Heute ist Montag, der 22. Juni. Herzlich willkommen zur Opening Bell, featuret bei Handelsblatt. Ja, diese Folge wird etwas anders sein als sonst. Wir haben in den letzten Tagen meine liebe Mutter nach einem schweren Schlaganfall aus dem Leben begleitet. Es sind sehr schwierige Momente für uns. Ich bin mit meiner Familie aktuell noch in Kiel. Und daher wird die erste Folge in dieser Woche eine Sonderfolge sein. Wir haben vor einigen Wochen eine Serie gedreht bei der Foundation for the Study of Cycles. Wir haben viele tolle Persönlichkeiten getroffen. Und in der ersten Folge geht es um Dr. Richard Smith, Executive Director der Foundation for the Study of Cycles. Das Interview ist auf Englisch, ihr findet das auf YouTube mit deutschen Untertiteln. Ansonsten viel Spaß und die herkömmliche Opening-Belle im traditionellen Sinne beginnt dann am Mittwoch.

Wir sprechen mit Dr. Richard Smith. Er ist Chairman und Executive Director der Foundation for the Study of Cycles, einer Organisation, die sich mit Zyklen auseinandersetzt im Zusammenhang mit dem Kapitalmarkt, der Wirtschaft, aber auch der Gesellschaft. Und das wirklich Erstaunliche ist, dass bei dieser Zyklenkonferenz Persönlichkeiten auftauchen, die man selten an einem Ort trifft. Für mich in meiner Karriere ein ganz persönliches Highlight. Ich hätte nie gedacht, John Bollinger von den Bollinger-Bändern oder Tom McClellan von dem McClellan-Oszillator oder Elliot Practor, dessen Vater die Elliot-Wellen-Theorie groß gemacht hat, Peter Borisch, der unter Paul Tudor Jones den Crash 1987 genau richtig getimt hat. Alle diese Jungs auf einem Haufen zu treffen, hätte ich nie für möglich gehalten. Warum sind die eigentlich hier und wie kann man Zyklenanalyse praktisch anwenden? Darüber sprechen wir jetzt.

Can you lead us a little bit through what the foundation is about and what happened in the years so that you revived it? The foundation officially was started in 1941 by Edward R. Dewey, who was the chief economist of the Hoover administration. Copley Amory, who was a Boston Brahmin and investment banker at Loomis Sales, which is still in business today. Ellsworth Huntington was another key founder. He was the head of geology at Yale, the secretary of the Smithsonian, Charles Greeley Abbott, who was interested in sunspots, the head of the Harvard Observatory, Harlow Shapley, a number of political and industrial leaders as well. And all of them had this sense that something's missing from our understanding of the world, right? So with what idea was the foundation created and what connects all these cycles, together? Well, I think the actual explanation is.

That the world, that reality has kind of a geometry to it. And that we actually see that in quantum physics today. The idea of the wave function, which has cycles in it, the wave function has, sorry for getting a little wonky here, but it has the imaginary number i. And i is the core of the complex numbers, and i is the source of rotation. So when you multiply by I, you come around, you know, four times, you complete the circle. But then also, I think that the finance space does, it's a wonderful experimental space with a lot of data, right? And a lot of kind of clear feedback of whether you're right or you're wrong, right? So I think that that's part of the appeal of finance as well. But I think that that is probably true of other sectors of the economy, too, right? They're just a lot more interested in finance generally. But we just saw John Bollinger, for example, give a talk.

And Bollinger bans, he pointed out, are in use by the European Astronomical Society, by some big companies. Bollinger Bands sind größer als finanziert, obwohl jeder denkt Bollinger Bands als finanziert. Aber number patterns sind größer als die Markets und Finanzen. Lars, vielleicht eine Frage für Sie. Was ist die größte für private Investoren oder für jemanden das nicht mit der Zeit mit der Zeit? Ich habe mich, wenn du und ich und ich an unserem Kanal und ich war, das ist ein bisschen esoterisch. But.

It's the total opposite to that, right? Yeah, it's the total opposite. So we try to isolate those cycles based on very data-driven and scientific approaches. So that's set first. So what we are using is accepted algorithms and knowledge, how to process data these days. But the science of cycles is then to get a reasoning about what's the most dominant one, Das kommt auch aus der Finanzindustrie. Das ist das, was wir alle hüten, was der größte dominant ist. Und wenn wir diese Cycle finden, eine der große Verkontaktionen ist, zu denken, hier ist der Top- und hier ist der Low-Tut. Das ist nicht die Cycles.

Especially not in that isolated perspective. So cycles help us on the time axis to identify windows of opportunities, where there's a high probability that possible change in trend might occur due to the recurring rhythms we have seen, we have isolated, we can measure, we can project forward. So this gives us a kind of probability based on past rhythms. So it does not replace the tools a professional Wall Street trader needs to use. It just adds up another perspective on the time. Are there any specific indicators that should be combined with in practical terms? Yeah. So once you have isolated dominant cycles, it helps to improve technical analysis, regardless of which indicator. So this is why the science of cycles also bridges into the technical analysis community, which we also have here on site. So that's also a reason why in the finance industry they are interested, not just because they can plot cycles, but you can use the information of cycles to optimize other technical indicators you have. So most technical analysis happens on the price scale.

