More large-cap charts have turned upward, but buy-signal participation has not recovered to its four-week baseline. Brazil stands out for price strength within the tracked macro basket. Energy leads the sectors in three-month relative strength, while Technology retains positive four-week and three-month relative performance despite its weekly setback.

This review uses Official Friday observations through October 9, 2026. Comparisons cover October 2–9 for one week, September 11–October 9 for four weeks, and July 10–October 9 for three months. References to one month follow the standing four-week convention. Exchange-traded funds (ETFs) represent the tracked exposures; commodity funds serve as investment proxies rather than direct measurements of commodity prices.

The verified price backdrop

Returns are shown over one week, four weeks and three months.

• Brazil — EWZ: One week +14.01%; four weeks +14.01%; three months +21.18%.

• Broad commodities — DBC: One week +1.29%; four weeks −0.60%; three months +19.77%.

• Taiwan — EWT: One week −1.74%; four weeks +3.07%; three months +7.65%.

• S&P 500 — SPY: One week +1.16%; four weeks +1.87%; three months +3.13%.

• Nasdaq-100 — QQQ: One week +0.23%; four weeks +5.09%; three months +3.55%.

• Gold — GLD: One week +1.17%; four weeks −3.56%; three months +2.01%.

• Silver — SLV: One week +0.07%; four weeks −5.75%; three months +1.54%.

• Canada — EWC: One week +0.53%; four weeks −2.56%; three months +0.65%.

• Long-duration Treasuries — TLT: One week +0.65%; four weeks −3.57%; three months −7.31%.

• U.S. dollar — UUP: One week +0.45%; four weeks +3.38%; three months +2.22%.

Rising columns have recovered further than buy signals

The S&P 500’s X-column participation has improved more than its buy-signal participation over the four-week comparison. X-column participation measures the proportion of charts currently in rising X-columns. The Bullish Percent Index (BPI) measures the proportion retaining Point & Figure (P&F) buy signals. A rising column can form while a chart still retains a sell signal; the measures therefore need not move together.

X-column participation

Changes are expressed in percentage points (pp).

• S&P 500: Current participation 53.20%; weekly change +18.60 pp; four-week change +19.80 pp.

• Nasdaq-100: Current participation 58.00%; weekly change +3.00 pp; four-week change +25.00 pp.

• S&P 400: Current participation 43.25%; weekly change −2.25 pp; four-week change +4.50 pp.

• S&P 600: Current participation 39.50%; weekly change −4.00 pp; four-week change +3.67 pp.

• TSX 300: Current participation 23.67%; weekly change −1.00 pp; four-week change −4.67 pp.

Changes are percentage points (pp). Counts reconcile to the workbook’s fixed denominators; constituent ticker lists were not supplied for these X-column snapshots.

The S&P 500 now records 53.20% in X-columns. Its BPI stands at 35.40%, up 3.60 points weekly, but down 7.80 points over four weeks. Demand has reversed more charts upward without restoring the extent of buy-signal participation recorded at the monthly baseline.

Mid-cap and small-cap X-column participation contracted during the latest week, although both remain above September 11. This describes a setback within monthly repair. All eight main-group BPI readings remain below 50%.

Further participation gains accompanied by expanding buy signals would strengthen the recovery. Renewed reversals into O-columns would weaken it.

QQQ: constructive price performance, incomplete breadth confirmation

QQQ’s price gains have incomplete breadth confirmation

At the October 9 Official Friday close, QQQ was up 0.23% for the week and 5.09% over four weeks. Equal-weight QQQE gained 0.44% for the week, but its four-week advance was smaller at 3.11%. The latest week favored equal weight; the longer price window still favored QQQ.

The underlying point-and-figure measures are divided. Nasdaq-100 X-column participation rose to 58%, up 3 percentage points from the prior Friday and 25 points over four weeks. Yet the Nasdaq-100 Bullish Percent Index ($BPNDX) fell to 39.60%, down 1.98 points for the week and 2.97 points over four weeks.

X-column participation rose, while the share on P&F buy signals fell. An upward column reversal can precede a breakout above the prior X-column high. The test now is whether rising participation produces more buy signals. A recovery in $BPNDX would strengthen confirmation; continued erosion would leave QQQ’s price advance more exposed.

$BPNDX remains above the conventional 30% oversold threshold. Neither the current reading nor a future move below 30% would, on its own, establish capitulation or a completed bottom.

Share

Brazil: the clearest price-led standout

Brazil’s advance has strengthened an already positive intermediate price position. EWZ gained 14.01% during the week, bringing its three-month advance to 21.18%. Its four-week gain is also 14.01%, reflecting identical adjusted closes at the October 2 and September 11 baselines.

EWZ finished at its highest Friday adjusted close in the retained trailing 52-week window. This places the latest advance at the upper boundary of that weekly price history. Confirmation of a specific P&F breakout still requires the chart itself. EWZS, the Brazil small-cap exposure, also appears in the eligible core leadership screen, providing a second Brazilian exposure for investigation without establishing market-wide participation.

Taiwan retains intermediate gains but weakened during the latest week. EWT declined 1.74%, while remaining 3.07% higher over four weeks and 7.65% higher over three months. Brazil’s latest advance and Taiwan’s weekly reaction distinguish their immediate price behavior despite positive three-month returns in both.

For EWZ, the next reaction will help assess the advance. A subsequent P&F buy signal that survives that reaction would strengthen chart confirmation. Sustained weakness in EWZ/SPY would indicate erosion of relative leadership; a P&F sell signal would provide additional evidence of supply overcoming demand.vival conclusion is assigned from these price snapshots.

Broad commodities differ from gold and silver

The figures support a clear point: DBC has led over three months, but that strength has not carried through the past four weeks. GLD and SLV have also weakened over four weeks despite small gains in the latest week. I verified the return periods against the October 9 Official Friday workbook.

• DBC (broad commodities): Three months +19.77%; four weeks −0.60%; latest week +1.29%.

• GLD (gold): Three months +2.01%; four weeks −3.56%; latest week +1.17%.

• SLV (silver): Three months +1.54%; four weeks −5.75%; latest week +0.07%.

Revised passage

Broad commodities lead, but recent participation is less convincing. DBC gained 19.77% over three months, well ahead of gold fund GLD (2.01%) and silver fund SLV (1.54%). Yet DBC remains 0.60% lower over four weeks, even after a 1.29% gain in the latest week. The larger advance is intact over three months, while the shorter window shows that momentum has moderated.

The precious-metals funds show a weaker recent structure. GLD rose 1.17% in the latest week but remained 3.56% lower over four weeks. SLV’s 0.07% weekly gain left it 5.75% lower over the same four-week period. Those weekly gains have not yet established a sustained recovery. Further gains that repair the four-week losses would strengthen the case for renewed demand; another decline would leave the recent weakness in place.

The longer view is different: GLD gained 134.17% and SLV 161.48% from October 8, 2021, to October 9, 2026, on the workbook’s adjusted-close basis. Their current four-week declines should be read within that longer advance.

Energy and Technology: leadership with different qualifications

Relative strength (RS) here means the change in an ETF-to-SPY adjusted-close ratio. Positive RS indicates relative outperformance over the stated period; it does not establish a P&F RS buy signal. Ratio changes are distinct from percentage-point differences between ETF and SPY returns.

Energy leads the eleven sectors in three-month relative strength, but its breadth recovery remains partial. The XLE/SPY ratio gained 14.57% over three months and 2.41% during the latest week, while remaining 1.92% lower over four weeks.

Energy’s Bullish Percent Index (BPI) rose from 38.10% to 52.38% during the week, restoring a modest majority of constituents to P&F buy signals. Nevertheless, it remains 38.10 percentage points below September 11’s 90.48%. The weekly rebound has recovered some lost participation, while the four-week comparison still shows substantial deterioration.

Technology’s relative performance and breadth diverged during the week. The XLK/SPY ratio declined 1.66%, although its 3.98% four-week gain and 3.75% three-month gain remained intact. Technology’s BPI increased over both the weekly and four-week comparisons. Buy-signal participation therefore improved even as XLK lost ground against SPY during the latest week.

Sector Bullish Percent Index (BPI)

Changes are expressed in percentage points (pp).

• Technology: Current BPI 57.75%; weekly change +2.82 pp; four-week change +8.45 pp; Friday daily change 0.00 pp. Workbook classification: Unclassified.

• Energy: Current BPI 52.38%; weekly change +14.28 pp; four-week change −38.10 pp; Friday daily change 0.00 pp. Workbook classification: Unclassified.

• Communication Services: Current BPI 43.59%; weekly change −5.13 pp; four-week change −1.41 pp; Friday daily change −2.56 pp. Workbook classification: Unclassified.

Friday’s daily BPI changes compare October 8 with October 9 and are separate from weekly changes. BPI levels alone do not establish Bull Confirmed or Bear Confirmed status.

The eligible core leadership screen includes BUG, CIBR, CLOU, FDN, IGV and SKYY, highlighting software, cybersecurity, cloud and internet exposures. These funds have overlapping holdings and themes, so six matches do not represent six independent sources of breadth confirmation. They are leadership-screen matches, not necessarily fresh Friday breakouts.

Technology retains positive relative performance over four weeks and three months, despite its weekly setback. The next test is whether XLK resumes outperforming SPY while Technology’s buy-signal participation continues to expand. Further weakness in the XLK/SPY ratio, accompanied by a declining sector BPI, would indicate deterioration in both relative performance and participation.

Healthcare contrasts with Communication Services

Healthcare has positive RS across all three rotation horizons. XLV/SPY rose 1.61% weekly, 1.40% over four weeks and 2.98% over three months. The alignment makes Healthcare a worthwhile chart-review candidate, although ratio performance alone does not establish an active P&F buy signal.

