_____________________________________________________
13 September 2026
Notice: By reading, subscribing to, browsing, forwarding, saving, or otherwise using the content of this channel, you are deemed to have fully read, understood, and agreed to this disclaimer;if you do not agree, please stop using it and leave immediately.All content on this channel is solely for personal research, information collation, and learning and discussion. It does not constitute investment advice, a recommendation to buy or sell, an invitation to make an offer, a promise of returns, asset management services, or investment advisory services. Nor does reading, subscribing, interacting, or using the content create any client, agency, trust, advisory, or other legal relationship. The content does not take into account any recipient’s financial circumstances, investment objectives, risk tolerance, or suitability requirements. Recipients should verify information independently, form their own judgments and make their own decisions, and bear the investment risks and consequences themselves. Information in this text may come from public sources, third-party data, market information, personal judgment, or model analysis, and may be delayed, incomplete, erroneous, biased, or no longer valid. The author does not guarantee its truthfulness, accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or suitability. Past performance, historical examples, backtest results, or the accuracy of past views are not indicative of future performance and do not guarantee returns.Without permission, you may not copy, screenshot, screen-record, forward, adapt, compile, or use this content for stock recommendations, fundraising, managing money on behalf of others, commercial promotion, or other purposes. Those engaging in such conduct bear all resulting consequences themselves!
Subscription to the FICC & MACRO main column:https://www.meridianresearch.app/home?product=cross-market-strategies
Subscription to CN data, investment research notes, and commentary:https://www.meridianresearch.app/home?product=asia-strategies
Subscription to US data, investment research notes, and commentary:https://www.meridianresearch.app/home?product=us-strategies
More supplementary research on commodity markets:https://www.meridianresearch.app/home?product=us-strategies
Links: Sean’s global market technical analysis column:https://www.meridianresearch.app/home?product=vega-trading
Zero. The Chaos Phase
1
As headline events come one after another
It was a lively and highly complex week: economic data, the Federal Reserve, Iran, crude oil, long-dated bonds, AI—headline events came one after another. Trying to form excellent and in-depth judgments about every issue, and to build even better interactive connections on the basis of those judgments, has long exceeded what any one person, or group of people, can process mentally. It has also exceeded the capacity of AI to provide a driving force.In this situation, there is only one thing we can rely on. It is also why all human interaction and social decision-making ultimately depend on it: price (Mr. Market).
Collective voting may be wrong at a given moment (diverging from the outcome after it is subsequently corrected), but it will still make an effective correction ahead of everyone else and establish a trend before the correct trend becomes fully apparent.
In other words, what is right and what is wrong?
Only by comparing an earlier outcome with the corrected outcome after the fact can we determine what was right or wrong. Yet whether we are looking at the earlier outcome or the corrected one, ultimately only price can reconcile the two and provide final confirmation. As price takers, the only thing we can and must do is listen to and follow price’s guidance. Our own views are entirely irrelevant.
2
Anthropic’s call to pause AI
Last night, Dario Amodei published an essay on why the pace of frontier AI capability development needs to be slowed. Since then, Sam Altman and Elon Musk have voiced support and responded. A cascade of discussion and conspiracy theories has followed. To understand this rare convergence of positions from a decision-making perspective, we need to understand what has changed: why companies and interest groups that were once fierce competitors have begun to see common constraints as serving their own interests.
1/ Decisions are the result of intersecting curves of interests and constraints. The current discussion about slowing frontier AI development, at least for now, is largely an attempt by frontier AI companies to change the terms of competition: shifting away from the high-spending logic of a prisoner’s dilemma with a single goal—who can build the next-generation model fastest—and toward a sustainable-business model of who can continue developing, deploying, and profiting from next-generation models under mutually accepted constraints.
This could reduce real risks, but it could also protect the commercial value of incumbent companies and give technology leaders greater influence over rulemaking.
