Bradley Model Frequently Asked Questions

 
 
From time to time I've been asked questions about the Bradley Model.  Here below are some of the answers I have provided to people from their questions based on what knowledge I have gained through: a) studying Bradley's research and b) real-time experience using the Bradley concept.  Perhaps some of the following may be useful to you.
 
My answers to Bradley Model Frequently-Asked Questions:
 
 
1. Question: What is the meaning of long-term and middle-term relationships? 

Comment: See the book on page 22, first sentence, where long-term planetary relationships are defined as Jupiter-Pluto through Neptune-Pluto (the last 10 relationships in the right column).  All planetary relationships that are not long-term are therefore middle-term by Bradley's definition since he only mentioned long-term (L) and middle-term (M) in his equation on page 35.  Therefore, the lower curve on our siderograph is the summation of the middle-terms for all the relationships in the left column of page 22 plus the eight top-most in the right column.

 
 
2. Why the differences between your siderograph and those of Crawford, et al?

Reply: I have no idea what might explain the differences between Mr. Arch Crawford's chart and those produced by this program.  I have no idea what data he uses, where he gets it from, or how he may adjust it in some way or include his own amplifications on what Bradley wrote about in his booklet, e.g., his inverted charts and thoughts on inversions.  The program I created has 100% of its computational functionality based on the Bradley manuscript.  One thing I do know is that there are "Bradley" people out there who perform the computations from different aspects from Bradley's work.  For example, I've seen "Bradley" charts created supposedly from computations based on the sun's position in the solar system as opposed to Bradley's work which is based on the position of the Earth in relationship to the other planets (and the sun) of the solar system.  Big difference!

Now consider this: At the heart of Bradley's work is the idea of collective mood swings of the masses.  If that's so, then to be valid it has to consider the mood swings of the financial markets' participants on Earth ... there isn't anyone riding on the surface of the sun; therefore, I personally view such an approach to things as an oxymoron!  Same idea applies to the other non-Earth-based relationships ... reminds me of a tail looking for a dog to wag.  Consider asking Mr. Crawford why his charts do not match those produced by the computations as outlined in Mr. Bradley's book: "Stock Market Prediction - The Planetary Barometer and How to Use It."

 
 
3. Can Bradley be used for short-term trading?

My thoughts: I haven't re-read all 46 pages of Bradley's text (not counting Table IV in the back) recently, nor do I remember Bradley writing about any success with anything short-term in his work.  However, I do remember his writing that short-term is not part of the Bradley Model since he felt that short-term market moves are too influenced by news which often turns out to be nothing more than static.  Bradley clearly uses the term "long term" and "middle term" in his work and my feeling is that analysts can easily end up orienting their thinking to correlating "long term" as Bradley wrote about to long-term as it relates to the stock market, and "middle term" to equate to what many analysts would call intermediate term.  That line of reasoning leaves open the invitation to carry things a step further and implicitly deduce there must be something then that is short term.  Perhaps that's where Favors and Crawford (and perhaps others) may take liberties to embellish what Bradley did with their own theories or improvisations.  I didn't do that in creating the program; I just read his work and created the computer program code to calculate the siderograph as Bradley defined it.  I did feel that since Bradley emphasized there where long-term and middle-term components in his analyses that both would be appropriate for the graphed values.  Bottom line: I am not aware of any short-term curves in Bradley.

However, on page 41 of Bradley's work he has captioned the Middle Terms as Intermediate Swings in Mass Psychology, so I would therefore equate Bradley's Middle Term to be just that: intermediate degree swings of mass psychology and consequently the markets.

Remember, Bradley's research was written in the 1940's when the fastest communication media to the masses was an occasional commentary on the radio.  Keep this perspective in mind when considering that we've gone through a communications revolution with: 1) the advent of the Internet, 2) televised live business/market programs, and 3) instant worldwide cable and satellite news distribution.  I think these three elements now affecting financial markets essentially reduces any attempt at short-term oriented trading to an exercise in futility.

 
 
4. What is the equation for the Bradley Indicator otherwise known as the siderograph?

Answer: The upper [Bradley Indicator] curve on the siderograph is the sum of all components, i.e., Bradley(x) = 5 times ((L(x) + D(x)) + M(x) where x is any given day's: L = long term sums value, D = declination value sums, and M = middle term value sums.

