RWA

Global Ranking Model

Ron William | RW Advisory — Mon, 31 Aug 2026 11:01:12 GMT

Global Ranking Model Update – Executive Summary

2026-2032 THE CYCLE CONVERGENCE THAT COULD BREAK MARKETS

Ron William | RW Advisory — Mon, 31 Aug 2026 08:25:33 GMT

Friend and strategist Simon Hunt recently hosted a timely discussion with me on his newly launched podcast, sharing key insights on the geopolitical, macro and cross-asset forces that could shape markets into the new decade. While our approaches differ, we share a common conclusion: the current environment may represent the early stages of a major regime transition.

As shared with Robin Griffiths during our joint global macro event in UK, the 2026-2032 Cycle Convergence thesis identifies a rare alignment of economic, financial, geopolitical and longer-duration cycles. We believe this convergence marks a transition from a beta-dominated, US-centric regime towards a more volatile, inflationary and increasingly multipolar market environment.

Despite the continued strength of US equities, our analysis remains cautious about the sustainability of the current advance. Markets have continued to climb the “behavioural wall of worry”, supported by strong liquidity, but beneath the surface we are seeing rising rates, stretched positioning and fragile leadership rotation.

Our tactical models identify late August through October as an important volatility window, reinforced by historically weaker seasonality, amidst a precarious US mid-term. A potential counter-rotation in Greed and Fear assets, recently highlighted in my CNBC interview, points to a 10-20% shakeout risk in US equities, followed by a typical year end relief rally.

The key message is not necessarily an immediate bear market, but that the risk/reward profile is becoming increasingly asymmetric. Simon highlighted the potential for disruption around the Strait of Hormuz, Red Sea shipping and Saudi energy infrastructure to persist well into 2027.

From our perspective at RWA, the crucial question is whether this geopolitical premium becomes embedded in inflation expectations and broader asset pricing. Oil has already reawakened, and our models continue to favour energy strategically. A sustained supply shock could increase stagflation risk and favour hard assets over long-duration beta.

The current environment also bears some resemblance to the 1970s in terms of inflation volatility, geopolitical shocks and uncertainty – not as a precise historical repetition, but as a useful regime analogue. We see 2027 as a broadening risk-volatility window. An initial growth slowdown could briefly push US 10-year yields lower, but persistent energy and commodity pressures could subsequently reignite inflation.

This creates a potentially difficult sequence: Growth slowdown → lower yields → inflation resurgence → higher yields. This is why traditional equity market buy-the-dip strategies could become less effective. As I noted, “our base-case is for a series of volatility shocks, as in 2022, but likely worse.” Simon and I broadly agree on the potential for a powerful commodity super-cycle. Structural supply constraints, underinvestment, weather cycles and geopolitical fragmentation could support energy, agriculture and base metals.

Our global ranking model continues to favour energy as strategic exposure, with agriculture showing strong trend characteristics, while copper is more tactical and economically sensitive. Gold is particularly important. Simon sees the potential for $15,000 gold by 2032. While the precise target is open to debate, the structural drivers remain key: monetary stress, inflation volatility, reserve diversification and the transition from a unipolar to multipolar financial system.

The investment implication is clear. The next phase increasingly favours active asset allocation, relative-value investing and disciplined market timing over passive exposure to US equity and USD beta. Our Roadmap is therefore: 2026 Q3 – Shakeout → 2027 – Recession/Reflation → 2028–32 – Commodity & Inflationary Expansion → 2032 – Potential Cycle Reset.

As I concluded, when multiple cycles converge, investors should expect “volatility, compression, reset, and reconstruction.” The opportunity is not simply to predict the next market move, but to recognise the regime change early and position accordingly.

Best success with navigating the cycle ahead!

Ron William is founder & CIO of RWA, an award-winning, macro-tactical, research and advisory firm, to a wide range of financial institutions & professionals, producing differentiated alpha, insightful idea generation and unique market timing.

He specialises in global, multi-asset, top-down framework, grounded in behavioural technical analysis, driven by cycles, based on the expanded “Roadmap” signature model of veteran market technician Robin Griffiths, originally published in Robin’s book “Mapping the Markets.” Additional insights also featured in their peer interview exchange hosted by Real Vision, T3 reports and Halkin letter contribution.

Driven by impactful education, Ron trains financial institutions and serves on the board of a variety of professional societies, notably as MENA director, education committee member of the International Federation of Technical Analysts (IFTA) and Development Director at the Foundation of the Study of Cycles (FSC).

Diversification Beyond US Equities

Ron William | RW Advisory — Mon, 24 Aug 2026 13:11:33 GMT

Global Ranking Model Update – Executive Summary

Turning Up the Summer Heat

Ron William | RW Advisory — Mon, 10 Aug 2026 17:18:36 GMT

As summer temperatures continue to climb across much of the Northern Hemisphere, financial markets are also beginning to feel the heat. Global equities have reached record highs, supported by resilient corporate earnings, continued optimism surrounding AI investment and easing geopolitical tensions as prospects for renewed US-Iran diplomacy reduced concerns over oil supply disruption.

While the backdrop remains supportive for risk assets, our Global Ranking Model (GRM) suggests leadership is still in active and fragile rotation beneath the surface. Rising interest rates, stretched investor positioning, and historically weaker August-October seasonality argue for a more selective investment approach.

Rotation Underway

Ron William | RW Advisory — Mon, 03 Aug 2026 13:24:04 GMT

Global Ranking Model Update – Executive Summary

Beyond Beta: Why Late-Stage Cycle Demands Active Investing?

Ron William | RW Advisory — Sun, 26 Jul 2026 18:23:58 GMT

The investment landscape is entering a more selective phase. While the structural bull market remains intact, the environment that rewarded broad passive exposure is giving way to one where leadership rotates more rapidly, volatility returns, and active asset allocation becomes increasingly important. This was the central message from our recent market outlook IRF podcast, with David Osman, where we discussed RWA’s 2026 Cycle Convergence framework to identify major investment transitions (Figure 1).

Our work suggests we are entering a late-cycle environment that is likely to reward tactical positioning, relative-value investing and disciplined risk management over the next 12–18 months. The Roadmap Cycle, originally based on the signature model developed by Robin Griffiths, indicates that the global economy is progressing through a divergent late-stage expansion, rather than a synchronised recovery or imminent recession.

Growth is slowing without collapsing, while inflation remains vulnerable to renewed fiscal, energy and geopolitical shocks. The result is a stop-start macro environment where regional economies are increasingly moving at different speeds. Echoes of the 1970s are emerging—not as a direct repeat, but through supply-side pressures, fiscal expansion and persistent inflation volatility (Figure 2). Together, these forces underpin our expectation that market volatility will reawaken during the second half of 2026 and broaden into 2027.

Our current tactical theme remains “Shaken, Not Stirred.” Markets have rebounded strongly from recent geopolitical shocks, yet our timing model suggests sentiment and positioning are becoming increasingly stretched (Figure 3). We believe investors should prepare for a healthier, more rotational market environment where active management becomes increasingly valuable.

Long-term structural themes remain firmly intact. Artificial intelligence infrastructure, precious metals and strategic commodities continue to benefit from powerful secular drivers, including fiscal investment, geopolitical fragmentation and digital infrastructure spending. However, leadership is beginning to broaden. Recent weakness in South Korea, previously one of the strongest AI-related markets, may signal that investor participation is expanding beyond a narrow group of mega-cap technology companies.

S&P500 risk still in play for Q3, amplified by a confluence of timing signals, including natural cycles, seasonality and the mid-term election pattern (Figure 4). More details in follow-up RWA premium report. Watch key levels at either side of the trading range between 7600 and 7300. A sustained close below the latter will unlock sharp downside risk into 7000. The next phase is therefore likely to reward global diversification, active stock selection and relative-value investing rather than simple index exposure.

