Friday, January 16, 2026

Strategic Market Timing for Luxury Superyacht Construction

 

Super Yacht Builders’ Guide to Counter-Cyclical Growth

By George Morton, PhD, January 2026 

Yachts

Executive Summary

Dow Theorist Hamilton, in his 1922 book The Stock Market Barometer: A Study of Its Forecast Value, described the averages as a reliable barometer for forecasting trends in business activity (including industrial aspects). He emphasized its predictive power for economic/industrial conditions beyond just stock prices.

This paper proves Hamilton’s insight right when we apply the Dow Theory to the Super Yacht Builders Industry.

Super Yacht Builders operate in an industry where construction decisions made today have a significant impact on profitability over the next two to three years. This 24-36 month construction timeline creates both substantial risks and extraordinary opportunities. The critical insight is recognizing that risk mitigation does not require accurate market forecasting; it requires discipline to act counter to current market sentiment, guided by objective signals from equity market analysis.

The luxury superyacht industry exhibits a notable and significant correlation with equity market cycles: superyacht orders display a weak negative correlation with the same-year S&P 500 performance (-0.113) but a strong correlation with the growth of the ultra-high-net-worth (UHNW) population (0.544). This relationship reveals a fundamental truth: builders who follow current stock market sentiment systematically commit capital at precisely the wrong moments. Builders who follow objective market timing signals, such as those provided by Jack Schannep’s modernized Dow Theory, position themselves to expand during periods of maximum industry pessimism and contract during periods of maximum euphoria.

The historical record from 2007 to 2025 provides decisive evidence. Builders who committed to construction in March 2009 (at the market bottom) delivered vessels in 2011-2013 into a recovering market, capturing return premiums of 20-40% compared to average-market constructions. Conversely, builders who committed during the 2006-2007 peak delivered in 2009-2010, only to face a collapse, with massive discounts and write-downs. The pattern repeated less severely in 2021-2022, with builders who over-committed during peak euphoria facing softening demand and pricing pressure in 2023-2025.

By integrating Jack Schannep’s New Dow Theory signals (DT21C)—SELL, CAPITULATION, BUY—into capital allocation decisions, Super Yacht Builders can systematically reduce risk while expanding at optimal moments. This paper demonstrates how objective market timing significantly enhances construction timing decisions, and why the next 12-24 months offer specific strategic guidance based on current Dow Theory signals.

Part One: The Fundamental Challenge — The Construction Lag and Market Cycles

Super Yacht Builders core challenge is not unlike that facing all superyacht builders: construction requires 24-36 months, yet market conditions shift far more rapidly. A superyacht ordered in January delivers in January 2027 or 2028, but market conditions in those delivery years cannot be perfectly anticipated when commitment decisions are made. This temporal gap is typically viewed as an unavoidable risk, the uncertainty inherent in any long-cycle manufacturing business.

Yet this temporal gap is not merely a risk; it can become a strategic advantage when construction timing aligns with market cycles. To understand why, we must examine what happens when construction timelines synchronize with wealth cycles.

When the S&P 500 reached its October 2007 peak of 1,576, the UHNW population globally stood at approximately 187,400 individuals. Superyacht orders reached an all-time high of 269 units, driven by euphoric market sentiment and the wealth effect flowing from years of strong portfolio performance. Builders, responding to this surge in orders, committed to aggressive speculative construction, expecting demand to remain robust.

What followed was instructive. The S&P 500 declined 56.8% from peak to the March 2009 bottom of 676.53. The UHNW population contracted to 166,000 individuals—an 11.4% decline in the core customer base. Superyacht orders collapsed to 112 units, a devastating 58% decline.

Yet here is the critical insight: despite the order collapse, superyacht deliveries continued from vessels already in the construction pipeline. Those boats, ordered during the 2005-2007 peak, were delivered in 2008-2010 into a severely depressed market. Buyers faced the choice of accepting massive discounts, canceling orders entirely, or, in many cases, allowing yards to seize superyachts and liquidate them for pennies on the dollar. Between 2009 and 2014, more than $5 billion in enterprise value was lost from the superyacht manufacturing sector due to pro-cyclical construction decisions made during peak sentiment.

The inverse scenario proved equally decisive. A few disciplined builders who committed to construction in March and April 2009, when industry sentiment was at its most pessimistic and competitors were cutting capacity, positioned themselves for delivery in 2011-2013. During those years of delivery, the S&P 500 recovered 173% from its March 2009 low. The UHNW population rebounded to 199,200 by 2013, and superyacht orders recovered to 180 units annually. These counter-cyclical builders, constructed during periods of maximum fear at minimal construction costs, were delivered into a recovered market at premium pricing. Their return on construction cost enhancement typically reached 20-40% compared to vessels built at average market conditions.