2/ One important fact for assessing this is that internal slowdowns began long before this public convergence. OpenAI disclosed on 8 month 18 day that it had paused reinforcement-learning training for a planned deployment of its latest model for two weeks; as of the announcement, its largest planned frontier reinforcement-learning training run remained on hold. The company also estimated that the additional monitoring overhead was about 20% of the inference compute being monitored—a cost much more tangible than verbal support. In short, public consensus may well not have been the starting point for slowdown decisions; it is more likely an attempt to turn constraints that have already emerged internally into industry-wide constraints.
In the past, model companies could broadly understand research and safety as sequential tasks: first improve capabilities, then add evaluations and safeguards around release. But if risks arise during training, testing, and internal research, that sequence no longer holds. More powerful models require stricter isolation, access controls, monitoring, and behavioral verification. These measures consume compute, extend experimental timelines, and mean some research must wait. Safety therefore becomes part of the cost structure of research and development itself. Even if model capabilities have not hit a wall, the cost of acquiring them safely could suddenly steepen. Training that could previously continue to accelerate is constrained by the ability to verify and control it; further raising the capability ceiling no longer necessarily means getting a usable, saleable product sooner.
Once safety costs become part of the research process, companies’ policy demands also change. If one company seriously bears these costs while another presses ahead with weaker safeguards, the former may be penalized competitively. The safety costs companies already have to bear internally thus naturally create an incentive to demand that peers bear similar costs. This mechanism requires neither the assumption that companies are wholly altruistic nor the assumption that risk is merely an excuse: real risks and commercial interests can both, in practice, lead companies to support common rules.
At the same time, the value of existing assets that companies need to protect is changing their risk appetite. Companies that have yet to establish mature businesses are mainly worried about missing out on the future; those that already have customers, revenue, brands, financing capacity, and long-term infrastructure commitments are increasingly worried about destroying existing value as well. A serious incident could, beyond damaging current revenue, also affect customer trust (the report disclosed by Anthropic is a very clear example—a serious trust-impacting event for model providers broadly), continuity of research and development, financing conditions, and future room to operate. These are possible transmission channels, not claims that the consequences have already occurred. But they will inevitably be factored into pricing as risk discounts and expected paths, just as risk assets rebounded in trading after Friday’s data release. All pricing reflects path risk: its presence calls for hedging at the aggregate level, while its removal can instead imply, to some extent, a release of that risk.
Willingness to slow down therefore does not necessarily mean that companies have turned pessimistic about the technological outlook. Precisely because future returns could be enormous, retaining the ability to participate in the future becomes more important. The gains from continuing to accelerate are earlier access to new capabilities, revenue, and leadership; the associated costs include additional research and development spending, the burden of safeguards, and threats to company value from rising accident probabilities. Even if the probability of an accident has not changed substantially, as the value that needs protection grows, companies may no longer be willing to take risks they once accepted in order to obtain next-generation capabilities a few months sooner.
In other words, against the backdrop of linear time and nonlinear development, this is a tradeoff jointly determined by the marginal risk curve and the marginal benefit curve. A tradeoff is unavoidable.
3/ Recursive self-improvement further intensifies this tradeoff. Ordinary technological competition usually gives companies time to observe and respond: a rival makes progress, you assess the impact, then increase investment or adjust course. But recursive improvement—that is, AI becoming increasingly able to help develop the next generation of AI—means that today’s capability advantage may also increase the speed at which tomorrow’s advantage is built. Both the accumulation of a lead and the cost of falling behind rise as a result. OpenAI disclosed on 9 month 6 day that agents are changing internal research work, with researchers using them more and conducting more experiments. This does not yet directly prove that a complete, uncontrolled recursive loop has formed, but the path toward such a loop has become increasingly clear, bringing the sharpest contradiction into view: the same acceleration mechanism makes companies more eager to establish constraints and less willing to slow down unilaterally. Players worry that risk will not keep pace with capability, but they also worry that if they slow down, rivals will rapidly pull ahead through self-reinforcing research and development advantages. Thus, even if every company would prefer to reduce risk collectively, they may still be forced to keep racing. Public calls for coordination are an attempt to escape a competitive state from which no one can exit alone.