 
 
5. What is the significance of "5" multiplier in the formula to computer the siderograph?

Comment: Like Mr. Bradley suggested, I suppose when I wrote the computer program years ago, I no doubt experimented in selecting the multiplier for long term and declination summed values.  I checked the program code and find it is set to five (see Number 4 above).  This is the only thing that could be construed as an arbitrarily-set factor in the computations of the program I created.

 
 
6. Why is there no vertical scale on the siderograph?

Answer: In the siderograph plot produced by the computer program I created, the upper portion is the Bradley Indicator curve, whose formula is given in #4 above.  In the lower portion of the plot screen is the graph of the Middle Term values.  Both of these curves oscillate around zero, i.e., the daily values cycle above and below zero during the course of time.  In the upper portion, which contains the Bradley Indicator siderograph, the graph is produced so that the maximum annual value just touches the upper edge of the graph area while the minimum annual value just touches the lower edge of the Bradley Indicator plotting area.  However, the arrangement is slightly different regarding the Middle Term values that are plotted in the lower portion of the plot screen.  Here we created a centerline denoted by 0 that represents Middle Term value = 0 (zero) and any plot that is a positive value is drawn in the "+" area above the 0 centerline while negative values are drawn below the centerline.

 
 
7. Explain what time perspective is used in your Bradley program, Eastern Time or what?

Comment: The data I used in the Bradley Model is data manually entered into a computer file from the annual ephemeris obtained from the Rosicrucian's.  Their notation in the front of each ephemeris discusses their views of Ephemeris Time (E.T.) and G.M.T.  I used the data unchanged right from their ephemeris.  I have scanned that section from their ephemeris and have enclosed it directly below:

"TIME CHANGES In all cases the time given in the Ephemeris is Ephemeris Time, which in calculations may be treated exactly the same as Greenwich Mean Time. Ephemeris Time (E.T.) is a more accurate method of measuring time than is G.M.T., though the latter does not usually vary from the former by more than a few seconds.  E.T. is measured by a constant interval and therefore does not change from day to day.  G.M.T. on the other hand, is subject to daily fluctuations due to changes in the Earth's rotation caused by tidal forces, earthquakes, etc.  Such daily fluctuations are quite infinitesimal but the effect can accumulate over a period of days and years.  To avoid such complications it is more accurate to use E.T., which may be regarded as an "ideal" G.M.T. (12h E.T. is "noon.")  Births which occur during War Time or Daylight Savings Time must have one hour subtracted from them in order to arrive at Standard Time.  Calculations may then proceed as usual.  No general rule can be given as to when D.S.T. (Daylight Savings Time) was observed in the U.S. and when it was not.  The situation is, unfortunately, very complicated.  From one year to another certain states have observed D.S.T. while others have not.  Even within any one state some counties or cities would observe D.S.T. while others would not.  The dates between which D.S.T. was observed within any one year have sometimes varied from state to state.  To complicate matters further, the method for recording time on birth certificates is not uniform.  Most states record on birth certificates the time in usage [locally], but some states have or still require Standard Time to be recorded, even when D.S.T. is in effect.  The only periods during which D.S.T. was uniformly observed throughout the U.S. were during World War I and II.  It was then called 'War Time.'  The dates were as follows: 1918 March 31, 2:00 A.M. to October 27, 2:00 A.M.  1919 March 30, 2:00 A.M. to October 26, 2:00 A.M.  1942 February 9, 2:00 A.M. to September 30, 1945, 2:00 A.M."

 
 
8. What time zone are your Bradley computations based on?

Reply: But I think the point you want clarification here on is whether the computations of the program I created adjust for U.S. Eastern Standard Time.  The answer is they do not.  I think Eastern Time is 5 hours earlier than GMT, less than 1/4 of the Earth's daily rotation, so not too important.  I also think that Mr. Bradley's comment about Eastern Standard Time on page 26 is more oriented towards the applicable time of the illustrated date of May 20, 1946.  The Rosicrucian's ephemeris states that Daylight Standard Time was uniformly observed during WW II from February 9, 1942 through September 30, 1945, and had just ended a few of months before Bradley's citing of the example on page 26.

 
 
9. Question: I'm guessing but here goes, it doesn't matter the position of each planet, whether that position is taken at noon or at midnight or at whatever time, it only matters the planets' relationships to each other at a predetermined time.  Is this correct?