This 2008-2013 cycle was not unique. The 2020 COVID crash provided a parallel lesson. The S&P 500 declined 33.9% from February to March 2020, then recovered dramatically due to the unprecedented intervention of the Federal Reserve. Builders who committed to construction during the March panic, when uncertainty was at its maximum, found themselves delivering into 2022-2023 when superyacht orders had reached record levels. The UHNW population benefited disproportionately from Fed asset purchases, and demand for private assets surged. These counter-cyclical builders captured the most substantial surge in demand for superyachts in history.

The pattern is clear: successful superyacht construction timing is not about forecasting. It is about understanding market cycles and having the capital discipline to invest counter-cyclically.

Part Two: Understanding the Wealth Effect Lag — Why UHNW Individuals Buy Superyachts with a Delay

The empirical data reveal a curious disconnect between superyacht orders and the same-year S&P 500 returns, which show a weak negative correlation (-0.113), but a moderate positive correlation with prior-year S&P 500 returns (0.299). This lag effect is not random; it reflects how UHNW individuals process changes in wealth and make discretionary spending decisions.

When equity markets suffer severe declines, UHNW individuals initially respond by reassessing portfolio positions and shifting to defensive postures. They do not immediately commit to multi-million-dollar discretionary assets. Instead, a psychological transition unfolds over approximately 12-18 months. During the first phase (months 0-6 after market bottoms), wealth appears temporarily depressed, and psychological confidence remains compromised. Superyacht orders collapse. The March 2009 bottom generated only 112 orders, despite marking the beginning of the recovery. The March 2020 COVID bottom produced 250 orders despite the historic market crash.

However, by 12-18 months after market bottoms, the psychological transition is complete. Existing UHNW individuals see their portfolios substantially recovered. New wealth creation resumes as market conditions improve. The wealth effect, the psychological confidence that translates portfolio gains into consumption spending, becomes fully operational. At this 18-month mark, UHNW individuals who delayed major luxury purchases now commit. This explains why superyacht orders reached 155 units in 2011 (18 months after the March 2009 bottom) despite the stock market showing only 0% returns that year. It explains why superyacht orders reached 300 units in 2021 (18 months after the March 2020 bottom), representing the highest superyacht volume in history.

This “second year” phenomenon, as Dow Theory expert Jack Schannep describes it, is the mechanism that transforms the construction lag from liability into advantage. Builders who commit to construction during market bottoms (months 0-6) will complete their vessels approximately 24-30 months later (months 24-30), which corresponds precisely to the peak wealth effect period. They deliver to the maximum demand and optimal pricing.

Critically, the strongest correlation in the data links superyacht orders not to market returns, but to UHNW population growth (r = 0.544). The global UHNW population has expanded from 166,000 in 2009 to approximately 510,810 in 2025, a 208% increase. This expansion creates a secular tailwind independent of market cycles. Even during the 2022 bear stock market, superyacht orders, at 310-280 units, far exceeded the 112-140 unit range of 2009-2010, despite the 2022 downturn being far milder than the 2008-2009 downturn. The larger UHNW base provides resilience and growth.

For Super Yacht Builders, this wealth effect lag and UHNW population growth combination creates a powerful strategic positioning. Builders can now rely on predictable behavioral patterns rather than uncertain forecasts.

Part Three: Jack Schannep’s New Dow Theory (DT21C) — Objective Signals for Subjective Decisions

The challenge facing Super Yacht Builders’ strategic planning is how to transform understanding of market cycles and wealth effects into disciplined capital decisions. Subjective market forecasting introduces bias and emotion. Financial analysts have a notoriously poor track record for predicting market movements. Yet superyacht construction decisions cannot proceed without some framework for timing.

Jack Schannep’s modernization of Charles Dow’s century-old theory, the Dow Theory for the 21st Century (DT21C), provides precisely such a framework. Rather than forecasting, Dow Theory relies on objective price signals—specific market conditions that have identified significant trend changes with documented accuracy over 120+ years.

Dow’s original theory, developed in the early 1900s, identified primary trends (lasting years) interrupted by secondary reactions (lasting weeks to months). Schannep refined this approach by adding specific enhancements: incorporation of the S&P 500 for broader market confirmation beyond the Dow indices, identification of capitulation events as entry signals marking bear market bottoms, and shortened timeframes for secondary reaction completion (from “weeks to months” to “ten to sixty days”). Most importantly, Schannep maintained a detailed database spanning over 60 years of historical signals, enabling performance analysis.

The three core Schannep signals correspond to distinct market phases and require specific responses from builders. A SELL signal occurs when primary indices confirm that bull markets have reversed into bear markets. Historically, SELL signals emerged in November 2007, months before the Lehman collapse materialized. The signal preceded the crisis because it derives from technical market confirmations rather than news events. When SELL signals appear, builders should immediately suspend new speculative construction commitments, complete existing contracted builds, and begin accumulating capital reserves.

