Starting dates are 28 June 2024, 15 August 2024, 10 September 2024, and 15 September 2024.

A detailed view of the four portfolios with holdings, individual returns, and all transactions is part of the premium subscription.

All portfolios have developed nicely and have appreciated considerably since the start. The return in the 2024 column in the table above is the return since the beginning of the portfolio in 2024. The dates are:

• 28 June 2024 - Hypergrowth

• 15 August 2024 - Global ETF

• 10 September 2024 - Covered Call and Cash-Covered Put, and

• 15 September 2024 - Derivatives.

Read more

The headline from early October was "US Stock Market: An Illusion of Perfection or a Rare Moment of Near-Perfect Conditions? The Bears seem to be staging a comeback and trying to make 2024 their year.

The weekly performance summary from Monday, October 28, to Friday, November 1, 2024, shows the…

Read more

The shape of the yield curve provides insights into investor expectations about future interest rates, economic growth, and inflation.

1. Normal Yield Curve (Upward Sloping):

   • Description: In a normal yield curve, longer-term bonds have higher yields than shorter ones. This upward slope reflects the higher risk and uncertainty of lending money over longer periods.

   • Economic Implication: A normal yield curve suggests that the economy is expected to grow, with potential inflation leading to higher interest rates in the future. Investors demand a premium for locking in their money for longer durations.

2. Inverted Yield Curve (Downward Sloping):

• Description: An inverted yield curve occurs when short-term yields exceed long-term yields. This unusual situation means investors expect future interest rates to decline.

• Economic Implication: An inverted yield curve is often considered a predictor of economic recession. It indicates that investors seek long-term securities due to concerns about the near-term economic outlook.

3. Flat Yield Curve:

• Description: A flat yield curve shows that short-term and long-term yields are very close, resulting in a horizontal or nearly horizontal line.

• Economic Implication: A flat curve may indicate economic transition or uncertainty. It can occur when the economy shifts from expansion to slowdown or vice versa, signaling investors are uncertain about future interest rates and economic growth.

4. Steep Yield Curve:

• Description: A steep yield curve is an exaggerated version of the normal curve, where the difference (spread) between short-term and long-term yields is larger than usual.

• Economic Implication: This shape suggests strong expectations of rapid economic growth and potential increases in inflation and interest rates. Investors demand significantly higher yields for long-term investments to compensate for anticipated risks.

5. Humped Yield Curve (Bell-Shaped or Curved):

• Description: A humped yield curve features higher yields for medium-term securities compared to both short-term and long-term securities. This results in a curve that rises and then falls, creating a hump.

• Economic Implication: This uncommon curve shape may indicate that investors expect interest rates to rise initially and then fall in the long term. It reflects complex market dynamics and uncertainty about future economic conditions.

6. S-Shaped Yield Curve:

• Description: An S-shaped curve combines elements of flat, normal, and inverted curves at different maturity ranges. It may start flat, become steep in the middle maturities, and flatten or invert at longer maturities.

• Economic Implication: An S-shaped curve indicates varying expectations for different time horizons, reflecting a mix of short-term uncertainty and long-term confidence or vice versa.

Interpreting the Curves

• Normal Yield Curve:

  • Implication: Healthy economic outlook with expectations of growth and possible inflation.

  • Investor Behavior: Preference for higher yields on long-term investments due to risks over time.

• Inverted Yield Curve:

  • Implication: Potential economic slowdown or recession expected.

  • Investor Behavior: Moving investments to long-term securities despite lower yields for safety.

• Flat Yield Curve:

  • Implication: Uncertainty in the economy could precede a transition.

  • Investor Behavior: Similar yields make investors indifferent between short and long-term bonds.

• Steep Yield Curve:

  • Implication: Expectations of rapid economic growth and higher future inflation.

  • Investor Behavior: Demand higher yields for long-term bonds to compensate for inflation risk.