A: Regarding your question about the relationships, whether taken at noon or some other time: You are correct, it is always the relationship of the planets (including the Sun) to one another from the Earth's perspective at a given time that matters.  The whole gist of computing Bradley's Indicator and Middle-term values is a function of planetary relationships at a given time, i.e., in determining when oppositions, squares, sextiles, trines, and conjunctions are occurring from the point of view of the Earth.  Bradley calls these relationships "aspects."  Here are two quotes from his book that clarifies this point exactly: "Opposite each other in the sky [from Earth's perspective], they are stated to be in opposition." And "At right angles to each other as viewed from Earth, we say they are in square aspect."

 
 
10. What are your views on inversions?

My comments: Now, on the subject of inversions, I would have this to say: Like I said above, I haven't re-read the entire work of Bradley recently, but am of the general opinion that inversions are part of the thinking of Favors and Crawford et al and was not part of Bradley's research.  I rather believe they came about by one or the other analysts having perhaps "discovered" that mood swings of the masses are just that: mood swings. Therefore, if the market has been going up strongly and there is a mood shift "forecast" (significant directional change) by the Bradley Indicator then it makes sense that it would be contra to the prevailing market trend even though that might contradict the directional change of the underlying Bradley Indicator.

Just as I am sure you are aware that investors' mood changes in the market frequently occur coincident with eclipses.  Obviously, the new direction would/should be contra to the recent prevailing trend.  I think this same idea perhaps carries through to inversions in the thinking of people like Favors, Crawford, and others. They may be prone to say that since the exact opposite that was forecast occurred it was because of an inversion.  So on and so on.  I think an important idea to always keep in mind relative to any device that measures investor perceptions or markets is that when it works it works and when it doesn't it doesn't.  Conveniently, it seems to me, using the idea of inversions allows analysts to be right (by declaring an inversion) even when they are wrong ... like having their cake and eating it, too.  This seems to be borne out by the chart from Crawford someone sent showing the computations inverted ... a neat way to say "I was right, look how smart I am." at the end of the year no matter which way the market plays out.

Therefore, as you might imagine, there is no inclusion for anything inversion-related in the program that I developed from Bradley's writings.  I don't think there is anything mentioned about inversions in Bradley's work although I may be wrong on that.  And for sure, I didn't see anything in his writings that gave a hint of how to implement something in the computations to reckon with inversions.

That said, it is only fair to understand that research on almost any topic is never truly finished.  And I think the concept that Bradley brought forth is certainly an example of that.  Therefore, it seems reasonable that others might come up with an improvement to his original work.  And to that I say, "More power to them -- progress is a forward movement!"  But the Bradley Model program I created, based entirely on his manuscript is pure Bradley as he wrote the words down.   However, do note that a feature was added, in 2008, to the siderograph display to permit users to adjust forward or back the actual plot up to 30 days.

Even though the above was written quite some time ago, I still think it's right on.  To that I would add: that when an "inversion" does occur or when the Bradley Indicator are diverging from reality, it is likely the effect of a force (known or unknown) having greater affect on investors' assessment of the collective financial perspective, e.g., another 9/11/2001 terrorist event, a major U.S. earthquake, an asteroid impact on Earth, government intervention vs. natural market forces, or anything else that would severely impact U.S. and/or world commerce and finance.  Some might say that a perfect example of this overwhelming the normal course events was the U.S. Federal Reserve flooding the U.S. money supply in 2003 at least up to approximately September.  During at least one week in June 2003, the Feds injected $60 billion in one week into the U.S. money supply!

 
 
11. How much impact do middle-term values in Bradley have?

Response: My opinion again, is that when the middle-terms are trending in the same direction as the Bradley Indicator, the Bradley Indicator effect would be to impart persistent pressure in the direction both indicators are trending.  This is true because the middle-term values are contained in the Bradley Indicator calculation although the long-term values plus declination carry five times the weight of middle terms.  Middle terms were trending strongly in the same direction at the mid-March 2003 Bradley Indicator liftoff which coincided exactly with the onset of the Iraq War.  Then they became a drag for April through most of May while the markets grudgingly consolidated and pushed higher to many people's surprise.  Beginning about 5/27/03 through 6/6/03 they are running again with the overall Bradley Indicator.  Then a few days of middle terms resting before what looks like the final push from mid-June though near the end of June.  Beyond that, it looks like middle terms could start to add a drag on the markets.

