- Ultimate market timing model: Buy equities (Last changed from “sell” on 28-Jul-2023)
- Trend Model signal: Bullish (Last changed from “bearish” on 27-Jun-2025)
- Trading model: Neutral (Last changed from “bullish” on 31-Jul-2025)
Update schedule: I generally update model readings on my site on weekends. I am also on X/Twitter at @humblestudent and on BlueSky at @humblestudent.bsky.social. Subscribers receive real-time alerts of trading model changes, and a hypothetical trading record of those email alerts is shown here.
Subscribers can access the latest signal in real time here.
This Will Not End Well
I have documented in the past how the U.S. equity market is undergoing a frothy advance. There are many ways of measuring froth. Goldman’s Speculative Trading Indicator has risen to its third-highest level in its own history, which will lead to a “this will not end well” condition. I don’t like “this well not end well” warnings because they only highlight the risks without the obvious signs of a bearish trigger. I would highlight Bob Farrell’s Rule 4: “Exponential rapidly rising or falling markets usually go further than you think, but they do not correct by going sideways”.
There is no doubt that “this will not end well”, but when? I explore the set of current risks and opportunities open to traders.
A Bullish Trend
Let’s begin with the intermediate trend. My Trend Asset Allocation Model, which applies trend-following techniques to a variety of global stock markets and commodities, is bullish.
Looking globally, Jurrien Timmer at Fidelity observed that 72% of stock markets are in uptrends. That’s another bullish sign.
Commodity indices are all above their 50 and 200 dma, indicating uptrends. The cyclically sensitive copper/gold ratio underwent some volatility owing to changes in Trump’s tariff regime, and the volatility can be dismissed as regulatory noise. The broadly based base metals/gold ratio is moving sideways. Call the commodity score neutral to bullish.
Warning Signs
However, some concerning warning signals of a market stall are appearing. Last week, I highlighted constructive signs of a broadening market breadth from U.S. large-cap growth to other sectors. The rotation is unwinding.
Equally disturbing is the weakness shown by the small caps. At an absolute level, the Russell 2000 failed at a resistance zone and violated a rising trend line (top panel). At a relative level, the index broke down through relative support (bottom panel).
Another cross-asset bearish warning can be seen in the behaviour of gold mining stocks (GDX). Gold miners, which tend to trade as risk-off assets, have been consolidating sideways for about two months. At the same time, the junior miner GDXJ to GDX ratio has collapsed, indicating that bullish sentiment has gone out of the group. While there is no obvious bullish trigger for GDX, it appears ripe and poised for another bull leg, which would be bearish for the stock market in general.
Putting it all together, these cross-asset, or inter-market, indicators are creating a mosaic picture of a leadership transition failure, which is concerning.
The Bearish Trigger
Despite these warnings, I see no major bearish breaks in my technical indicators. Friday’s sudden downdraft left the S&P 500 testing its uptrend line and oversold on the 5-day RSI.
Fundamental momentum is supportive of price gains. Aggregate forward 12-month EPS estimates continue to rise during Q2 earnings reporting season.
One possible lurking tail-risk may be arising in tariff policy. In the wake of recent trade deal “wins”, and a reduction in trade war tensions as measured by my trade war factor, and both bond and stock market implied volatility nearing recent lows, Trump may feel emboldened to re-assert himself as Tariff Man. The market already responded with a risk-off tone when he announced tariffs imposed on over 60 countries ranging from 15% to 41% which will go into effect on August 7.
There may be more to the tariff drama. Trump has a history of using tariffs not only as an instrument of trade policy, but foreign policy (see Brazil). He recently voiced his impatience with Putin over the Russo-Ukraine war, and reduced the deadline for a resolution from 50 days to 10 days, which expires on August 8. The risk to the markets is the imposition of secondary sanctions and punishing tariffs on countries that trade with Russia. China, India, and Turkey are major buyers of Russia oil, and secondary tariffs will hit those countries hard, as well as spark a price shock to energy prices.
In conclusion, the U.S. stock market is undergoing a frothy advance. The intermediate trend is bullish, but some technical warnings are appearing. While I can’t predict the exact nature or timing of a possible market disruption, investors may find it prudent to opportunistically take advantage of the relatively low implied volatility environment to buy cheap downside protection.
We had a bearish strong downside reversal (candlestick) in all the major indices last week. VIX and VXN exploded northward. The fundamental backdrop of the employment numbers show the economy decelerating rapidly. Add to that Trump’s unpredictably regarding tariffs creates all the necessary reasons for investors to fear an intermediate pullback of 5 to15%.
American companies and citizens pay the tariffs not the companies shipping goods to American ports.
Somehow Trump has made it seem the tariffs will hurt a foreign company. News sources buy into this wrong viewpoint. These tariffs are simply a VAT tax on consumers. A bottle of French wine will now cost two bucks more. At 10% tariff it’s a buck fifty more. Folks that buy pricy wine won’t switch to California’s.
Expensive items like a Lamborghini will cost $575000 with 15% tariffs up from $500,000. I deal with clients that buy these cars and an extra $75,000 will not stop them buying. They brag about how much they pay. Again that rich American pays the tariff, not the Italian car maker.
Think of the huge amount of cheap Chinese goods coming over. Toys, lighters, games, cheap jewelry and a flood of things under ten bucks. With a tariff,these will cost an extra two or three bucks. US consumers will pay the tariffs because there are no American alternatives. Once again, the Chinese company sells for the same pre-tariff price and the American consumers pay it.
So when Trump is pissed at a foreign country and he raises their tariff level, to “punish” them he is really hurting Americans especially for the huge numbers of goods not made by American companies.
Read the headlines differently knowing this. For example, I saw a headline “Trump’s higher tariffs on Europe will hurt their economy for years.” Now you know this should read, “Trump higher tariffs on Europe will cost Americans more for years.”
Tariffs constitute a regressive consumption tax. Conservative economists have advocated for a consumption (VAT) tax and they finally got one.
To be sure, it’s not the most efficient implementation of a consumption tax, but it is a consumption tax.
And the higher the tariff the higher the consumption tax on Americans
Paul Kedrosky has argued that VAT of course would be much better, but Americans react allergically to anything that has the word “tax” in it, so tariffs are a reasonable approach to a fiscal problem. What remained to be see (and might be crucial) is how much tariffs reduced economic efficiency and growth.
What I’d like to know is whether tariffs are akin to taxes in respect to inflation (where the net result is not crucial), or whether they are in fact inflationary. One notices that countries that have a VAT do not on average have higher interest rates or higher inflation. I think this is a question that the Fed is still working on.