Within fixed income, we believe the more important story is the growing divergence between policy rates and long-term government bond yields. While moderating inflation may allow central banks to pause, structural fiscal deficits, elevated government borrowing and higher term premia are likely to keep long-term yields raised (Figure 5). This points to a structurally different higher-for-longer bond environment, requiring greater selectivity rather than assuming bonds will provide the same defensive characteristics seen over the past two decades. Our timing model also remains constructive on gold. More to follow in RWA premium reports.

A resilient primary trend, improving cycle momentum and increasingly cautious investor sentiment continue to offer support. Looking ahead, we continue to favour a gradual rotation towards hard assets. Commodities remain historically undervalued relative to equities, while increasingly crowded US dollar positioning raises the prospect of a cyclical correction (Figure 6), creating opportunities across selected Asian and EM assets.

Overall, the easy gains from broad market beta may now be behind us. As the Cycle Convergence theme unfolds, we believe the next stage of the cycle will increasingly reward investors who can identify market rotation, allocate dynamically across asset classes and manage risk astutely.

Best success with navigating the cycle ahead!

Robin Griffiths is Senior Advisor & Investment Strategist at RW Advisory.

Robin has served as Head of Multi-Asset Research & Advisory at the ECU Group. He was previously Chief Technical Strategist at HSBC Investment Bank for 20 years, before becoming Head of Global Asset Allocation at Rathbones, and then a director and technical strategist for Cazenove Capital Management. Robin was a Partner of WI Carr and Head of Technical Analysis at Grieveson Grant.

Robin is a committee member and former chairman of the International Federation of Technical Analysts, and former chairman, now fellow, of the British Society of Technical Analysts. Robin has been a member of ECU’s Global Macro Team for over 20 years. Robin has won several Technical Analyst awards for his research

Ron William, CFTe

Gold's resilient trend

Ron William | RW Advisory — Thu, 18 Jun 2026 05:10:54 GMT

Gold recently generated a sell signal in the Global Ranking Model (Figure 1). This has come as a surprise, as the yellow metal proved one of our strongest convictions for the past two years. In fact, it became the primary holding and delivered a gain of 53% last year.

With such resilient performance, it’s important to stress that gold has not yet technically broken down and can cushion a healthy trend mean-reversion. In fact, the FSC timing model is signalling a 2-stage pattern into Q3, bottoming into July, then resuming higher (Figure 2).

The price continues to make a pattern of sequential rising highs and lows above its long-term 200-day trend average. However, volatility within the asset class increased significantly. Gold has fallen approximately 25% from its all-time high, which is a substantial correction, but is nearing key psychological support at $4000. This also equates to a retracement of 50% of its trend over the last year or so (Figure 3).

In addition, our model does not rely solely on buy and sell signals. The objective is always to own the strongest-performing assets. If another asset class develops a superior trend and relative strength profile, we switch into it, even if the existing holding remains in an uptrend. Gold has therefore moved from the very strongest group of assets into a merely strong category. As a result, we have exited our position. It is entirely possible that the long-term trend in gold will accelerate again in the future. Should that occur, we would be happy to buy it back. Any future purchase would be treated as a new and separate investment from the previous holding.

Another newer signal is in the USA equity market. Here, caution is warranted. Market leadership has become extremely narrow, with gains concentrated in only a handful of giant companies with enormous market capitalisations. The broader market is considerably less impressive. While the model permits us to own this asset, we are maintaining tight stop-loss levels, especially as it has already dropped into a weak tactical trend ranking (Figure 1).

The other assets that currently rank highly are commodity-related investments, as part of the emerging super-cycle. Gold has been overtaken by silver and several industrial metals in terms of relative strength. We also note that food and agricultural prices remain firm, as part of broader commodity rotation and inflation effects. Moreover, the commodities are outperforming equities, in a generational cycle rotation. Seasonally, risk markets often experience weakness after the traditional “sell in May” (SIM) period, before entering the most dangerous phase of the year, which typically extends from late summer into October. Recall this includes mid-term election headwinds, as recently published.

So far, market behaviour is broadly following this Q3 seasonal pattern. The cyclical indicators we monitor suggest that any setback in the USA this year could be severe. While a rally may follow into the new year, we view such strength as temporary. Once that rally phase is complete, the broader bear market is likely to continue in a slow and extended fashion, potentially lasting until 2032.

For that reason, any current rally should be viewed as a short-term opportunity and managed with disciplined stop-loss levels. Like Warren Buffett, we believe there is value in maintaining liquidity. Preserving capital today ensures that we will have the resources available to take advantage of genuinely attractive opportunities when markets become cheap again in the years ahead.

Welcome feedback, likes and re-shares. Also remember to check our RWA premium services, for enhanced alpha performance, unique insights & proprietary market timing signals. Select link for more details: https://ronwilliam.substack.com/about

Robin Griffiths, FSTA

Robin Griffiths is Senior Advisor & Investment Strategist at RW Advisory.

Ron William, CFTe

Beneath the surface of a resilient market

Ron William | RW Advisory — Fri, 01 May 2026 09:36:24 GMT

Featured at the start of each month in our T3 reports, The World at a Glance builds on the quintile ranking framework originally developed by Robin Griffiths (Figure 1). This model provides a disciplined approach to asset allocation – prioritising the strongest relative trends while capturing thematic rotations across asset classes as they progress through the business cycle.

The current backdrop can best be described as “shaken, not yet stirred”. Markets are absorbing a series of macro shocks – most notably inflationary pressures and the ongoing oil disruption – but these forces have not yet fully translated into a coherent, late-cycle regime.

Instead, volatility is building beneath a surface that still appears relatively composed. Bond markets, however, are sending a far clearer signal: yields have surged, with 10-year UK gilts moving above 5% for the first time since the 2008 GFC, while 30-year U.S. Treasury yields have also reached 5% for the first time this year (Figure 1).

In parallel, the Japanese yen has weakened beyond 160 against the dollar, underscoring mounting currency stress and oil remains elevated at $120 (Figure 3). Taken together, these moves point to rising alarm around persistent inflation and tightening financial conditions. Against this backdrop, the geopolitical environment appears to be approaching a tipping point, with markets increasingly accepting that the ongoing conflict will have a materially negative impact on the global economy.

Our latest market review continues to highlight the early stages of a developing commodity super-cycle. This theme is already demonstrating clear outperformance, fuelled by a resurgence in inflation and reinforced by second-order effects from the energy complex. What began as a concentrated move in precious metals, driven by debasement concerns, has progressively rotated into energy, reflecting supply-side constraints, and is now extending into agriculture (Figure 4).

This broadening is significant: agriculture sits at the intersection of input costs and end-consumer prices, making it a key transmission channel for inflation. Accordingly, it remains top-ranked within our model. Equity markets, meanwhile, continue to project resilience, maintaining the outward characteristics of a V-shaped recovery. Leadership has been most evident in South Korea and Japan, with the United States following outperformance in Asia has been supported by a combination of accommodative policy settings, competitive currency dynamics, and strong leverage to the global industrial and technology cycle (Figure 5).

Yet beneath the surface, conditions are less stable. Market breadth continues to deteriorate, with the S&P 500 Equal Weight Index still failing to confirm new highs (Figure 6). This divergence, combined with elevated oil prices and higher interest rates, suggests that while markets have been shaken by recent shocks, they have not yet fully repriced or “stirred” into a more synchronised trend.

Cycle models reinforce this view, pointing to a potential market top forming into late May (Figure 7). This aligns with the re-emergence of the “sell in May” seasonal pattern and raises the likelihood of a more volatile Q3 as macroeconomic pressures converge. During this period, the Foundation for the Study of Cycles (FSC) Annual Conference will provide an important platform for further discussion and I look forward to sharing insights with industry peers.

Reverting back to our tactical model, gold continues to underperform, while it stays range-bound. Although its long-term uptrend is intact, holding above the 200-day moving average, near $4270. In the context of a market environment that is still being shaken – but not yet fully stirred – gold continues to serve as a vital portfolio diversifier, offering resilience in navigating this 2026 macro cycle convergence regime.

