Since I am partially responsible for the 5 and 12 talk, I feel it would be irresponsible of me to not at least discuss these possibilities in a bit more detail. I see lots of "bull fever" with the recent events in Argy, even saw some pie in the sky numbers on corn come through my email box this weekend so I think it time to have a look at price and see what it says, because price knows......



To help eliminate the noise in the markets and give us a clearer picture of what is going on, we will use the monthly charts. One of the prettiest, and most obvious forks that can be drawn on the monthly beans is the one capturing the the move from 09 to 12, with the "C"at the 16 lows. It is very evident that price shows incredible frequency along the handle prior to the high, reflecting the same frequency in price at the highs, before plunging lower, and going on to the low pivot in '16. The frequency is so evident that that no doubt, the frequency of the median line set was represented by a simple trendline for years.

We always talk about price knowing, and everything is in price and the event does not matter. How can that be said? Let's look closer at the simple handle of the fork. After price made the A pivot, it reacted quickly, then returned where it started basing off the handle. A trendline drawer or a guy that is not afraid to use a modified schiff median line set - would likely end up with a line of this frequency - which closely matches the frequency of price that is lacking bot a "B" and "C" pivot. This trendline was likely very heavily used by chartists during the period. But what does it tell us.  And while seemingly just a line, it is supplies so much more information. After the line was anchored, you can see how price drifted near the line, then poked through it slightly before lifting higher. When price returned to the line, what did it do? Did it reach the line to the same depth, did it, go deeper, or come up short of it? In this case price retested the line with precision, but not as deep as the previous excursion. Price then lifted higher.  When price returned the next time, what did it do before it lifted higher?  It went deeper than either of the two previous excursions.    So what was price really saying?

For the answers, lets use the "love child" of forks, the modified schiff fork.  It's LML will have the same frequency as the lowly trendline.  After price tested the LML the first time- poking outside of the LML- it then lifted off and went to near the UML.  How ironic that the distance that price overshot the LML was the same as the undershoot of the UML. Price pulls back to near the ML without testing the ML and traded sideways for a few months, then poked the ML and rallied coming up short to the UML.  Shortly after price got crushed lower,....where should it go with 80 percent certainly?   The next most probable line - the already tested LML. This time when price tested it, it did not go as deep as before - ie price is stronger than it was the last time it returned to the line.  And price proved that very thing by not only making new highs, but traded outside the UML. Price makes a top, comes through the ML, and returns again to the next most probable line - the twice tested LML.  This time, it tested it for months, probing pretty deep but once again, price eventually lifted off making a run for the ML where it came up short.  So when price was testing the LML deeper than before, what is suggesting that price was stronger, weaker, or had the same strength that it had the last time it was there?   Because price was probing the line at deeper levels than before, it was telling you that price is weaker than before, and it would be very unlikely that price could attain previous levels - which it went on to prove in future months. So in each case on this chart, price told you month before it's relative strength of health against the dominant frequency.  You knew that without knowing the event that would be assigned on cue what price should do based on it's own information.  Regardless of rain, drought, floods, late planting, acreage reports, exports, or yield spin, price did exactly what it said it should.

Price went on to create a pivot where we will use the Andrews fork as previously shown.   It has an almost identical frequency to the Mod schiff line set we were using before.   After price made a low, it drifted a little "stretching" the LML before rallying higher.  Since we are using the Andrews fork, and price stretched it near the pivot, it it a clue that the path that price is on is not likely projected by that fork and that in this case a Mod schiff fork maybe be a better choice. But for now, we will use the standard Andrews fork.   Price sold off hard, and returned the LML, where it bounced tick perfect.  Price then drifted a while recapturing energy and attempting a retest of the LML - this time plunging through it triggering the Hagopian Rule- and confirming our suspicion that the frequency projected by the fork was not likely correct.   After price zooms the LML, it quickly retests it.

This zooming of the LML triggers the Hagopain Rule.  It simply states "That when price turn before reaching the next most probable line, it will go at least as far in the opposite direction".   This simply is a measurement of the excursion into the fork - expressed as energy - and then projected outside of the fork.  So price is likely to go at least that far.

Another rule of the great Doctor Andrews states:  "When price zooms through a ML, it will often return and follow the line until it reaches the next opposing line".  When price zooms the LML and after a quick short retest, price made new lows, then returns to retest the LML once again.  Price reacted from the LML and traded lower where it confirmed that the frequency of the larger fork remains in control.  We also know that regardless of opinion, the facts are that sellers have been willing to mark their territory above.

Price trades inside the two lines of frequency til price tests the line of frequency from below, poking it.  From our other investigations earlier, when price probes a line deeper that it has respected previously at a higher level, what did it lead too?  That action telegraphed upcoming swing to swing weakness.

The powers of the universe delivered the excuse for price to rally - the argy drought.   And what did price do?  Thus far exactly what is suggested it would - returned to retest the LML from below with less excursion inside the fork than the last time. And it is very evident that price is treating that LML as balance- reaffirming that hagopian's rule is alive and well and the likelihood is that price will be successful in completing its job.