CAPITULATION signals identify stock market bottoms with remarkable precision. Schannep’s database shows capitulation events occur on average in just 14 days and 4.6% above the exact ultimate market low. March 2009 marked the precise bottom at 676.53 with capitulation within days. March 2020 marked another capitulation. When capitulation signals emerge, they typically occur 4-6 months before full BUY signals are generated. This gap represents the optimal entry point for counter-cyclical superyacht builders. Super Yacht Builders should begin preliminary design and supply chain negotiations, secure favorable supplier arrangements, and commit initial capacity increases (approximately 25% of the desired expansion) if capital reserves permit.

BUY signals represent confirmed trend reversals with full index confirmation. Historically, BUY signals emerged in April 2009, approximately one month after the March 2009 capitulation. When BUY signals appear, all three major indices (Dow Industrials, Dow Transports, S&P 500) have confirmed durable uptrends. This is when Super Yacht Builders should commit fully to construction programs, aggressively pursue orders from high-quality clients, and secure long-term supplier contracts on favorable terms.

The performance record demonstrates the utility of Dow Theory with precision. A 173% advance followed the April 2009 BUY signal in the S&P 500 by December 2013. Superyacht builders who committed boldly during March-April 2009, when industry pessimism was profound, built vessels at minimum cost, secured supplier capacity before demand increased, and delivered into a recovered market. Similarly, the March 2020 capitulation, followed by the April 2020 BUY signal, positioned builders for the subsequent record-setting demand surge of 2021-2022.

The key insight is that Schannep signals remove emotion from construction timing decisions. Instead of asking “Do I feel confident the market will recover?” builders ask “What do the objective price signals indicate?” This objective framework proves dramatically superior to sentiment-based decision-making.

Part Four: Superyacht History as Strategic Instruction

The 2007-2025 period offers a rich historical laboratory for understanding the effects of construction timing. The superyacht market, defined as vessels 24 meters (79 feet) and larger, has evolved from a niche luxury market to a substantial industry reflecting global UHNW wealth dynamics.

In 2007, at the peak of the credit bubble, the superyacht market appeared to be experiencing unbounded growth. Orders reached 269 units globally. Fleet size exceeded 5,400 vessels. Builders worldwide expanded production capacity aggressively, expecting continued boom conditions. Financing was readily available, UHNW wealth was at record levels, and industry consensus predicted years of sustained expansion.

The reality proved catastrophically different. The Lehman collapse of September 2008 initiated a wealth destruction that reached 56.8% by March 2009. Superyacht builders faced a dilemma: massive production capacity with collapsing demand. Weak builders ceased operations. Established builders faced bankruptcy threats. Many yards attempted to maintain production in hopes of eventual recovery, burning cash and intensifying losses. Experienced builders contracted sharply but preserved core teams and supplier relationships, maintaining capital for eventual opportunities.

By 2010-2011, the divergence between builders became apparent. Those who maintained construction commitments in 2009, despite industry pessimism, now had delivery schedules in a recovering market. UHNW wealth was restoring. Superyacht demand was accelerating. These builders, particularly those with capital discipline and supplier relationships, commanded premium pricing and enjoyed exceptional margins.

The contrast to builders who had over-committed in 2006-2007 was stark. Vessels ordered during peak euphoria were delivered in 2009-2010 into depression. Buyers canceled or renegotiated prices downward. Yards faced massive write-offs. The superyacht industry documented cumulative enterprise value destruction of over $5 billion from 2009-2014, the vast majority attributable to builders who had committed during boom conditions and delivered during bust conditions.

This historical lesson has become deeply embedded in industry consciousness. By 2020, when the COVID-19 crash hit markets, confident builders with strong capital positions moved quickly into expansion mode during a period of maximum uncertainty. They reasoned—correctly—that the construction lag would result in delivery during the recovery period. The Federal Reserve’s unprecedented intervention ensured the protection of UHNW wealth, and demand indeed surged. These counter-cyclical builders who committed in March-April 2020 captured the strongest superyacht market in history, delivering record volumes in 2022-2023 with premium pricing.

However, not all builders learned these lessons. Euphoria drove some to overcommit in 2021-2022 as superyacht orders reached an all-time high of 350 units. Construction costs elevated as capacity constraints appeared. Delivery schedules extended. Then market conditions moderated in late 2022. Demand softened in 2023-2024. Builders who had committed at peak enthusiasm faced challenging delivery environments. Order cancellations and pricing pressure ensued.

The historical pattern is unambiguous: builders who coordinate construction timing with market cycles, through counter-cyclical expansion during capitulation and disciplined contraction during peaks, consistently outperform competitors who follow market sentiment.

Part Five: The Negative Correlation and the Value Destruction of Pro-Cyclical Construction

The empirical finding that superyacht orders exhibit a negative correlation with the same-year S&P 500 returns carries a critical warning: following market sentiment can destroy value. When markets rise and sentiment turns bullish, superyacht orders surge. Builders, observing the current strength of demand, commit to aggressive expansion. Yet this enthusiasm occurs precisely when markets are most vulnerable to reversal. Vessels committed during euphoria are delivered into weaker demand environments 24-30 months later.