 
 
12. Why is the Bradley siderograph graph not scaled?

Answer: Same question as # 6.  The Bradley Indicator is plotted in the upper portion of the siderograph screen.  Every year's plot is made to fit the plot area, i.e., the plot is adjusted so that the high for the year, whenever it occurs, will exactly touch the upper edge of the Long-term plot area.  The same goes for the lowest value just touching the lower edge of the plot area.  This is why there is no numerical scale on the siderograph plots.  Since the Middle-term value never diverges that far either above or below zero, the plotting for the Middle-term area is somewhat different. For the Middle-term plot, the greatest absolute value of the Middle-term values is used to compute how to fit the Middle-term plot so that the maximum absolute value just touches either the top or bottom edge of it's plot area.

 
 
13. Does the siderograph convey the size of future market moves?

My thoughts: The result of Bradley's work was not a consequence to predict or forecast magnitude of market moves; rather my understanding of his research and real-time experience since 1998 further convinces me of that.  Therefore, I would not place any significance on a Bradley Indicator forecast of a number of market move points move in any average, i.e., Dow Industrials, S&P 500, NASDAQ, etc.  My experience is that Bradley's value is in determining the overall trend, and I would further quantify that as intermediate to long-term rather than short-term.  I believe short-term fluctuations are too heavily influenced by real-time news and the dissemination of information, on a minute-by-minute basis plus an unknown quantity of false (spin) information otherwise know as disinformation.  I believe the bigger, and longer-lasting, trends are not dominated by real-time news (manufactured or otherwise) or by the political babble coming out of Washington.

 
 
14. Is it safe to assume Bradley conforms to the market's moves?

Observation: It is probably not wise to look at little rallies in the Middle-term Indicator or Bradley Indicator and compare tops and bottoms of the indicators' values to previous rallies and bottoms in the markets.

No.  It would NOT be a safe assumption that the March, 2003, stock market low will hold when the Bradley Indicator turns up in late November ... although it may.  Keep in mind, the Bradley indicator is a directional indicator (not amplitude).  That is because it is the planetary positional relationships from Earth's perspective that drive the computations, and regardless of the positions each relationship (aspect) derives its maximum value, either positive or negative, as the sine curve of the aspect approaches dead-on (perfect alignment), i.e., squares, trines, opposition, conjunctions, sextiles.  Therefore, with a finite number of planetary objects and relationships, there naturally is a limit to how high or low the Bradley Indicator's values may be.  Therefore, the maximum values of the Bradley Indicator also have a limit.

So now you will see that if amplitude were a function of the Bradley Indicator, then there would be an artificial cap on the markets imposed by the Bradley Indicator if the indicator has any forecasting value.  Not so.

 
 
15. What do you think is the best approach using the Bradley siderograph concept?

Reply: My experience is that the real money can be made by simply being with major trends and I liken these to the approximate annual highs and lows of the Bradley Long-term Indicator.  I have been tracking Bradley using this principle since early 1998 with over 10 years of real-time results to back that belief up notwithstanding the most severe bear market in at least 79 years!

 
 
16. Is it possible to determine the beginning of a bull or bear market with Bradley?

Answer: My opinion is the answer to this is "No."  See # 12 above.  Bradley's great value, as I see it, is the detection of mass psychology shifts in the human fear and greed emotions; therefore, their likely impact on investment decisions and the subsequent impact on market price trends.

 
 
17. How do you explain what happens in the markets versus Bradley's predictions?

Comments: As soon as the market action diverges from that "forecasted" by the Bradley Indicator, I get questions asking am I ready to admit that maybe this time Bradley is wrong.  I'm not Bradley!  Mr. Bradley is dead.  So I can't take credit when the Bradley Indicator seems to be right, therefore, I don't take criticism when it is wrong.  It's willy-nilly investors, that have no discipline, and will never be successful in investing because they and their own emotions are their worst enemy when it comes to investment decisions -- day traders, I call them.  There is no perfect system or method, but there are certainly good ones.  I'm too busy living life to be holding the hands of emotional investors who lack experience, discipline, and knowledge to operate successfully in the markets.