• Humped Yield Curve:

  • Implication: Complex market expectations, possibly anticipating short-term rate hikes followed by long-term declines.

  • Investor Behavior: Preference for medium-term bonds due to higher yields.

• S-Shaped Yield Curve:

  • Implication: Mixed expectations: stable short-term rates, rising medium-term rates, and stable or declining long-term rates.

  • Investor Behavior: Strategies vary based on differing expectations across maturities.

Real Rates

Bond yields can vary significantly even when inflation rates are similar. The US period from 1995 to 1999 and 2003 to 2007 may serve as examples.

Inflation Rates

• 1995-1999: The average annual CPI inflation rate was around 2.5% to 3.0% during this period

• 2003-2007: The average annual CPI inflation rate was also around 2.5% to 3.0% during this period

Bond Yields

Long-Term Yields

• 1995-1999:

  • 10-year Treasury Yield: Averaged around 6.5% to 7.0% during this period. For example, in 1999, the 10-year Treasury yield was approximately 5.98%

  • 30-year Treasury Yield: Was around 7.0% to 7.5%. In 1999, it was about 8.00%

• 2003-2007:

  • 10-year Treasury Yield: Averaged around 4.5% to 5.0%. For instance, in 2005, the 10-year Treasury yield was about 4.25%

  • 30-year Treasury Yield: Was around 5.0% to 5.5%. In 2005, it was approximately 4.67%

Short-Term Yields

• 1995-1999:

  • 1-year Treasury Yield: Averaged around 5.0% to 6.0%. For example, in 1999, the 1-year Treasury yield was about 4.66%

  • 3-month Treasury Yield: Was around 4.5% to 5.5%. In 1999, it was approximately 4.41%

• 2003-2007:

  • 1-year Treasury Yield: Averaged around 2.0% to 3.0%. For instance, in 2005, the 1-year Treasury yield was about 3.23%

  • 3-month Treasury Yield: Was around 1.5% to 2.5%. In 2005, it was approximately 2.79%

Read more

Annual Recurring Revenue (ARR) is foundational in SaaS metrics. It’s the cornerstone of SaaS valuation multiples—high margin, predictable, and (usually) growing. This model enables SaaS companies to become highly profitable at scale.

However, the rise of AI is shaking up the traditional software revenue model. What happens when ARR isn’t the primary driver of value and can no longer be used as the basis for SaaS company valuations?

So what?

Different Non-Traditional Pricing Models

With AI-driven solutions, we’re seeing a shift in how AI companies charge for value:

• Charging per successful AI resolution of a support ticket

• Charging per photo edited by AI

• Charging per audio/video (or audio/video minute) produced

• Charging per assigned task completed by an AI agent

• Charging per conversation finished by an AI agent

• Charging per input/output token to access an LLM

We’re moving away from subscription-based models toward charging for outcomes and results—the work successfully delivered by software and AI agents.

Now what?

The Rise of Disruptive AI Pricing Models

The demand for new pricing models has been wild. In an era where automation and APIs are growing, the value of a service isn’t tied to how many people use it, how much bandwidth it consumes, or server calls it enables.

Salesforce created a buzz by introducing Agentforce, charging $2 per conversation, and paving the way for others.

• Intercom introduced Fin AI, charging $0.99 per resolved customer issue. “You only pay when Fin resolves a customer’s question,” they explain.

• Zendesk charges based on autonomous resolutions, offering flexible pay-as-you-go or discounted upfront plans.

Different AI categories are in the process of developing their unique pricing flavors:

• Legal AI might establish charging per AI-generated summary or demand package.

• Creative AI might charge based on the number or volume of (audio-visual) content produced, like video/audio minutes generated or images completed.

• GTM AI tools might charge per task completed or workflow executed.