This dynamic played out acutely during 2021-2022. Robust market performance (+26.89% in 2021, strong early 2022), combined with record UHNW wealth, drove superyacht orders to 350 units, the highest ever recorded. Builders, responding to current demand strength, are committed to maximum production. Construction costs have already risen due to capacity constraints. Competition for resources is intensified. Delivery schedules extended into 2024-2025.

Then in October 2022, markets corrected 19.95%. Superyacht orders are expected to moderate to 280-310 units in 2023-2024. Builders who had committed at peak enthusiasm faced several challenges: construction costs that were now 15-25% higher than those who had committed during 2020 trough periods; extended delivery schedules that placed completions into periods of reduced demand; compressed margins as delivery pricing faced challenges; and potential order cancellations from buyers who had committed during euphoria but now faced different circumstances.

The contrast to builders who committed in March 2020, despite maximum uncertainty, is instructive. Those superyachts cost 15-25% less to build. Delivery occurred in 2022-2023 during peak demand. Margins expanded. Returns on construction exceeded 20-40% compared to pro-cyclical alternatives.

For Super Yacht Builders, the negative correlation insight translates to a specific discipline: when Schannep Dow Theory signals ‘SELL’, immediately reduce speculative construction commitments, regardless of current order flow or industry pressure. The negative correlation proves empirically that bullish sentiment driving current orders will be followed by market weakness. Pro-cyclical expansion is a value-destroying trap that disciplined builders must resist through capital policies implemented before emotional pressure becomes overwhelming.

Part Six: Strategic Framework— Implementation Approach

Super Yacht Builders can operationalize Schannep Dow Theory signals into a practical framework for construction decisions. The first step is monitoring Schannep’s published signals, which are updated regularly and publicly available through The Dow Theory website. Rather than attempting internal market timing analysis, Super Yacht Builders’ strategic planners should reference these objective signals for major decision points.

When SELL signals appear, one should immediately implement a “contraction posture.” Suspend all speculative construction commitments. Complete existing contracted builds with full quality commitment. Focus on cash accumulation and maintaining a strong balance sheet. Maintain core technical teams and key supplier relationships through modified engagement, while avoiding expansion of capacity. This discipline, although psychologically painful when competitors remain aggressive and industry sentiment supports continued expansion, proves essential for capital availability during subsequent capitulation phases.

When CAPITULATION signals emerge, typically occurring 4-6 months after SELL signals, Super Yacht Builders should shift to “cautious entry.” Begin preliminary design and engineering work for select projects. Negotiate long-term supplier agreements at depressed pricing—Scout for potential client opportunities. Commit initial capacity expansion (approximately 25% of the desired total increase) if capital reserves are adequate. This measured approach allows Super Yacht Builders to establish favorable supplier terms and relationships without overcommitting before the formal BUY signal.

When BUY signals are generated, typically emerging a few months after capitulation, Super Yacht Builders should implement “aggressive expansion.” Move to full commitment on construction programs. Aggressively pursue orders from high-quality clients. Lock in suppliers at the favorable terms negotiated during capitulation. Expand capacity toward desired levels. This is when counter-cyclical construction delivers maximum advantage: Builders build at minimum cost, secure supplier capacity before demand surges, and position for delivery into recovered markets.

During the 8-to 18-month period following BUY signals, the “second year” period when the UHNW wealth effect becomes fully operational, builders should maintain maximum production. Superyachts begun during capitulation are now in final construction phases. Delivery pricing achieves premium levels as UHNW demand accelerates and backlog builds. This is when counter-cyclical construction delivers its maximum return: vessels built cheaply, delivered into peak demand, capture margin expansion. The current market stance is based on the Dow Theory, which suggests buying this summer, starting with the tariff bear market, implying that the market for superyacht orders will expand into 2026.

When subsequent SELL signals appear (typically 2-5 years after BUY signals), Super Yacht Builders returns to contraction posture. The cycle begins again.

This framework removes subjective forecasting and replaces it with an objective signal following. While no timing system is perfect, Schannep Signals’ documented accuracy over 120+ years provides far greater reliability than sentiment-based approaches.

Part Seven: Capital Management and Risk Mitigation

Even with disciplined signal following, superyacht construction involves substantial capital requirements and risks that require prudent management. Counter-cyclical construction necessitates sufficient capital reserves to fund speculative builds during periods of pessimism, when external financing is costly and constrained. Super Yacht Builders’ family-controlled ownership structure, compared to some publicly traded competitors subject to quarterly earnings pressure, provides advantages in maintaining a long-term perspective and preserving capital during temporary downturns.

Supplier and subcontractor relationships prove critical. Depressed construction environments during market bottoms create opportunities to secure preferential terms and long-term contracts, but only within relationships built on trust. Fair treatment of suppliers during normal times builds the foundation for partnership approaches during crisis periods. This relationship approach offers competitive advantages over builders who pursue purely transactional approaches.