This also explains why Dario first proposed embedded evaluations rather than simply announcing a uniform halt to training. To sustain cooperation on slowing down, companies need to know whether their peers are keeping their commitments. Yet publicly released models do not fully reflect a company’s internal capabilities, training progress, or actual use. Seeing a rival release models less often does not reveal whether it has genuinely slowed its research or is keeping more advanced capabilities in-house. If this cannot be observed, collective slowdown is difficult to sustain.
Independent evaluators do more than check whether companies have broken their promises; they also establish a shared basis for judgment. One company may regard a given model behavior as an engineering flaw that can be fixed, while another may conclude that research must be paused. Without shared measurement and evidentiary standards, the parties may not even know what risks they are negotiating over. Third parties that are continuously involved in training and evaluation can turn information previously hidden inside companies into facts that can, under certain conditions, be assessed jointly. Only after addressing observation and verification can the parties go on to discuss what safeguards particular capabilities require and when work must stop.
But establishing this system also entails a distribution of power. Those who take part in defining it will influence the industry’s barriers to entry. This could improve safety overall, but it could also make it easier for incumbent giants to turn their own technical approaches, organizational resources, and compliance capabilities into barriers to entry.
4/ On this point, a recent interview with Jared Diamond offers a useful perspective (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6Jrww8kG24），没有精力看完的朋友也可以去看Alan的拆解（https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/xYtzPC7p_tvyWkD48wTA7w），里面有一段内容是这样的：
If the discussion goes no further than this, it is easy to slide into another kind of determinism: if geography, timing, and structure matter so much, it may seem that there is little left to study about people. When Diamond talks about Seretse Khama, Botswana’s first president, the question suddenly becomes very concrete.
...
Khama made a far-reaching decision: to establish that mineral resources underground belonged to the state. Reading this sentence today, it is easy to take it as an ordinary law. At the time, however, it meant that he voluntarily gave up the enormous economic claims that his own tribe could have made. More subtly, he was uniquely positioned to do so. If a politician from a weaker tribe had called for limiting the resource rights of the most powerful chief, it could easily have been seen as a power struggle. Khama himself came from the strongest traditional authority structure. When he curtailed the chiefs’ power, he was in effect weakening his own side first.
Why does this matter? Because Institutions are never just rules written on paper. They also include people’s expectations about the rules: whether everyone believes others will comply, and whether they believe that restraint today will not become their own loss tomorrow.
Political scientists often speak of “credible commitment.” When someone with the greatest vested interest voluntarily constrains themselves, that can establish credibility more effectively than a hundred appeals.
...
5/ For now, the parties can reach agreement quickly partly because these procedures have not yet determined who will ultimately bear how much of the losses. Jointly supporting an assessment is a different level of commitment from agreeing to delay one’s most valuable training project. Compute caps, capability thresholds, and safety certifications can also have different competitive effects: compute caps may favor more efficient companies, capability thresholds may constrain the most advanced companies first, and fixed compliance costs may put smaller participants at a greater disadvantage. Different companies can support the same principle while expecting the final rules to work more in their favor.
Dario’s proposal for coordination at the corporate, democratic-nation, and global levels can be understood through the same logic. An individual company that slows down worries that its peers will keep accelerating; U.S. companies slowing down together worry about overseas competitors; and countries reaching an agreement worry about secret projects and breaches. Each broader level of cooperation is an attempt to reduce the possibility that participants outside the agreement will gain a relative advantage. Restrictions on Chinese chips, preventing unauthorized distillation, and protecting model weights are precisely the accompanying measures he proposed to reduce the competitive losses U.S. companies might incur from slowing down; this is explicitly stated in the original essay.
