Bradley Siderograph for 2004

Manfred Zimmel 23 (Amanita Market Forecasting http://www.amanita.at/)

The Bradley siderograph was developed in the 40ies by Donald Bradley to Iorecast the stock markets.
Bradley assigned numerical values to certain planetary constellations Ior every day, and the sum is the
siderograph. It was originally intended to predict the stock markets. The noted technical analyst William
Eng singled out the Bradley as the only 'excellent' Timing Indicator in his book, "Technical Analysis oI
Stocks, Options, and Futures" (source: Astrikos).
It is crucial to understand what the siderograph is about since almost all traders (and even and even
Iinancial astrologers!) misunderstand it. Over the decades it has been observed that the siderograph can
NOT (!!!) reliably predict the direction but only turning points in the Iinancial markets (stocks, bonds,
bonds, commodities) within a time window oI /- 4 calendar days (sometimes /- 6 days). Inversions (i.e.
a high instead oI a low and vice versa) are quite common. Also, it is not a timing tool Ior short-term trends
but rather Ior intermediate-term to longer-term trends because the turning window is rather wide.
The Iirst chart shows the siderograph based on the original Iormula as applied by Bradley himselI
("geocentric" means earth-centered, i.e. Irom our perspective)
important turning points 2004 (highs or lows): 4/26, 9/12, 9/28.
other turning points: 2/26, 3/6, 5/17, 7/30, 8/11, 12/3, 12/18
The 360 siderograph distinguishes between applying and separating astrological aspects, i.e. between
120/ 240 and 90/ 270.
important turning points 2004 (highs or lows): 4/26, 7/30, 9/28
other turning points: 2/26, 3/6, 5/17, 6/17, 6/24, 8/14, 9/13, 9/28, 12/1, 12/10
The second chart depicts the siderograph Irom a heliocentric perspective (calculations based on the
position oI the sun instead oI the earth).
important turning points 2004 (highs or lows): 5/9, 8/20, 8/20
other turning points: 2/28, 3/21, 4/16, 6/17, 7/14, 10/2, 10/11, 11/24, 12/8, 12/15
Perhaps you want to know now which one is the "correct" siderograph - the answer is easy: none. Since
Bradley's time dozens oI similar models with diIIerent paramaters have been created, partly optimized
with the aid oI artiIicial intelligence and Ior speciIic markets (oil, currencies etc.). A date which occurs in
several diIIerent models is probably important.
It's time now Ior a review oI 2003. In the past months the Bradley turning dates were partially not clear-
cut (basis: S&P 500 close):
1/10/03 Bradley high: high SPX 1/14/03 (deviation: 4 days)
3/13/03 Bradley low: low SPX 3/11/03 (deviation: 2 days)
7/2/03 high Bradley: low SPX 6/30/03 (deviation: 2 days)/ high SPX 7/8/03 (deviation: 6 days)
9/14/03 low Bradley: high SPX 9/18/03 (deviation: 4 days)
10/21/03 high Bradley: high SPX 10/16/03 (deviation: 5 days)/ low SPX 10/24/03 (deviation: 3 days)
It seems that since July the siderograph is in the inversion mode since July, and I believe that will be
continue about 2/3 oI the year 2004. Other timing methods suggest that this model will be rather weak in
2004, certainly not as accurate as in 2002 and the Iirst halI oI 2003.
8/7/03
The "Bradley hype" has cooled down remarkably the past weeks, apparently caused by the perception that
the siderograph has ceased to work in July. I really don't share this opinion since the S&P 500 still hasn't
taken out the July 8 closing high which was a double-top just 0.4 lower than the June 17 intermediate-
term top (only a higher close would have triggered a rally). To re-iterate, three points are important Ior a
reliable Bradley analysis:
1. According to my research, the S&P 500 is the only representative index Ior the Western (US and
European) stock markets the Bradley model is optimized Ior. Indices with only 30 stocks like the Dow
Jones Industrials certainly do not IulIill the index breadth criterion and are mostly not a good starting point
Ior astrological and cyclical studies (only when precise timing is not important or a long-term price history
is needed). Also, sector indices like the Nasdaq 100 are not eligible, still they may provide some
additonal insights at times.