Talent management requires a careful balance. Market downturns create pressure to reduce management and technical staffing drastically to preserve cash. However, premature talent reduction compromises the ability to execute counter-cyclical expansion when opportunities emerge. Retaining core technical teams through modified engagement models or reduced hours represents an investment in recovery-phase capacity and quality.

Client financial screening becomes critical during recovery phases when backlog builds and demand accelerates. The temptation to accept marginal clients increases precisely when discipline is most needed. Thorough verification of genuine UHNW status and financial strength prevents the order cancellations that plagued the industry in 2009-2010 as over-leveraged buyers exited when markets weakened.

Geographic diversification provides additional resilience. Super Yacht Builders’ dual manufacturing base in Taiwan and the United States creates flexibility for capacity deployment based on regional recovery timing. Regional UHNW wealth varies geographically, and market cycles impact different regions at different times. This flexibility enables more nuanced counter-cyclical strategies than competitors with single-region concentration.

Part Eight: Current Strategic Position and Forward Outlook (November 2025)

As of November 2025, Schannep Dow Theory (DT21C) signals indicate specific market positioning that informs Super Yacht Builders’ construction strategy for 2026-2027 should be expanded. The most recent signals indicate market volatility, with SELL signals generated in the summer of 2025, followed by a subsequent BUY signal in 2025. This suggests that markets have entered a confirmation phase for the current bull trend, although recent volatility indicates mature bull market conditions.

For shipbuilders, this signal pattern suggests a posture in the first year, characterized by “cautious optimization.” The bull market is confirmed, but maturity indicators suggest that approaching inflection points are on the horizon. The broader strategic context supports counter-cyclical positioning for 2026-2028. The global UHNW population is projected to reach 676,970 by 2030, representing continued secular growth. Asia, particularly India and China, is expected to see significant expansion among UHNW individuals. This demographic tailwind offers long-term support for industry growth, providing stability beyond cyclical fluctuations.

Technology and sustainability trends are lengthening superyacht construction timelines and increasing capital requirements, which amplifies the importance of accurate construction timing. Hybrid propulsion systems, alternative fuel compliance, and environmental certifications add complexity and cost. Builders who commit during up markets face elevated engineering and production costs; builders who commit during down markets benefit from supplier pricing reductions.

For the next 12-24 months, Super Yacht Builders should monitor Schannep signals. If market conditions trigger new SELL signals, implementing a contraction posture will preserve capital for the inevitable subsequent capitulation phase. If bull market confirmation persists, selective growth can continue, focusing on contracted business and client quality. Regardless, the discipline of signal-following provides far superior risk management compared to sentiment-based decision-making.

Conclusion: Building Discipline into Strategy

Super Yacht Builders operates within an industry where construction timelines create a fundamental lag between decision and outcome. This lag is not unique to superyachts; all multi-year capital-intensive sectors face similar challenges. Yet the superyacht market’s dependence on UHNW wealth dynamics, combined with the strong correlation between equity market performance and demand, creates an opportunity: builders who master counter-cyclical timing can systematically outperform competitors who follow market sentiment.

The historical evidence from 2007 to 2025 is decisive. Builders who committed to construction during market bottoms captured 20-40% return premiums compared to average-market constructions. Builders who over-committed during peaks faced margin compression and demand challenges. The difference was not luck; it was discipline.

Jack Schannep’s New Dow Theory (DT21C) offers an objective framework for transforming understanding into actionable insights. Rather than forecasting and guessing, builders follow specific signals that have proven reliable over 120+ years. SELL signals trigger contraction. CAPITULATION signals initiate cautious entry. BUY signals trigger aggressive expansion. This discipline removes emotion and anchors decisions to objective market conditions.

For Super Yacht Builders specifically, the strategic imperative is clear: institutionalize counter-cyclical construction discipline through explicit decision rules linked to Schannep signals. Build when others panic; conserve capital when others speculate. Embrace the 2-3 year construction lag not as an unavoidable risk but as a strategic advantage when construction timing aligns with market cycles. Capitalize on the UHNW population growth tailwind by leveraging geographic and capacity positioning to expand customer bases. Maintain capital discipline and supplier relationships through complete market cycles.

The superyacht industry’s history from 2007 to 2025 provides a clear roadmap: builders who mastered strategic timing through objective frameworks, maintained capital discipline, and acted counter-cyclically consistently outperformed competitors who followed market sentiment. Super Yacht Builders’ path to superior returns in the next market cycle follows this proven methodology.

In superyacht construction, as in all cyclical industries, fortune favors the bold, but only when boldness is disciplined by rigorous analysis, adequate capitalization, and strategic timing guided by proven methodologies, such as Schannep’s New Dow Theory.

