Tag Archives: Hunt for Taxes

Feb 6 2018

VIX Losses Feeding Collapse


Armstrong Economics Blog/Dow Jones

Re-Posted Feb 6, 2018 by Martin Armstrong

QUESTION:

I have heard first hand from some significant players that do speaking engagements for very large pension funds that a product was being offered to the pension funds as a yield enhancer that was based around selling the VIX.   First off, why would anyone trust a product that is being offered by a big bank with a trading desk?  That is like CDO-slaughter-101 (circa 2007).  With vol going from 10-13 all the way up to near 50 think of the convexity in a 2-3 day period of time and the liability left on that one?  For who?  For the pension funds who were picking up scraps?   Makes me want to hurl when I think about our society cannibalizing itself.  Here is the pension fund space picking up scraps on some garbage VIX product and even worse the seller of the product knows exactly who, what, when and where. The VIX has been riding for a crisis for the last 6 months. Well – it’s here!

Today I heard from a pretty good source that “someone big’ was front-running someone else pretty big.  Now that fits like a hand in a glove doesn’t it?   That may have been a lot of what created today’s landmark slide and evaporation of liquidity.   Hoping to hear Mr. Armstrong’s comments or at least thoughts on this.   If correct, will the pensions bury this as they have all their other under performance?  Or will we see this in the form of heads rolling?  Either way its the widows and orphans that lose out when the pensions are unable to meet their obligations.   

This is getting very scary Mr. Marty!!!!

Very scary. 

CW

ANSWER:  It is always the same scheme. Back in the 1990s, the very same guaranteed enhancement of yield was pitched by the brokers. The scheme sold the 10-year against the 30-year bonds and capture the spread. With the leverage of 10:1+, applying that spread to the actual capital thus enhanced the yield.

Here they have been back with selling the VIX perpetually to take in the premium to enhance the yield. The same scheme is always pitched to institutions who then think the firms are smart and reputable so they take the advice. In the case of the bond scheme, that took down Orange Country in California and Merrill Lynch & Company had to pay $400 million in damages.

I was advising Temple University at the time. Merrill Lynch & Company was pitching the bond scheme for the Trust fund. The board told them to run it buy me. They were two you kids from Chicago who came to pitch the scheme to me. I told them the yield-curve would reverse and they would be wiped out. They returned to Chicago and flew back reworking their numbers telling me it would be a break-even if the yield-curve would flip. I told them I could not recommend the trade to the Board given this was their trust fund. They told the Board “I did not know the ‘new’ way to make money and I was too old fashion.” Temple did not buy into that scheme.

Selling the VIX has been the cash-pot and now this is in part creating the steep decline. I warned on the Private Blog that we were electing Daily Bearish Reversals “FASTER” from the high than we did back in 1987.

Horizons ETFs Announced Temporary Suspension of New Subscriptions for Units of BetaPro S&P 500 VIX Short-Term Futures™ 2X Daily Bull ETF (HVU) Toronto. They have announced today that it will not be accepting any new subscriptions for units of the BetaPro S&P 500 VIX Short-Term Futures™ 2X Daily.

The damage caused by this VIX trade will rise to the similar level as did Orange Country. The losses with this latest “guaranteed trade” sold by houses will be huge.

The Dow has made another new low as we expect on the Private Blog last night. We can see that we have broken the normal technical support on the daily level reflecting the real meltdown in the VIX Trade. With back-to-back Directional Changes, we may then see today’s low hold briefly. Make no mistake about this move, we are fulfilling what the model warned for 2018 which I announced at the 2018 WEC. This is a Panic Cycle Year and a sharp collapse was due from the January high.

What is also on point was that on the weekend, the Dynamic Models in the Global Market Watch turned on the Yearly Level stating:

IMPORTANT HIGH WATERFALL LIKELY

I personally am stunned that the GMW could flip that fast with just one-week of price action on the Yearly Level. This is the first time I have EVER witnessed such a change. Granted, it closed 2017 warning that the upward advance was “EASING” so, from a pattern recognition perspective, it seems to have done what no human analyst could possibly do.

