« Stormy Monday | Main | Future Writers of America »



I have to say that I thoroughly enjoy your blog. I've been studying cycle theory for some time. I have to say that reading this post was rather eery. I've got a degree in applied mathematics and I find the concept very intriguing. But, I have to say there isn't a whole lot of rigor here. Without relevant data points, I find it hard to believe anyone has been able to highly historical events of significance over for hundred years ago. I'd be inclined to believe some but those would likely be European. What about Asian or other data points which would not be as readily available. China was the world's dominant economy 400 years ago. It is also rather hard to believe how this cycle seems to perfectly fit into Greco-Roman times with a passing commentary. We know so little about many events of that time even the author admits much was considered fable. It is almost as if he is spoofing his own findings.

Yet, I hold out that maybe there is more information available and the information on current events is very interesting. Although, again, it bothers me that this was not published till 1999. I have little doubt there is much that we do not understand. Be it of ourselves, our history, the cosmos, cycles, etc, etc. There is definitely something unexplained about economic cycle theory.

Well, thanks for sharing. I enjoyed it very much.



The model was first published a couple of decades ago but was used to forecast the 1980-81 peak in inflation in the late 1970's. It is known as the Princeton Economic's 'Economic Confidence Model' and was a part of Armstrong's 32,000 variable artificial intelligence super-computer model, which Armstrong said had "perhaps the largest economic database in the world, some of which he got from the london museum, including record from ancient Babylon, so I believe him when he says that he backtested the cycles into the ancient world. The CIA and Chinese government tried to aquire the model in 1998 after it forecast the crash of 1998 to the day on July 20. He had forecast the the dow would hit 6000 by 1996 and 10,000 by 1998 in the early 1990's. He also forecast in 1996, that oil would hit minimum $65 and that inflation would heat up after late 2002 going into 2007 and possibly extending into 2012. Armstrong said no to the CIA and Chinese and a few months later ended up in prison where he has now been for 6.5 years on contempt of court.

Armstrong was managing 3-4 billion dollars for the Japanese after he predicted the nikkei would peak in late 1989 and then lose 20,000 points within 10 months. Equity Magazine in Vancouver Canada named Armstrong 'North America's Top Economist' in 1990. All of this research has been around for quite some time, it did not just appear in 1999.



Thanks for the update and the link to your blog. I think Martin Armstrong's work is important and good enough to keep in the fore-front of market and economic analysis.

But I don't know enough about his legal situation to know whether or not he is guilty or not of stealing money. The whole Japanese/US government conspiracy theories seem a bit far-fetched to me. Lots of economists have questioned government statistics and not gone to jail for it.

I think most sophisticated investors know that the government is probably NOT the most impartial party in reporting economic statistics.

If you haven't already done so, go to John William’s www.shadowstats.com. And for an interview with John William’s go to www.weedenco.com/welling/archive/li/v08i04lilogo.asp

If Williams ends up in jail, I'll believe that Armstrong was framed. If not, then I think Armstrong should just return his investor's money so he can get out of jail and continue helping us forecast the markets.

Financial-Investigative-Reporter-Extraordinaire Greg Newton of http://nakedshorts.typepad.com/nakedshorts/ pointed out to me that until Armstrong fesses up, the only place that you'll find his economic forecasts is here:


Newton has a biting sense of humor.



Sorry for the late reply, while it is true that lots of economists have questioned government stats, how many have had the CIA and Chinese gov't. try and aquire their computer model???? Answer: 0.00000

The math guy who posted above is displaying typical academic blindness in not accepting the direct hits the 8.6 year cycle has had...years before they happened. The slide rule crowd has a hard time accepting things that transcend ordinary reality.

Yesterday was Armstrong's trial Jan. 3, 2007...I have not heard any news yet though.



I heard Marty interviewed on the radio back in 1998 he was a guest on a stock market radioshow, He was fascinating and I heard him predict a turning point of july 20th 1998, which was a few days away, I thought OH SURE!! I was sceptical, but sure enough the turn down came and I watched it slide for a week, then I was convinced he was right on. I went to cash like he advised and didnt buy back in until Oct 1998 where he predicted a low turning point. It was like having an ace up your sleeve, and to witness it myself and profit was truely awesome.

Then again I eagerly listened to him again as a guest on the radio program and took notes on his prediction for the 2000 high and the 2002 low, and I took notes thinking this is crazy how am I going to buy stocks if their all going down for two years, I had never shorted, well let me tell you when the top in 2000 came and stocks just kept sliding, I learned how to short real fast and didnt cover till Martys 2002 Oct/Nov low, it was like poetry in motion. He in my mind became my stock Guru hahaa! He's a phenominal genius. I will never second guess him again, I heard him in live on radio and witnessed it for myself. He had all kinds of turning points weekly, monthly, it was very cool! I wish we had him back, ...and now we face the 2007 Feb.27 top turning point to the downside


Martin Armstrong's trial has now been postponed until March 2007.


If 2/27/07 is a turn date, does it mean precious metals are turning up?

Michael Crown

Great stuff.

Check out ermanometry.com for similar cycles.

Armstrong sounds more practical, actually, if we was active.


OK, am very surprised at the correlation with today's correction will be doing some further reading!

mark edmund

Armstrong seems to have hit Feb 27, 2007 on the head...


I think this is crazy. There are TOO many variables that differ in the world today than the past and more that will come in the future. The fact that I can write this electronically and thousands of people can read this is testament to how things have changed. The main influencing factor in markets is information and mankind's reaction to information. With more information (accurate or not) floating around the world today it is definitely not the same as the past and not the same as the future. Nut case extremist humans throw some spanners in the works too - how can this theory work?
Interesting nonetheless but I think a bit crazy!