Communication Services shows the opposite alignment. XLC/SPY declined 1.09% weekly, 3.77% over four weeks and 4.13% over three months. Its BPI also fell during the week. Relative price weakness and contracting buy-signal participation point in the same direction.

Real Estate supplies another qualification. XLRE/SPY’s 0.79% weekly gain remains inside declines of 5.93% over four weeks and 9.23% over three months. The latest gain is insufficient to establish that intermediate relative deterioration has reversed. Sustained ratio improvement reinforced by chart repair would strengthen that interpretation.

Canada: fresh demand without broad participation repair

Canada: Friday Breakouts, Weaker Participation

Canada’s Friday scans recorded six fresh Double Top breakouts against two Double Bottom breakdowns, a +4 event balance. This describes Friday’s activity, not the full week. SU.TO and WPM.TO are Energy and precious-metals candidates for individual chart review.

The positive signal flow sits within weaker participation. TSX 300 X-column participation was 23.67%, down 1.00 percentage point over the week and 4.67 points over four weeks. Separately, the TSX Composite Bullish Percent Index was 48.84%, down 0.46 point weekly and 6.51 points over four weeks. These indicators use different constituent universes.

Friday’s breakouts identify pockets of demand, while both breadth series remain below their earlier readings. The evidence supports selective chart investigation; broader Canadian improvement is not yet established.

The next confirmation tests

The next tests are whether Brazil’s price leadership is supported by its P&F chart structure, whether Energy’s improvement in buy-signal participation continues, and whether Technology retains its relative leadership after the weekly setback. Within the Nasdaq-100, a rising proportion of stocks on P&F buy signals would strengthen the breadth confirmation behind QQQ’s positive price performance

Data: StockCharts.com and the verified Zerblix operating workbook. Analysis: Zerblix. Official Friday observations remain separate from Daily Monitoring. Graphs summarize verified evidence; they do not reconstruct P&F charts.Not Financial Advice

Real Estate Select Sector SPDR ETF’s (XLRE) relative-strength chart against SPY shows an established decline interrupted by rallies that have failed to restore earlier relative highs. The latest breakdown extends that deterioration: repeated support at 57.32 was penetrated at 56.19, completing a Triple Bottom Breakdown. The O-column that began in August has subsequently extended to 52.95.

Share

The significance lies in the failure of repeated support and the follow-through beneath it. Two preceding reactions stopped at the same relative level, indicating that demand had been sufficient to interrupt the declines. The intervening rallies, however, did not establish a durable recovery. When the third decline penetrated that floor, the balance shifted further toward supply. Continued O-column extension shows that the breakdown has persisted beyond its initial trigger.

This is a statement about XLRE’s performance relative to SPY. Real estate can advance in price while losing relative ground if the benchmark advances more rapidly. Conversely, a declining ratio can reflect XLRE falling while SPY holds steady, or XLRE declining more sharply than the benchmark. The chart establishes persistent underperformance without requiring the two funds to move in opposite directions.

The Friday evidence already supported a lagging interpretation. XLRE/SPY declined 7.04% from September 4 to October 2 and 11.61% from July 2 to October 2. October 2’s broader real-estate pattern dataset contained 34 core bullish matches against 130 bearish matches. These are established-pattern prevalence counts, separate from the fresh signals subsequently recorded in the daily scans.

The August O-column penetrated repeated support at 57.32, completing a **Triple Bottom Breakdown at 56.19**, and extended to 52.95. Demand that previously interrupted two declines has yielded to further relative weakness. An upside reversal would indicate initial stabilization; a subsequent buy signal would provide stronger evidence of renewed leadership.

The 2% / three-box chart helps place the weakness within a broader structure. Percentage scaling keeps the boxes proportional to price, while the three-box reversal filters smaller counter-movements. I use this setting to examine substantial advances and reactions, accepting that a larger move must occur before the chart records a reversal. A breakdown surviving this filter deserves attention, although the setting does not assign a fixed duration to the resulting signal.

Welltower, Inc. (WELL) connects that sector picture with an important constituent. It was the sole real-estate match in October 5’s fresh Double Bottom Breakdown scan, using Traditional scaling with a three-box reversal. Separately, State Street’s October 7 holdings dataset identifies Welltower as XLRE’s largest holding, at 11.32%. CBRE, another bearish scan match on October 7, represented 4.32%. Their weights establish their relevance to the fund; they do not quantify their contributions to its decline.

On WELL’s displayed 2% / three-box chart, the reaction is approaching a different structural test. An O-column extension to $216.01 would confirm the developing High Pole under the source-book definition, retracing more than half the preceding X-column. That would represent a 12.94% decline from the plotted peak of $248.13 and indicate that supply had substantially eroded the demand supporting the advance. The High Pole remains unconfirmed.

The red rectangle around $211.78–$216.01 adds context. It marks the earlier resistance and breakout area, which may now attract demand during the reaction. The High Pole threshold therefore coincides with a return toward potential support. A High Pole could confirm while that support still holds: the warning would identify a substantial retracement without estabshing that the entire breakout had failed. Holding this area and reversing upward would support a corrective interpretation; further penetration beneath it would weaken that reading.

The Traditional-scale breakdown and developing percentage-chart warning consequently describe different aspects of the same price action. The scan identifies a loss of support on its own scale; the percentage chart examines how much of the preceding advance the reaction is surrendering.

Additional bearish matches across industrial property, retail property and real-estate services on October 7–8 suggest weakness extending beyond WELL. Rising Treasury yields and technology-led strength supporting SPY provide a plausible backdrop to the sector’s relative deterioration, as discussed in MarketWatch’s October 8 analysis.

Repair requires more than an initial rebound. An X-column reversal in XLRE/SPY would interrupt the current relative decline. Recovery through 57.32 would regain the former floor, while a subsequent buy signal above the preceding X-column high would provide stronger evidence that relative demand had regained control. For WELL, buyers must demonstrate whether the highlighted breakout area can arrest the reaction. Until those responses develop, the evidence remains one of established sector underperformance accompanied by a substantial, but still developing, warning in its largest holding.

Zerblix Report provides market research for educational and informational purposes, not personalized investment advice or a recommendation to buy or sell any security. Point & Figure signals describe observed market structure and do not guarantee future outcomes. Investing involves risk, including loss of principal.

Record index prices demonstrate strength. Participation reveals how extensively that strength is shared.

The S&P 500 and Nasdaq Composite reached record closing highs. Their price achievements demonstrate continued demand, although underlying Point and Figure (P&F) participation provides a more qualified assessment of the advance.

What the Bullish Percent Readings Show

The Bullish Percent Index (BPI) measures the percentage of constituents on Point and Figure (P&F) buy signals. The October 6 readings are:

• S&P 500: 35.40%

• Nasdaq 100: 48.51%

• Nasdaq Composite: 52.30%

Fewer than half the constituents in the S&P 500 and Nasdaq 100 are on buy signals. Nasdaq Composite participation is stronger, with a modest majority retaining bullish signals. These are different universes, and their readings should remain separate.

Demand is sufficient to carry the headline indexes to new highs, while bullish signals remain less extensive beneath those price advances.

Share

Seven Visits to the Oversold Zone

Across the supplied Nasdaq Composite Bullish Percent Index (BPI) chart, seven separate O-columns reached 30% or lower. These episodes marked substantial contractions in bullish participation. Subsequent X-column reversals recorded renewed participation, although reaching the lower threshold alone did not establish a bottom.

The spring advance marked by “4” for April provides an important qualification:

Following the spring advance, subsequent columns of O’s have remained above the 30% level. These declines indicate less extensive deterioration in bullish participation than the earlier oversold episodes. The current Bear Confirmed signal nevertheless remains intact, pending an upside reversal and a buy signal.

The Reading and the Signal

At 52.30%, a modest majority of Nasdaq Composite constituents remain on P&F buy signals. The indicator’s own chart nevertheless remains in a column of O’s with a Bear Confirmed signal.

Three conditions must be distinguished:

• The percentage reading describes the extent of bullish participation.

• The column direction records an advance or decline in that participation.

• The active P&F signal identifies a breakout above a preceding X-column high or a breakdown below a preceding O-column low.

A reading above 50% therefore does not automatically cancel an existing sell signal. The less severe declines following the spring advance provide constructive context, while the current signal continues to qualify that strength.

Pattern Balance Remains Uneven

Zerblix’s core pattern inventory shows differing conditions:

• S&P 500: 142 bullish versus 234 bearish occurrences.

• Nasdaq 100: 43 bullish versus 30 bearish occurrences.

The S&P 500 retains a bearish balance, while Nasdaq 100 has a bullish balance. These totals use the existing six-family convention on each side. They count overlapping pattern occurrences—not unique stocks or fresh signals.

Equal Weight Participated; Small Caps Lagged

The supplied daily ETF snapshot adds some confirmation beyond the largest constituents:

• RSP and QQQE: both gained 0.57%.

• SPY: gained 0.55%.

• QQQ: gained 0.46%.

• IWM: declined 0.72%.

Equal-weight participation supported today’s advance, while small caps did not join. One session identifies a developing condition; it does not establish sustained intermediate leadership.

What Would Confirm Repair?

For Nasdaq Composite BPI, an upside reversal into X’s would indicate initial repair. If the sell signal remained intact, that advance would represent Bear Correction. A subsequent breakout above the preceding X-column high would reverse the sell signal and establish Bull Confirmed.

Stronger confirmation would include:

• Broader participation in P&F buy signals.

• Bullish breakouts surviving subsequent reactions.

• A less bearish S&P 500 core-pattern balance.