We will address the entire issue in a special report.

Feb 6 2018

Socrates on the Dow as of Last Friday


Armstrong Economics Blog/Dow Jones

Re-Posted Feb 6, 2018 by Martin Armstrong

 

Socrates Analysis for the Dow Jones as of Last Friday – February 2nd, 2018

SOCRATES SUMMARY ANALYSIS

THE ANALYSIS PERSPECTIVE AS OF THE CLOSE OF Fri. Feb. 2, 2018: Dow Jones Industrials closed today at 2552096 and is trading up about 3.24% for the year from last year’s closing of 2471922. Thus far, we have been trading down for the past 5 days, while we have made a low at 2549066 following the high established Fri. Jan. 26, 2018, this price action warns of at least a pause in trend if not a retest of key support. Only a close above 2606180 would imply a retest of the previous high. Employing our Reversal System, our next Weekly Bullish Reversal to watch stands at 2581044 while the Weekly Bearish Reversal lies at 2474160. This provides a 4.14% trading range. Turning to the broader Monthly level, the current Bullish Reversal stands at 3081752 while the Bearish Reversal lies at 2241590. This, of course, gives us a broader trading range of a 27%.

The last event was a low established during 2009, which has been a nine year rally from that low to date.

A possible change in trend appears due come this month in Dow Jones Industrials so be focused. Last month produced a high at 2661671 and so far, we are trading neutral within last month’s trading range of 2661671 to 2474170. We need to breakout of this range to confirm the direction. Therefore, a close above will be bullish and a close below will warn of a possible decline.

Observing the near-term level, the market has closed up 282.0% from the last cycle low established during 2009, which has been only a 8 year rally from that event. However, from the long-term perspective, the market has still closed on the Yearly level up 4236.7% from the strategic low established during 1974, which has been a 43 year rally from that key event.

Our Daily level momentum and trend indicators are both bearish reflecting resistance forming at 2608612. Turning to the broader picture, our long-term trend is bearish while the cyclical strength indicator is bullish providing a mixed perspective of the market beyond the short-term.

On the weekly level, the last important high was established the week of January 22nd at 2661671, which was up 64 weeks from the low made back during the week of October 31st of 2016. We have seen the market drop shaply for the past week penetrating the previous week’s low and it closed beneath that low which was 2597465. This was a very bearish technical indicator warning that we have a shift in the immediate trend. We are still trading neutral on the Weekly Momentum Indicators and this is a warning that initial support has been breached. This strongly implies we should pay close attention now to the Weekly Bearish Reversals. If we begin to elect Weekly Bearish Reversals, then we are dealing with a more sustainable near-term correction.

Overall, looking at the weekly level on our models, this market is currently in a rising trend. We see here the trend has been moving up for the past 65 weeks. The last weekly level low was 1788356, which formed during the week of October 31st. The last high on the weekly level was 2661671, which was created during the week of January 22nd.

Critical support still underlies this market at 2241590 and a break of that level on a monthly closing basis would warn of a decline ahead becomes possible. On a broader perspective, this market remains in an uptrend posture on all our indicators looking at the monthly level. We see here the trend has been moving up for the past 29 months. The last monthly level low was 1537033, which formed during August 2015, and only a break of 2392190 would signal weakness ahead. The last high on the monthly level was 2661671, which was created during January.

Feb 6 2018

Modi Has Sent More People Fleeing from India Than At Any Previous Time


Armstrong Economics Blog/India

Re-Posted Feb 6, 2018 by Martin Armstrong

Politicians just do not get it. They have convinced themselves that they can tax whatever they desire and people have no choice but to pay. Missing in their analysis are two influences (1) people just stop earning income for it reaches a point it is not worth working anymore, and (2) you simply pick-up and leave. Modi and his assault on the Indian economy has created a massive exodus of the upper class. India is also witnessing a massive migration of its rich headed mostly to the USA. They are number two on this net migration outward whereas China is the number one place the rich have been leaving. The latest statistics show that some 7,000 high net worth individuals left India which was a 16% increase over 2016 figures. France also saw net migrations outward when they went crazy raising taxes.