Bardeen is another example of a disruptive pricing model. They use a credit-based system to charge for their AI and premium services. Key points about their pricing model entail:

1. Credit Currency: Credits are the "currency" used to pay for different premium actions and outcomes within the Bardeen platform

2. Premium Playbooks: Only premium playbook-runs consume credits. Non-premium playbooks remain available for unlimited usage at no charge

3. Credit Cost: Each premium action costs one credit, making it easier to understand and predict usage

4. Pricing Tiers: Bardeen offers different pricing tiers (Free, Pro, Business, and Enterprise) with varying amounts of monthly credits

AI-Specific Charging

1. AI-Powered Actions: Bardeen has introduced AI-powered actions like Categorizer, Message Generator, and Research Generator. These likely fall under the premium actions that consume credits

2. Complexity-Based Pricing: The number of credits spent varies based on the complexity of the automation. For example:

   • Basic automation, such as writing or categorizing an email, typically uses one credit.

   • More complex automation, such as exporting data to a CSV, may use multiple credits per line of data

3. Autobooks Example: For automated processes that run periodically:

   • If a scraper runs over one link and scrapes a list of 10 items, that's ten credits.

   • If those ten items go through a second scraper, producing ten results, that's another ten credits.

   • In total, this autobook would consume 20 credits per trigger

Pricing Structure

• The Free plan offers a 14-day trial with 250 credits

• Paid plans (Pro, Business, and Enterprise) provide a set number of monthly credits that replenish each month

• Users can purchase additional credits if needed

• It's worth noting that Bardeen has recently simplified their pricing structure to make costs more transparent upfront and to allow for unlimited team members on all plans

The table below lists the first 25 of 50 AI companies with (partially) disruptive pricing models (companies 26 to 50 follow in the next table):

And next?

Selling Work, Not Just Access

This shift mirrors usage-based or consumption-based pricing models but with a twist. Companies are moving from selling access or usage to selling completed tasks.

This means customers may have a lower total cost of ownership (TCO) with greater pricing flexibility employing much fewer people.

Knowledge Corner - A History of Software Pricing

In the early days, software was sold on-premise, with customers paying upfront and taking on the financial risk.

Subscriptions evolved to make software accessible, with lower upfront costs and the option to cancel if the product didn’t deliver value.

Today, most subscription-based SaaS captures around 10-15% of the economic value they deliver.

Success-based models, where billing fully aligns with outcomes, can easily capture up to 25-30%.

Closelooknet Lens: Spotting the ripple effects

The Challenges of Success-Based Pricing

Success-based billing sounds excellent, but a deep dive reveals it is complex. Attribution becomes tricky; success can lie in the eye of the beholder, and customers may wonder, "Did our team drive the outcome, or was it the product or something in between?" And if the latter, how do we divide and properly bill the “success cake”?

To solve the problem, Intercom’s Fin agent charges $0.99 per resolution. To avoid attribution issues, Intercom tracks “hard resolutions” (confirmed by the customer) and “soft resolutions” (when the customer exits the conversation without reopening it in 24 hours).

SaaS Valuation Metrics: A Closer Look at Revenue Multiples

The transition to success-based pricing will profoundly affect public and private SaaS company valuations.

In Software as a Service (SaaS), revenue multiples have become the go-to metric for valuation. This approach, which uses projected revenue for the upcoming 12 months, has emerged as a crucial shorthand framework for assessing SaaS businesses.

Why Revenue Multiples?

The preference for revenue multiples in SaaS valuations stems from several factors:

1. Profitability Challenges: Many SaaS companies are not yet profitable or generating significant free cash flow (FCF).

2. Industry-Wide Comparability: Revenue multiples offer a standardized metric for comparing companies across the SaaS sector.

3. Long-Term Potential: The SaaS model is built on the premise that early growth will translate into profits as the business matures.

Calculation Method

The revenue multiple is often calculated using the formula: Revenue Multiple = Enterprise Value Next Twelve Months NTM Revenue Revenue Multiple = Next Twelve Months NTM Revenue Enterprise Value​ Where Enterprise Value = Market Capitalization + Debt - Cash.