 

Saturday, December 13, 2025

Bull market for the gold and silver miners ETFs (GDX & SIL) confirmed on 12/11/25

 

The melt up for precious metals continues

Overview: What was just a secondary reaction against the bullish trend turned out to be nothing, as higher confirmed highs by SIL and GDX have reaffirmed the primary bull market.

The trend in gold and silver is so powerful that their pullbacks didn’t even count as secondary reactions.

So, bullishness in the precious metals is pervasive.

General Remarks:

In this post, I  elaborate extensively on the rationale behind employing two alternative definitions to evaluate secondary reactions.

SIL refers to the Silver Miners ETF. More information about SIL can be found HERE.

GDX refers to the Gold Miners ETF. More information about GDX can be found HERE.

A) Market situation if one appraises secondary reactions not bound by the three weeks and 1/3 retracement dogma.  

As I explained in this post, the primary trend was signaled as bullish on 6/2/25.

Following the 10/16/25 highs for both SIL and GDX (Step #1 in the Table below), there has been a pullback until 11/04/25 (Step #2). Such a pullback meets the time and extent requirement for a secondary (bearish) reaction against the still-existing primary bull market.

The rally that started at the 11/04/25 (SIL) lows and lasted until 11/10/25 set up both ETFs for a potential primary bear-market signal (Step #3).

The rally continued higher until 12/11/25 when both SIL and GDX  surpassed their 10/15/25 closing highs.

The implications of the breakout of the 10/16/25 highs are as follows:

(a) the secondary (bearish) reaction against the bull market has been terminated; (b) the setup for a potential bear market signal has been canceled, and

(c) the primary bull market has been reconfirmed.

The table below contains the key prices and dates:

Table GDX SIL

The chart below illustrates the latest price movements. The brown rectangles mark the secondary reaction against the primary bull market (Step #2). The blue rectangles indicate the rally (Step #3), positioning GDX and SIL for a potential bear market signal. The red horizontal lines show the secondary reaction lows (Step #2), where a confirmed break would signal a new primary bear market. Meanwhile, the blue horizontal lines highlight the last recorded bull market highs (Step #1), whose confirmed breakout reconfirmed the primary bull market.

SIL GDX DOW THEORY SHORT TERM edited

So, now the primary and secondary trends are bullish.

B) Market situation if one sticks to the traditional interpretation, demanding more than three weeks and 1/3 confirmed retracement to declare a secondary reaction.

I explained in this post that the primary trend was signaled as bullish on 6/2/25.

The current pullback has not reached 15 confirmed days by both ETFs, so there was no secondary reaction against the bull market.

So, the primary and secondary trends are bullish under the “slower” appraisal of the Dow Theory.

Sincerely,

Manuel Blay

Editor of thedowtheory.com

 


Friday, November 14, 2025

The Principle of Confirmation Can Save Your Skin (V) / Example 5: Bitcoin’s breakup that was a bull trap

 

Applying the Confirmation Principle to Bitcoin

In four earlier analyses (HERE, HERE, HERE , and HERE ), I showed how the Principle of Confirmation works across U.S. stock indexes, bonds, crypto, and precious metals. In each case, the principle proved invaluable in filtering out false moves. The idea is simple but powerful: a breakout or breakdown that is not confirmed by a related index or asset is highly suspect and prone to failure.

Today’s case study takes us back to the world of crypto.

I consider Bitcoin the main asset, and Ethereum the second asset from which I seek confirmation.

The starting point is the primary bull market, signaled on 5/8/25. Following what appeared to be a normal secondary reaction against the bull market (brown rectangles in the charts below), there was a rally (blue rectangles) that completed the setup for a potential bear-market signal. However, many potential bear signals never materialize, as there is no confirmed breakdown of the secondary reaction lows (red lines).

The rally that started on 8/29/25 for Bitcoin and 9/25/25 for Ethereum brought Bitcoin to higher highs —above its 8/13/25 all-time highs —on 10/3 and 10/6/25 (horizontal green line), thus setting new all-time highs. Many jumped the bullish bandwagon.

However, Ethereum failed to confirm the higher highs, as it did not surpass its 8/22/25 highs.

Lack of confirmation was a yellow flag: The bull market was NOT reconfirmed. So, it was not the right time to add and buy more Bitcoin. The bull market was questioned with a big question mark.

After such an unconfirmed high, both Bitcoin and Ethereum fell precipitously and jointly pierced their respective 8/29/25 (Bitcoin) and 9/25/25 lows on 10/16/25 and 10/17/25, respectively, thereby signaling a new bearish trend. Please note that the breakdown was confirmed. So, no excuses not to declare a new bear market.

The chart below displays the whole drama:

btc ethe chart edited

So, Bitcoin’s breakup was a bull trap. Fortunately, ETHE’s refusal to confirm proved to be our shield.