The same part of this trend has been a serious violation of human rights. If everyone is supposed to be equal, then why is it if you earn more than the average it is perfectly fine to hunt you down and discriminate against you because of your intelligence. If it is wrong to discriminate against someone who is mentally incapable of a normal life, then it should be equally wrong to prosecute people who are above average

Feb 6 2018

Superbowl Forecast


Armstrong Economics Blog/Uncategorized

Re-Posted Feb 6, 2018 by Martin Armstrong

COMMENT #1:

Hi Marty,

wow. Just wow. I read the blog post on the Superbowl coming up. You casually interpreted the Eagles plus Player Foles as more eligible for a win – cyclically. Additionally, according to bookmakers – the majority was wrong (as it must be). You did not specifically point that out, but casually dropped the bookkeeping numbers. So your regular readers would notice the majority being wrong.

 

So I am really impressed. I still do not understand your whole numbers game with the 8.6 and so forth. It would be amazing to have a blog post where this is condensed so that even an idiot like me could repeatedly look it up and understand.

Nevertheless, just knowing there are cycles and certain indicators as with the Superbowl already makes a huge difference in understanding.

Thanks, Marty, it is just so much fun learning with you.

All the best,

SP

COMMENT #2: Marty; You did this post so nonchalant I doubt you realize that it when you forecast such off the chart events, you are really demonstrating to the world that you are a force to be reckoned with. No wonder the government wanted your computer. It is absolutely amazing! Trump, Brexit, Russia collapse, Ukraine, coldest winter in ages, right down to the 13-year peak in flu you called for this year. All these things prove so much more than just forecasting gold or the Dow.

 

Thank you for the education. You are changing the way many of us think.

 

LR

REPLY: True, I just rushed that together given all the emails asking about who would win. The 41 v 33 victory for the Eagles was precisely on point. They were on a 37-year cycle like the Triple Crown and the Patriots hit Pi. Both those cycles effectively predicted who would be in the Superbowl. The analysis of the quarterbacks helped with Brady peaking on his 17.2-year cycle (2 * 8.6). Look at the correlations and trends, it all just came together that the Eagles would win and I knew that was a long-shot given all the betting out there. No, I did not bet. I was busy working on something else.

 

There is so much more to analysis than people care to look at and I suppose you are correct, forecasting these sorts of things makes people look at cycles even more as an answer

Feb 5 2018

Socrates Got a Bit Overwhelmed Today


Armstrong Economics Blog/Socrates

Re-Posted Feb 5, 2018 by Martin Armstrong

Well, today was a stellar day no less. We have load-balancer and multiple servers running, 6 to be exact, yet the volume into Socrates today was really over the top. We will clearly have to double the size once again since the site was jammed today. We are also splitting the system into servers in different locations around the world to try to handle traffic like it was today because this is just the beginning.

We apologize and hope your delays were not too bad. We will expand the systems once again and this was well beyond anything we ever imagined

Feb 5 2018

Understanding Why NAFTA Exit is a Forgone Conclusion…


Re-Posted from The Conservative Tree House on February 5, 2018 by

President Trump will pull the U.S. out of NAFTA and direct the U.S. Trade Representative to engage in unilateral trade deals with Canada and Mexico individually.   There is no other possible alternative and here’s why.

First, the essential problem with NAFTA was an evolution over time.  In its current form NAFTA became an exploited doorway into the coveted U.S. market.  Asian economic interests, large multinational corporations, invested in Mexico and Canada as a way to work around any direct trade deals with the U.S.

By shipping parts to Mexico and/or Canada; and by deploying satellite manufacturing and assembly facilities in Canada and/or Mexico; China, Asia and to a lesser extent EU corporations exploited a loophole.  Through a process of building, assembling or manufacturing their products in Mexico/Canada those foreign corporations can skirt U.S. trade tariffs and direct U.S. trade agreements.  The finished foreign products entered the U.S. under NAFTA rules.

Why deal with the U.S. when you can just deal with Mexico, and use NAFTA rules to ship your product directly into the U.S. market?