Current Market Insights

The SaaS market currently shows the following MetricValue: Overall Median Multiple 5.6x, Top 5 Median Multiple 16.7x, 10-year Treasury Yield 4.25%

These figures highlight the significant premium placed on top-performing companies vis-a-vis slow and unstable growers.

Implications and Considerations

While revenue multiples offer a straightforward valuation method, it's important to note their limitations. Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) models, often used in other sectors, become challenging in SaaS due to the need for long-term assumptions.

The wide valuation gap between the overall median and the top-tier multiples in Saas companies underscores the stock market’s differentiation between high-growth, market-leading companies and the broader SaaS sector.

This disparity reflects investors' willingness to pay a premium for companies demonstrating exceptional growth and market positioning.

SaaS Financial Metrics: Unpacking the Rule of 40 and GM Adjusted Payback

While revenue multiples provide a valuable benchmark for SaaS valuations, investors and analysts should consider them as part of a broader evaluation framework, considering factors such as growth rates, market position, and potential for future profitability.

In the SaaS industry, two key metrics have gained prominence for evaluating company performance and efficiency: the Rule of 40 and the Gross Margin (GM) Adjusted Payback.

These metrics provide valuable insights into a company's growth, profitability, and sales efficiency.

Rule of 40

The Rule of 40 is a performance metric that combines a company's growth rate and profitability. It's usually calculated as:

Rule of 40 = Revenue Growth Rate + Free Cash Flow Margin Rule of 40 = Revenue Growth Rate + Free Cash Flow Margin

This metric is typically calculated using the Last Twelve Months (LTM) and Next Twelve Months (NTM) data for growth rates and margins.

The Free Cash Flow (FCF) is determined by FCF = Cash Flow from Operations − Capital Expenditures FCF = Cash Flow from Operations − Capital Expenditures.

A score of 40 or higher is generally considered excellent, indicating a healthy balance between growth and profitability. Recently, the Rule of 40 was replaced by the Rule of 30 to reflect slower growth in the SaaS sector.

Also, the growth part has become more important than the profitability part as quite a few XaaS companies have seen annual revenue growth deteriorating in 2023 and 2024 to the high teen level, comparable more to the large megacap companies than to hypergrowth companies making their high multiples unsustainable.

GM Adjusted Payback

The GM Adjusted Payback period is a measure of sales efficiency, calculated as GM Adjusted Payback months = Previous Quarter S MNet New ARR in Quarter × Gross Margin × 12GM Adjusted Payback months = Net New ARR in Quarter × Gross MarginPrevious Quarter S M ​ ×12 Where:

• S&M: Sales and Marketing expenses

• ARR: Annual Recurring Revenue

This metric reveals how long it takes for a SaaS business to recover its fully burdened Customer Acquisition Cost (CAC) on a gross profit basis.

Calculation Challenges

For public companies that don't report net new ARR, an implied ARR metric is often used: Implied ARR = Quarterly Subscription Revenue × 4 Implied ARR = Quarterly Subscription Revenue × 4 Net new ARR is then calculated as Net New ARR = Current Quarter ARR − Previous Quarter ARRNet New ARR = Current Quarter ARR − Previous Quarter ARR.

Implications for SaaS Analysis

These metrics offer valuable insights into the following:

1. Growth vs. Profitability: The Rule of 40 (30) helps balance the trade-off between rapid growth and profitability.

2. Sales Efficiency: GM Adjusted Payback period indicates how quickly a company can recoup its customer acquisition costs.

3. Comparative Analysis: These standardized metrics allow for easier comparison across SaaS companies.

By utilizing these metrics, investors and analysts can better understand a SaaS company's financial health and operational efficiency. Considering these metrics alongside other financial and operational indicators is crucial for a holistic evaluation.

Strange currents are stirring in the market cauldron this week. Our technical analysis, including a deep dive into Elliott Wave patterns, has uncovered a peculiar mix of signals across the Nasdaq, the Nasdaq 100, the S&P 500, the Dow, and the Russell 2000.