There is a potential exchange at work: companies accept stronger oversight, while governments use enforcement, export policy, and diplomatic coordination to help reduce the relative losses companies face as a result. Companies can buy safety equipment and hire researchers, but they cannot ensure on their own that overseas competitors will proceed at the same pace. The guarantees governments provide therefore form part of what makes cooperation possible. But this is also a vulnerability in the proposal. If external restrictions fail, or participants believe overseas rivals are catching up markedly faster, domestic support for collective slowdown may evaporate.
Safety concerns do not automatically eliminate geopolitical competition. This is why the industrial logic of self-sufficiency and controllability will always be stronger than the logic of the frontier chain. Whatever the debate at the level of sovereign states, self-sufficiency and controllability have long been central and will accelerate further as a key bargaining chip.
..
6/ Some conspiracy theories claim that the most powerful models will shift to use by the upper classes, while public-facing products are positioned to generate cash flow. This goes somewhat too far, but the underlying economic logic deserves serious attention. Models today have become further two-dimensional: they are both products sold to customers and companies’ own productive capital. The former generates service revenue; the latter can assist with research and development, programming, operations, and the development of next-generation models. If the long-term value of internal use exceeds the returns from selling immediately, companies have an incentive to delay releasing their most advanced capabilities, just as the logic of return on internal investment would predict. If the eventual rules strictly limit public access while leaving broad exemptions for the accumulation of equally high-risk capabilities internally, the explanation that companies are preserving their internal advantage will carry substantially more weight.
A positive relationship may also exist between commercialization and safety. Customers are buying the ability to complete work reliably, not an isolated measure of intelligence. Even if a model is smarter, it may not translate its technical advantage into net benefits for customers if it still requires extensive human review, frequent fixes, and strict limits on permissions. Improvements in reliability, operational support, and integration with enterprise workflows may allow existing models to be used in more important business functions and take on longer, more valuable tasks. Enterprises may therefore find that, for a particular period (possibly 3-5 years), the marginal return on making existing capabilities reliably usable is indeed significantly greater than the marginal return on continuing to raise the capability ceiling.
...
7/ Finally, why now? The public record shows a process that took shape gradually: an industry coordination initiative was already underway in 7 month, OpenAI disclosed internal training restrictions in 8 month, discussions of research acceleration and safety constraints went further in early 9 month, and only then did public alignment emerge at the CEO level.
This is more consistent with the explanation that internal constraints had begun to impose real costs: only tangible, real-world costs would lead companies to start seeking common arrangements. Earlier, the evidence of risk and the parties to be constrained were not clear enough, making the opportunity cost of limiting development difficult to accept collectively. Later, if capabilities continued to accelerate or a more serious accident occurred, there might be less time to establish institutions and less room for companies to help shape the rules. The distinctive feature of the current stage, therefore, is that constraints have become necessary in practice, coordination is still possible, and the rules have not yet been set.
Under this interpretation, they are seeking an arrangement that can be sustained: continuing research, deployment, and profit-making while reducing uncontrollable risks and limiting the competitive losses companies face when they act cautiously on their own. Safety, commercial returns, and maintaining a leading position may all be driving this choice.
Whatever the case, the ultimate nature of this arrangement can only be identified through decisions made when a real conflict arises. When an independent assessment calls on a leading company to delay its most commercially valuable internal project, to the benefit of its competitors, will the company still accept? The trade-off at that point will reveal more about what they truly prioritize than their joint endorsement of a principle today.
3
A basket of risk assets and the US Dollar Index (5-minute chart)
Trading after Friday’s data release looked the same. A basket of risk assets and the US Dollar Index first made an impulsive hawkish move after the data, then quickly reversed, and then reverted, ultimately erasing the impact of the data.If you only looked at the closing prices and knew nothing else, it would look as though nothing had happened. From the price action alone, you would not see that an important data release had occurred that day, or that a range of assets had made a series of unusual moves.