This exploitative approach, a backdoor to the U.S. market, was the primary reason for massive foreign investment in Canada and Mexico; it was also the primary reason why candidate Donald Trump, now President Donald Trump, wanted to shut down that loophole and renegotiate NAFTA.

This loophole was the primary reason for U.S. manufacturers to relocate operations to Mexico.  Corporations within the U.S. Auto-Sector could enhance profits by building in Mexico or Canada using parts imported from Asia/China.  The labor factor was not as big a part of the overall cost consideration as cheaper parts and imported raw materials.

If you understand the reason why U.S. companies benefited from those moves, you can begin to understand if the U.S. was going to remain inside NAFTA President Trump would have remained engaged in TPP.

As soon as President Trump withdrew from TPP the problem with the Canada and Mexico loophole grew.  All corporations from TPP nations would now have an option to exploit the same NAFTA loophole.

Why ship directly to the U.S., or manufacturer inside the U.S., when you could just assemble in Mexico and Canada and use NAFTA to bring your products to the ultimate goal, the massive U.S. market?

From the POTUS Trump position, NAFTA always came down to two options:

Option #1 – renegotiate the NAFTA trade agreement to eliminate the loopholes.  That would require Canada and Mexico to agree to very specific rules put into the agreement by the U.S. that would remove the ability of third-party nations to exploit the current trade loophole. Essentially the U.S. rules would be structured around removing any profit motive with regard to building in Canada or Mexico and shipping into the U.S.

Canada and Mexico would have to agree to those rules; the goal of the rules would be to stop third-party nations from exploiting NAFTA.  The problem in this option is the exploitation of NAFTA currently benefits Canada and Mexico.  It is against their interests to remove it.  Knowing it was against their interests President Trump never thought it was likely Canada or Mexico would ever agree.  But he was willing to explore and find out.

Option #2 – Exit NAFTA.  And subsequently deal with Canada and Mexico individually with structured trade agreements about their imports.  Canada and Mexico could do as they please, but each U.S. bi-lateral trade agreement would be written with language removing the aforementioned cost-benefit-analysis to third-party countries (same as in option #1.)

All nuanced trade-sector issues put aside, the larger issue is always how third-party nations will seek to gain access to the U.S. market through Canada and Mexico.  [It is the NAFTA exploitation loophole which has severely damaged the U.S. manufacturing base.]

This is not direct ‘protectionism’, it is simply smart and fair trade.

Unfortunately, the U.S. CoC, funded by massive multinational corporations, is spending hundreds of millions on lobbying congress to keep the NAFTA loophole open.

The U.S. has to look upstream, deep into the trade agreements made by Mexico and Canada with third-parties, because it is possible for other nations to skirt direct trade with the U.S. and move their products through Canada and Mexico into the U.S.

Additionally, with Canada now joining TPP it has become impossible for the U.S. to remain in NAFTA and simultaneously conduct trade negotiations with TPP nations.

EXAMPLE: If the U.S. remained in NAFTA all TPP nations would engage in trade discussion knowing there was a Canadian and/or Mexican option to gain access to the U.S. market.  Therefore, despite the size of our market, we could never negotiate a better trade agreement than the deal existing between Canada, Mexico and their TPP partner nations.

President Trump, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross and U.S. Trade Representative Lighthizer well understand this structural problem.  ONLY Trump, Ross, Mnuchin and Lighthizer are willing to confront this problem.  If Trump had lost the election, Clinton would have joined the multinationals and U.S. workers would have suffered greatly.

Lastly, the issue of Canada and Mexico making trade agreements with other nations (especially China), while brokering their NAFTA position with the U.S. as a strategic part of those agreements, is a serious issue that cannot adequately be resolved while the U.S. remains connected to NAFTA.