The buzz on Wall Street is all about the enigmatic brew of bullish resilience and growing bearish undercurrents. Unexpected wave formations and perplexing price actions that don't fit the usual mold may unfold.

Sifting through the tea leaves of charts and indicators, the market's sending mixed messages but with a distinctly bearish aftertaste. This strange brew might just be signaling a shift in the financial winds.

Share

(2) Nasdaq

The Nasdaq reached an ATH before weaker-than-expected tech results dragged the index down. The longer-term bull trend is still intact.

The preferred Elliott wave count is depicted below. In this scenario, we are in wave 5, moving to new ATHs by the end of the year before a more significant consolidation sets in during 2025.

The alternative count is that we will have a more complex consolidation first, leading to a wave B double top now, followed by a market decline until after the election.

I have come to like this scenario more than a few weeks ago. The stock market has displayed unusual strength in September and October, leaving little room for substantially more upside this year unless we see a surprisingly good earnings season.

This does not seem to play out, given the earnings prints from companies such as Eli Lilly, Meta, AMD, and Microsoft.

(3) Nasdaq 100

The Nasdaq 100 has failed yet to make a new ATH. This is a bearish divergence. The longer-term bull trend is still intact.

The index showed renewed strength in the last days, led by the Top 30 Nasdaq 100 index. Given the disappointing earnings prints, this uptrend may have ended.

The Nasdaq 100 Tech Sector has lagged the broader Nasdaq 100 index recently. It is still approximately five percent below its summer peak. This is another bearish divergence.

The Nasdaq 100 Ex Tech Sector has led the recent rise in the Nasdaq 100. The uptrend may have ended, too, as an essential trendline has just been broken to the downside.

The Nasdaq 100 Equal Weight Index has confirmed the bearish divergence and may have recorded a double-top. However, the longer-term trend is fully intact.

(4) SP 500

The SP 500 has recently been more robust than the Nasdaq. The longer-term uptrend is intact. A move below 5750 to 5770 would be harmful to the market.

The SP 500 Info Tech sector has been the most robust SP 500 sector in the past year. It may be in its final wave up before a more extensive consolidation sets in. This aligns with the wave 5 scenario on the Nasdaq.

All 11 SP 500 sectors have seen gains in the past 52 weeks. Energy is the laggard, while SP Info Tech, Communication Services, and Financials have been the three best-performing sectors.

Inside the SP 500 Info Tech Sector, the Semiconductor & Equipment Subsector has been the best performer, gaining more than 125 %.

The subsector has shown a negative divergence, too, as it failed to reach a new ATH moving above the early summer peak.

Using the semiconductor subsector similarly to the Dow Jones Transportation to the Dow Jones Industrial Average in Dow Theory would point to declining Nasdaq prices unless a new top can be seen soon.

(5) DJIA, DJT and DJU

The DJIA lagged the Nasdaq and the SP 500 for most of the time in 2024. However, it has been the best performer recently.

The Dow Jones Transportation Index has failed to confirm the recent ATH of the DJIA. It ran into a heavy multi-year resistance zone. Since summer 2021, the index has moved sideways.

Because utilities enjoy particular interest from the AI play, I like to use the TLT ETF for the interest-sensitive part of the analysis.

The longer-term downtrend (uptrend in yields) is intact. The medium-term uptrend (downtrend in yields) hinges on the support level at which the TLT ETF is currently trading.

It looks as if yields on the 10-year would soon trade between 4.25 and 4.50 percent.

Share Closelooknet

(6) R2K

The Russel 2000 has still not broken through the heavy resistance zone at which it failed in the summer. The medium-term uptrend is fully intact.

The current resistance zone dates back to the year 2021. It is a crucial multi-year resistance zone.

The stock market is disconnected from economic reality. Most of the time, and rightfully so! These claims may sound alarming, but the surprising truth is it's not a problem at all.

