All times are GMT not BST (US opens at 13:30 and closes at 20:15)
00-01 ss <= soft focus
01-02 h
02-03 hss <= soft focus
03-04 hshss
04-05 g
05-06 g
06-07 hhs <= hard focus
07-08 s
08-09 hhsh <= hard focus
09-10 g
10-11 s
11-12 h
12-13 sss <= soft focus
13-14 shss <= soft focus
14-15 g
15-16 g
16-17 sh
17-18 hs
18-19 hshs
19-20 sh
20-21 hs
21-22 h
22-23 hshs
23-24 hh
So remember, that when we have at least a couple of the same aspects in sequence then we have the correct conditions for a correlation. It is rare to get more than four hard or four soft aspects per hour. There usually is of the other imbetween. But you need to know what kind of aspects they are and how powerful they are.
This report is a gross simplification of an aspectarian. I teach people how to read an aspectarian after seeing this simplification. To subscribe please go to the main site or email me on aliwhoATgmailDOTcom, with "question for ali" in the subject line.
And below is a chart that many of you probably have not seen, but is a very good global index. It is the BBC 30. And this is what the world's top 30 companies did.
We have very bad correlation at the point when there were soft aspects between 12-14 hrs GMT, just when the US market opened, and could not counter Fed's comments. Or maybe the rise after the fall was the soft aspects' effect? Or this could be just part of the belated reaction that the US market has had, as the rest of the world markets and futures had fallen. But as the rest of the US trading day did not have strong aspects, it is hard to say one way or the other whether the correlations were good or bad. Or perhaps the comment about the markets falling to mildly hard aspects was right?
Again this only shows that this method is not perfect, and one has to know the conditions in which it is working. Those conditions are when the market is not being over sensitive to Fed comments, such that it stops trading, or when the aspects are low. But then when the aspects are low the markets will be tepid.