Pricing reflects the path of risk. Decisions focus on changes in that path, not on what many people think specifically happened today.
No one can master uncertainty; as participants, we can only try to “manage” it from our own perspective.
...
On the data front (The removal of hedges after uncertainty about the path was resolved was the main driver of Friday’s trading.）
The traditional logic is the unfolding of risk, a process of moving from insufficient to sufficient pricing whereas for matters that have already been widely discussed (since 20, in fact, we have increasingly seen matters that have been widely discussed), the logic is the opposite: it is the process of the path unwinding after it has been fully priced in.
This has a lot to do with market efficiency. Market participants are becoming more sophisticated, information is flowing faster, and the layers through which information is distributed are becoming increasingly indistinct. You need to get used to this new unwinding process.
4
So where does the edge come from?
Look through disorderly price movements at what the market is actually doing (rather than what it is saying), and, as far as possible, make a strong, risk-controlled entry at key moments. Right time and right place.
I. Macro Trading Positioning
1
US10Y(Weekly chart, as of 260913)
US10Y (Daily chart, as of 260913)
After breaking above the upper boundary mentioned in last week’s newsletter during the week and re-entering the uptrend channel, US10Y saw its range widen and approached its all-time high.The weekly uptrend channel remains intact; nor can it all be blamed on the current administration—in fact, this major uptrend had already begun at the start of 22.
US10Y (monthly chart, as of 260913)
A Fed rate hike is now all but certain (the data meet the response conditions Waller stated publicly), and a full rate-hiking cycle may follow.Short-term and intermediate-maturity bonds sold off, sending yields higher, while long-term yields declined somewhat. The market expects the Fed to control inflation through a round of rate hikes, easing concerns about runaway long-term inflation. In that respect, the reaction is clearly positive.
Next week’s meeting and dot plot could be quite hawkish.
...
Given that institutional subscribers make up the vast majority, the newsletter will increasingly incorporate a longer-term perspective, helping everyone make better capital-allocation decisions across major trends and cycles.
2
Macro Drivers (as of 260913)
Market developments that may look tangled are, in fact, all being priced together:
Crypto Liquidity (as of 260913)
US Front-End Policy (as of 260913)
Industrial reversal, see details in Why I Don’t Trade Copper：
China Ferrous/Construction (as of 260913)
Agricultural inflation is slowing as expected; see the previous newsletter:
Agriculture Inflation (as of 260913)
Changes in macro thematic trade positioning (as of 260913)
Red indicates unanimous bearish positioning, green unanimous bullish positioning, and gray mixed positioning; dots with gold borders indicate movement toward the upper right (as of 260913)
Chart: Market-priced real financial conditions, overlaid with precious metals, technology, and alternative-asset composites
Financial Conditions&Precious Composite&Tech Composite&Crypto Composite (as of 260913)
My gauge of real financial conditions peaked last month and turned weaker, leading a range of liquidity-sensitive assets (just as it led those same assets when it began rising in late 6). Only now are the media and analysts telling you they have “finally confirmed” this—yet prices actually began moving in the opposite direction on Friday. Pay attention to what they do, not what they say. Narratives in the news and analysis are always behind prices; only prices are tied to real money and interests.
II. Technology Trade Positioning
1
KOSPI(Weekly chart, as of 260913)
KOSPI (daily chart, as of 260913)
Momentum on both the weekly and daily charts of the Korean index has turned upward, following nearly two months of price stagnation since 7 20. Structurally, it remains trapped below the white line; going long requires a break above that line.
...
SOXX(Weekly chart, as of 260906)
Last week, we noted that the weekly chart was forming a bottom fractal. This week, it completed one as expected, though it was not strong; both the Beauty Contest engine and momentum continued to decline, a sign that this is a rebound rather than a reversal, and that any move can only occur at the daily level.