Sincerely,

Manuel Blay

Editor of thedowtheory.com

 

Gold and Silver Miners ETF at a critical juncture: Setup for a potential Bear market signal completed on 11/10/25

 

Overview: The gold and silver miners ETF reached a make-or-break moment on 11/10/25. The setup for a potential bear market is complete, and the line in the sand has been drawn. Please mind the word “potential”. Only if the two read lines I show in the chart below are jointly pierced, the trend will shift to bearish.

Gold and silver are showing such strength that they have not even entered a secondary reaction. Therefore, their primary and secondary trends remain bullish.

General Remarks:

In this post, I extensively elaborate on the rationale behind employing two alternative definitions to evaluate secondary reactions.

SIL refers to the Silver Miners ETF. More information about SIL can be found HERE.

GDX refers to the Gold Miners ETF. More information about GDX can be found HERE.

A) Market situation if one appraises secondary reactions not bound by the three weeks and 1/3 retracement dogma.  

As I explained in this post, the primary trend was signaled as bullish on 6/2/25.

Following the 10/16/25 highs for both SIL and GDX, there has been a pullback until 11/04/25. Such a pullback meets the time and extent requirement for a secondary (bearish) reaction against the still-existing primary bull market.

The rally that started at the 11/04/25 (SIL) lows and lasted until 11/10/25 set up both ETFs for a potential primary bear-market signal.

Thus, a confirmed breakdown of the 11/4/25 closing lows (SIL at 62.2 and GDX at 68.28) would signal a new primary bear market.

The table below gives you the most relevant information:

357 GDX SIL TABLE DOW THEORY SHORT TERM

The chart below illustrates the latest price movements. The brown rectangles mark the secondary reaction against the primary bull market (Step #2). The blue rectangles indicate the rally (Step #3), positioning GDX and SIL for a potential bear market signal. The red horizontal lines show the secondary reaction lows (Step #2), where a confirmed break would signal a new primary bear market. The blue lines highlight the bull market highs (Step #1) whose confirmed breakup would re-confirm the still-existing primary bull market.

358 GDX SIL chart DOW THEORY SHORT TERM EDITED

So, now we have two options:

  1. If GDX and SIL jointly break down their 11/4/25 lows (SIL at 62.20 and GDX at 68.28), a new primary bear market would be signaled.
  2. If GDX and SIL jointly surpass their 10/16/25 highs (SIL at 79.85 & GDX at 84.44), the primary bull market would be reconfirmed, and the secondary reaction and bearish setup would be canceled.

So, now, the primary trend is bullish, and the secondary one is bearish.

B) Market situation if one sticks to the traditional interpretation demanding more than three weeks and 1/3 confirmed retracement to declare a secondary reaction.

I explained in this post that the primary trend was signaled as bullish on 6/2/25.

The current pullback has not reached 15 confirmed days by both ETFs, so there is no secondary reaction against the bull market.

So, the primary and secondary trends are bullish under the “slower” appraisal of the Dow Theory.

Sincerely,

Manuel Blay

Editor of thedowtheory.com

Tuesday, November 11, 2025

The Emperor’s Clothes Again

 

In our latest conversation, Andrew and I picked up right where we left off,  back in April, when I correctly called the market bottom. In this new interview, I’m not calling a top, since I still see room for the stock market to move higher. However, I’m now a more cautious bull: the rally since the April 8th lows has been torrid. At the same time, I don’t expect a full-fledged bear market either.

I also shared the reasons behind my tempered optimism about the U.S. economy and the key factor that could still derail it.

https://thedisciplinedinvestor.com/blog/2025/11/09/tdi-podcast-the-emperors-clothes-again-946/

Sincerely,

Manuel Blay

Editor of thedowtheory.com

 

Saturday, October 25, 2025

The Principle of Confirmation Can Save Your Skin (IV) / Example 4: Two Silver Breakdowns That Turned into Bear Traps

 

Applying the Confirmation Principle to precious metals

In three earlier analyses (HERE, HERE, and HERE), I showed how the Principle of Confirmation works across U.S. stock indexes, bonds, and crypto. In each case, the principle proved invaluable in filtering out false moves. The idea is simple but powerful: a breakout or breakdown that is not confirmed by a related index or asset is highly suspect and prone to failure.

Today’s case study takes us to the precious metals arena. Silver and gold—tracked through SLV and GLD—gave us two textbook examples of how confirmation can spare investors from costly mistakes. Both instances occurred within the same bull market, and in both cases a hasty reaction to silver’s weakness alone could have prematurely ended one of the most rewarding trades of the past decade.

First “fakeout” Breakdown: June 2024

The story begins with the bull market signaled on April 2, 2024 (details HERE).

After the 5/21/24 (SLV) and 5/20/24 (GLD) highs, both ETFs pulled back in what qualified as a secondary reaction. Lows were set on 6/13/24 (SLV at 26.43) and 6/7/24 (GLD at 211.6). A subsequent rally faltered, setting the stage for a possible bear market signal (full analysis HERE).

The “line in the sand” was clear: SLV had to hold 26.43, and GLD had to hold 211.6. A confirmed break of both would have killed the young bull market.

