weather gets colder, then it is just the weather.
3. If the weather gets dramatically colder, then it IS the global warming again because it brings crazy volatility and crazy weather.

And there is more, you can repeat similar above points from #1 to #7 for Armstrong's "directional change".  His directional change is NOT the English version of directional change either.  Because when you have the directional change indicated from arrays, the direction may not change yet, and the market can change directions SEVERAL time period AFTER that, and obviously he does NOT tell you how many, because it's essentially SO MANY until you forget about it proving him wrong.

The reason that his terms are NOT well-defined is that Armstrong/Socrates cannot give any precise definition, or else he probably will be shown 75% of the time WRONG.

Whenever the traditional meaning of Armstrong's definitions don't work, he will continue to add/elaborate on top of the terms, so that his term can encompass more (of current) scenarios.  But certainly, more explanations will NOT alleviate your trading losses due to Armstrong's bad calls.


So let me try to be Armstrong for once: There is a turning point in July.  It can be a high or low.  But if it's not a high or low, it will likely breakout from the current trend.  If not, within one to three time periods, the counter trend will form, which IS the indication for the turning point.  Otherwise, for the small 25% of the time for turning point, high volatility will rein for the given period, or its low volatility will be followed by high volatility.

Viola, did I cover all possible scenario, and drag out the time frame long enough for you to forget about what happens if I am wrong?
Warranteum
Copper Member
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 38
Merit: 0


View Profile
June 04, 2019, 07:40:30 AM
 #5439

it seems like Scotland might break away from UK? They are different than the city folk in London?
s29
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 57
Merit: 0


View Profile
June 04, 2019, 02:57:49 PM
 #5440

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/markets-by-sector/interest-rates/when-will-interest-rates-rise/

Quote
When Will Interest Rates Rise?
Blog/Interest Rates
Posted Jun 4, 2019 by Martin Armstrong

QUESTION: In the recent past you have spoken about rising interest rates in the USA being imminent. Just wondering where we stand on that front as rates have been in a downtrend since peaking last fall?

Thanks,

Pete

ANSWER: The rise in interest rates comes with the turn in the ECM in January. However, what you have to understand is there will be a divergence between private and public rates. The central banks really cannot raise rates without creating a budget crisis. The more likely outcome is that governments are losing their ability to borrow in the real market. The public rates are more likely to become simply pegs that render them useless in all practical terms. We have already witnessed this in Europe. The central bank created negative interest rates. All they have done is to kill the viable domestic bond markets.

So Marty finally "admits" that his call on higher interest rates years before the ECM turning point in 2020 was the WRONG call.
And secondly, he "admits" that even if interest rates don't really rise after 2020, that's because the central banks are "manipulating" the interest rates. Let's just cover both sides of the equation.
He just simply double backtracks on a major call he made Roll Eyes
Pages: « 1 ... 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 [272] 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!