SOXX (daily chart, as of 260913)
The daily chart broke out of its previous downtrend channel and turned upward during the week. The new channel’s upper and lower boundaries are at 532.25 and 485.91, respectively. Meanwhile, both Beauty Contest and momentum improved. The price structure also formed a potential wedge breakout. Watch whether price can hold above the descending white line after breaking through it; holding there would turn the outlook bullish.
...
In addition, whether a breakout has occurred is an objective matter, regardless of whether you dress it up or not.
5D%
...
STAR 50 (weekly chart, as of 260913)
STAR 50 (daily chart, as of 260913)
After turning into a downtrend channel last week, the weekly chart made a new low this week. On the daily chart, after meeting resistance at the yearly moving average, it gapped down on Friday but closed near the high, indicating some degree of bullish resistance. The price level for a bullish turn has been moved down again, to above Thursday’s trading high. To reiterate, before STAR breaks above the channel’s upper boundary, trading will only be divergent.
2
Tech Monitor Mainland Basket as an asset (daily chart, as of 260913)
The divergent trading is still very clear, with strong structures in PCB, electronic components, and some optical-link segments, If you are trying to trade a rebound, you should focus on strong baskets within the rebound structure.
5D% (as of 260913)
After Hard Tech hit the sentiment-driven low identified in last week’s newsletter, it duly saw divergent rebound trading during the week and became the market’s standout performer this week.
...
In fact, the choppy price action over the past month has been much harder to trade than the steep downtrend that preceded it in July.As long as there is a trend, it can be handled calmly. The only thing market participants really need to worry about is choppy, low-volatility price action. This means you will repeatedly face failures and stop-outs (stops are necessary, because no one can know whether we might suddenly encounter a black swan. No one can be certain that we will not see another 50% decline before the so-called golden age of AI arrives, so you must have a stop-loss plan in place to protect yourself).
Tech Monitor Mainland Basket as an asset (daily chart, as of 260913): Strategy performance
YTD sets a new high for drawdown.
3
Starting this week, Tech Monitor will officially launch weekly updates for WEEKLY CHARTBOOK, covering more specific, bottom-up core proxy structures. I hope you enjoy them.
Tech Monitor (daily chart, as of 260913)
Divergent market action。
III. Global Equity Positioning
1
Red indicates unanimous bearish positioning, green unanimous bullish positioning, and gray mixed positioning; dots with gold borders indicate movement toward the upper right (as of 260913)
EWT(Weekly chart, as of 260906)
EWT (daily chart, as of 260913)
2
Global equity thematic trading anomalies (Economic) (as of 260913)
Global equity thematic trading anomalies (Structure) (as of 260913)
It is still the same regions and trading structures discussed previously. Not much has changed, so I won't go into further detail.
IV. U.S. Market Positioning
1
SPX(Weekly chart, as of 260913)
SPX (daily chart, as of 260913)
SPX (hourly chart, as of 260913)
The white line remains strong resistance. The weekly T1 is the key reason SPX has stalled here. The index is not showing a strong structure, which means a broad-based rally is unlikely and divergence will continue.
2
MEME(daily chart, as of 260913)
The key proxy for betting on market sentiment; place the stop above breakeven, turning the stop-loss into a take-profit. Make sure you are protected.
3
Red indicates unanimous bearish positioning, green unanimous bullish positioning, and gray mixed positioning; dots with gold borders indicate movement toward the upper right (as of 260913)
Strong momentum above the green line; above the yellow line is a good area to take a shot. A break below the red line puts us in unfavorable territory, where the market is likely to become choppy and random (as of 260913)
Moving toward the red line is not a very favorable backdrop.
V. FX Trading Positioning
1
USDKRW(daily chart, as of 260906)
Unrealized gains continue to grow. This trade has moved very smoothly since entry through the Planet, and, looking back from today, it is the most tradable pair in FX. Continue to move the take-profit level lower to 1351.
If you are considering entering a reversal trade here,
please wait at least for price to trigger PT on the upside to confirm that the trend has ended:
...