Then came the test. On 6/25/24, SLV dropped below its June low, closing at 26.40. GLD also appeared weak, but it never broke its 211.6 threshold. Without confirmation, no signal was triggered. What seemed like a breakdown turned out to be a trap, and the bull market continued.

Both metals soon proved the principle right. GLD posted new highs on 7/16/24, followed by SLV on 9/24/25.

Once again, unconfirmed breakdowns were exposed as false alarms.

This was the first “saving of our skin”, as the chart below shows. The brown rectangles highlight the secondary reaction against the bull market. The blue rectangles display the rally that set up both ETFs for a potential bear market. The red horizontal lines showcase the relevant pullback lows whose confirmed breakdown would have triggered a bear market. The grey rectangles show minor pullbacks that do not qualify as a secondary reaction.

318 gld slv first fakeout EDITEDSecond “fakeout” Breakdown: November 2024

The script repeated—but with a twist. After October highs (SLV on 10/22, GLD on 10/30), both metals corrected again, carving out secondary reaction lows on 11/15/24 (SLV at 27.57, GLD at 236.59). Another weak rally fizzled, creating the setup for a new bear market signal (full analysis HERE).

The new critical levels were SLV 27.57 and GLD 236.59. On 11/27/24, SLV cracked support with a close at 27.25. But this time, GLD stayed comfortably above its low. Once again, no confirmation—no signal.

Silver drifted lower for a few more sessions, keeping traders nervous, before surging into a strong rally beginning 12/31/24. The bull case was sealed when GLD broke out on 1/30/25, and SLV followed on 6/5/25. The second “fakeout” had ended just like the first: with confirmation proving its worth.

This was the second “saving of our skin”, as the chart below shows. The brown rectangles highlight the secondary reaction against the bull market. The blue rectangles display the rally that set up both ETFs for a potential bear market. The red horizontal lines showcase the relevant pullback lows whose confirmed breakdown would have triggered a bear market. The grey rectangles show minor pullbacks that do not qualify as a secondary reaction.

319 gld slv SECOND fakeout edited

Lessons Learned

In both episodes, silver alone signaled danger, but gold refused to confirm. In both cases, investors who relied solely on SLV’s movements would have been forced out of a profitable trade. However, by applying the Principle of Confirmation, the bull market remained intact and continued to be highly profitable both for SLV and GLD.

As we’ve already seen with stocks, bonds, and crypto, confirmation is more than just a Dow Theory curiosity. It’s a practical safeguard that prevents costly whipsaws and helps investors stay aligned with the true primary trend.

In upcoming posts, I will shift from case studies to data, demonstrating how the confirmation principle can be quantified and how significantly it enhances performance compared to single-index signals.

Sincerely,

Manuel Blay

Editor of thedowtheory.com

 

Friday, October 17, 2025

When Market Timing Meets Quant Research: The Results Speak for Themselves

 

How world-class quant research and timing filters slash drawdowns and boost returns.

 

What happens when you combine a strong stock-picking strategy with first-class trend following?
Something remarkable happens: returns surge, drawdowns shrink, and consistency improves dramatically. That’s exactly what the two charts below reveal.

This article was originally a brief social media post, but the conclusions drawn from the data were so compelling that I expanded it into a full blog entry.

The test covers the period from January 1, 2005, to July 25, 2025, with a 0.25% slippage applied to each side of every trade.

The stock-picking component focuses on identifying true value stocks — companies that are attractively priced and supported by solid earnings profiles.

When blending stock selection and market timing, everything must begin with a solid stock-picking foundation. The strategy should already outperform the benchmark (in this case, the S&P 500) and show a respectable Sharpe ratio on its own. Market timing can enhance results, but it can also disguise flaws — making a weak stock-picking system appear better than it really is. That’s why the underlying strategy must be robust by itself before adding any timing overlay. Once that’s in place, the combination of both becomes truly powerful: higher returns, smaller drawdowns, and far better risk-adjusted performance.

The table below summarizes the key performance metrics for the Quant + Market Timing strategy compared with the Quant-only version.

337 table quant market timing

Even though the Quant-only strategy already beats the market, introducing a trend filter — a refined version of our Timing Indicators tailored to stocks — transforms the results. Performance takes off, drawdowns contract sharply, correlation with the S&P 500 falls (a welcome outcome), and the Sharpe ratio leaps higher.

The charts below display the Quant-only Strategy, and the Quant+ Market Timing Strategy. The red line showcases the stock picking strategy, and the blue one is Buy and Hold for the S&P500. The results speak for themselves:

 

338 quant only

338 quant and market timing

So, when some still claim that market timing doesn’t work — or that those who practice it are misguided — the evidence tells a different story. The combination of disciplined quantitative research and systematic timing produces results that are too strong to dismiss.

Sincerely,

Manuel Blay

Editor of thedowtheory.com