Further downside extension or failed bullish signals would weaken the repair interpretation. A renewed approach toward 30% would challenge the less severe pattern of declines recorded since the spring advance.

*Zerblix Report provides market research for informational and educational purposes. Nothing in this post constitutes personalized investment advice or a recommendation to buy or sell any security. Investing involves risk, including loss of principal. Historical patterns and technical signals do not guarantee future results.*

*Daily Monitoring reflects the evidence available at the stated observation date and remains separate from the Official Friday benchmark.*

Friday brought a strong balance of new bullish Point & Figure signals and a substantial recovery in mid- and small-cap X-column participation from the prior Friday. The existing buy-signal base did not provide the same confirmation. This was a broadening attempt whose follow-through remains to be tested.

This week at a glance

• Mid- and small-cap participation was higher at the second Friday close. The S&P 400 rose from 34.5% to 45.5% in X columns; the S&P 600 rose from 35.7% to 43.5%.

• Friday’s new US signals favored demand: 86 fresh double-top breakouts versus 15 double-bottom breakdowns.

• The S&P 500 remained the main qualification: its Bullish Percent Index fell 5.20 points from the prior Friday to 31.80, and its Pattern Pressure remained deeply negative.

Participation at two Friday closes

• S&P 500: X-column participation rose from 32.2% to 34.6%; Pattern Pressure weakened from −50.60 to −52.40.

• S&P 400: Participation rose from 34.5% to 45.5%; Pattern Pressure improved from −41.94 to −27.15.

• S&P 600: Participation rose from 35.7% to 43.5%; Pattern Pressure improved from −40.89 to −23.32.

• Nasdaq 100: Participation slipped from 56.0% to 55.0%; Pattern Pressure rose from −1.45 to 0.00.

• S&P/TSX 300: Participation fell from 26.3% to 24.7%; Pattern Pressure weakened from −15.15 to −29.63.

(Figures compare two official Friday closing snapshots: September 25 and October 2. They do not show the intervening daily path.)

X-column participation measures current P&F column direction. Pattern Pressure balances selected bullish and bearish pattern-family counts. Families can overlap, so Pattern Pressure is not a percentage of distinct stocks. Changes were calculated from exact workbook values before display rounding.

The S&P 400 gained 11.0 percentage points in X-column participation between the two closes; the S&P 600 gained 7.8 points. Their Pattern Pressure improved by 14.78 and 17.57 points, respectively. More constituents were in advancing columns on October 2, and the established pattern balance was less bearish. Both groups nevertheless remained below 50% participation, and both pressure readings remained negative.

The S&P 500 improved only 2.4 points in X-column participation to 34.6%, while its Pattern Pressure deteriorated 1.80 points to −52.40. The Nasdaq 100 was the only one of these five groups above 50% in X columns, at 55.0%, one point below the prior Friday. TSX 300 participation fell to 24.7%, and its Pattern Pressure declined to −29.63. The US mid- and small-cap improvement was neither universal nor yet a majority condition.

Share

New signals versus the existing base

The fresh US scans favored the upside 86 to 15 on Friday. Canada’s corresponding scans returned six versus two. A double-top breakout occurs when a rising X column exceeds its prior X-column high; a double-bottom breakdown occurs when a falling O column drops below its prior O-column low. These are new signals at specific price levels. They do not by themselves establish a weeklong trend.

The Bullish Percent Index asks a different question: what share of a group remains on active P&F buy signals? S&P 500 BPI closed at 31.80, up 0.40 point during Friday’s session but down 5.20 points from September 25. Nasdaq 100 BPI was 41.58, up 1.98 Friday but down 2.97 for the week. TSX Composite BPI was 49.30, up 0.93 Friday but down 4.65 for the week. The TSX Composite BPI and TSX 300 X-column scan cover differently named universes and are kept separate.

The distinction: Friday supplied new bullish signal flow and stronger mid- and small-cap column direction. The established S&P 500 buy-signal base had not recovered its prior Friday position.

Where the new signals appeared

Technology accounted for 38 of the 86 fresh US double-top matches, including 12 semiconductor names. Industrials contributed 29. In the established-pattern inventory, Technology’s Pattern Pressure stood at +22.43, while Health Care was −50.81, Financials −23.34, and Materials −64.52. Those sector pressure readings measure an existing pattern balance, not Friday’s new-signal counts.

On the downside, seven of the 15 fresh US double-bottom matches were in Health Care. Technology was not uniform either: STX and WDC appeared on the downside in the scan’s computer-hardware classification. New demand was clustered, and pockets of supply persisted.

EWT in the ETF screen

EWT, the iShares MSCI Taiwan ETF, was the only distinct fund appearing in both the 252-day and 63-day leader screens on October 2. Both matches reflect the same ETF’s active P&F condition and new price high. Its chart warrants a closer look, but this screen alone does not establish broad international leadership.

What would strengthen or weaken the reading?

Further official Friday closes with S&P 400 and S&P 600 X-column participation above 50%, a less negative pattern balance, and a recovering S&P 500 BPI would strengthen the breadth case. A retreat in those participation gains, or continued deterioration in the S&P 500’s buy-signal base, would weaken it. The October 2 fresh breakouts also need time to show whether they hold.

Reading of the week: Demand returned to fresh US signal flow and to mid- and small-cap X columns between the two Friday snapshots. Established buy-signal breadth and the S&P 500’s bearish pattern balance still limit broad confirmation.

Source and method: supplied StockCharts.com scans and ChartLists at the October 2 close, reconciled with the Zerblix master workbook. Official Friday comparisons use September 25 and October 2. For information only; not investment advice.

Technology produced a concentrated group of new point-and-figure upside signals today, especially among semiconductors. Across the broader US scan, however, new downside signals were far more numerous. Friday will test whether that pocket of demand can hold while participation elsewhere weakens.

Verified Evidence Table

• Fresh US breakouts: 35; 22 in Technology, including 11 semiconductors.

• Fresh US breakdowns: 93.

• S&P 500 Bullish Percent: 31.40%, down 2.80 points.

• NYSE Bullish Percent: 35.13%, down 2.01 points.

• Technology Bullish Percent: 54.93%, up 4.23 points.

• Materials Bullish Percent: 15.38%, down 11.54 points.

• Industrials Bullish Percent: 24.05%, down 6.33 points.

Cross-Asset Leaders

An October 1 ETF return snapshot has not been supplied, so the cross-asset leader remains unclassified. Technology’s P&F breadth improved, but that does not establish how stocks performed against bonds, commodities, or currencies.

Cross-Asset Laggards

The cross-asset laggard also remains unclassified. Weak P&F participation is a structural reading, not a daily ETF return.

Sector/Industry Divergences

Technology accounted for 22 of the 35 fresh US breakouts, including 11 semiconductor names. Its Bullish Percent rose from 50.70% on September 30 to 54.93% on October 1. Telecom Services also rose, from 43.59% to 46.15%.

Supply was broader. Industrials recorded 22 fresh breakdowns against four breakouts; Health Care 15 against two; Consumer Discretionary 13 against four; Materials 10 against one; and Financials nine against one. Materials’ Bullish Percent fell from 26.92% to 15.38%, Industrials from 30.38% to 24.05%, and Energy from 47.62% to 38.10%.

The distinction matters. Fresh scans show where new signals appeared today; Bullish Percent shows how P&F buy signals are distributed within a group. Together, they describe selective demand within broader supply, without settling the intermediate Zerblix outlook.

International/Intermarket Observations

The TSX Composite Bullish Percent closed at 48.37%, down 2.33 points. The established TSX 300 pattern scan showed 28 double top breakouts versus 62 double bottom breakdowns. Canadian P&F participation warrants attention, but the supplied data do not rank Canadian ETF returns against other markets.

Items Worth Watching Into Friday

Friday’s Official Zerblix evidence will test whether semiconductor breakouts survive, whether Technology’s participation continues to separate from S&P 500 and NYSE breadth, and whether breakdowns across Industrials, Health Care, Materials, and Financials persist. An October 1 ETF snapshot would show whether price leadership agrees with this P&F divergence. Until then, this is a provisional Daily Monitoring observation.

The Zerblix read: On September 21, fresh U.S. Double Top candidates led Double Bottom candidates. By the September 28 close, Double Bottom candidates led by a wide margin. This marks a change in new pattern activity, though it does not by itself confirm a change in the intermediate trend.

The structure

The fresh Double Top scan looks for potential breakouts above a prior point-and-figure high, where demand may be overcoming resistance. The fresh Double Bottom scan looks for potential breakdowns below a prior low, where supply may be overcoming support. A scan match remains a candidate until its individual chart is reviewed.

• Monday, September 21: 49 bullish breakout matches and 33 bearish breakdown matches, a net +16.

• Monday, September 28: 16 bullish breakout matches and 83 bearish breakdown matches, a net −67.

These are separate daily scans of new candidates. The counts are neither a cumulative weekly total nor a tally of all established P&F patterns.

Where supply appeared

The shift was most visible in groups that supplied much of last Monday’s bullish flow:

• Technology: 21 bullish and 2 bearish matches on September 21 became 4 bullish and 15 bearish on September 28. Its daily net moved from +19 to −11.

• Industrials: 14 bullish and 8 bearish became 2 bullish and 20 bearish, moving the daily net from +6 to −18.

• Financials: 3 bullish and 1 bearish became 0 bullish and 12 bearish, shifting from +2 to −12.

• Energy: moved the other way, from 1 bullish and 6 bearish to 6 bullish and 2 bearish. Its +4 net on September 28 is a countercurrent to the broader scan imbalance.