This disconnect is both structural and entirely sensible. Why? The answer lies in a fundamental principle: you don't invest in the economy but in the stock market. These are two distinct entities, each with its own set of rules and drivers.

The economy is the broad tapestry of our daily lives. It encompasses producing and consuming goods and services, employment rates, and economic growth. It's what we experience tangibly – the cost of groceries, job availability, and the general standard of living.

The stock market, however, is a different beast altogether. It represents the collective value of publicly traded companies, driven by a complex interplay of factors. Investor sentiment, future earnings expectations, and global market trends all play crucial roles.

(2) So what?

At turning points, investors, waiting for confirmation from earnings and the economy, will lag behind the stock market, as history has proven that the stock market turns well before the economy.

Unlike the economy, the stock market is inherently forward-looking, often reflecting what investors believe will happen months or even years down the line rather than current economic conditions.

This forward-looking nature is vital to understanding why the stock market's disconnect from immediate economic reality is not only normal but often beneficial. It allows the market to price in future developments, act as a leading indicator, and provide opportunities for investors who can see beyond current economic circumstances.

(3) The Disconnect Decoded: Why Economic Models Fall Short in Financial Markets

Backing it up: The Efficient Market Hypothesis and applying economic models to the financial markets have proven unworkable.

“The Socionomic Theory of Finance” by Robert Prechter

In his seminal book "The Socionomic Theory of Finance," Robert Prechter articulated a compelling argument for treating the economy and the stock market as distinct entities.

Prechter posits that while the law of supply and demand governs rational valuations in the marketplace for utilitarian goods and services, financial markets operate under a different paradigm.

He states: "In finance, uncertainty about valuations by other homogeneous agents induces unconscious, non-rational herding, which follows endogenously regulated fluctuations in social mood, which in turn determine financial fluctuations. This dynamic produces non-mean reverting dynamism in financial markets, not equilibrium."

This perspective challenges the efficient market hypothesis (EMH), which has long been the foundation for fundamental analysis in financial markets. The EMH, an outgrowth of economic theory, has increasingly been recognized as an unworkable paradigm for financial markets.

In the real world of financial markets, this assumption quickly breaks down. Investors have varying information and risk tolerances and are subject to various psychological biases and social influences.

These factors contribute to financial markets' complex, often unpredictable behavior that traditional economic models can't adequately explain. The stock market's frequent divergence from economic indicators is not a flaw but a reflection of its unique dynamics – a system driven by human psychology, expectations, and the collective interpretation of information about potential future outcomes.

Robert Prechter - The Elliott Wave Principle

The Elliott Wave Principle, developed by Ralph Nelson Elliott in the 1930s during his recovery, is a sophisticated technical analysis used to forecast market trends.

This method analyzes financial market cycles by identifying extremes in investor psychology, price highs and lows, and other collective factors. At its core, the Elliott Wave Theory posits that market movements are not random but follow a natural, fractal-like rhythm.

The basic pattern consists of five waves moving in the direction of the main trend (impulse waves), followed by three corrective waves (a "5-3" move). This pattern repeats at various scales, from minutes to centuries, creating a nested structure of market movements.

The theory incorporates specific rules and guidelines, such as the principle that Wave 2 never fully retraces Wave 1, and utilizes Fibonacci relationships to analyze wave structures.

Notably, the Elliott Wave Principle aims to reflect and predict market psychology, suggesting that investor sentiment oscillates between optimism and pessimism in a natural sequence, thereby creating identifiable patterns in price movements.

The Elliott Wave Theory has gained both adherents and critics in the financial world. Proponents argue that it provides valuable insights into market behavior and can accurately predict future price movements. They point to successful applications of the theory in various market conditions and timeframes. Critics contend that the theory is too subjective and has limited predictive power. They argue that the complexity of financial markets cannot be reduced to a single pattern-based approach and that the theory's effectiveness may be more due to a self-fulfilling prophecy than inherent market dynamics.