Best success with navigating the cycle ahead!

Robin Griffiths is Senior Advisor & Investment Strategist at RW Advisory.

Ron William, CFTe

Global Macro Insights: Relief-rally, late-cycle fragility

Ron William | RW Advisory — Thu, 16 Apr 2026 12:04:20 GMT

Major US equity indices have rebounded sharply, now trading above levels seen at the onset of the Iran conflict and approaching all-time highs, with gains of close to 10% following the recent ceasefire (Figure 1). While this reflects strong liquidity, positioning, and resilient investor sentiment, it also highlights a late-cycle environment where optimism and underlying fragility coexist.

Recall the 6-month distribution pattern still weighs and may reactivate on a false-hope pump-and-dump signal. Other asset classes – including oil, rates, and currencies – are not fully confirming the move, reinforcing the sense of divergence beneath the surface. This backdrop framed key discussions at a recent macro event hosted with Robin Griffiths and myself, at the Society of Technical Analyst (STA). See full video below. Rather than focusing on short-term catalysts, the emphasis was on the role of long-term cycles in shaping market regimes.

The central conclusion was that current conditions are best understood not as a continuation of the existing cycle, but as part of a transition toward a new one. Cycles are inherently shaped by macro systems, collective mood, and market fluctuations – all pulsing into what Robin calls “the universal breath”.

The cycle still appears to be shifting toward a phase of adjustment – initial weakness potentially emerging between 2026 and 2028, followed by deeper contraction into the end of the decade (Figure 2). What makes this period particularly significant is the growing view that 2026–2032 marks a rare cycle convergence, where multiple macro forces – economic, political, and liquidity cycles – align and reset together.

Historically, such convergence signals regime change rather than a normal business cycle, shifting the underlying drivers of growth, inflation, and capital allocation. This transition can be framed as a move from volatility compression to reset and reconstruction. The past decade was defined by abundant liquidity, suppressed volatility, and broadly synchronised asset performance.

That environment is now evolving into one characterised by greater dispersion, more persistent volatility, and structural shifts in leadership. We are already seeing clear late-cycle dynamics, particularly a hard asset shift amplified by the approaching 2026 convergence. Capital is rotating toward real assets, with a broader commodity cycle emerging – from gold, reflecting monetary stress, to energy markets shaped by supply constraints and geopolitical disruption.

Within this framework, gold continues to hold a strategic role. According to the global ranking model, its structural uptrend remains intact while prices hold above the 200-day average, despite coming under tactical pressure after a 25% peak-to-trough drawdown. Robin suggests an active risk assessment at $4500, coupled with my recommendation for a 5-10% hedged portfolio allocation.

At the same time, there are signs of an inflation resurgence, with parallels to the 1970s (Figure 5). Inflation is increasingly transmitting through the real economy – from energy and raw materials into agriculture, consumers, and social dynamics – raising the risk of sustained price pressures and heightened instability. Bottom line: this is not a typical cycle slowdown, but the early stages of structural change. Investors should be less focused on short-term rallies and more on positioning for a regime defined by volatility, divergence, and a reordering of global capital flows.

Best success with navigating the cycle ahead!

Robin Griffiths, FSTA

Robin Griffiths is Senior Advisor & Investment Strategist at RW Advisory.

Ron William, CFTe

Shaken, but not yet stirred

Ron William | RW Advisory — Mon, 13 Apr 2026 12:32:28 GMT

The sharp relief rally from prior market declines has been driven largely by geopolitical premium swings, prompting investors to stress-test the looming reality of a more serious global crisis. The mood may feel unsettled—markets, like a well-known cocktail, have been shaken—but they are not yet “stirred” into a full structural downturn.

Most major indices had previously only fallen by almost 10%, which is consistent with a typical correction, rather than a systemic breakdown. Such pullbacks are common during bull markets and do not, in isolation, signal a change in the primary trend.

While geopolitical risks in the Middle East remain elevated, most notably after the failed ceasefire resolution, amidst inherently uncertain and volatile outcomes. Oil markets are now re-surging ahead of revived escalation and the looming Hormuz blockade recently announced by President Trump (Figure 1). This further support’s RWA Oil super spike risk for 200$ which remains in play. Review report and CNBC interview.

Big picture, our 2026 cycle convergence warning remains key, amplified by geopolitical tensions, but also broader systemic risk. A number of economic and market cycles appear to be turning less supportive, and when multiple cycles align, they can lead to more pronounced periods of weakness. This suggests the potential for a more volatile environment over the coming year, possibly including phases of decline interspersed with temporary recoveries.

Valuation measures associated with Warren Buffett’s widely referenced framework indicate that the US equity market remains historically expensive. While such measures are not timing tools, they do imply lower prospective returns and heightened downside sensitivity compared to historical norms.

This does not necessarily point to an imminent sharp decline, but it does reinforce the case for a more measured and risk-aware approach. Longer-term structural trends also warrant consideration. As highlighted by Ray Dalio, the global economic landscape is gradually evolving toward a more multipolar structure. The continued rise of China and India is reshaping the balance of economic influence, although such transitions typically unfold over decades.

The United States is therefore likely to remain a dominant force in global markets for the foreseeable future, even as relative leadership becomes more distributed. Technically, the S&P500 is catching up with reality after its prior breakdown from a 6-month distribution top, under its 200-day trend average, now being challenged again following the brief relief-rally (Figure 2).

This development serves as a reminder that previously subdued volatility and complacent investor sentiment—reflected in low readings in the VIX, last seen in 2022—were previously reversing amidst heightened uncertainty, suggesting elevated risk aversion and the potential for market stress ahead. Watch VIX tactical levels at 32 and 36 for a renewed signal of upside volatility breakout.

A trend mean-reversion useful rule of thumb is “the bigger the top, the lower the drop”, likely extending into the psychological threshold of 6000, with overshoot risk into 5600. This would equate to a decline of 15-20%, comparable in scale to previous drawdowns, including the tariff-related disruptions in early 2025.

In terms of asset allocation, there are early signs of shifting leadership. Commodities—particularly energy and precious metals—have demonstrated relative strength, supported by inflationary pressures and geopolitical dynamics. Conversely, bonds may face continued challenges if inflation remains persistent and interest rates stay elevated. This environment calls into question the reliability of traditional portfolio constructions such as the 60/40 model.

Greater diversification across regions—including the UK and Japan—alongside increased exposure to real assets, can enhance portfolio resilience (Figure 3). The UK and Japan, in particular, have recently outperformed due to a combination of more attractive valuations, stronger earnings revisions in select sectors, and supportive macro dynamics.

In the UK, equity markets benefit from a higher weighting toward energy, financials, and dividend-paying firms, which tend to perform well in inflationary or higher-rate environments. Japan, meanwhile, has seen structural tailwinds from corporate governance reforms, improved shareholder returns, and a weaker yen boosting export competitiveness. At the same time, it remains important not to exclude US equities entirely, given their continued structural advantages, including leadership in technology and innovation, as well as their central role in global capital markets.

The current environment calls for vigilance rather than alarm. Markets may remain unsettled in the near term, but they have not yet transitioned into a fully negative phase. Investors should remain disciplined, maintain diversification, and apply robust risk management strategies, including careful position sizing and defined exit levels. For now, conditions are shaken—but not yet stirred.

Best success with navigating the cycle ahead!\

Welcome feedback, likes and re-shares. Also remember to check our RWA premium services, for enhanced alpha performance, unique insights & proprietary market timing signals. Select link for more details: https://ronwilliam.substack.com/about

More in-depth insights will be shared at our upcoming Global Macro Event tomorrow, 14th April at 6.30pm, hosted by the Society of Technical Analysts (STA), in London, UK.

Contact if you would like to register. Limited STA guest invitations, based on timely confirmation and availability.