 
 
18. Does Bradley work with other markets besides the stock market, for example currencies or commodities?

Reply: Although I have no actual proof, my opinion and reasoning leads me to believe that the Bradley concept does apply to markets other than the stock market.  The central point of my thinking on this is that Bradley's efforts and his ideas were oriented to determining mass psychology of the investing masses ... fear/greed and favorable/unfavorable attitudes to investment positions.  That said, I would add the caveat that certain investments, gold, oil, and perhaps certain currencies seem to move countertrend to the stock market (equities).  So if one were using Bradley with investment planning on gold or the others noted above, logic seems to indicate that tops in Bradley (related to equity markets) should be the targets to go long such investments and that bottoms in Bradley (again, related to equity markets) might indicate wise points to sell such counter trending positions.

Now, with agricultural commodities I cannot give an opinion, since I have no experience with Bradley and agricultural commodity price correlations.  But for sure one would have to consider the weather as an added factor in additional to an awareness that at least some agricultural commodities are perishable.  I believe strongly that weather is an extremely important factor affecting agricultural production and prices just as international political tensions affect the price of oil.  Lastly, my time schedule does not permit doing the research to determine the success level of Bradley and commodity prices of different types: financial, metals, perishable, and non-perishable commodities or the effects of government intervention and subsidies.

 
 
19. Is Bradley based on science or astrology?

My understanding: While I don't profess to have the answers, here is my opinion.  Astrology has its basis in the relationships of the planets on the moment of one's birth.  So right up front, I throw out astrology as having anything to do with Bradley.  Bradley's research was the summation of a great number of mathematical comparisons and computations based on the planets' positions from day to day.  Bradley concluded that certain of the planetary positions have a positive valence while others have a negative valence; how he determined that I don't remember reading in his work but I assume it was based on observation as part of his research.

So I look at the Bradley concept and I don't know why it seems to work but I know the computations related to the changing planetary positions yield a series of values that can be plotted on a graph; it's called a siderograph.  And when those points are plotted, observation seems to reveal that forthcoming important trend changes in markets are strongly suggested.  This is much like saying that I don't know why the Fibonacci Ratio is manifested throughout Nature, but it is observably factual.  The scientific principle is based on observable confirmation of theory.  Therefore, my belief that the Bradley approach is a scientific process rather than an astrological fantasy.

 
 
20. Based on the fact that the earth's rotation was affected by the most recent quake, does it have any impact on the Bradley model?  Can anything ever impact the model?

Again, my opinion: Anything I could offer regarding the 12/26/2004 undersea earthquake in Indonesia, etc., comes from my mind and thought processes, not something I've read.  That said, it's my belief that the quake would be a consequence of built up forces.  Following this line of reasoning, then one must look at the forces and where they come from and perhaps why they are as they are.  It seems to me that the forces would affect Bradley as they build up since the position of our solar system's objects are all tied together by the balance of gravity and centrifugal forces.  If the Bradley concept is for real, and the observed evidence suggests that is, then Bradley is a representation of the forces which would naturally affect the Earth ... not the other way around, i.e., what happens on Earth affecting Bradley.  The Earth wobbles naturally anyway, it's called precession and takes 26,000 years for the point directly above the North Pole to circumscribe a circle.  The star Polaris is nearly above the North Pole now.  In another 26,000 years, the point in the sky directly above the pole will come full circle to that point again.  Precession is caused mostly from the gravitational pull of the solar system's other objects against the Earth since our planet's equator is inclined to the plane of the solar system by 23+ degrees.

Lastly, can anything ever affect the model?  Yes, I suppose so.  For example, ultimately an asteroid of significant size will impact Earth and result in devastating consequences, both physical and economic.  Asteroid and comet positions aren't involved in the Bradley computations, so I think it would only be by chance that Bradley would be indicative of such an event.

 
 
21. How well did the Bradley work in years prior to 1998?

Reply: I didn't give any thought to trading on the Bradley until early 1998.  However, in answer to your question of how Bradley performed prior to 1998, I did some retro-analysis and from 1993 through October 28, 1997, (this latter day a Bradley buy day which carried over into mid-year 1998) it appears that Buy & Hold on the S&P 500 would have yielded 16.93% compounded annual growth rate.  Using Bradley for the same period and my approach, it appears the S&P 500 rate of return would have been 9.04%.