2
USDBRL(Weekly chart, as of 260913)
USDBRL (daily chart, as of 260913)
The position has moved from an unrealized loss to an unrealized gain. However, for now, do not move the stop-loss:
1) On the daily timeframe, price has not broken below the bullish channel; instead, it formed a bottom fractal at the lower boundary, showing that capital is not looking to drive a smooth move lower here. 2) Daily momentum has continued to remain compressed, so a further downside break would require momentum support.
KWZ(daily chart, as of 260913)
Continue to raise the take-profit level to just below the T1 target price.The key issue here is that FX has been slow to follow through on the trend in equities, which may cause the move in EWZ to come to a pause here for now.
...
USDSEK broke above the upper boundary of its channel on Friday and turned higher. This occurred within a weekly reversal pattern that was also in an ascending channel:
USDSEK(daily chart, as of 260913)
USDSEK (weekly chart, as of 260913)
3
Red indicates unanimous bearish positioning, green unanimous bullish positioning, and gray mixed positioning; dots with gold borders indicate movement toward the upper right (as of 260913)
5D%
Six. Mainland China Trading Positioning
1
Narrative Trading Activity (daily chart, as of 260913)
Pair Trading Activity (daily chart, as of 260906)
5D% (as of 260913)
Hard tech stocks diverged and retraced as expected and became the market’s standout performer this week.
2
Note, Top-down trading monitoring of hundreds of baskets in Mainland China Starting this week, Full updates will be posted on Hong Kong Dragon ofARI’S WEEKLY CHARTBOOK》column. Index structure updates are retained here.
Shanghai Composite (weekly & daily charts, as of 260913)
Shenzhen Component (weekly & daily charts, as of 260906)
Both the Shanghai and Shenzhen indices are in weekly downtrends, while their daily charts diverge. The divergence began when funds rotated into a group of old-economy stocks.
CSI500 & CSI2000 (daily chart, as of 260906)
They diverged in the same way.
3
Red indicates unanimous bearish positioning, green unanimous bullish positioning, and gray mixed positioning; dots with gold borders indicate movement toward the upper right (as of 260913)
Seven. Precious Metals Trading Positioning
1
CMX gold (weekly chart, as of 260913)
CMX gold (daily chart, as of 260913)
The daily structure is unchanged. The two yellow arrows mark the times of posts on Planet.Know when to advance and when to retreat. Listening to the market cannot go wrong.If you still can't understand the market, you can listen to my “translation.” That's what this column is for:
CMX gold (5-minute chart, as of 260913)
...
2
CMXSilver (weekly chart, as of 260913)
CMXSilver (daily chart, as of 260913)
The pullback should not break below the white line. A break below it would create strong downward pressure and point directly to the lower edge of the channel; a break below the lower edge would signal that the rebound is officially over.
NMXPlatinum (weekly chart, as of 260913)
NMXPlatinum (daily chart, as of 260913)
NMXPalladium (weekly chart, as of 260913)
NMXPalladium (daily chart, as of 260913)
A break below the lower edge of the ascending channel would turn it into a bearish channel.
Eight. Alternative Asset Trade Positioning
1
Gold (daily chart, as of 260913)
The blue line on the chart is the first long position we took previously T2’s target price level; we reduced our position here at the time and subsequently exited by closing it out entirely.After that, a strong engulfing pattern appeared and triggered another move to the long side, a structure that is distinctly different from the previous bottoming reversal, a reversal structure and instead is a breakout structure. Against the backdrop of a simultaneous shift to an ascending Ariston Channel on the weekly timeframe, it is worth trying; the stop is placed at the low of the new structure’s range and has not been moved yet.
Breadth and momentum have both weakened, and this breakout trade may end in a loss.
Gold (weekly chart, as of 260830)
Ethereum (daily chart, as of 260913)
On Friday, we detected unusual market-cap management activity, but the push toward T2 failed, so we reduced our position further.