  

  Fresh bearish candidates now outnumber fresh bullish candidates across several groups. Energy’s exception matters: the evidence describes uneven participation, not a uniform market move.

  ---

A related breadth check

The Nasdaq 100 Bullish Percent Index stood at 44.55 at the September 25 Official Friday close and 37.62 at the September 28 close, a decline of 6.93 percentage points versus Friday. Bullish Percent Index (BPI) tracks the percentage of components on P&F buy signals. It does not measure today’s count of fresh scan matches, so the two readings should be read together without combining them.

Fresh bearish candidates now outnumber fresh bullish candidates across several groups. Energy’s exception matters: the evidence describes uneven participation, not a uniform market move.

What would confirm or weaken the read

Friday’s evidence remains the official weekly benchmark. Continued bearish candidate flow, chart confirmation, and weaker buy-signal participation on the next Official Friday would strengthen the case that supply is spreading. A return of bullish candidates alongside stabilizing Bullish Percent Index (BPI) would weaken Monday’s warning.

For now, the practical reading is an early change in fresh P&F scan pressure. It calls for follow-through checks before changing the intermediate-horizon classification.

Technology and Energy remain two of the strongest intermediate price trends among the major U.S. sectors. Friday's evidence, however, showed them moving in very different internal directions.

Technology gains confirmation as Energy loses it

Technology remains the strongest complete sector configuration in the current board. XLK sits at the top of its 52-week range and maintains positive relative strength versus SPY across the one-week, one-month and three-month horizons. Technology Bullish Percent Index (BPI) 1 rose to 59.15, up 14.08 percentage points from the prior Friday, while Pattern Pressure2 improved by roughly 12 points.

The supply-and-demand interpretation is constructive: an established price leader is receiving stronger confirmation from participation and pattern structure.

Energy presents the opposite internal configuration. XLE still has strong three-month relative strength and substantial 12-month and YTD price leadership, so the intermediate trend has not simply disappeared. But its one-month and one-week relative strength (RS) turned negative, Bullish Percent Index (BPI) fell from 71.43 to 38.10, and Pattern Pressure deteriorated by roughly 67 points. Six Energy names also appeared among Friday’s fresh bearish D02 signals.

The distinction is important. Technology is Leading / Confirming. Energy remains Leading / Losing Momentum. Energy would require further deterioration in its intermediate relative trend before the longer leadership thesis itself is invalidated.

The broader sector rotation supports that distinction

The relative-strength map makes the separation clearer.

Energy still has the strongest three-month relative strength versus SPY, but its one-month reading has turned negative. Technology, by contrast, maintains positive relative strength across both the one-month and three-month windows. Health Care and Communication Services remain close to neutral-positive intermediate relative strength, while much of the remaining sector complex continues to lag the benchmark.

Utilities, Real Estate and Industrials remain especially weak on the three-month comparison. Financials, Materials, Consumer Staples and Consumer Discretionary also remain negative versus SPY over the intermediate horizon.

This is why Friday’s sector picture is better described as selective leadership rather than broad sector rotation.

Energy still leads on the three-month relative-strength horizon, but its one-month Relative Strength (RS) has turned negative. Technology, by contrast, remains positive across both the one-month and three-month windows. Health Care and Communication Services remain only marginally positive over three months, while most other major sectors continue to trail SPY.

Nasdaq participation catches up with price leadership

The strongest index-level confirmation came from the Nasdaq-100.

X-column3 participation rose from 38.0% to 56.0%, moving above the 50% majority threshold. Nasdaq-100 BPI also increased from 35.64 to 44.55, while Pattern Pressure improved materially from −28.77 to −1.45.

QQQ was already an established intermediate price leader. Friday therefore did not initiate Nasdaq leadership. Instead, a greater share of the underlying index began participating in the advance.

From a supply-and-demand perspective, that is an important improvement. Leadership supported by broader participation is structurally stronger than leadership carried by a narrow group of securities.

Breadth improved elsewhere, but majority participation remains absent

The improvement was not limited to the Nasdaq-100.

S&P 500 X-column participation increased from 29.8% to 32.2%. The S&P 400 rose from 32.5% to 34.5%, while the S&P 600 advanced from 29.7% to 35.7%.

All four U.S. core indexes therefore improved week over week. The distinction is that only the Nasdaq-100 finished above the 50% majority threshold.

The S&P universes are showing repair, but not yet broad majority participation.

Fresh demand is improving faster than older structure is repairing

Friday’s fresh U.S. Point & Figure signals leaned bullish, with 47 new bullish signals against 29 bearish signals.

That is evidence that current demand improved.

Established pattern prevalence, however, remains more cautious. Triple Bottom versus Triple Top counts remain bearish-skewed in the S&P 500, S&P 400 and S&P 600, while the Nasdaq-100 is balanced at two versus two.

This is not contradictory.

Fresh signals identify what is occurring now. Established pattern prevalence reflects structural damage accumulated over a longer interval. The combination suggests improving current demand against a market structure that has not yet fully repaired.

Long-duration weakness remains one of the cleaner trends

The 2% Point & Figure chart keeps TLT’s intermediate structure in perspective. Price remains in a declining sequence and has returned to a support area that was tested repeatedly during 2024 and 2025.

The current O-column is pressing against a cluster of prior lows from those two years. Because several earlier declines terminated in roughly the same area, the chart is developing the structure of a potential Quadruple Bottom Breakdown. Confirmation would require price to move below the lowest of the relevant prior O-column lows.

From a supply-and-demand standpoint, each prior low marks an area where demand previously absorbed enough selling pressure to halt the decline. A break beneath that repeated support would indicate that supply had finally overcome those prior demand zones and would strengthen the existing bearish structure. Until that occurs, the chart is better described as a retest of 2024–2025 support with a potential bearish breakdown forming, rather than as a completed Quadruple Bottom Breakdown.

TLT remains in Zerblix’s 52-week Major Weakness scan and the 3-month Emerging Weakness group, so the P&F chart is confirming an established area of weakness rather than introducing a new bearish thesis.

Practical interpretation: TLT remains Lagging / Confirmed Weakness. A decisive break beneath the 2024–2025 support lows would add a new bearish structural confirmation. A reversal into X’s from this area would show renewed demand and would weaken the immediate breakdown setup.

The weekly map

The intermediate picture entering the new week is increasingly differentiated.

Technology leadership is confirming. Energy leadership remains intact but is losing momentum internally. Nasdaq participation has broadened materially. Broader S&P participation is repairing but remains below majority. Older bearish P&F structure has not completely cleared. Long duration remains under supply.

That is a healthier internal picture than a week ago—but it is not uniform confirmation.

For intermediate traders and investors, the more useful question is no longer simply whether the market is strong.

It is where price leadership and internal participation still agree—and where that agreement is beginning to break down.

Wednesday’s P&F evidence showed a broader expansion of supply across the U.S. market, but the deterioration was not uniform.

• Fresh signals: 24 new Double Top breakouts versus 73 new Double Bottom breakdowns — a net −49, compared with −8 on Sept. 22.

• Breadth pressure: Energy Bullish Percent Index (BPI) fell below 50 and Health Care BPI declined to 49.2.

• Divergence: Technology BPI held at 57.8, Nasdaq 100 Pattern Pressure recovered to neutral, and TSX 300 Pattern Pressure moved to the bullish side.

Structure

Fresh downside P&F signals expanded sharply during Wednesday’s session. The increase in Double Bottom breakdowns, accompanied by fewer new Double Top breakouts, shows that a larger number of stocks were giving way to supply than were overcoming previous columns of Xs to establish new upside signals.

The broader pattern structure remained under pressure. S&P 500 Pattern Pressure declined from −43.9 to −47.7, while the S&P 600 slipped from −39.5 to −41.1. The S&P 400 improved to −42.2, but its pattern balance remained decisively negative.

The principal exceptions were the Nasdaq 100, which repaired from −4.8 to neutral, and the TSX 300, which moved from −9.9 to +10.1.

Supply and Demand

The combination of heavier fresh downside issuance and weakening broad-market BPI indicates that supply continued to gain ground across much of the U.S. equity population.

Energy showed one of the clearest losses of participation. Its BPI declined to 47.6, moving below the 50% level after standing above 70% at the latest Official Friday benchmark. Health Care also weakened materially, falling 8.5 points during Wednesday’s session to 49.2.

These readings do not describe new signals alone. The Bullish Percent Index (BPI) measures the proportion of stocks carrying active P&F buy signals. A declining reading therefore indicates that bullish participation is contracting as supply gains control in a larger portion of the group. The direction of the indicator, together with its position within the broader range, provides the more useful measure of underlying participation.direction and level of the reading carrying the larger significance.

Divergence

Technology did not confirm the same degree of deterioration. Its BPI held at 57.8, while Nasdaq 100 Pattern Pressure returned to equilibrium. Canada also separated from the U.S. picture as TSX 300 Pattern Pressure crossed into positive territory.

That divergence is important. The broad U.S. market is still showing a negative balance between bullish and bearish P&F structures, but the pressure is not being distributed evenly. Technology and Canadian equities are showing comparatively firmer demand while large-, mid- and small-cap U.S. participation remains under heavier supply.

What Matters Next

The bearish interpretation would strengthen if fresh Double Bottom breakdowns continue to dominate, broad-market BPI contracts further, and negative Pattern Pressure persists across the S&P 500, S&P 400 and S&P 600.

The interpretation would begin to weaken if fresh upside signals recover, the current downside imbalance narrows, and the weaker BPI groups begin to reclaim lost participation. Continued strength in Technology and further positive development in the Nasdaq 100 and TSX 300 would reinforce the present divergence rather than confirm a uniform market decline.