Mandelbrot's Market Insight: Why Economic Models Fail in Finance

Benoit Mandelbrot, renowned mathematician and pioneer of fractal geometry, made a compelling case for the distinct nature of financial markets. He asserted that applying economic models to these markets is fundamentally flawed:

This distinction becomes evident when we consider empirical observations. In traditional economic theory, rising prices typically lead to decreased demand.

However, we often witness the opposite in financial markets: rising prices frequently stimulate increased demand and nurture even more price increases, a phenomenon known as momentum or trend-following.

Despite this stark contrast, many investors continue to erroneously apply the same analytical paradigms to both - economic and financial environments. This misapplication can lead to significant misinterpretations and potentially costly investment decisions.

With its real-time pricing mechanism, the stock market represents a tangible reality of its own. Therefore, if you adhere to theories or analyses that suggest the stock market is "disconnected from reality" or somehow "wrong," it may be time to reassess your perspective. Such beliefs could indicate that your understanding, not the market, is disconnected from reality.

Benoit Mandelbrot - Fractal Theory in Finance

Successful investing requires acknowledging the unique dynamics of financial markets and adapting our analytical approaches accordingly.

Benoit Mandelbrot, the renowned mathematician who pioneered fractal geometry, made significant contributions to economics, particularly in understanding stock market behavior. His innovative work challenged traditional financial theories and introduced new perspectives based on fractal geometry and complexity science.

Mandelbrot's essential contribution was questioning the Efficient Market Hypothesis (EMH), a cornerstone of traditional financial models. The EMH assumes that price movements in the stock market are random and follow a normal distribution. Mandelbrot argued against this notion, demonstrating that market prices do not adhere to a Gaussian distribution but are instead far more volatile and unpredictable.

In response to these observations, Mandelbrot introduced the Fractal Market Hypothesis. This theory posits that financial markets exhibit self-similarity and scaling properties, mirroring natural fractal patterns. According to this hypothesis, market behavior can appear similar across different time scales, challenging the conventional understanding of market dynamics.

Mandelbrot emphasized the "heavy/fat tails" concept in stock market price distributions. This statistical property suggests that extreme values, such as sudden and significant price fluctuations, occur more frequently than predicted by a normal distribution. He termed this phenomenon "wild randomness," contrasting it with the "mild randomness" assumed in standard financial theories.

Furthermore, Mandelbrot introduced the concept of multifractal time in financial modeling. This approach accounts for varying degrees of market volatility over time, challenging the traditional assumption of uniform time progression in financial models. This insight has led to more sophisticated models that better capture the complex nature of market movements.

Mandelbrot's work has profoundly impacted modern financial analysis, inspiring more nuanced models that attempt to account for irregular and fractal market behavior. While his theories have not replaced traditional financial models, they have supplemented them, offering alternative perspectives on market dynamics and risk assessment.

Mandelbrot's application of fractal theory to finance has provided a more realistic framework for understanding financial markets' complex and often chaotic behavior, challenging long-held assumptions and paving the way for more sophisticated financial modeling and risk management strategies.

Jesse Livermore: “A prudent speculator never argues with the tape. Markets are never wrong. Opinions often are.”

Jesse Livermore, one of the most influential stock traders of the early 20th century, developed a trading philosophy that emphasized market trends and price action over fundamental analysis.

His famous quote: “A prudent speculator never argues with the tape. Markets are never wrong. Opinions often are," encapsulates his belief in following market movements rather than personal biases or external opinions. Critical aspects of Livermore's trading strategy included:

1. Price Action and Trend Following: Livermore pioneered price action and trends to guide trading decisions. He bought and sold stocks based on price movements and trends rather than relying on fundamental analysis or a company's intrinsic value.

2. Market Psychology: He emphasized understanding market psychology, believing that emotions like fear and greed were critical drivers of market movements. Livermore stressed the importance of mastering these emotions in oneself and understanding how they affected other market participants.