Jim Long

I have endeavored to find a copy of Martin's book "The Greatest Bullmarket in History: Will It Happen Again?"(1986) It is strange that no one has a copy for sale (new or used), nor can I locate a library that has a copy. Also, if I remember correctly the Economic Confidence Model essay was much longer than what is printed above. It also has disappeared except for this and another site. Makes one wonder why information on this subject is so scarce.



Anybody notice the market on 2/26-7. Amazing coincidence?


How long will the market continue this downtrend considering the next move is 04/23/09? Not sure what date in 2008? I wish to add that this information is/was incredibly accurate. Kinda scary. But with it I hope we all can prosper from.

Tom Griesel

The next date in the model (+1.075 yrs.) is 2008.225 which is 3/22/08 (there are 29 days in February next year). However, the date correlation is most accurate at the "major" tops and bottoms.


LOL! What a load of utter claptrap!

There are so many witch doctors out there, and this is just another one. The article is long on mysticism and 'personal intuition' (read: gibberish they composed while sitting on the toilet having a fag) and short on scientific fact to back it up, or predictive value.

Consider that his last 'turn date' resulted in 'f*ck all', there was no news whatsoever for the NYSE or DJIA or FTSE or any major index on any of those days. Yep, we all just yawned and got on with it. That's how good his powers of prediction are; just like every other idiotic elliot wave inspired loser out there. No scientific backing whatsoever.

It's like horoscopes. "Woooh, I predict that on thursday, something important will happen involving something black". I'll bet that prediction comes true for large numbers of people reading this forum, and I just pulled it out of my arse. These 'predictions' are even less accurate; they don't even specify the colour black.

Look at all those people who became millionaires off Elliot wave nonsense in the past: oh wait, you can't, they all went bust or gave up trying.

Some aspects of this article were sheer comedy genius though. 51.6 year economic cycles? That's funny on so many levels! The idea that economies go through cycles that long is absurd to start with. Then adding to the comedy value by specifying it to one decimal place (being precise to the month), that's sheer genius!

If someone told you that you were going to catch a cold at age 63 years, 24 days because of a 51.6 year cold cycle, you'd not believe them. Yet you might still catch a cold by chance and fall for their bullshit.

So why believe this? Economies are even less predictable than colds.

There are thousands of witchdoctors out there with their snake oil. People cling desperately to the faintest coincidences in hope of having found 'the truth' before everyone else. Smell the bullshit, people, it's thickly spread over this article.



According to the dates posted above for the 2.15 year intervals, Martin caught the low in "2002.85... 11/08/02" but when the next interval in "2005.... 01/02/05" came up, should it have been an interim high or was it a low?

In 2005 and 2006, there were some protracted selloffs that lasted a few months. I remember my portfolio getting hit by about 8% in late 2005 and again in 2006. Furthermore, most recently in 2006, there was strong selling in the March-June time frame before the market took off to the 2007 highs.

I can't qualify if today was really a tidal shift in trend heading into 2009 but the pinpoint date for global exodus from equities from an article written in 1999 is an impressive feat.


I'd still like to find his book. Anyone, any luck?


Mark you say "The main influencing factor in markets is information and mankind's reaction to information."

I think you are half right. The main influencing factor on markets is mankind's reaction to information. If you can agree with that, I believe it is easy to see how a model such as this would continue to work indefinitely.

I believe that the way mankind thinks (and therefore how he reacts) is basically unchanged and will remain unchanged.

Since the major influencing factor in the markets is people's reactions and people reactions are basically unchanged, the market will continue to be predictable.


Nice sell-off right on the Target date Feb.27 turning point to the downside, didnt surprise me, since I've been watching Martys charts for years and greatly profited from his timing models. Now the major low is Mar 2008.I think we see a boring year in 07.

I talked to a lot of my stock buddies and they went to cash days before the turn, one guy went short on the 23. and others went to bonds.

I believe in cycles, cycles are part of our lives. We have weather cycles, planetary cycles, economic cycles, life cycles, its in everything.


Ummmm...maybe I'm missing something here. Did anyone double check his math? 2007.15 would be (365 *0.15) = 54.75 days into the year. Subtract 31 days for January, and you get 23.75. So, shouldn't it be February 23rd?

I did the math for the 2008 date, and it was March 22nd. I think he just goofed on that one. But, it does seem a little less profound now, doesn't it!




Similar reference to Armstrong was made on 6th of February here



Your math is correct. The funny thing is that in 2005, where there is no decimal place, it starts at the 2nd of Jan, not the 1st. Even still, that only puts it at the 26th of Feb, not the 27th. It definitely seems off a few days.


Asians chasing the model (and Profiting from it). Since science can not explain the cycle, we will do our level best to emulate it - sell when the model suggests a sell and buy when it suggests a buy. Either way, we can and should profit from it. Thank you Armstrong.

The comments to this entry are closed.


About ContraHour

Access my online chart log...


Currently trying to find some time to read...


  • Under no circumstances does this information represent a recommendation to buy or sell securities. If you find anything so offensive on this site that you feel the need to sue me, you are taking yourself too seriously. This is a personal web site. The content represents my opinions on investing. It is not a production of my employer, and it is unaffiliated with any NASD broker/dealer. Statements on this site do not represent the views or policies of anyone other than myself. The information on this site is provided for educational and discussion purposes only, and are not investing recommendations. Data and information is provided for informational purposes only, and is not intended for trading purposes. Neither I nor the data providers shall be liable for any errors or delays in the content, or for any actions taken in reliance thereon. And remember, this information is only worth as much as you paid for it.