Practical interpretation: broad U.S. participation weakened Wednesday, but the evidence does not yet describe a market in which all groups are deteriorating together. The developing question into Friday is whether Technology and Canada can continue to resist the broader supply pressure, or whether the weakness begins to spread into those areas as well.

Daily Monitoring observations are provisional. Friday remains the authoritative Zerblix weekly benchmark.

Daily Monitoring is provisional and reflects end-of-day breadth and P&F evidence. Friday remains the authoritative Zerblix weekly benchmark. For informational and educational purposes only; not investment advice.

HUT’s longer-structure P&F chart is improving after a prolonged corrective phase, but the next bullish signal has not yet been completed.

HUT’s 2% / three-box / daily-close Point & Figure chart shows an important change in structure.

The chart first recorded a powerful expansion in X-columns as demand took control. That advance eventually produced a triple-top breakout, and the breakout was followed by substantial upside progress.

The character of the chart later changed.

During the correction, HUT produced a series of bearish signals as supply repeatedly pushed price through prior support. The decline eventually reached the September low, where the final downside break failed to produce sustained follow-through.

Demand then returned.

HUT has since reversed higher and is again testing an important resistance area.

Reading the chart

1. Demand Expansion — blue

A strong wall of X-columns shows a period when demand clearly controlled the trend. Buyers were able to move price through successive boxes with relatively little interruption from supply.

2. Triple-Top Breakout — green

The earlier breakout above triple-top resistance was followed by a substantial advance. That follow-through is important. Demand did not simply move one box above resistance and stop; buyers continued to push price higher, confirming the breakout.

3. Repeated Bearish Signals — red

The later correction produced seven successive bearish signals.

Each downside break showed supply overcoming another support level and pushing the chart lower.

The important feature is the sequence rather than any single breakdown:

• support repeatedly failed;

• rallies stopped below earlier highs;

• supply remained in control through much of the correction.

4. Bear Trap / Failed Breakdown — black

Near the September low, the final downside break failed to continue.

The brief push below support did not attract enough additional supply to extend the decline. Instead, demand returned and HUT reversed higher.

This is the important change in character.

The red “9” on the P&F chart is the September month marker. The bear-trap interpretation comes from the failed downside break and reversal, not from the number itself.

5. Developing Triple Top - brown

The current formation is now pressing the same resistance area near 97.83.

At the same time, the intervening lows have moved higher.

That produces a developing triple top with higher bottoms.

In supply-and-demand terms, sellers have continued to defend the resistance area, but they have become less successful at pushing HUT back to its previous lows.

That is constructive.

The important distinction is:

HUT has a developing triple-top setup. It has not yet completed the breakout.

What matters next

• 97.83 — Current resistance: price is testing the existing triple-top ceiling.

• 99.79 — Breakout confirmation: a print at this box would complete the current triple-top breakout on the 2% chart.

• 110-112 — Previous reaction high zone area: follow-through into this area would provide stronger evidence that the intermediate correction is being repaired.

• Below 88.61 — Weakening: a decline through this area would begin to damage the recent higher-bottom structure.

• 81.86 -78.68— Major support or failure zone: a return through this region would materially weaken the larger repair.

The practical interpretation

HUT’s longer-term structure remains constructive, but the intermediate structure is still repairing the damage created during the summer decline.

The important development is not simply that the stock has rallied.

It is that repeated bearish signals eventually stopped producing additional downside progress, support began to rise, and demand is now pressing the same resistance area again.

The next test is clear:

HUT’s longer-term structure remains constructive, but the intermediate structure is still repairing the damage created during the summer decline.

The important development is not simply that the stock has rallied. Repeated bearish signals stopped producing additional downside progress, support began to rise, and demand is again pressing the same resistance area.

The immediate test is 99.79, where a new X would complete the developing triple-top breakout. Beyond that, the larger structural test sits near 110–112, where earlier rallies encountered supply.

As long as the recent higher-bottom structure holds above 88.61, the repair remains intact. A return into the 81.86–78.68 September base would materially weaken that interpretation.

Disclaimer: Zerblix Report provides general market research and educational commentary only. Nothing published here is individualized investment advice, a recommendation to buy or sell any security, or a guarantee of future results. Markets involve risk, and readers should conduct their own research and consider their own financial circumstances before making investment decisions.

The strongest change came from the Nasdaq 100. Its Zerblix Pattern Pressure improved from −69.9 on September 11 to −28.8 on September 18, a substantial reduction in bearish pattern pressure.

The broader market did not confirm that improvement to the same degree. S&P 500, mid-cap and small-cap participation remained depressed, while Friday produced considerably more new P&F downside breaks than upside breaks.

The week’s central condition is therefore not an absence of demand.It is demand concentrated in a relatively narrow part of the market.

At a Glance

• Nasdaq repair: Nasdaq 100 Pattern Pressure improved sharply to −28.8.

• Breadth remains narrow: all five core universes finished with less than 40% of members in rising X-columns.

• Fresh supply dominated: 65 new U.S. downside P&F breaks versus 20 new upside breaks.

• Leadership remains selective: Energy retains stronger structure; Health Care is improving; Technology continues to show concentrated rather than broad leadership.

• 10-year context: the latest SPY–RSP and QQQ–QQQE performance gaps are unusually wide relative to the past decade.

  ---

Breadth Has Not Yet Confirmed the Index Repair

X-column participation measures the percentage of stocks currently advancing in rising Point & Figure columns. It gives a direct reading of how widely demand is spreading through a market.

Friday’s readings were:

S&P 500 — 29.8%
S&P 400 — 32.5%
S&P 600 — 29.7%
Nasdaq 100 — 38.0%
TSX 300 — 29.3%

The Friday-to-Friday changes are more revealing.

S&P 500 participation declined from 33.4% to 29.8%. The S&P 400 fell from 38.8% to 32.5%, while the S&P 600 declined from approximately 35.8% to 29.7%.

The Nasdaq 100 was the exception, improving from 33.0% to 38.0%. Canada improved only modestly, from roughly 28.3% to 29.3%.The structure shows demand returning more forcefully to the Nasdaq than to the broader market.

From a supply-and-demand standpoint, that distinction matters. A stronger and more durable advance would normally begin pulling a larger share of stocks into rising columns. Friday did not provide that confirmation.

Pattern Pressure Shows Where the Repair Occurred

Pattern Pressure compares selected bullish and bearish P&F pattern families within each universe. Positive readings indicate that demand-side structures are more prevalent; negative readings indicate that supply-side structures remain dominant.

The September 18 readings were:

• Nasdaq 100: −28.8

• S&P 500: −51.6

• S&P 400: −46.0

• S&P 600: −39.6

• TSX 300: −17.2

The level alone does not tell the entire story.

The Nasdaq 100 improved from −69.9 one week earlier to −28.8. That is meaningful structural repair. The S&P 500 changed much less, from approximately −53.3 to −51.6. Mid-cap Pattern Pressure weakened from −39.5 to −46.0, while small-cap pressure moved from −32.5 to −39.6.

The market therefore did not experience a uniform bullish shift.

Instead, Nasdaq supply pressure contracted rapidly while broader-market pressure remained elevated.

That is constructive for Nasdaq leadership, but broader confirmation would require the improvement to spread into the S&P universes.

If Pattern Pressure begins improving across the S&P 500, S&P 400 and S&P 600 while X-column participation rises at the same time, the current selective repair would be developing into a broader demand phase.

If the Nasdaq continues to improve while those measures remain depressed elsewhere, concentration remains the dominant condition.

New Supply Still Had the Wider Footprint

Friday’s new-signal evidence also favored the supply side.

There were:

20 new U.S. P&F upside breaks
versus
65 new U.S. P&F downside breaks

These are new events—not the entire inventory of existing bullish or bearish patterns.

The difference is substantial. New downside breaks appeared at more than three times the rate of new upside breaks.

The distribution adds another layer.

Technology accounted for 11 of the 20 upside signals, including a semiconductor/electronics cluster involving ALAB, ARM, FORM, QCOM, SWKS and COHR.

Health Care contributed another four upside signals.

That is legitimate demand, but it is concentrated.

The downside side was distributed much more broadly:

• Consumer Discretionary: 15

• Financials: 14

• Technology: 8

• Communication Services: 7

• Industrials: 6

• Health Care: 5

The implication is not that every part of the market is deteriorating.

It is that new supply is still appearing across more groups than new demand.

That condition would begin to improve if the downside count contracts while new upside signals spread beyond Technology and Health Care.

Energy, Health Care and Technology Are Not the Same Kind of Leadership

The stronger areas of the market are developing through different structural paths.

Energy — Established, but Cooling Internally

Energy remains one of the better-aligned groups.

Its sector BPI finished at 71.4, meaning a substantial majority of Energy stocks remained on P&F buy signals. Pattern Pressure was also positive at approximately +22.8.

The intermediate price trend supports that structure. XLE gained approximately 20.5% over the latest 13 weeks, placing the move toward the stronger end of its own historical range. But there is an important qualification.

Energy BPI fell from roughly 90.5 to 71.4 in one week.

Demand remains dominant by level, but participation contracted.

The Energy interpretation therefore remains constructive while the sector holds positive Pattern Pressure and avoids another material deterioration in BPI. A continued decline in participation would indicate that established leadership is becoming progressively narrower.

Health Care — Improving Breadth, Incomplete Pattern Confirmation

Health Care developed through a different mechanism.

Its BPI improved from approximately 52.5 to 62.7, while several Health Care stocks produced new upside breaks.

XLV’s intermediate price behavior is also unusually strong relative to its own historical experience.

But Pattern Pressure remained negative at approximately −24.3.

The measures are therefore not fully aligned.