At the conclusion of Round #6, this was the direct issue at the heart of a very frustrated U.S.T.R. Lighthizer’s strongly worded response to Canada:

[…]  In another proposal, Canada reserved the right to treat the United States and Mexico even worse than other countries if they enter into future agreements. Those other countries may, in fact, even include China, if there is an agreement between China and [Canada]. This proposal, I think if the United States had made it, would be dubbed a “poison pill.” We did not make it, though. Obviously, this is unacceptable to us, and my guess is it is to the Mexican side also. (read full remarks)

So you see, if you just look at the pure economics of the options, and you remember that President Trump is constitutionally antithetical to anyone having influence over U.S. interests other than the American people inside the United States, you can clearly see there is only one-way this entire process ends.

President Trump will end NAFTA.

Withdrawal is not a matter of “if“, it is simply a matter of “when”.

The economic reality drives the “if”, the political reality drives the “when”.

POTUS Trump knows the multinational corporations and multinational banks will trigger their CoC purchased politicians in Washington DC as soon as Trump announces.  The GOPe Republicans and Corporatist Democrats will launch everything they have against him in a public relations effort to stop the exit.  There are trillions at stake.

As the tax reform benefits gain a foothold, American workers are realizing they are getting more money in their paychecks; and as the U.S. economy continues to gain momentum, that’s the backdrop for President Trump making the announcement.  Best Guess: likely around the end of February, beginning of March.

Plan your affairs accordingly.

Feb 5 2018

Trump v Winfrey?


Armstrong Economics Blog/Politics

Re-Posted Feb 5, 2018 by Martin Armstrong

QUESTION: Your comment about the pension Ponzi scheme. I agree that it is something that needs to brought to the forefront. One of the reasons I left Illinois. But I can’t understand why you mention Oprah Winfrey and her qualifications when the current person in the office has none either, and he’s a caucasian

ANSWER: Trump is also not qualified to understand the financial markets as needed. Yes, he was a businessman and that is light-years ahead of an economist or lawyer. However, his business experience is limited to really real estate. He is a babe in the woods when it comes to capital flows, currencies, and global trends. Color, Creed, sex – none of that is a qualification for public office. PERIOD!

Nevertheless, you do not respect the fact that Trump has, in fact, changed the entire world. Your perspective is far too parochial. Trump’s Tax Reform has forced so many other countries to reverse course not the least of which is Germany. China has announced that foreign companies will pay ZERO tax on certain projects in China and even France has suddenly moved to lower taxes to be competitive with Trump. His Tweets aside, Trump has the correct agenda on taxes and he HAS forced the world to reverse course. No president has ever done that. The Democrats are plain stupid. They say Trump’s taxes will benefit the rich and not the poor. No Democrat is poor, they all roll in the money they get from the rich. To them, it is better to get ZERO and US corps leave the money overseas. Isn’t better to get something than nothing? The Democrats just cannot bring themselves to rethink the Marxist agenda of class warfare.

Trump is an improvement over ANY career politicians. But we need more for Trump will turn to Goldman Sachs and therein lies the danger.

And no I do not advise Trump!!!!!!

Feb 5 2018

Can the Stocks & Bonds Crash & Only Gold Rises?


Armstrong Economics Blog/Bonds

Re-Posted Feb 5, 2018 by Martin Armstrong

QUESTION: Mr. Armstrong; I use to listen to the Goldbug analysts but they never change. Now the pitch is you have to protect your wealth from stock and bond market crash. They say that with the current equity bull market among the longest on record and the beginning of a bond bear market, once again they say you have to buy only gold. Being the skeptic that they have made me, is there any historical basis for what they are pitching now that both stocks and bonds will crash together? This seems to be just impossible. Can you shed some light?

PD

ANSWER: Your gut feeling is correct. No there is no such historical precedent for the stock and bond market to collapse and only gold rises. I honestly cannot explain where they come up with this stuff. The bond markets will decline as interest rates rise. The sole exception was the Sovereign Debt Crisis in 1931-1932. This is when the stock market did decline with the bond market. However, this was driven by a complete collapse in confidence in government bonds. The Fed raised rates in 1931 to try to support the dollar but as you can see, the bonds and stocks fell.

The dollar soared in 1931 and most of Europe defaulted as well as South America and Asia. This produced a mad rush into the dollar which distorted the Dow slightly at first. Then the rumors turned against the dollar and people began to expect that the dollar would be devalued.