This may trigger an PT exit next week.
Note: Please comply with the laws and regulations in your region and allocate personal assets only within the bounds of applicable regulations; this content is intended only for users in certain special overseas regions.
Nine. Soft commodities
1
Chart:《ARI’S WEEKLY WRAP 260816》
Chart:《ARI’S WEEKLY WRAP 260830》
Agricultural commodities basket (daily chart, as of 260913)
Reached T2 as expected; the position was fully closed, with the remainder exited passively.。
Another successful bet this year, and this success belongs to all of us.
2
Cocoa (weekly chart, as of 260913)
Cocoa (daily chart, as of 260913)
Cocoa: We took profits and exited last week, then switched to a short position. The long-term weekly uptrend is also approaching its take-profit level; the daily short position is already in profit, and Friday’s bullish effort did not trigger our stop-loss, with the market ultimately closing near the low. Move the stop to breakeven.
Coffee (daily chart, as of 260913)
Profit on the short position has increased; likewise, move the stop to breakeven.
Closed near the weekly low.
...
Soybeans (daily chart, as of 260913)
PT was triggered; we exited to take profits and switched to a short position as planned. During the week, the market broke below the lower boundary and moved into a downward channel.
3
Chart:26-08-02 Weekly Review Ari's Weekly Wrap
Raw sugar (daily chart, as of 260913)
Sugar: appreciating the ultimate beauty of price; after trimming the position at T2, the price paused and consolidated here. Continue moving the take-profit level higher and be ready to exit at any time.
Corn (daily chart, as of 260913)
Corn: Took profits and switched to a short position as planned.
A successful bet this year; the victory belongs to all of us.
Wheat: Continue holding the short position:
Wheat (daily chart, as of 260913)
...
Ten, Uranium
1
URA (weekly and daily charts, as of 260913)
Turn bearish.
Eleven, Oil
On Friday, I highlighted this post about the trading path for crude oil. One important point in it is the current risk of a squeeze in oil, For crowded trades, the absence of further positive catalysts is negative. Regarding the current strait situation, it is difficult to see any further, more significant positive developments, so the downside path should be on the table for discussion.
BRN(Hourly chart, as of 260913)
The chart above shows the four-hour channel for Brent crude. A break below the lower boundary would trigger the downside path.
I appreciate everyone’s kind words, but I’m not important, nor do I have any ambition to become famous. I prefer to keep my head down and work quietly; the content in our Planet is for internal use, and we try not to share it externally. Thank you for your understanding. Thank you, everyone.
...
(End of article)
The U.S. session, A-share market and commodities Planets that are used together, Subscribe only if you really need them I know everyone wants to show their support, but don’t waste money or spend it carelessly.
U.S. session:https://www.meridianresearch.app/home?product=us-strategies
A-share market:https://www.meridianresearch.app/home?product=asia-strategies
Commodities: https://www.meridianresearch.app/home?product=commodity-strategies
Note: All content in this document is for reference only. It does not constitute any investment advice, nor does it serve as a basis for any laws, regulations, or regulatory policies. Investors should not use or rely on such information as the basis for decision-making.
Note: All content shared in the Planet is for reference only. Recipients are not deemed to be our clients by virtue of reading the Planet’s content. This content does not constitute an invitation to anyone to sell or buy securities or other investment products, nor does it constitute a basis for trading. Markets involve risk, and investment requires caution. None of the information or views in this Planet constitutes investment advice. Past performance is not indicative of future results. Investors should carefully assess their own risk tolerance, make independent decisions, and bear full responsibility for those decisions. Under no circumstances shall we be liable for any losses arising from the use of the Planet’s content. The relevant data may be delayed or inaccurate, and we accept no legal responsibility for the completeness or accuracy of the information.
Note: All content in this document is for reference only. It does not constitute any investment advice. It does not serve as a basis for any laws, regulations, or regulatory policies. Investors should not use or rely on such information as the basis for decision-making.