Breadth and price momentum are improving, while the overall mix of P&F pattern families still contains more supply-side than demand-side pressure.

That makes Health Care a developing leadership area rather than a completed structural confirmation. Additional improvement in Pattern Pressure would strengthen the case. A reversal in BPI or failure of the new upside signals would weaken it.

Technology — Leadership Without Broad Participation

Technology supplied more than half of Friday’s new U.S. upside breaks.

That is significant.

But sector BPI finished at only 45.1, while Pattern Pressure remained negative at approximately −13.2.

The sector therefore contains individual stocks showing strong demand without yet producing uniformly strong participation across the group.

That is consistent with the Nasdaq 100 evidence.

Technology leadership remains important, but it is selective.

The next confirmation would be survival of the new breakouts together with improvement in sector BPI and Pattern Pressure.

Without that follow-through, strong individual names can continue to support the index while the broader technology structure remains mixed

Several Areas Still Show Persistent Supply

The weak side of the market is more broadly aligned.

Consumer Discretionary

Consumer Discretionary produced one of the clearest negative combinations:

• BPI: 16.7

• Pattern Pressure: approximately −64.0

• 15 new downside breaks

• Recent XLY performance remained under pressure

Breadth, fresh signals and pattern structure are pointing in the same direction.

The sector would need more than a short rebound to materially alter that interpretation. Improvement would require fewer new breakdowns, stabilization in BPI and a sustained improvement in Pattern Pressure.

Materials

Materials BPI fell to approximately 26.9, while Pattern Pressure reached roughly −52.2.

That is a combination of low participation and persistent bearish structure.

Utilities

Utilities finished with BPI near 25.8 and Pattern Pressure around −47.0.

Utility-related ETFs also appeared repeatedly in confirmed weakness.

That repetition matters because it indicates weakness appearing through more than one analytical layer.

Real Estate

Real Estate Pattern Pressure remained near −44.0. Utility-related ETFs also appeared repeatedly in confirmed weakness.

That repetition matters because it indicates weakness appearing through more than one analytical layer.

Real Estate

Real Estate Pattern Pressure remained near −44.0.

VNQ also appeared in both three-month emerging weakness and broad confirmed ETF weakness.

Repeated weakness across pattern structure and ETF scans gives the Real Estate condition more weight than a one-time signal.

Financials Are Sending a Mixed Message

Financials are worth separating from the clearly weak groups because the evidence does not completely agree.

Sector BPI declined from approximately 47.4 to 36.8.

Financial stocks also produced 14 new downside breaks, one of Friday’s largest sector concentrations.

Yet Financial Pattern Pressure remained slightly positive at approximately +8.9.

That divergence suggests that older bullish structures remain present even while a new layer of downside pressure has developed among individual stocks.

This is the kind of disagreement that deserves monitoring rather than forced classification.

If the new breakdowns persist and Pattern Pressure falls below zero, the negative interpretation would become more complete.

If new downside signals contract while Pattern Pressure remains positive and BPI stabilizes, the recent deterioration may prove to be a corrective phase rather than a deeper structural reversal.

Historical Context: Concentration Is the Bigger Story

The trailing 10-year price history provides an important perspective on the current market.

Large-cap leadership itself is not unusual.

Over the decade, cap-weighted large-cap growth has consistently outperformed many broader and equal-weight measures.

What is more unusual today is the size of the short-term separation.

Over the latest four weeks:

SPY: approximately −0.5%
RSP: approximately −4.2%

That leaves SPY ahead of equal-weight RSP by roughly 3.7 percentage points. Relative to comparable rolling four-week observations over the trailing decade, that spread ranks around the 96th percentile.

The Nasdaq concentration is even more pronounced.

QQQ: approximately +1.1%
QQQE: approximately −4.0%

That produces a spread of roughly 5.1 percentage points, near the 99th percentile of comparable observations during the past 10 years.

That distinction is important.

The breadth data tells us participation is narrow.

The historical comparison tells us how unusually narrow the recent cap-weighted leadership has become.

GRAPH 3 — BEST HISTORICAL GRAPH TO ADD HERE

10-Year Rolling 4-Week Concentration Spread

Plot:

• SPY minus RSP

• QQQ minus QQQE

• September 2016 through September 2026

Mark the current readings:

• SPY–RSP: +3.7 percentage points

• QQQ–QQQE: +5.1 percentage points

• Annotate approximately 96th percentile / 99th percentile

Caption:

Rolling four-week cap-weighted minus equal-weight return spreads. The September 18 readings show unusually wide concentration relative to the trailing 10-year history. Source: verified adjusted-close history; Zerblix analysis.

This is the most valuable additional graph for the article.

It visually proves the central thesis instead of simply repeating another ranking.

Commodities Continue to Show Persistence

Broad commodities remain one of the stronger multi-horizon areas in the Zerblix universe.

DBC gained approximately:

• +5.3% over 4 weeks

• +19.2% over 13 weeks

• +52.9% over 52 weeks

Both the 13-week and 52-week advances rank toward the stronger end of DBC’s trailing decade history.

That persistence matters.

It suggests that commodity strength is not simply the result of one strong Friday or one short-lived breakout.

Precious metals are more mixed. GLD retains positive 52-week performance but has experienced weaker recent momentum. SLV remains substantially stronger over the longer horizon but has also undergone shorter-term contraction.

That makes recent precious-metal strength better described as repair within a larger advance until additional follow-through develops.

Internationally, Taiwan also remains notable. EWT’s longer-horizon performance is exceptionally strong relative to its trailing history, while Brazil has improved across multiple intermediate horizons.

Those are areas to continue monitoring for structural confirmation rather than treating price strength alone as sufficient evidence.

What Friday Established

The September 18 evidence confirms a market with selective leadership and narrow participation.

There is real demand.

The Nasdaq 100 repaired sharply. Energy retains positive internal structure. Health Care breadth is improving. Technology continues to produce important individual upside breaks. Broad commodities retain strong intermediate persistence.

But that demand has not yet become broadly distributed.

The S&P 500, S&P 400 and S&P 600 ended the week with roughly one-third or less of their members in rising P&F columns.

New downside breaks outnumbered new upside breaks by more than three to one.

Consumer Discretionary, Materials, Utilities and Real Estate remain under significant supply pressure.

And historically, the short-term separation between cap-weighted and equal-weight indexes is unusually wide.

Taken together, the evidence argues for selective repair rather than broad confirmation.

The Week Ahead

The most important question next week is not simply whether the major indexes rise.

It is whether participation begins to rise with them.

A more constructive structure would include:

• Higher X-column participation across the S&P 500, S&P 400 and S&P 600.

• Fewer new downside P&F breaks relative to new upside breaks.

• Improving Pattern Pressure outside the Nasdaq 100.

• Stabilization in Energy BPI after its recent contraction.

• Further improvement in Health Care Pattern Pressure.

• Survival and expansion of Technology’s new upside signals.

The current interpretation would weaken if Nasdaq repair reverses, existing leaders lose participation, or downside signals continue to spread while broad-market breadth remains near current levels. For now, Friday's evidence leaves the market in a familiar but important position: The indexes can continue to advance, but broader demand still has something to prove.

Quick Definitions

X-column participation — the percentage of stocks currently advancing in rising Point & Figure columns. It measures immediate demand-versus-supply participation.

BPI — the percentage of stocks in a universe currently carrying P&F buy signals. It measures structural participation and is distinct from X-column participation.

Pattern Pressure — a Zerblix measure comparing selected bullish and bearish P&F pattern families. Positive values indicate greater demand-side pattern pressure; negative values indicate greater supply-side pressure.

New P&F signal — a newly appearing breakout or breakdown on the effective date, rather than the full inventory of existing patterns.

Subscribe now

Historical comparisons use verified adjusted-close data over the exact trailing period ending September 18, 2026. Historical price comparisons are not presented as 10 years of BPI, X-column participation or Pattern Pressure history. Source: StockCharts; Zerblix analysis. Research is educational and informational and is not individualized investment advice.

Fresh Point & Figure signal flow leaned sharply bearish on Sept. 16. Zerblix recorded 83 fresh bearish signals versus 16 fresh bullish signals, a ratio of about 5.2 to 1. This should be read as a single-session snapshot rather than a continuous trend from earlier in the month. The next test is whether that supply pressure carries into Friday’s official weekly review.

Pattern Pressure gives back the early-week repair

The fresh-signal deterioration did not occur by itself.

S&P 500 Pattern Pressure improved from −53.27 last Friday to −42.39 on Tuesday, suggesting that the balance between established bullish and bearish P&F structures had become somewhat less negative.

That improvement reversed Wednesday.

Pattern Pressure dropped to approximately −54.96, moving slightly below last Friday’s reading. In other words, the early-week repair did not hold.

That sequence matters.

The structure first showed less pressure. It then failed to produce follow-through. Wednesday brought renewed supply instead.

Participation weakened with the structure

Bullish Percentage (BPI) confirmed the deterioration from another direction.

The S&P 500 Bullish Percent Index fell another 2.40 percentage points to 38.80. That means fewer than four out of ten S&P 500 stocks currently carry P&F buy signals.

Several sectors are considerably weaker.

Consumer Discretionary finished at 20.83, Industrials at 22.78, and Utilities at 25.81. All three are below the lower 30 reference area.

Technology held at 43.66, while Energy remained the strongest sector reading at 71.43. But Energy’s strength came with an important warning: its BPI fell 14.29 percentage points in one session.

That suggests leadership is narrowing even where the absolute breadth reading remains strong.

The index tape looked calmer than the internals

Wednesday also brought an important macro event.

The Federal Reserve raised the federal funds target range by one-quarter percentage point to 3.75%–4.00%, saying economic activity remained solid while inflation was still elevated.