None of the forgoing includes: 1) income tax impact, 2) the benefit of any dividends earned by the S&P 500 stocks, 3) interest that would have been earned while in cash between sell and buy signals, or 4) any commissions/fees.  The interest earned while out of the market probably would have added about 3% to the annual return of my Bradley approach.  I would add that had I been following Bradley in 1997, I would have bought on October 28, 1997 instead of when I really started tracking Bradley for serious in January 1998 and this would have increased the return on what was otherwise the starting January 1998 buy on a real-time basis.  The forgoing is oriented to the way I use Bradley; others may take a much more faster-trading approach as the Bradley Indicator and Middle-terms Indicator oscillate.

The other thing to remember is that during the period in question, there were some fairly steep corrections, some of which were avoided by Bradley, and so there would have been a few less sleepless nights and weekends using Bradley and almost certainly a margin call in October 1997 would have been avoided.  Isn't it amazing that the late October 1997 Bradley buy occurred exactly one day after the most severe one-day correction of 554.32 points (7.2%) on the Dow Jones Industrial Average and on the exact day of the correction low?  Finally, know that this analysis used closing prices on the trade days rather than the openings, which would have made a difference, too.

 
 
22. It looks to me as the estimated time for peaks and valleys has "shifted to the left."  By this I mean that the February 2005 low in the market was projected to happen in early March (3/4) and the March high, that occurred early in March, was projected to happen today (3/31/2005).  If that is the case, we have probably seen the expected low in the market, which Bradley predicts for 4/5/2005.  What do you think?

Answer: I've never been big on the idea of shoehorning actual prices from the markets to fit Bradley like some others seem to do.  The way I use Bradley there are only four points in the Bradley plot for 2005 that are worth considering, they being: 1) the low near the end of January this year which has already been proven to be a direct hit, 2) the high forecasted for mid-July, 3) and possibly of a lesser high (maybe a double top) at the end of August/beginning September, and 4) the expected low coming in mid-December (when tax-loss selling exhausts).

Everything else, to my way of thinking and operating, is just noise.  Of course, sometimes the noise is right-on just as a stopped clock is correct twice a day.  The little low in early April is about right to coincide with one of the cycles that's bottoming about then -- I don't remember which one it is.  Another cycle, of greater importance I hear is due to bottom near the end of June which is just right for a final market dash to the expected high for the year.  Sometimes you can note from the Bradley siderograph that the Middle-terms Indicator seems to exert greater influence on the larger Bradley Indicator than at other times.  Case in point: here near the end of this March, and again near the end of June.

 
 
23. Take the upcoming turn date of 12/21/2007.  The current trend now is down and assuming this trend continues rather than reversing as Bradley forecasts, as a general rule how much time would you allow after the "scheduled" turn date before making a reassessment when it's not obvious?

Comment: I wouldn't allow any time for a reconsideration.  One either follows Bradley or they are continually second-guessing it.  That's where most market participants seem to fail ... lack of courage of conviction and their emotions and lack of good information -- not the static that's on financial TV.  Sure, every method of investing will go counter to one's anticipated outcome occasionally since no investing approach is foolproof.  Investing discipline requires expected occasional loses and action to prevent errors from becoming game changers.  If that weren't true, then we'd all be rich and no one left to print the daily papers and produce the daily TV dialogues and no one to prepare our food and take out the trash; all would be too busy getting rich and richer. 

 
The reason I believe Bradley works is the 10-year achievement real-time record in the Microsoft Excel spreadsheet which contains a thorough and I believe fair test of the Bradley approach applied to various markets and investment choices that I think is the best use of Bradley's research.  It covers a period of over ten years of real-time decision making based on that same approach: buying and selling the annual Bradley Indicator highs/lows and an occasional turn in the Bradley Indicator that a reasonable person would consider to be a major turn.  No treatment or thoughts given to inversions -- that's the old tail wagging the dog again. 
 