2. The S&P 500 close matters, not the intraday highs or lows - this is logical and consistent with the
standard Bradley being calculated only once a day.
3. The time window Ior turns is not just 1 or 2 days but usually /- 4 days and sometimes up to /- 6 days
(as in this case).
To summarize, the current situation demonstates how crucial the knowledge oI the precise rules is. AIter
making a signiIicant (~1) new closing low since the 6/30 bottom the market has now Iully conIirmed
that the July 2 Bradley turn indeed marked a top and not a bottom as suggested by other commentators.
7/11/03
The Bradley still is the big magnet on amanita.at, so I have prepared another update, this time with an
analysis oI the past to to convey a deeper understanding oI the underlying patterns. A strange but rather
consistent Ieature oI the siderograph is that aIter times oI a good predictive quality it suddenly drops out,
only to shine again aIter some time. I want to demonstrate this phenomenon with the aid oI the charts oI
the past 3 years.
Let's start with 2001 (always based on the S&P 500 close and the standard model):
The medium-term high on 1/30/01 (red line 1) was called in the inversion mode, the model had a
major low on 1/27/01 (inaccuracy: 3 days). Inversion means that a Bradley high correlates with a
stock market low, and vice versa, i.e. the date is right but the polarity (high/low) is wrong.
The bottom on 4/4/01 (red line 2) was again predicted in the inversion mode Ior 4/8/01 (inaccuracy: 4
days).
Then we had one oI these drop-outs, the medium-term reversals on 5/21/01 and 9/21/01 were missed,
it started to work again at the double-top 12/5/01-1/4/02 (red line 3) with the Bradley Iorming a
double-bottom on 11/11/01-12/3/01 (inaccuracy: 2 days).
In short, 3 oI the 5 intermediate-term reversals were predicted but all three with the wrong polarity
(high/low).
Now let's move on to the year 2002:
The inversion mode apparently continued to work, the double top 3/11/02-3/19/02 coincided with a
Bradley low on 3/5/02, so with an inaccuracy oI 6 days the normal time window oI /- 4 days was not
met.
The bottom on 5/7/02 (which is, according to my deIintion, not oI intermediate-term signiIicance)
was, Ior the Iirst time, called with the right polarity, as the siderograph bottomed on 5/11/02
(inaccuracy: 4 days). In other words, the inversion series was over.
The 7/23/02 bottom was again predicted with the correct polarity (inaccuracy: 4 days).
And the same was observed at the 10/9/02 low which was called almost to the day (inaccuaracy: 1
day).
The "winning streak" continued at the 11/27/02 top, the Bradley top came a little bit early on 11/24/02
(inaccuaracy: 3 days).
Now back to the present, the year 2003:
The 3/11/03 low was nailed, too (inaccuracy: 2 days).
The Bradley high on 7/2/03 can now be interpreted in two ways because the S&P 500 made the high
on 6/17/03. dropped into 6/30/03 and rose to a lower re-test high on 7/8/03.
(1) In my preIerred interpretation the 7/2/03 Bradley turn was indicative oI the 7/8/03 re-test high that was
a higher high Ior the Nasdaq. The Bradley siderograph is a mass psychology model and since the Nasdaq
still is the most emotional market (the playground oI the small investors), this divergence makes sense.
(2) The market exceeding the 7/8/03 highs, however, would mean that the 7/2/03 Bradley turn was a low
(inversion), and much higher prices are ahead.
Indeed, the pretty high inaccuracy oI 6 resp. 15 days can be interpreted as a sign oI an approaching drop-
out or inversion, like in 2001 and 2002 (Initially, I expected the correlation already to invert in May, but
surprisingly the market kept on rising in June).
Another comment: I see several Bradley commentators insert dates just some days apart (e.g. one turn on
6/23, the next on 6/26 etc.) which is not serious in my opinion because it pretends a time accuracy that by
no means withstands an empirical testing. The normal time window is /- 4 days, it may extent to /- 6
days or more in some cases, so by deIinition it can't be applied to short-term swings.