Details below:

Social media https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7440711998574616576/

STA website
https://www.technicalanalysts.com/Public/Content/Events/Event_Display.aspx?EventKey=EVMT140426

Email: rwilliam@rwadvisory.com

Robin Griffiths, FSTA

Robin Griffiths is Senior Advisor & Investment Strategist at RW Advisory.

Ron William, CFTe

The Mispriced Escalation Risk: Oil Super Spike

Ron William | RW Advisory — Wed, 18 Mar 2026 19:47:13 GMT

Global energy markets are undergoing a rapid repricing as geopolitical tensions between the U.S. and Iran escalate. Within just seven days, prediction markets shifted dramatically—from pricing ~85% odds of a near-term ceasefire to less than 50% by end-May (Figure 1). This signals a transition into a new, high-volatility regime where prolonged conflict risk is now the base case.

The shift unfolded in three phases—initial optimism, a brief diplomatic narrative, and then a sharp escalation following Iran’s denial of ceasefire talks and the U.S. strike on Kharg Island. Markets are now adjusting to sustained geopolitical risk, with capital reallocating accordingly.

This regime shift is most visible in volatility markets. The Oil Volatility Index (OVX) has surged toward 120, in-line with our projected target, reflecting crisis-level conditions and implying ±35% monthly price swings (Figure 2). More importantly, options positioning suggests institutional hedging of extreme outcomes. Call skew is rising relative to puts, with growing open interest in deep out-of-the-money calls in the $150–200 range. The term structure of volatility reinforces persistent demand for tail-risk protection.

Latest headlines pointing to potential Iranian counterstrikes on Gulf energy infrastructure reinforce why scenario planning is critical. This framework is a core overlay in how we assess tail-risk scenarios across client strategies and portfolios.

The escalation ladder provides a structured view of potential price pathways (Figure 3). Current pricing reflects a geopolitical risk premium in the $100–120 range. However, shipping disruptions could push oil toward $120–150, while a disruption to the Strait of Hormuz could drive prices into the $150–200 range. In extreme scenarios involving regional infrastructure attacks, which is currently active, oil could exceed $200—entering “super spike” territory. Markets remain anchored to the base case, but the right tail is being repriced.

Historical precedent strongly supports the plausibility of such outcomes. Major oil spikes have consistently occurred during periods of geopolitical conflict and systemic economic stress, including the 1973 oil embargo, 1979 Iranian revolution, 1990 Gulf War, and 2022 Russia–Ukraine conflict. These episodes follow a repeatable pattern where markets transition from localized disruption to broader macro dislocation, reinforcing the view that oil is currently pricing escalation risk—not just realized supply shocks.

Crucially, the current setup may reflect the early phase of a larger, geopolitically driven cycle rather than a short-term spike. This dynamic echoes the 1970s two-stage pattern, where an initial shock was followed by a second, more sustained surge. In real terms, inflation-adjusted oil prices have reached $150–200+ during prior crises, highlighting the scale of potential upside. Within this framework, the current cycle may still be mid-stage, with a potential inflection point emerging toward 2026 as geopolitical and macro pressures converge. The International Energy Agency has suggested the present environment could evolve into one of the largest energy shocks in modern history.

This dynamic is unfolding within a broader commodity super-cycle framework (Figure 5b). Historically, cycles progress sequentially: gold leads during monetary stress, copper confirms late-cycle growth pressure, and energy surges as supply constraints tighten, with agriculture prices rising last as inflation reaches consumers (Figure 5a). Energy ETF (XLE) is already up +35% YTD, in-line with RWA’s tactical call and further demonstrating the capital rotation at play. The current environment increasingly resembles a 1970s-style regime of rolling inflation waves, with stagflation risks re-emerging (Figure 5c).

A key downstream implication is the transmission into food systems and social stability. Higher oil prices feed into fertiliser costs, driving food inflation. Historically, such dynamics have coincided with unrest, including the Arab Spring, particularly in vulnerable import-dependent economies.

In conclusion, oil markets are entering a structurally different regime defined by elevated volatility, persistent geopolitical risk premiums, and asymmetric upside risk. This is not simply a supply story—oil is trading escalation probabilities. The current setup should be viewed not as a temporary spike, but as the early stage of a potential energy and commodity super-cycle.

Stay safe and best wishes navigating the cycle ahead.

Welcome feedback, likes and re-shares. Also remember to check our RWA premium services, for enhanced alpha performance, unique insights & proprietary market timing signals. Select link for more details: https://ronwilliam.substack.com/about

Robin Griffiths, FSTA

Robin Griffiths is Senior Advisor & Investment Strategist at RW Advisory.

Ron William, CFTe

Fragile Geopolitics & Rising Oil Shock Risk

Ron William | RW Advisory — Thu, 05 Mar 2026 11:24:43 GMT

Following joint US–Israel military strikes on Iran, tensions appear to be intensifying beyond initial expectations. What reportedly shifted from a tentative diplomatic pathway quickly reversed into a “shock-and-awe” leadership decapitation operation, intended to trigger a swift regime collapse within 48 hours—potentially in time for a victory rally when markets reopened on Monday, 2 March.

However, within hours the situation escalated into a broader regional confrontation as Iran launched Operation True Promise 4, executing missile and drone counterstrikes against US military installations and strategic assets across the Gulf.

One of the clearest indicators of this renewed VUCA environment that we have been tracking is the year-to-date resurgence in oil volatility. Oil’s OVX volatility index (Figure 1)—often described as the market’s “fear gauge”—has entered a structurally widening regime, signalling rising demand for hedging as geopolitical risk builds around the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s most critical energy chokepoints. Roughly one-fifth of global oil supply passes through the corridor each day, meaning even limited disruption—now increasingly visible—can rapidly reprice crude toward $100+ territory.

This signal is reinforced by oil’s long-term structural breakout pattern, which now opens spike risk toward $120, near the highs reached during the 2022 Russia–Ukraine energy shock. Yet historical analogues suggest the current move may still represent a mid-cycle phase rather than a late-stage peak, implying volatility could persist as geopolitical risks climb the escalation ladder (Figure 2).

Markets are therefore increasingly front-weighting the cascading effects of energy shocks. Oil disruptions rarely remain isolated. Rising prices feed into inflation expectations, interest rates, currency markets and broader risk assets, transmitting geopolitical stress across the global macro system.

In assessing the potential path of escalation, analyst Simon Hunt outlines three key risk scenarios that illustrate how the conflict could intensify.

Sustained missile exchanges that strain defensive inventories and create asymmetric cost pressures between offensive and defensive systems.
The currently active phase, centred on disruption to maritime traffic as tanker delays around the Strait of Hormuz push up insurance premiums and freight rates (Figure 3). A further escalation could involve attempts to deny access to the strait, or even the laying of mines as a maximal deterrent.
The most extreme stage would involve direct attacks on Iran’s energy infrastructure, potentially triggering a quid pro quo counterstrike across Gulf energy facilities, with profound implications for global oil supply.

Another emerging risk factor is the apparent shift in strategic objectives within the US administration. Initial reports suggested a rapid decapitation strategy aimed at triggering regime collapse within days. However, as the conflict has evolved, messaging around objectives appears to have broadened—from immediate destabilisation toward longer-term containment and deterrence. Such sliding goals can signal the transition from a short-duration strike to a more prolonged conflict dynamic, where both sides test endurance rather than pursue rapid resolution.

For markets, this distinction matters. Short conflicts tend to produce temporary price spikes, whereas prolonged confrontations create persistent volatility regimes, embedding geopolitical risk premia for longer periods.

Another layer worth noting is the timing of the event itself. The strike occurred during a period when several historical and structural cycles appear to be converging, both in time and space (Figure 4). Moments of cycle convergence often coincide with stress points along critical economic and security fault lines—including energy corridors, contested maritime routes and politically sensitive regions. The Persian Gulf sits at the intersection of all three.