Now, also consider that in these last 10+ years since January 1998 we have seen an almost vertical market ascent in the approach to the early 2000 major stock market peak and a devastating bear market afterward to October 2002 on the Dow and S&P 500 and an even far worse effect on the NASDAQ.  An important market low occurred coincident with the start of the Iraq War.  Bradley "forecast" the war's start within just a couple of days!  Once the United States began preparing for war several months after the 9/11/2001 terrorist attack in New York and Washington and all the diplomacy played out, it was easy to postulate the exact date of the beginning of the war -- it had to be mid-March 2003!  It was obvious because the Bradley Indicator was telling you that it was.  Who knows whether the Washington gurus were consulting Bradley to determine the most opportune time to invade Iraq -- probably not.  There was a Bradley major turn date almost exactly coinciding with the beginning of the Iraq War.  Bradley predicted a market bottom for Thursday, March 13, 2003, but the Dow intra-day low occurred on Wednesday, March 12!!!  With Bradley, you could have predicted this major market turn 1,000 years prior --- if you had a computer and a 2003 ephemeris!  The bombing began Wednesday evening, March 19, and of course as the beginning of the war drew near everyone knew it was imminent.  At the start of the Iraq War, the stock market launched into a bull market that lasted about 4 1/2 years to October 2007.  You can be assured I will be posting a Bradley buy in that spreadsheet as of the prices for 12/21/2007 notwithstanding we are in the midst of the mortgage meltdown crisis, oil at nearly $100/barrel, inflation at a high rate and all of the other end-of-the-world threats afoot.
 
 
24. Question, from same person as above: Is the next Bradley date at all affected by this so called inversion?  The Bradley curve from 12/21/2007 goes almost straight up with no wiggles versus say from March through June, 2008, during which the curve wiggles.

Comment: I don't think the angle of ascent or decline is of major importance.  It's the direction of the trend that counts most based on my observation of Bradley these last 10 years.  So the appearance of those squiggles from March to June 2008 do not carry any special significance -- just my opinion.  It's the market exit date of June 6, 2008, that rings the bell!

 
 
25. My question has to do with the data.  Can I compute by myself without using your software the Bradley indicators?  I tried with the 2008 data but the numbers are totally different.

Reply: I remember that when I looked into to this several years ago answering a similar question, I found something like 82,000+ calculations to be made to compute the two indicators' values for a whole year of roughly 260 days (5 days per week for 52 weeks).  Even though Mr. Bradley obviously did it by hand in his research back in the 1930s or 1940s, I find it an overwhelming undertaking.  Doing it by hand exposes the great risk of errors since it would be difficult to perform that many computations without mistakes.  I can also tell you that I learned from developing the computer code to perform the calculations the process is error prone just by it's very nature.  It's more involved than just solving an equation that produces a resultant value.  Rather, it involves that too, but also consultation from a bell curve table and a plus/minus valence of planetary relationships.  Being thoroughly comfortable with math and calculation procedures, I can tell you I wouldn't even attempt it.  To compute the indicators by hand would take an enormous amount of time.
 
 
26. I've noticed that the market seems to be in much closer sync with the Middle Terms indicator for the past several months (with a 4-6 day delay) than it is with the overall Bradley Model.  I was wondering if for some reason during this stretch the Middle Terms should be weighted more heavily in the Model.  Then I saw a story that planet Mars, a component of the Middle Terms, will soon be closer to Earth than any time in recorded history.  If I remember correctly Bradley accounted for the angles that the planets formed with each other but not their proximity to Earth.  If Mars is scheduled to have a positive effect now is it possible that it is having a much larger than expected effect because of its much closer than normal proximity?  If so, it would be interesting to isolate just the Mars portion of the Middle Terms to see when it is scheduled to roll over.  If the Mars portion of the Middle Terms is running 4-6 days behind the total Middle Terms, maybe that would account for the lag.

Reply: If one were to tinker with weighting Middle Terms for some reason because of a special occasion such as the proximity of Mars to Earth here in 2010, then there would have to be a well-researched and defined rule to justify the beginning of such temporary special adjustment and the same to end the period of adjustment to Middle Terms. Then someone could say, "Why not apply the special adjustment to the Bradley Indicator in addition to the Middle Terms?"  First thing we know we find that Bradley's computations, as our software does, is no longer Bradley but a combination of ifs, maybes and special conditions.  It could cause more questions than answers given.  Sounds too much like a tail looking for a dog to wag, like curve fitting.  That seems beyond Mr. Bradley's research. My mission has always been to provide Bradley's work available to anyone with a PC at a reasonable cost and for sure to keep it as Mr. Bradley's original research efforts.  Secondly, the chart window of our software provides the capability to shift the plot of the Bradley and Middle Terms indicators plus/minus up to 30 days for users who feel a need for that capability.