There is no indication of what they are saying is even feasible. What will happen is the stocks will get hit at first with rising rates, but then they will turn and rally with rising rates as they did between 1927 to 1929.

Sorry, I can find no historical foundation to support such a forecast.

Feb 4 2018

Canadian Prime Minister Trudeau Threatens to Leave NAFTA: “We Won’t Be Pushed Around”…


Re-Posted from The Conservative Tree House on February 4, 2018 by

Oh dear, Prime Minister Rainbow Sparkle-Socks is issuing threats now.

“We aren’t going to take any old deal,” Trudeau said Friday at a town hall in Nanaimo, British Columbia. “Canada is willing to walk away from Nafta if the United States proposes a bad deal.

We won’t be pushed around.” (link)

The backdrop is important context here.  Prime Minister Twinkles has been watching Trump, Ross, Mnuchin and Lighthizer closely.  Two months ago Twinkles attempted to launch economic leverage by entering direct trade discussions with China; but there’s a problem – Twinkles actually believes Beijing is ‘playful panda’.  PM Rainbow-brite doesn’t grasp that Playful Panda is a mask.  [Wrong place for leverage.]

Trudeau is willing to open his door to Chairman Xi without realizing once inside Beijing will hold open the door for arriving goods, and shuttle out the Canadian manufacturers. Attachment to China is a one-way proposition; and China only indulged Canada from the context of using the Canadian NAFTA door, as a tariff workaround to gain entry to the U.S. market.

If Trump shuts the NAFTA door, the entire dynamic changes for China and Prince Rainbow Sparkles will discover he’s in bed with the dragon.  As Wilbur Ross would say: “how’s that trade leverage working out for you?”

Think about it.

Take your time.

Now,…. simultaneous to this really bad panda trade-planning strategy, Canada has committed to the new and improved “Comprehensive and Progressive TPP” (CPTPP) without realizing that Japanese PM Shizo Abe has played the same hand as Chairman Xi Jinping; it was too easy.

The same reason China let Trudeau talk trade is the same reason ASEAN players were willing to make concessions to get Canada in TPP. The Asian manufacturing markets are all looking for doors to the U.S. market; they don’t particularly care about Canadian “Comprehensive and Progressive” politically correct market share.

Canada jumped into deals with China and ASEAN economies as protection from U.S. NAFTA withdrawal.  However, the benefits to trade relations with Canada (for China and ASEAN economies) only exists so long as NAFTA is in place.

Without NAFTA China will shift terms to Canada; and the “Comprehensive and Progressive” TPP concessions (CPTPP) will evaporate.

So who needs NAFTA more as a result: Canada or the U.S.?

Wait, huh… wha?…

Yep.  Canada went toward China and TPP as leverage in NAFTA negotiations.  The problem is that move ultimately made Canada’s position weaker in NAFTA negotiations with Team U.S.A. because Beijing/ASEAN primarily entertain Canada as a NAFTA access route.

(Bloomberg) Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau made some of his most aggressive comments to date on dealing with U.S. demands to rework the North American Free Trade Agreement, adding he still thinks he can get the right deal for his country.

“We aren’t going to take any old deal,” Trudeau said Friday at a town hall in Nanaimo, British Columbia. “Canada is willing to walk away from Nafta if the United States proposes a bad deal. We won’t be pushed around.”

His comments come days after U.S. President Donald Trump threatened to get tough on trade, though he didn’t single out Nafta, in his State of the Union address. The latest round of Nafta talks wrapped up in Montreal on Monday, with all sides saying there had been progress, while acknowledging significant gaps remain on some issues.

Trudeau said the 24-year-old pact has been good for both Canada and the U.S. and a reworked deal could still be reached. “Canceling it would be extremely harmful and disruptive to people in the United States,” Trudeau said.

“We are going to keep negotiating in good faith,” he added. “We are confident we are going to be able to get to the right deal for Canada, not just any deal.” (read more)

Feb 4 2018

Martin Armstrong’s Thoughts on Supper Bowl 52


Superbowl LII – Can a Model Ever Be Created?