The market reaction was negative but hardly uniform. The Dow fell about 1.2%, the S&P 500 declined roughly 0.4%, while the Nasdaq was nearly unchanged. Declining stocks nevertheless outnumbered advancing stocks.

That contrast is useful.

A nearly flat Nasdaq can make the session appear relatively quiet from the index level. Zerblix breadth and P&F evidence showed something different underneath: fewer stocks were carrying bullish structures, and fresh downside signals expanded sharply.

That is why internal participation matters.

Weak breadth is not the same as financial stress

There is also a counterargument to the bearish breadth evidence.

The latest available St. Louis Fed Financial Stress Index observation, dated September 11 and released today, is −0.8477. A reading below zero represents financial stress below its historical average.

So far, the deterioration appears concentrated in equity participation and P&F structure, rather than in a broad breakdown across the financial system.

That distinction keeps Wednesday’s evidence in perspective.

Supply is expanding.

Participation is weakening.

But the evidence does not yet describe panic.

What matters next

Friday is the important test.

If the new downside signals persist, Pattern Pressure remains deeply negative and Bullish Percentage continues to weaken, Wednesday’s deterioration will have gained structural follow-through.

If fresh bullish signals begin to recover and breadth stabilizes, Wednesday may instead prove to have been another temporary burst of supply.

For now, the Zerblix reading is:

The early-week repair failed. Fresh supply re-expanded, S&P 500 participation weakened with it, and several sectors are already operating from depressed breadth levels. The warning is meaningful—but Friday must determine whether it becomes persistent.

Tuesday looked different.

New U.S. Point & Figure downside signals fell sharply, confirmed ETF leadership broadened, and Canada shifted toward demand. But the improvement was selective. Nasdaq 100 breadth continued to deteriorate, while Financials, Utilities and parts of Industrials remained weak.

The message is not that the market repaired.

It is that the rate of deterioration slowed while leadership became more selective.

The first change: fewer new breakdowns

New P&F signals show where stocks are newly breaking above prior resistance or below prior support.

On Monday, the U.S. produced 113 new downside signals against 33 upside signals.

On Tuesday, the count fell to 58 core downside signals against 28 upside signals.

That is still a supply-heavy balance, but the gap narrowed considerably.

Monday looked like supply was spreading.

Tuesday showed that supply was still present, but no longer expanding at the same pace.

That is an important difference.

Canada changed more sharply

Canada showed an even clearer shift.

Monday produced 15 new downside signals against only 3 upside signals.

Tuesday produced 2 downside and 4 upside.

That moves the short-term signal flow from a clear supply imbalance to a modest demand advantage.

Energy remained represented on the upside side, while Monday’s large concentration of Materials and precious-metals breakdowns did not repeat at the same rate.

This does not erase the bearish patterns already in place. It does show that new supply stopped expanding in the same way.

Leadership broadened

The ETF scans added another piece to the story.

Confirmed core leaders increased from 9 to 16, while confirmed weakness declined from 13 to 11.

The strongest leadership remained concentrated in oil, Energy and broad commodities.

USO, XOP, BNO, DBO, FCG, FTXN, FXN and IXC all remained part of the Energy leadership cluster. Broad commodity exposure also appeared through DBC, GSG, COMT and PDBC.

That matters because demand was not appearing in just one isolated vehicle.It was showing across several related areas.

Cybersecurity also appeared as a selective Technology exception through BUG.

Nasdaq breadth remains under pressure

The Nasdaq 100 tells a different story.

Its Bullish Percent Index moved from:

• 42.57% on Sept. 11

• 37.62% on Sept. 14

• 33.66% on Sept. 15

That is continued deterioration in the percentage of Nasdaq 100 stocks carrying P&F buy signals.

At the same time, broader Information Technology breadth improved slightly, and Tuesday’s new Technology signals moved much closer to balance.

That separation is important.It suggests that Technology is no longer weakening uniformly, even though participation inside the Nasdaq 100 remains under pressure.

Weakness is still visible

Several areas have not repaired.

Utilities remain weak. Financial breadth deteriorated. The broader Industrial sector is still soft, even though the narrower Dow Industrials improved.

Aerospace and defense also remained represented among confirmed ETF weakness.

So Tuesday did not produce broad participation.

It produced better internal balance in some areas and continued pressure in others.

What changed structurally

The strongest part of Tuesday’s evidence is not that demand suddenly became dominant. It did not.

The more important development is that Monday’s expansion in supply lost momentum.

-New downside signals contracted.

-Leadership broadened.

-Canada shifted toward demand.

-Health Care improved.

-Energy and commodities continued to lead.

At the same time, Nasdaq 100 breadth remained weak and several defensive or cyclical areas continued to lag. That combination points to rotation and internal separation, not broad repair.

What would strengthen the read

For this improvement to become more meaningful, Zerblix would want to see follow-through.

That would include continued contraction in new downside signals, broader participation in leadership, improvement in weak breadth groups, and confirmation from the five-universe Pattern Pressure framework.

If downside signals begin expanding again while leadership contracts, Tuesday’s improvement would look more like a pause than a repair.

Supply remains present, but its rate of expansion slowed. Demand is returning selectively rather than broadly.

That moves the market away from Monday’s clearer supply expansion and toward a more divided structure.

For now, the better description is:

less deterioration, more rotation, but no broad confirmation yet.

Pattern Pressure confirmation remains pending.

Subscribe now

Across the four U.S. equity universes monitored by Zerblix, 113 fresh downside Point & Figure signals appeared against 33 fresh upside signals. More important than the total was where the weakness developed: Technology and Industrials accounted for most of the new supply, with semiconductors forming the largest identifiable industry cluster.

Supply concentrated in Technology and Industrials

Technology produced 44 fresh downside signals and Industrials another 36. Within Technology, 25 semiconductor-related securities appeared in the downside group.

A downside P&F signal develops when price moves below a previous low. In supply-and-demand terms, sellers have become strong enough to penetrate an area where demand had previously stopped the decline.

Breadth supported that reading. The Nasdaq 100 Bullish Percentage fell from 42.57% to 37.62%. Technology stood at 42.25%, while Industrials declined to 24.05%.

The fresh signals and the breadth readings therefore pointed in the same direction: favorable structure was becoming less broadly distributed in two important areas of the market.Energy remained the important exception.

Energy did not participate in the deterioration.

Energy Bullish Percentage held at 90.48%, and broad ETF leadership remained concentrated in oil- and energy-related exposure. In Canada, Imperial Oil also produced a fresh upside P&F signal.

Canada showed the opposite condition in precious-metals shares. The TSX recorded 15 fresh downside signals against 3 upside signals, but 13 of the downside signals came from Materials and 10 were precious-metals companies.

Silver also produced the only fresh downside signal in the Zerblix 24-ETF macro group.

The evidence therefore showed separation rather than uniform weakness: oil and Energy retained demand while Technology, Industrials and precious-metals equities experienced increasing supply.

TLT: Persistent supply across several horizons

Share

The clearest ETF example was the iShares 20+ Year Treasury Bond ETF (TLT).

TLT appeared in screens identifying 52-week major weakness, 3-month emerging weakness and broad ETF confirmed weakness. These are not three separate bearish events. They indicate that the same weak condition is visible across several horizons.

81.44 — Current O-column low

A column of O’s represents declining prices. At the present stage of the chart, supply remains in control.

The importance of 81.44 is not that it is a forecast level. It identifies the lowest completed box in the present column and provides the starting point from which both further downside progress and a possible reversal can be judged.

80.63 — Next downside box

With 1% percentage boxes, 80.63 is the next lower box.

A print at that level would extend the current column of O’s and show additional downside follow-through. Supply would still be sufficiently strong to carry price another box lower.

The next area, however, is more important than an ordinary additional O.

79.84–79.05 — Prior demand area

A cluster of prior P&F lows is visible in the 79–80 area. Several previous declines stopped in or near this region before demand was able to produce a reversal.

That makes the area important from a supply-and-demand standpoint.

79.84 represents the first test of that prior demand shelf. If the decline stops and a reversal develops from this area, the chart would again demonstrate that buyers are willing to absorb supply near previous lows.

A move through approximately 79.05 would be more significant. Price would be penetrating an area where demand had repeatedly appeared before.

Such a move would not simply represent one more lower box. It would indicate that supply had become strong enough to overcome a recurring area of support.

That is the more important bearish test on the present chart.

83.91 — Three-box reversal

Improvement requires the opposite process.

Under the three-box reversal method, TLT must rise three boxes before the chart can change from O’s to X’s.

From 81.44, those boxes are approximately:

82.25 → 83.08 → 83.91

At 83.91, the chart could reverse from O’s into X’s. That requires roughly a 3% recovery from the current O-column low and would be the first evidence that demand had become strong enough to interrupt the decline.

A reversal, however, would not complete the repair.

85.59 — Recent X-column high

An advance above the recent X-column high near 85.59 would have greater structural significance. Demand would not merely have reversed the current column; it would begin to overcome the high established during the preceding rally.

In P&F terms, that would provide stronger evidence that the short-term structure was improving.

The chart also records a Double Bottom Breakdown on July 27, so the current O-column is developing within an already weakened background rather than as an isolated one-day decline.

What Monday established

Monday’s evidence did not indicate indiscriminate weakness.

It showed increasing separation beneath the indexes: concentrated supply in Technology and Industrials, pronounced semiconductor weakness, pressure in Canadian precious-metals shares and persistent weakness in long-duration Treasuries.

Energy and oil remained the principal exception.

The early-warning interpretation would weaken if Technology and Industrial breadth recover, fresh downside signals contract, or TLT holds the 79–80 demand area and begins to reverse.