Many of you likely remember the "big downsloper" that was the cause of so much drama last year.  Much in the same way as discussed there, price was telling you that we were not going to go crashing through the lows.  Every test of the big downsloper was met by rejection of less magnitude, and generally poked deeper outside the UML.  So we finally go through it - again triggering the hagopian rule - not that it was needed.  It was very evident in the constant rejection of new lows that the pull higher was becoming stronger just by watching price react from the line.  So now we have two hagopians.  One pulling down to the right, the other pulling up and to the right. The one pulling up has now pulled price through the line of frequency that price had respected previously, what will it do when price attempts to return to it?  It is likely that both of the forces working on price will ultimately be successful in completing their jobs, but for now, has price given us any clues to suggest that the forces that have been in control for so long are getting tired and loosing control and that 12 dollar beans or higher are just around the corner and that the rally of that size is imminent?  To my eye, nothing has changed and price will continue it's course and finish its jobs.

No now let's think ahead using what he know.  If the pull lower continues to remain in control, and price price trades through the line that designates the modified schiff frequency, dancing around and then would rally, What does that mean for the likelihood of beans in the teens knowing what we would know from price?   Would it be more likely that price would struggle to reach the line or zoom through it and go to 15?  And beyond that, what are the implications of such a move in the future?  That I will leave to you.

Many of you lmight remember the corn EKG chart from late 2015.  In that chart we posted that if price was going to 5 bucks, price would not break the LML posted in the chart.  We saw that price rallied and came up a little short to the high probability ML- then pullback and was drifting sideways in the LML.  Knowing what he know from the bean charts, if price comes up short to a place it should go, is it a sign or strength or weakness?  Let's see how it turned out.

Price penetrated the LML confirming the suspicion of weakness because of the miss on the ML previously, then rallied sharply coming up short to the ML as suggested by price, then sold off hard, testing the LML, then zooming it, finding a low, then pulling back to it.  The return of price to the LML again reinforces one of the great Doctors rules, that "When price zooms a ML or an extension thereof, it will likely retest it".

When price returned to test the LML of the fork, in almost every instance that we saw price return to rest a line from below, price tested it, and left the line.  It did not hover around the line, and it did not penetrate the line further.  This time price hovered near the line, poked the line of frequency one could see off the lows - again suggesting weakness, but this time price when price rallied, it penetrated the line deeper.  Hmmm.  Now that is different.  At no time anywhere have we seen that price action, followed by another deeper test of the line.  Price then sells off toward the line of frequency that had already been penetrated suggesting weakness.  What did it do?

Price poked the line of frequency off the previous lows, but did not make a lower low relative to the previous low.  So now we have a sign of strength which we haven't seen before along with signs of weakness.  What might be the outcome from the such a standoff in price?

For some of those answers we might be better suited to look at the pendulum ML.  Even though some event will be assigned credit, the long looked forward substantial move higher in the grains will be simply price releasing the energy from the move lower.  The pendulum ML would show that energy that corn returning to the 5 dollar mark is easily doable.

So as we discussed earlier in the EKG charts, price poked the line suggesting upcoming weakness, then rallies into a lower high, then zoomed lower.  Again, just like before this failure to reach the ML and the breaking of the LML triggers the hagopian rule "When price fails to reach the next most probable line leaving a space, price will go at least as far in the opposite direction of the space".    When price reached the previous lows, it ran into an overwhelming force causing price to fail in it attempt to fulfill the hagopian quickly.  It bounced back, retested the LML from below, then put in the Higher lows as previously mentioned.  But price still has a job to do, and it is better than any of us at completing it's task.  It will do attempt to do it til it either accomplishes it, or is completely overwhelmed by opposing forces.   But there are never any accidents in price.   So we saw where price gave us a clue that something had changed previously, followed by more frequency weakness and a HL.   And just like in beans, price is treating the LML as center that price is revolving around marking time waiting for time to catch up to price.

So since price made a new low marked as a failure, we will move the "C" for the pendulum to the new low, but remain aware of the projection made by price's failure earlier.  After the clue something had changed - reaffirming price's epic failure to go lower earlier, price attempted to return to the LML but price failed to do that.  Price says "I am too strong to reach that level".    To get a better understanding, we draw in the most recent inside median line.  Instantly we notice that price poked outside of the LML.  We instantly know that it is very likely that although price was too strong to reach the blue LML below, it is not strong enough to maintain the frequency projected by the smaller red fork.

Just like in beans, there was a big downsloper active in corn.  Unlike the counterpart in beans, price never interacted with the UML of the downsloper so the line is "invisible" to anybody not using median lines.  But by prices reaction of acceleration through the UML of the downsloper, it confirms the lines frequency.  Price again was unable to reach the ML of the downsloper and the zooming of the UML again triggers the Hagopian rule.  So just like in beans, we have the battle of two Hagopians, both of which are going to do their darndest to complete their jobs.  All things  combined with the context of the remaining hagopians, the breaks of frequencies both lower and higher, combined with the information suggested by the most recent fork continues to suggest that while the bigger move in price is in the cards, price has unfinished business it wants to complete and the likelihood that price will be confined short term til these jobs are completed or fail.  And just like we have noted so many times before, price will telegraph a change - in this case of this chart - months before it occurs.  So while 5 and 12 are likely longer term, to me the formations have not simmered enough, have remaining jobs to complete, and those price objectives may not be the best one for you and your circumstances.  Only you can decide that. There are no accidents in price......EVER.

Take Care