 
 
27. Does it (Bradley) tell you at exactly what price to buy and sell?

The way the Bradley Model works is that it computes an annual graph of Mr. Bradley's formulas using data for each day (Monday through Friday) of the year.  The graph is displayed on-screen, or you may print it.  That gives you a "predicted" forecast for the whole year of the stock market.  Obviously, if the graph's lines are going up, you'd want to be invested in equities.  If it's going down, or sideways, you would probably want to be out of the market.  There are two plotted lines on the graph -- one is longer-term (the Bradley Indicator), the other is shorter-termed (Middle Indicator).  How you use them depends on your relationship to the market: day trader, oriented to short-term or long-term, etc.

You can view the computed daily values of both indicators, or download them to an Excel spreadsheet as some customers do for use in other stock market software.  Or you may print the values.

Now you see, the Bradley Model does not give exact prices at which to buy or sell.  It depends on how you use it.  And one could say: "What price of what?"  It doesn't make any difference if you want to be in the market, whether you pay $100/share or $100.18 per share.  When to get out, sell, and take the proceeds is your decision based on your best information at hand.  Bradley is simply a tool to help you be informed.
 
 
28. How accurate is this (the Bradley) method?

It depends on how you use it.  One way to get an understanding of the Bradley method's potential is go to http://aunegl.com/bradley-model-performance.html where you can see how one approach using Bradley over the last 13 years (since 1998) in various investments and employing a conservative approach has performed.  This is an incredible performance record, particularly when you consider that during this time, there has been a dot.com bubble, two absolutely devastating bear markets, a housing crisis and a financial crisis.  You can also reach this web page from our home page by clicking on the green Bradley Past Performance tab.
 
29. Have you given any thought to what physical mechanism(s) the Bradley Model may be simulating?

Your question is a tough one.  I've noticed what appears to be a seasonal tendency with a somewhat reasonable correlation to the widely understood seasonal tendency of the American stock market, that is: bullish from sometime in the latter months of a year into as far as mid-year of the next year with a significant degree of variance.  I am forever watchful to avoid finding tails that wag dogs when it's the dog we are looking for.  That said, the tendency noted here is enough to catch an eye.  The difficult part is identifying which is the tail and which is the dog.  At the same time, I'm bothered by the idea that the positions of the solar system's planets could affect the minds, and subsequent actions, of us mere mortals in myriad numbers, yet it seems to be borne out.  Particularly, since only a minute portion of the population is aware of the planetary positions.  On the other side of the argument is what seems to be obvious cycles in the natural world and universe -- so why should whatever forces are behind Nature's cycles be limited to just affecting physical objects?  Why not minds and moods and the manifestations of such?  There is so very much that is not understood by the scientists who occupy themselves with this.  Heck, they don't even understand dark matter and dark energy, both of which comprise the major portion of the universe's mass.  It's like looking at a mouse and trying to understand and prove there really is an elephant in the room. Neither do we know why the Fibonacci Ratio permeates the universe ... but it does.  Bottom line: I've long since arrived at the position that things are the way they are because that is the way God defined them when He was composing the specifications of the universe: defining the chemistry, the atomic particles, the forces and the mathematics of the cosmos.  That leaves to us to find and adopt procedures and methods that tilt the odds toward our objectives if we are to survive and succeed.
 
30. A buy was scheduled yesterday.  However, I am concerned about buying at these levels especially since the last sell signal did not really work out.  I would like to inquire whether you have noticed any flipping of the signals in the past.  This would be where a low would indicate a sell where a high would indicate a buy.  It may simply be that the Fed's actions have caused an imbalance in the market.

Comment: Of course, there are times when the Bradley Indicator varies noticeably from what occurs in the markets.  But your question is typical when it happens as you can see among FAQs accumulated from others over the years.  I would suggest going to our web page and click on the green FAQ tab at the top which will take you to similar questions and the comments offered based on real-time observations of the Bradley concept over the years.  Particularly, please take a moment to check out FAQs 10, 17, and 23.   Maybe some of their content you will find helpful.  That said, the Fed's huge stimulus injections of money, up to $85 billion per month, into the economy (and mostly into the markets) has likely produced an effect on the stock market.  They've been stimulating aggressively for 5 years continuously, or more, with little effect except in the markets with a lesser impact on the actual U.S. economy. They likely have to continue to do it ... practically permanently just like permanent unemployment benefits in one form or another.  The Feds are scared to death of any significant decline in stocks as it carries a risk of: depression for many years, and a revolution.
 
Last updated 01/04/2014 2014 copyright aunegl.com - Bradley Stock Market Prediction Model