This broader convergence also aligns with Iran’s own historical rhythm, where domestic strain and external pressure over strategic resources have repeatedly converged around major political turning points appearing roughly every 35–37 years.

Iran’s modern historical arc offers further context to the broader dynamics now unfolding. Periods of domestic strain have frequently coincided with external pressure over strategic resources. From wartime instability in the early twentieth century—marked by the 1917–19 famine during foreign occupation—to the 1953 coup d’état, supported by MI6 and the CIA after the nationalisation of Iran’s oil industry, foreign intervention has repeatedly intersected with Iran’s political transitions (Figure 4).

The 1979 Islamic Revolution established a theocratic state, while the 1989 death of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini marked the shift toward institutional consolidation under Ali Khamenei.

Historical parallels can also be observed beyond Iran. In Russia, major ideological turning points similarly coincided with periods of systemic geopolitical stress—from the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917, to the death of Joseph Stalin in 1953, and later the collapse of Soviet authority symbolised by the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989.

Taken together, these parallels illustrate how ideological states often become focal points during moments of global system transition. Today several forces appear to be converging toward 2026: domestic legitimacy pressures, energy security concerns and intensifying great-power competition. As the global system shifts from post-Cold War unipolar stability toward a contested multipolar order, Iran’s strategic alignment with Russia and China is now entering a critical stress-test phase.

For investors, the current episode may represent less a discrete geopolitical shock than part of a broader structural transition. When great-power rivalry, ideological states and strategic energy geography converge, oil markets tend to move first—often signalling geopolitical shifts before the broader narrative catches up.

Stay safe and best wishes navigating the cycle ahead.

Welcome feedback, likes and re-shares. Also remember to check our RWA premium services, for enhanced alpha performance, unique insights & proprietary market timing signals. Select link for more details: https://ronwilliam.substack.com/about

Robin Griffiths, FSTA

Robin Griffiths is Senior Advisor & Investment Strategist at RW Advisory.

Ron William, CFTe

The Fire Horse Cycle: Markets at the edge of regime change

Ron William | RW Advisory — Tue, 24 Feb 2026 23:31:43 GMT

As 2026 approaches under the Fire Horse (丙午), the backdrop suggests acceleration rather than stability. I first began incorporating the Chinese zodiac cycle into my market framework while living in Hong Kong, where Lunar New Year rhythms shape both culture and sentiment. Since then, this analysis has featured annually in market reports, not as mysticism, but as a behavioural overlay to macro and technical models.

This year is particularly significant. The 2026 cycle convergence coincides with my relocation eastward to the Middle East, a region increasingly central to global capital flows and geopolitical realignment. For those less familiar with this ancient timing system, also known as the Lunar New Year, it begins on the second new Moon after the winter solstice.

Moreover, it is a lunisolar calendar, based on astronomical observations of the Sun’s position in the sky and the Moon’s phases. Traditional Chinese zodiac use archetypal animal symbols to describe the qualitative nature of each lunar year cycle of 12 years. A matrix of five elements are further overlayed; (Wood, Water, Fire & Metal), so that each year only rotates once in a lifetime, every 60 years; also known as the Chinese sexagenary cycle (Figure 1).

While symbolic rather than causal, it offers a lens into recurring patterns of collective psychology. Markets are social systems driven by confidence, fear, and excess. The zodiac cycle does not cause macroeconomic change; it reflects the behavioural phases that often align with expansion peaks and structural transitions.

Our RWA heat-map of equity market returns over the last 100 years offers a useful overview (Figure 2). Empirical analysis shows high returns in the Year of the Dragon and low for the Horse. More in-depth quantitive academic studies of return patterns are mixed. However, behavioural finance research is stronger: Cultural beliefs (especially zodiac birth year superstitions) correlate with investment behaviour changes, such as risk aversion, trading inactivity, and portfolio underperformance.

In macro terms, Fire Horse years—1846, 1906, and 1966—have consistently appeared during late-cycle expansions, marked by rising volatility, policy strain and ultimately structural stress. The Horse represents speed and emotional amplitude; Fire intensifies momentum. Historically, this combination coincides with late-cycle acceleration – when optimism is extended, flexibility narrows, and imbalances surface.

The historical parallels are instructive. In 1846, Railway Mania peaked before the 1847 credit crisis exposed excess leverage. In 1906, tightening liquidity and great-power rivalry preceded the Panic of 1907. In 1966, the post-war bull market stalled, ushering in a prolonged trading range shaped by inflation and monetary stress. None marked systemic collapse. Each revealed structural tensions already embedded in the system.

The 2026 macro backdrop aligns with this pattern, but stands out because multiple structural stress indicators are already elevated simultaneously (Figure 3). Inflation remains structurally firmer than during the pre-2020 decade, particularly across services and supply-sensitive sectors where price persistence slows the disinflation process.

At the same time, sovereign debt levels are historically elevated, constraining central bank flexibility and increasing the likelihood of stop–start policy expectations rather than a smooth easing cycle. Late-cycle environments typically produce credit dispersion before broad equity weakness, with weaker balance sheets repricing first. The likely outcome is narrower leadership, higher factor rotation, and greater volatility, rather than immediate contraction.

Geopolitically, prior Fire Horse years coincided with rising strategic competition — pre-World War I rivalry in 1906 and Cold War escalation in 1966. Today’s multipolar landscape reflects a similar dynamic, reshaping trade routes, technology supply chains, energy security priorities, and reserve management. This environment increases variance across regions and sectors, reinforcing dispersion as a defining market characteristic.

Climate factors act as a modern accelerant layered onto these cyclical forces and related market proxies signal upside potential. Review our RWA premium services for in-depth tactical analysis. Extreme weather, food supply volatility, insurance repricing, and infrastructure strain increasingly feed directly into inflation dynamics and financial conditions. In a compressed cycle, these shocks tend to amplify rather than dissipate volatility, reinforcing the transition from a liquidity-driven regime toward one shaped by supply constraints and policy trade-offs.

The Fire Horse does not imply collapse; it implies acceleration within convergence. With long-wave inflation pressures, business cycle maturity, political polarisation, and structural realignment intersecting, 2026 is more likely to represent a volatility expansion within a broader regime reset than a cyclical endpoint.

Accordingly, the strategic emphasis shifts from maximising returns toward managing path risk — favouring resilience, flexibility, and sensitivity to macro, geopolitical, and climate-linked catalysts. As in prior Fire Horse years, discomfort often precedes renewal, and transitional volatility has historically formed the foundation for the next durable expansion.

Welcome feedback, likes and re-shares. Also remember to check our RWA premium services, for enhanced alpha performance, unique insights & proprietary market timing signals. Select link for more details: https://ronwilliam.substack.com/about

Robin Griffiths, FSTA

Robin Griffiths is Senior Advisor & Investment Strategist at RW Advisory.

Ron William, CFTe

Cycle Convergence: Oil, Geopolitics & Crisis Risk

Ron William | RW Advisory — Sun, 08 Feb 2026 17:30:23 GMT

The correctly anticipated Q1 2026 shakeout, as identified by our timing models, underscores a structural repricing underway, rather than a transient bout of macro volatility. It is increasingly shaped by cycle convergence—the interaction of late-cycle economic dynamics, unresolved geopolitical tensions, and reflexive behavioural extremes.

History shows that instability tends to intensify when risks are visible yet unresolved. In such environments, price behaviour drifts from traditional fundamentals and begins to discount credibility, policy capacity, and the probability of discontinuity. The framework echoes the insight of Harvard economist Joseph Schumpeter: capitalism evolves through disruption and renewal, not linear progress.

This backdrop fits within a broader super-macro cycle in which hegemonic systems periodically face tests of adaptability. Our expanded cycle framework places the present era in the late stages of a roughly 90-year crisis rhythm, with pressures likely to intensify into the 2026–2032 window as institutional credibility, alliance structures, and economic arrangements come under mounting strain (Figure 1, featured in our latest special macro report: Navigating the 2026 Cycle Convergence).