3. Money Management: Livermore advocated strict money management rules, emphasizing preserving capital and quickly cutting losses. He famously said, "The real money made in speculating has been in commitments showing in profit right from the start."

4. Market Patterns: He studied and recognized specific market patterns and formations, which he used to predict future price movements. Livermore was exceptionally skilled in identifying market tops and bottoms.

5. Leverage and Speculation: Livermore often used leverage to maximize his gains, a risky strategy that sometimes led to spectacular successes but also contributed to his financial ruin on multiple occasions.

6. Livermore's Rules: He developed a set of trading rules and principles based on his experiences, covering various aspects of trading, including when to buy and sell, how to manage risk and the importance of studying the market.

The Life and Legacy of Jesse Livermore

Born in 1877, Jesse Livermore became known as the "Boy Plunger" and the "Great Bear of Wall Street," gaining notoriety for his ability to make and lose vast fortunes through speculative trading.

Livermore's keen market insights and trading prowess were particularly evident during significant market events. During the Panic of 1907 and the stock market crash of 1929, he reportedly made millions by short-selling stocks, cementing his reputation as a skilled speculator.

Despite his remarkable successes, Livermore's life was marked by dramatic ups and downs. He declared bankruptcy multiple times throughout his career, with his final bankruptcy in 1934 being particularly devastating. Despite having once amassed a fortune of $100 million, Livermore ended his life in financial ruin, committing suicide in 1940.

Unlike later market analysts like Benoit Mandelbrot, who approached the market from a theoretical and mathematical standpoint, Livermore's contributions were based on his practical experiences as a trader. His methods and philosophies, rooted in intuition and psychological discipline, are still studied and admired by traders today.

Livermore's life and work have been immortalized in books like "Reminiscences of a Stock Operator," considered a classic in trading. His legacy lives on in the strategies and philosophies that many traders continue to use as a foundation for their approaches to the stock market.

Livermore's unique perspective, blending practical experience with psychological insight, continues to influence modern trading strategies, offering a counterpoint to more theoretical approaches to market analysis.

Real-world examples of the Elliott Wave Principle in action:

1. Bitcoin's 2017-2018 bull run and subsequent crash:
   The dramatic rise of Bitcoin from under $1,000 to nearly $20,000 in 2017 followed a clear 5-wave impulse pattern. This was followed by a sharp 3-wave corrective decline in 2018, bringing the price back to around $3,000. This aligns well with the basic Elliott Wave structure of a 5-wave advance followed by a 3-wave correction.

2. S&P 500 from 2009-2020:
   The 2009 low to 2020 high bull market can be interpreted as a large 5-wave impulse pattern. Each of the 5 waves can be further subdivided into smaller 5-wave patterns, demonstrating the fractal nature of Elliott Waves. The COVID-19 crash in early 2020 then represented the start of a corrective wave.

3. Gold prices 2001-2011:
   The rise in gold prices from around $250 per ounce in 2001 to over $1,900 in 2011 can be seen as a textbook 5-wave Elliott Wave pattern. A multi-year corrective phase followed this.

4. Dow Jones Industrial Average 1932-1937:
   This period, which includes the recovery from the Great Depression, shows a clear 5-wave advance followed by a 3-wave correction, as described by R.N. Elliott himself in his original work.

5. Japanese Yen vs US Dollar 2011-2015:
   The decline of the Yen against the Dollar during this period followed a clear 5-wave Elliott pattern, with each wave showing the characteristic features described in the theory.

What are the key drivers for ServiceNow's growth in the third quarter of 2024?

How does Agentic AI influence ServiceNow's future development in terms of revenue, profitability, and market positioning?

What challenges and risks are associated with the introduction and scaling of Agentic AI?

What are the three Minsky moment phases?

The Minsky Moment of 2007/08

And more

What are the five "Greeks" in options trading, and what function do they serve?

How can "The Greeks" be used by traders to manage risks and capitalize on opportunities in options trading?

Read more