They are analyzing price, overbought, oversold. This has nothing to do with time. Patterns in price, the impulse pattern 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. We just talked about, Elliot. It's price-based, independent from time. So cycles add then another dimension. So if you combine price-based analysis like an Elliot wave pattern, which you have isolated, which you have identified, where you have used E-Wave as a software, whatever, or you're an expert in that, And then you can look for situations when the time cycle is in alignment with your technical Elliott wave pattern or favorite technical analysis method. That's when the true benefit, and I think that's also why so much Wall Street or finance colleagues are here. They are not looking for a holy grail. Cycles are not the holy grail, but it can help to improve the instruments you're already using. You're the chairman and the executive director of the foundation, looking at the past before looking into the future. How has it evolved over the last few years and where do you see the foundation heading in the future? You know, we're doing this conference for the second year now. I'm starting to think a lot bigger at this point, you know, especially given the interest that people are showing up. But not only that, just... And it's very inspiring to hear these guys sort of come out with their best work as though they've been kind of hiding it for a few years.

John Bollinger's talk was amazing today, and so was Stan Harley. And Harry Dent was really interesting too.

And Elliot Prechter, I thought some of the things he said about backtesting.

But equal weighting all events and not having the big moves dominate your future forecast was a fascinating piece of research. So there's just so much to do. John Bollinger, he said, my biggest message is question everything. And I really think there's an opportunity right now to question everything. And it's exciting to me that these guys care so much about this. And I feel like, man, I really want to get these guys more love and more credibility for what they've contributed, you know, even though they've kind of been a little bit out of the institutional limelight. They have been, yet they are all names that anybody on Waltrip would recognize. I know, isn't that wild? And they all seem to be using time cycles one or the other way. So how do you think technology is changing the way on using time cycles in practical terms? And how does it affect maybe time cycle itself through the growing influence of machines and AI in trading?

It's a little early to say at this point. My experience of kind of the emerging technologies is that they're allowing me to dig a lot deeper, not into generating new indicators, but in trying to really understand what cycles are. Okay, so like one of the big things that I've been talking about this week is the model of the tides. Okay, and how the sun and the moon... Und ihre Angular-Relationship-To-The-Earth-Are-Responsible-For-About-80-85%-Of-The-Heights-Of-The-Tides-Over-The-Course-Of-The-Month. Und this is a very.

You know, it's as scientific of a model as you can get, right? And yet we don't really think about it this way, and we don't think about markets this way, even though I think it was Edgar Lawrence Smith wrote Tides in the Affairs of Men, right? So this model that there are these kind of orbitals, which what that means is that there's some kind of container, there's some kind of closure that's happening. And I think this is actually present in markets too, market structure, institutions. There are walls that the waves bounce back and forth off of. There's some kind of conservation of energy from a physics perspective. Und so, just being able to, I think, have more people have access to that kind of knowledge and explanation.

Gives us an opportunity to sort of democratize knowledge in a way. Und es gibt mehr Menschen die Möglichkeit zu sagen, look, was ich habe schon gemacht hat, hat real merit. Und es ist nicht nur die Institutionen, die wollen, die Ihre Staten zu unterstützen, als die nur diejenigen, die können uns die Explanationen der Realität geben. Mehr Menschen sind in eine bessere Position jetzt zu sagen, look, hier ist meine Explanation der Realität, und zu bekommen, um die Aufmerksamkeit für das. Für jemanden, der uns beiztet hat, that wants to learn more about time cycles, about the foundation, where would they find more information? Well, we're on YouTube, I think is our biggest resource right now. And I would just say to everybody who's looking into cycles, the first thing you need to know about cycles is they can be incredibly misleading, right? And it's not that they're misleading, it's just that there are cycles and there are cycles. And it takes a lot of human work to really identify, you know, enduring, impactful cycles, to understand, you know, how cycles come in and out, how they change. Because what I'd want to say to people is, yes, learn about cycles. Watch out for getting seduced by cycles. Und Make sure that you really invest the time you know we.

Es ist so easy zu stellen, wir alle denken, es ist ein Chart, es hat sich gut zu sein, es ist Math, ich bin ein Genius. Es ist einfach nicht so gut, wenn du es gut geht, es dauert fünf, zehn Jahre zu wirklich zu einem Level von Mastery. Du musst dich auf die Weise bemerken, aber du kannst da, und Cycles können absoluten machen, in deinem Arbeit, in deinem Analyse, in deinem Analyse, in deinem Analyse, in deinem Analyse. So Richard, thank you again.

It's a great pleasure and it's also, you guys are all very welcoming and that's not always a given. And thanks again to the Foundation, to both of you for having us and have a great day. Thanks so much for having us, Marcus. Appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks, Lars. Und jetzt der obligatorische und barfinsichere Risikohinweis von Mr. Markus Koch.

Meine Damen und Herren, liebe Aufsichtsbehörden, ich darf Sie darauf hinweisen, dass die Inhalte in diesem Video ausschließlich der allgemeinen Information dienen, und keine Empfehlungen zum Erwerb oder der Veräußerung bestimmter Finanzinstrumente und somit keine Anlageberatung darstellen. Insbesondere können Wall Street Correspondents und der Vortragende nicht einschätzen, inwiefern die im Video gemachten Empfehlungen ihren Anlagezielen, ihrer Risikobereitschaft und Verlusttragfähigkeit entsprechen. Wer also auf Basis von Informationen in diesem Video etwaige Anlageentscheidungen trifft, trifft diese ausschließlich auf eigene Verantwortung und eigene Gefahr. Und das wiederum bedeutet, dass weder Wall Street Correspondents noch der Vortragende, das ist immer noch dieser Mann hier, für Verluste haften, die sie dadurch erleiden, dass sie Anlageentscheidungen aufgrund von Informationen oder Kommentaren in diesem Video getroffen haben. Vielen Dank für die Aufmerksamkeit und weiterhin einen erfolgreichen Handelstag.