Earlier crisis eras such as 1857–1866 and 1929–1945, followed similar paths, where financial strain, geopolitical rivalry, and domestic pressure interacting for years before new arrangements consolidated. In the 19th century, the articulation of the Monroe Doctrine signalled an emerging hemispheric order amid imperial competition. After the Second World War, the Bretton Woods framework embedded a U.S.-anchored financial architecture designed to stabilise currencies and expand trade. As those systems matured, however, internal contradictions accumulated and policy tools increasingly shifted toward sanctions, trade controls, and security signalling.

Today’s environment carries similar characteristics. Economic fragmentation, strategic competition, and domestic pressures are again interacting within a system whose institutional foundations are being questioned. Markets are responding accordingly. The earlier phase of late-cycle leadership from precious metals is now broadening toward energy, reflecting a transition from monetary anxiety to concerns about physical supply, security, and enforcement power (Figure 2). Such tools can influence political trajectories—as recently observed in Venezuela—but they also heighten the risk of miscalculation and transmit volatility directly into global commodity markets.

It is within this environment that Iran’s role becomes more consequential. Viewed across longer waves of institutional authority, Iran’s modern history shows a recurring cadence of erosion and consolidation: imperial decline in the early twentieth century, the sovereignty rupture of 1953, revolutionary replacement in 1979, and stabilisation after 1989. By comparison and cyclical pattern (approx 35-37 years), 2026 increasingly resembles another inflection window, where domestic strain and external confrontation begin to intersect (Figure 3).

Markets may not forecast political outcomes, but they respond rapidly when internal fragility risks spilling outward. This is unfolding alongside a broader shift away from a predominantly U.S.-led framework toward a more contested, multipolar environment in which BRICS actors, notably Russia and China, carry greater marginal influence. That combination elevates risks and helps explain the ongoing rotation toward commodities and energy, with normalisation narratives usually emerging only after uncertainty and disruption peaks.

The transmission channel is geography. Iran sits astride the Strait of Hormuz, one of the most critical arteries in the global energy system. When domestic stress converges with wider fragmentation, even marginal shifts in behaviour can have disproportionate effects on expectations, insurance premia, and supply assumptions.

The Q1 cycle stress window is a catalyst for this sensitivity to be re-priced in markets. As crowded exposures elsewhere were liquidated, crude began unwinding from oversold and structurally constrained levels, just as geopolitical optionality increased. This is highlighted in oil’s bullish chart setup (Figure 4) and our Global Ranking Model (GRM). Oil was not merely caught in the risk-off move but instead re-coupled to market-implied tail-risk.

Importantly, this momentum unwind is not merely about portfolio de-risking, AI concerns, or even a change in Fed leadership. It reflects a broader repricing of security of supply in a regime where deterrence credibility, alliance cohesion, and political capacity are all under examination. Under such conditions, energy begins to behave less like a cyclical commodity and more like a strategic asset.

Volatility markets reinforce the signal. Rising option premia suggest preparation for disruption rather than mean reversion; a configuration more typical of geopolitical supply concern than demand weakness. (Figure 5).

The recent interconnected events compound that perception. The 12-Day War, which resulted in a ceasefire that paused escalation without resolving underlying tensions. Thereafter, Iran’s sharp currency depreciation, fuelled in part by U.S. “economic statecraft”, including sanctions and financial pressure, amplifying existing domestic unrest and renewed fears of another U.S. strike.

In this VUCA environment, market myopia has intensified, with investor attention collapsing into variations of a primary risk narrative: Will tensions escalate into a prolonged regional conflict, with systemic implications for the Strait of Hormuz? As a chokepoint for nearly a third of global seaborne oil flows, even partial disruption carries outsized consequences. U.S.-Iran talks now cautiously resume, with both sides offering conditional willingness to engage. Yet negotiations remain fragile, with diplomacy unfolding alongside ongoing military posturing, raising regional tensions and potential risks to the U.S. midterm elections.

This combination is being interpreted not as de-escalation, but unstable equilibrium. Mr. Market’s behavioural reflexivity remains the critical variable. Strike or no strike, perception dominates pricing, and small probability shifts can produce outsized market responses. Oil’s volatility signature reinforces this concern and, under disruption scenarios, implies scope for renewed spikes toward the $115–120 range (Figure 6). Such outcomes would risk transmitting a stag-flationary impulse through the global economy, encouraging investors to consider pre-empting equity hedges and relatively greater exposure to energy-linked assets.

For investors, the conclusion is straightforward. In convergence regimes, priority shifts from optimisation toward resilience. Capital gravitates toward hard assets, particularly energy—not only for return potential, but as protection against systemic risk.

Welcome feedback, likes and re-shares. Also remember to check our RWA premium services, for enhanced alpha performance, unique insights & proprietary market timing signals. Select link for more details: https://ronwilliam.substack.com/about

Summary Biographies

Robin Griffiths, FSTA

Robin Griffiths is Senior Advisor & Investment Strategist at RW Advisory.

Ron William, CFTe

Ron William is founder & CIO of He specialises in global, multi-asset, top-down framework, grounded in behavioural technical analysis, driven by cycles, based on the expanded Driven by impactful education, Ron trains financial institutions and serves on the board of a variety of professional societies, notably as MENA director, education committee member of the

Navigating the 2026 Cycle Convergence

Ron William | RW Advisory — Mon, 12 Jan 2026 14:54:08 GMT

Market practitioners have long grappled with the limits of analysis. As early as the 1960s, when veteran market strategist Robin Griffiths began his financial career, many investors recognised that fundamental analysis alone was too complex for any individual to master. Attention shifted toward understanding how prices move, giving rise to technical analysis and, over time, a broader appreciation that markets evolve in cycles.

These insights align closely with the work of economist Joseph Schumpeter, who described capitalism as a recurring process of expansion, contraction, and renewal rather than a linear progression. With experience, this cyclical perspective broadens.

Joseph Schumpeter

Markets are not isolated systems; they reflect patterns found throughout nature itself: from biological to longer seasonal rhythms and economic waves. The challenge is not to identify cycles, but to interpret them. Multiple cycles operate simultaneously, sometimes reinforcing trends and at other times obscuring them.

Historically, the most consequential market periods occur when several major cycles converge. When cycles rise together, they tend to generate sustained expansions with broad participation. When they decline together, markets experience heightened volatility, structural repricing, and economic restructuring. These episodes are not failures of the system, but represent necessary phases of renewal, during which excesses are unwound and the foundations for the next expansion are laid.

Crucially, cycle convergence rarely produces a single turning point. Our analysis suggests a sequencing of inflections rather than an immediate resolution. Shorter business and political cycles appear likely to trough closer to the end of the decade, while the longer 90-year structural cycle, often associated with institutional change and shifts in capital allocation, may not fully reset until the early 2030s.

Historically, markets tend to recover ahead of deeper structural repair, helping explain why transitional periods are marked by false starts and elevated volatility before a more durable expansion emerges. As 2026 begins, evidence suggests markets are entering such a convergence phase. Our Roadmap Signature Model (Figure 1) integrates long-wave inflation and debt dynamics, medium-term patterns of the business cycle, US political and liquidity cycle, ranging from 3-5 years (Figure 2).

In parallel, the Strauss–Howe generational framework places the current period in the late stages of a ~90-year “Crisis” cycle, historically associated with systemic macro dislocation. These crisis phases tend to express through financial instability, geopolitical confrontation, and rising tail risks, including climate and resource-related shocks, as existing institutional frameworks lose legitimacy.

A close historical analogue is the 1929–1945 crisis window, which began with the 1929 market crash and structural failure of the prewar financial system, unfolded through the Great Depression, and culminated in the Bretton Woods postwar reset. This sequence marked a decisive transition from laissez-faire capitalism to a managed industrial world order, embedding state coordination, monetary discipline, and multilateral institutions as stabilising mechanisms.