Armstrong Economics Blog/Socrates

Re-Posted Feb 4, 2018 by Martin Armstrong

 

Triple-Crown-oddsWell, Superbowl 52 is here and it promises to be the coldest one ever – no doubt caused by Global Warming. Since they began in 1967, we are setting a new record. My daughter told many people at the conference how I had just flown back from Europe and she was in the hospital just giving birth. I went to visit and on the TV was the talk of the Triple Crown that day. It was 37 years since anyone had won and I quickly did the math and said he would win. I left and drove home. On my way home my daughter called me and said OMG, you were right. He won the Triple Crown.

I just did the conference in Vancouver and Mike Campbel reminded me of the forecast that we had witnessed the peak in sports. He commented on how the attendance has taken a nosedive ever since. I had included sports in the model because it was a reflection of good and bad times. I had explained the sports cycle even during Ancient Rome. I warned that our model had shown that football had peaked back in 2016 even with the Economic Confidence Model turn back in 2015.75.

Now comes Superbowl 52 and many have asked what does Socrates have to say on this one. Here is the problem. The Triple Crown was a piece of cake because it is the event I was forecasting, not the horse. The event had not been won in 37 years. With the Superbowl, someone wins every year so no point in trying to forecast based on the event, other than this may be the highest ticket prices adjusted for inflation and they will decline from here. That said, this outcome requires looking at the actual teams (horse) rather than the event. I would have to then input the history of every team to solve this question. Sorry, no time for that one.

So what can be ascertained from what little history that exists for this event? The Eagles have not been there for 13 years and they lost against the same team. That is very interesting. Since they have only been to the Superbowl twice and lost both times, there really is not enough data to make a reliable forecast. That leaves us with looking to New England who has been there many times. The only real thing that can be forecast with confidence was that they were indeed cyclically due to return this year.

Now, is there anything we can extract from this very little data? The first time the Patriots appeared in the Superbowl was 1986 and they lost. Curiously, that is the Pi Cycle for 2018, which also reinforced the fact that they should have returned to the Superbowl this year.  The only time they ever won back-to-back Superbowls was 2004 and 2005, and indeed it was 2005 when the beat the Eagles. Interestingly, they won 2017 so we do have a repeat of a potential back-to-back win again against the same team no less.

Another very interesting factor is that the first time the Eagles made it to the Superbowl was 1981. That means, 2018 is also 37 years for them. Combined with the Pi Cycle from the Patriot’s first time appearing in a Superbowl, strongly infers that this is a truly important cyclical convergence.

Therefore, the only thing we can conclude from this analysis lacking a real solid database in to draw risk inferences. There is clearly a RISK that the Patriots will LOSE and the Eagles could actually win.

The street is favoring the Patriots by 4.5 points and some put at 29 to 16.

Obviously, just looking at the risk analysis, it seems to go against the accepted wisdom. Tom Brady, New England’s quarterback, entered the NFL in 2000 and he is one of only two players to win five Super Bowls (the other being defensive player Charles Haley) and the only player to win them all playing for one team. The Eagles even lost their main quarterback – Carson Wentz. The starting quarterback will be Nicholas Edward Foles who entered the NFL in 2012. The Eagle’s backup Quarterback is Nathan Sudfeld who entered the NFL only in 2016. From a cyclical perspective, Tom Brady may have peaked with his win last year which was 17 years (2 * 8.6) from the start of his career. Foles is on an up-cycle, but it is not ready for a peak just yet so he has a shot. Sudfeld is new to the game and has a wildcard cycle in his pocket for being in the game just 2 years.

Since this is not like trying to forecast an event like the Triple Crown since someone always wins, trying to put together some of the glimpses here lacking a decent database on the teams and the individuals, this definitely shows that the Eagles, at last, have their first real shot. The fact that they lost their main quarterback may also underscore the fact that New England may not play as hard as they would assuming this is a done deal.

Note this is also Superbowl 52 (51.6 years). We may indeed be looking at a continued decline from here on out and that does not speak well for the global economy.

In the future, we will look at building a database on individual teams, but that is just as a curiosity only after everything else is completed.