The prior echo cycle occurred roughly 90 years earlier (1857–1866). It was triggered by the Panic of 1857, a systemic financial shock that exposed the fragility of the agrarian-credit economy. The crisis escalated into the U.S. Civil War (1861–1865), a geopolitical and institutional rupture and resolved through the industrial transition of Reconstruction (1865–1866). This period marked the terminal decline of the agrarian order and the emergence of industrial-state capitalism, characterised by centralised authority, industrial production, and modern financial infrastructure (Figure 3).

Projected forward, the current cycle follows a comparable structure. The 2019–2023 period functioned as the initial system shock, revealing institutional fragility across public health, fiscal capacity, supply chains, and governance. The 2024–2026 window represents a convergence phase, during which multiple pressures, notably debt saturation, geopolitical fragmentation, technological displacement, and climate stress. Each macro driving force overlap, but without yet producing a definitive institutional reset. Historically, this phase corresponds to the pre-resolution compression seen in the late 1930s and early 1860s.

The 2028–2032 window is projected to represent the core regime-reset phase of the current 90-year cycle. Analogous to 1938–1942 and 1861–1865, this period is expected to feature decisive policy realignment, reconfiguration of monetary and fiscal frameworks, and consolidation of a new governing paradigm. The thematic transition is likely to involve a shift from the late-industrial, financialised global order toward a digitally mediated, AI-enabled, and security-conscious governance regime, with expanded state coordination and redefined notions of sovereignty and economic stability.

Taken together, these perspectives suggest current conditions reflect a broader regime transition rather than a routine market correction. This cyclical backdrop coincides with a structural shift in the global order. The world is moving toward a multipolar system, reshaping trade relationships, capital flows, and reserve management across regions.

Within this context, the US dollar’s dominance is not disappearing, but weakening at the margins. Geopolitical fragmentation, the rising salience of sanction risk, and incremental diversification by emerging-market central banks are collectively reducing the dollar’s uncontested role as the sole anchor of the global system. These forces point toward a more pluralistic monetary landscape rather than a binary regime change.

Cross-asset behaviour increasingly reflects these dynamics. Commodities, particularly precious and industrial metals, have emerged as relative leaders consistent with periods of currency uncertainty and shifting liquidity regimes. Energy markets and oil stand out as structurally constrained yet undervalued; a combination that historically coincided with late-cycle leadership during regime transitions. Further tactical implications will be addressed in forthcoming RWA premium updates.

Importantly, cycle analysis does not offer precise forecasts. Its value lies in providing a probabilistic framework for navigating environments characterised by elevated uncertainty, nonlinear risks, and structural change (Figure 4).

The practical investment implication is therefore a shift recalibration of priorities: from return maximisation toward capital preservation, from static allocation toward flexibility, and from prediction toward resilience. Periods of cycle convergence have always tested investors, but they have also laid the groundwork for the next expansion, rewarding those positioned for durability rather than precision. For a more in-depth discussion of our cycle framework, see Mapping the Markets published by the Economist. Expanded research and follow-up analysis will be released in subsequent publications.

Best wishes navigating the cycle ahead!

Welcome feedback, likes and re-shares. Also remember to check our RWA premium services, for enhanced alpha performance, unique insights & proprietary market timing signals. Select link for more details: https://ronwilliam.substack.com/about

Summary Biographies

Robin Griffiths, FSTA

Robin Griffiths is Senior Advisor & Investment Strategist at RW Advisory.

Ron William, CFTe

Silver - Why the Devil's Metal Could Spike Even Higher in 2026?

Ron William | RW Advisory — Fri, 05 Dec 2025 12:30:19 GMT

Rumble in the Market Jungle

Ron William | RW Advisory — Thu, 27 Nov 2025 16:51:22 GMT

In this Rumble in the [Market] Jungle, the bull may have risen like a butterfly, but the bear has once again shown its ability to sting like a bee.

The Gold Bell Has Rung!

Ron William | RW Advisory — Wed, 05 Nov 2025 20:55:38 GMT

Every investment era has its signals — the bells that warn us when a great financial cycle is approaching its turning point. We may not know the precise moment it will ring, but once it does, its tone is unmistakable. Today, that bell is gold, and is still ringing loudly, despite its latest overbought correction (Figure 1).

The global economy is burdened with record levels of debt. Years of ultra-low interest rates and excessive credit creation have inflated asset prices to extremes. The cycle that began more than a decade ago is now stretched to breaking point. When debt becomes unserviceable and yields collapse, the correction that follows is inevitable.

Even Warren Buffett, long a symbol of patient optimism, has moved to historically high cash levels. That alone should command attention. The Federal Reserve has already shifted its stance, signalling rate cuts as growth slows. Yet inflation remains stubborn, threatening to push real yields on U.S. Treasuries below zero.

In such conditions, traditional safe assets offer no safety. The move into gold is not speculation — it is a rational response to monetary decay. When trust in fiat systems erodes, gold becomes the ultimate store of value. Equity markets still appear strong, but their leadership is dangerously narrow. A handful of technology giants sustain the indexes while much of the market has already entered a stealth bear phase. This divergence tells us the rally is speculative, not fundamental. Gold’s relative performance vs. equities still holds its long-term trend (Figure 2).

Technical indicators and historical cycle patterns both suggest that the next major equity market reversal could emerge around March next year, following one final liquidity-driven rise (Figure 3). The parallels with 1929 and 1973 are striking: surging valuations, rising inflation, and geopolitical uncertainty all preceding violent correction. The long sweep of history shows that every credit cycle ends the same way — through liquidation and repricing.

Property markets will not be immune; affordability must eventually return. A 30% correction in housing in the U.S. and U.K. would not be surprising. The process will be painful, but necessary to rebuild sustainable growth. Beyond the immediate financial picture lies a deeper shift. The unipolar era of U.S. dominance is fading. Manufacturing, innovation, and consumption are dispersing toward Asia and the Global South. China, India, and parts of Africa are emerging as the world’s new engines of expansion.

The next global order will be multipolar, not American-centred. Our strategy is therefore one of prudence and preservation. We hold gold as a core position, maintain high liquidity, and minimize exposure to overvalued equities and property. The objective is not to predict the crash but to recognize the pattern when it appears — and it already has. The bell has rung, and history is repeating its rhythm. Stay vigilant, stay patient, and remember: the goal is not to win the final rally, but to endure what follows it.

Welcome feedback, likes and re-shares. Also remember to check our RWA premium services, for enhanced alpha performance, unique insights & proprietary market timing signals. Select link for more details: https://ronwilliam.substack.com/about

Robin Griffiths, FSTA

Robin Griffiths is Senior Advisor & Investment Strategist at RW Advisory.

Ron William, CFTe

Cycle shifts in Volatile & Uncertain times

Ron William | RW Advisory — Mon, 04 Aug 2025 15:50:24 GMT

Veteran market professionals will recall the signature work and contribution of Tony Plummer, known for his research on market psychology, cycles, and the role of order and rhythm in economics.

Plummer’s work influenced many investment professionals, most notably through his seminal book ‘Forecasting Financial Markets’ - which remains essential reading for the Society of Technical Analysts (STA) diploma learning path.

This is where I first studied his work, as part of my early cycle research. Most recently, I hosted an interview, on behalf the Foundation for the Study of Cycles (FSC), with one of his professional students, Valérie Gastaldy, founding partner of DayByDay research boutique.

Her market methodology includes three behavioural models, with a focus on macroeconomic forecasting, sentiment and technical analysis. It features Plummer’s triad cycle schematic, which he used to explain rhythms in financial markets (Figure 1).

The base cycle is an expansionary period of growth, confidence, and risk-taking. It is followed by crisis, a collapse, or correction, due to excess, or structural stress. This leads to a recovery phase, of consolidation, repair, and eventual transition, to new growth. A plethora of major economic cycles fuel Plummer’s schematic (Figure 2).

This includes three cycles recognised by Harvard Professor, Joseph Schumpeter; the Kondratyev wave, (or K-wave price cycle), Juglar (or capital investment cycle) and Kitchin (or inventory adjustment cycle). The average timespan of each cycle is 54, 9-10 and 3.33 years.

The latter Kitchin cycle is most documented by cycle pioneer Edward Dewey, based on an average rhythm of 41-months. It predicted a major peak in equity markets for Q1 2025 and signals further asymmetric risk between 2026-2027, according to the FSC’s timing model (Figure 3).

Circling back to Plummer’s schematic, there are additional key cycles such as the 30-year Berry (or infrastructure cycle) and 90-year crisis cycle, researched by Strauss & Howe. Based on analysis that dates back to the 16th century, they argue that ‘social moments’ occur every 80-100 years, defined by (economic) crisis, or a spiritual (social) awakening (Figure 4).

The latest crisis period is likely to climax by early 2030s, based on Howe’s recent work ‘The Fourth Turning Is Here’ --“in a climax that poses great danger and yet also holds great promise”. In macroeconomic terms, Plummer’s K-wave cycle analysis is currently beating the inflation drum and potentially rhymes with historical analogues (Figure 4ab).

Here Plummer observes that turning points in the K-wave are historically influenced by their relationship with Juglar disruption cycles: “major price peaks and troughs have been associated with warfare, economic weakness and political unrest”. The outlook for equity markets remains pressured, with the cycle also signalling heightened volatility during the same period (Figure 4a).

He specialises in global, multi-asset, top-down framework, grounded in behavioural technical analysis, driven by cycles, based on the expanded "Roadmap" signature model of veteran market technician Robin Griffiths, originally published in Robin’s book “Mapping the Markets.” Additional insights also featured in their peer interview exchange hosted by Real Vision, T3 reports and Halkin letter contribution.

An Emboldened Bull, Dancing on the Edge

Ron William | RW Advisory — Sat, 05 Jul 2025 17:14:54 GMT

As US equities pop to new all-time highs, the current market dynamic is best captured by the juxtaposed image of an emboldened bull juggling live bombs (headline cover). While surface-level confidence hits new extremes, underlying risks continue to mount – ranging from momentum exhaustion, inter-market divergences to looming macro-cycle shifts. In behavioural terms, markets are climbing a [steep] “wall of worry”—pressured by a rapid fire of make-or-break event risks. The longer the bull dances on edge, the more cracks will give way beneath the surface.

This latest extended relief-rally follows previously elevated macro risks, most notably the geopolitical tensions of the so-called “12-Day War” published in our report themed “Are Markets Underpricing Geopolitical Risk Premium?” However, every metaphoric bomb risk that is perceived to be defused, often lights up again, when least expected.

Case in point, the latest Iran-Israel ceasefire remains fragile, and oil’s spike risk is still viable, based on the activation of a breakout pattern above $80 (Figure 1).

Another macro risk, now back in focus, is US tariff policy—previously expected to soften, with markets pricing in a possible move toward a uniform 10% flat rate. That expectation, which led to the unwinding of recessionary concerns, helped fuel the recent equity market rally to new highs.

But with the tone shifting—especially following Trump’s latest announcement of tariffs potentially as high as 70%, set to take effect by August 1st—the equity surge may prove both temporary and misleading, masking deeper vulnerabilities just beneath the surface.

From a tactical perspective, the current setup offers a timely window for these macro vulnerabilities to begin playing out. Momentum is showing signs of exhaustion, with trend pressure building and markets approaching a near-term cycle inflection point (Figure 2abc). This confluence raises the risk of a reversal, especially as optimism collides with a more fragile underlying macro landscape.

Moreover, key inter-market divergences are flashing yellow lights. The S&P 500’s latest record high appears partly driven by a bout of USD depreciation against key foreign exchange rates, rather than broad-based strength (Figure 3). Global markets remain disjointed—small caps and emerging markets continue to underperform, while U.S. leadership is narrowly concentrated in a recovery among tech and large-cap stocks.

Although this breadth rotation is healthy—if sustained—it still occurs within the context of historically narrow participation, which acts like quicksand beneath the surface (Figure 4a). This lack of participation is further highlighted by BofA Global Research, which notes that only 22 stocks in S&P500 were at all-time highs in the current breakout — the lowest breadth for any of the major breakout since 1990. By comparison, past breakouts had between 51-97 at record levels (Figure 4b). In a late-cycle environment, such fragility raises the risk of a “pump-and-dump” style asymmetric event, where the rug is abruptly pulled from under an overcrowded trade, catching complacent positioning off-guard.

The Foundation for the Study of Cycles (FSC) timing model signals a key inflection point into July, as part of the successfully predicted major top, earlier this year, based on the 41-month business cycle. This would likely coincide with the typical seasonality Q3 peak-trough drawdown pattern (Figure 5abc).

Adding weight to this timing, Martin Armstrong’s Economic Confidence Model (ECM) forecasts “panic cycles” in H2 2025 (Figure 6). These rare warning signals often coincide with increased volatility, geopolitical shocks, or systemic dislocations.

Additionally, macro drivers such as global liquidity, which fuelled this rally, are starting to plateau. Expert Michael Howell, of Cross Border Capital, warns that the liquidity tailwinds of 2024-early 2025 are peaking, with debt refinancing needs surging and central banks subtly tightening. This sets the stage for a shift in market tone heading into yearend and 2026 (Figure 7).

When paired with shifts across tactical, cycle and macro, deteriorating liquidity, these cycles signal growing instability beneath the surface. The global debt maturity wall, combined with elevated US bond market volatility, could spark widespread tightening in financial conditions. Late-year illiquidity and potential policy missteps – especially in a politically volatile US election environment – could turn a cooling market into a sharp correction or worse.

Investors should balance cautious optimism with proactive risk management. Maintain exposure to high-quality equities, but avoid over-concentration in mega-cap growth. Rotate selectively into defensive sectors, short-duration fixed income, or inflation hedges.

Strategically, consider gradually raising cash allocations into Q3 and preparing hedges (such as gold, volatility instruments, or long-dated puts), ahead of potentially turbulent year-end conditions. The market bull continues its risky act atop a fragile foundation. Discipline, flexibility, and focus on quality will be essential to navigating the storm ahead.

Welcome feedback, likes and re-shares. Also remember to check our RWA premium services, for enhanced alpha performance, unique insights & proprietary market timing signals. Select link for more details: https://ronwilliam.substack.com/about

Robin Griffiths, FSTA

Robin Griffiths is Senior Advisor & Investment Strategist at RW Advisory.
Robin has served as Head of Multi-Asset Research & Advisory at the ECU Group. He was previously Chief Technical Strategist at HSBC Investment Bank for 20 years, before becoming Head of Global Asset Allocation at Rathbones, and then a director and technical strategist for Cazenove Capital Management. Robin was a Partner of WI Carr and Head of Technical Analysis at Grieveson Grant.
Robin is a committee member and former chairman of the International Federation of Technical Analysts, and former chairman, now fellow, of the British Society of Technical Analysts. Robin has been a member of ECU’s Global Macro Team for over 20 years. Robin has won several Technical Analyst awards for his research

Ron William, CFTe

Ron William is founder & CIO of RWA, an award-winning, macro-tactical, research and advisory firm, to a wide range of financial institutions & professionals, producing differentiated alpha, insightful idea generation and unique market timing.
He specialises in global, multi-asset, top-down framework, grounded in behavioural technical analysis, driven by cycles, based on the expanded "Roadmap" signature model of veteran market technician Robin Griffiths, originally published in Robin’s book “Mapping the Markets.” Additional insights also featured in their peer interview exchange hosted by Real Vision, T3 reports and Halkin letter contribution.
Driven by impactful education, Ron trains financial institutions and serves on the board of a variety of professional societies, notably as MENA director, education committee member of the International Federation of Technical Analysts (IFTA) and Development Director at the Foundation of the Study of Cycles (FSC).