It would strengthen if the weak groups continue to deteriorate and TLT penetrates that support shelf while Energy continues to retain stronger participation.

For now, this remains Daily Monitoring evidence. Friday will determine whether the separation persists, strengthens, repairs or fails.

Tuesday’s completed Zerblix scan batch showed a market attempting to improve at the margin while the broader internal structure remained under pressure.

The strongest change came from fresh signal flow. U.S. scans recorded 71 fresh Double Top Breakouts against 42 fresh Double Bottom Breakdowns, producing a +29 net demand advantage. Friday had closed at 29 bullish versus 34 bearish, or −5. New demand therefore expanded sharply on the first post-holiday session.

That improvement did not receive corresponding confirmation from the broader structural measures.

S&P 500 Pattern Pressure weakened from −14.7 on Friday to −33.9 on Tuesday, while the Nasdaq 100 declined from −10.0 to −22.7. The S&P 400 and S&P 600 also deteriorated, leaving all four primary U.S. equity universes in negative Pattern Pressure territory. Friday remains the official weekly benchmark under the Zerblix framework, while Tuesday is treated as Daily Monitoring evidence.

Bullish Percent Indexes showed the same loss of structural support. The S&P 500 BPI fell from 51.8% to 48.2%, moving back below the 50% line. The Nasdaq 100 slipped from 49.51% to 46.53%, the Dow Industrials fell to 50.0%, and the Dow Transports weakened to 35.0%. Across the eight broad-market BPIs, seven deteriorated and only the Nasdaq Composite improved.

The distinction between these measures is important to the interpretation. Fresh signals identify where new demand or supply is appearing now. Pattern Pressure measures the existing balance of selected bullish and bearish P&F structures. Bullish Percent Indexes measure the percentage of the underlying universe already carrying P&F buy signals. Zerblix keeps those measures separate rather than combining them into a single score.

The resulting condition is therefore one of improving marginal demand against still-weak established breadth. Tuesday’s fresh-signal reversal may represent the beginning of a repair attempt, but the broader structure has not yet confirmed it.

Sector breadth remained selective

The average across the ten standard Zerblix sector BPIs declined from 53.58% on Friday to 50.36% on Tuesday, but the deterioration was uneven.

Energy continued to separate positively. Its Bullish Percent Index advanced from 90.48% to 95.24%, while Energy Pattern Pressure remained strongly positive and XLE gained 1.11% on the session.

Health Care moved in the opposite direction. Its BPI fell from 77.97% to 62.71%, Pattern Pressure slipped from positive Friday territory to slightly negative Tuesday, and XLV declined 2.52%. Consumer Discretionary BPI fell to 27.08%, while Consumer Staples moved below 50% to 47.22%.

Technology remained mixed. XLK finished higher, but Technology BPI stayed at only 40.85%, Pattern Pressure remained negative, and both the bullish and bearish fresh-signal scans contained meaningful technology participation. Price strength at the ETF level therefore did not amount to broad constituent confirmation.

Commodities re-emerged as a leadership pocket

The clearest leadership development outside the major equity indexes came from DBC.

DBC appeared simultaneously in the 52-week major leader scan, the 3-month emerging leader scan, and the broader ETF leadership scan. The corresponding major-weakness and emerging-weakness scans both returned zero.

That combination strengthens the case for renewed commodity leadership, but it does not yet establish weekly persistence. DBC also appeared as a developing leader last week and failed to retain that status at the Friday close. Tuesday should therefore be treated as re-emerging multi-horizon leadership under review, not as confirmed weekly leadership.

The broader R01 leadership list showed a similar concentration. Eligible leadership clustered primarily in commodities, Energy, natural resources, and selected international ex-U.S. exposure, while R02 weakness remained comparatively narrow.

Canada did not confirm the U.S. fresh-signal improvement

Canadian fresh-signal flow finished at 3 bullish against 7 bearish, leaving a −4 net supply advantage.

That differed sharply from the U.S. result. Broad TSX Pattern Pressure remained modestly positive, but the fresh-signal layer continued to favor supply, with bearish signals concentrated largely in Technology and Financials.

The U.S. therefore showed a strong improvement in new demand Tuesday, while Canada did not.

Practical interpretation

Tuesday’s scans did not describe a repaired market. They described a market in which new demand improved before established participation did.

The fresh-signal balance shifted sharply toward demand, but Pattern Pressure weakened and broad BPI participation deteriorated. Energy and commodities remained the clearest pockets of strength, while several other sectors continued to show weak or deteriorating internal structure.

The next test is whether Tuesday’s +29 fresh-signal advantage begins to pull Pattern Pressure and Bullish Percent Indexes higher over the next several sessions.

If that occurs, Tuesday may prove to have marked the beginning of a broader repair.

If it does not, the increase in fresh bullish signals will have occurred against a still-fragile structural backdrop.

Friday remains the confirmation point.

Subscribe now

Participation: Improved across every tracked index, but no universe reached majority X-column participation.

Fresh signals: Early-week supply pressure moderated sharply, yet Friday still finished 29 bullish to 34 bearish.

Leadership: Energy and Health Care remained strong, while broader sector participation stayed uneven.

Friday verdict: Improvement was real, but the evidence did not meet the threshold for a confirmed setup.

The week closed with a market that looked better underneath than it did one week earlier, but not yet strong enough to call the improvement broad or structurally complete.

Point & Figure participation improved across every major U.S. universe tracked by Zerblix. At the same time, none finished with a majority of constituents in X columns. Fresh U.S. signals also ended Friday slightly tilted toward new supply, sector breadth remained sharply uneven, and a powerful burst of broad ETF leadership seen during Thursday's Daily Monitoring contracted substantially into the official Friday close.

That combination matters. Demand did improve. It simply did not produce the cross-confirmation required to promote the move into a stronger weekly conclusion.

1. Official Friday X-Column Participation
August 28 vs. September 4, 2026

Friday's X-column readings improved across all four tracked U.S. equity universes:

S&P 500: 213 of 500, or 42.6%, up from 41.6% the prior Friday.

• S&P 400: 194 of 400, or 48.5%, up from 45.8%.

• S&P 600: 282 of 600, or 47.0%, up from 44.3%.

• Nasdaq 100: 46 of 100, or 46.0%, up from 38.0%.
  The improvement was therefore not isolated to a single capitalization tier. Large caps, mid caps, small caps and the Nasdaq 100 all gained X-column participation during the week.

That is constructive from a demand-versus-supply perspective. More stocks ended the week advancing on their P&F charts than one week earlier.

The limitation is equally important: none of the four U.S. universes exceeded 50%.

Mid caps came closest at 48.5%, followed by small caps at 47.0% and the Nasdaq 100 at 46.0%. The S&P 500 remained lower at 42.6%.

So the Friday evidence is better described as improving participation inside an unresolved structure than as broad confirmation. A stronger follow-through would require the improvement to survive and push a larger share of these universes into X columns rather than merely rebound from depressed participation.

2. New Demand Recovered During the Week — Then Lost the Friday Advantage

The fresh-signal sequence illustrates why Friday confirmation remains central to the Zerblix process.

Earlier in the week, supply had been dominant. On September 1, the U.S. fresh-signal scans recorded 25 bullish Double Top Breakouts against 103 bearish Double Bottom Breakdowns, a net reading of -78.

By Thursday, that imbalance had reversed sharply. Daily Monitoring recorded 44 fresh bullish signals versus 31 fresh bearish signals, producing a +13 net demand advantage.

Friday did not completely reject that recovery, but it did fail to confirm Thursday’s bullish imbalance. The official close produced:

29 fresh bullish signals versus 34 fresh bearish signals — net -5.

That is a much healthier balance than Tuesday’s -78, but it also shows why improvement during the week should not be confused with an official weekly conclusion. Friday’s close remains the benchmark for determining whether that improvement developed into structural confirmation.

Demand recovered strongly enough to reduce the week’s earlier supply pressure. It did not finish Friday in control of the fresh-signal count.

The practical interpretation is therefore neither “the breakdown continued unchanged” nor “the market turned broadly bullish.” Friday left a more nuanced condition: the deterioration moderated, participation improved, but fresh supply retained a narrow edge at the authoritative close.

3. Sector Breadth Remained Highly Uneven

The sector layer provides another reason not to treat the rebound as broad confirmation.

Across the ten standard Zerblix sector Bullish Percent Indexes (BPI), the average declined from 61.25% on August 28 to 53.58% on September 4, a drop of roughly 7.7 percentage points.

The deterioration was broad rather than isolated. Eight of the ten sectors weakened week over week, only one improved, and one was unchanged. By Friday’s close, five of the ten sectors were below the 50% level, indicating that internal participation had weakened across a substantial portion of the sector structure.

The internal spread was substantial.

Energy remained the clear breadth leader at 90.48%, advancing 9.53 points from the prior Friday. Health Care remained structurally strong at 77.97%.

Elsewhere the picture was considerably weaker:

Financials: 67.11%

Materials: 61.54%

Consumer Staples: 52.78%

Communication Services: 42.50%

Technology: 40.85%

Consumer Discretionary: 35.42%

Utilities: 35.48%

Industrials: 31.65%

Technology fell 15.49 percentage points from the previous Friday, Consumer Discretionary fell 18.75 points, Industrials fell 16.45 points and Consumer Staples fell 19.44 points.

This is not the profile of uniformly expanding risk appetite.

Instead, the market continues to show leadership concentration alongside improving index participation. Energy and Health Care remain strong pockets, while several economically and growth-sensitive areas continue to carry much weaker internal breadth.

That contradiction is important. A broad market advance becomes more durable when rising participation is reinforced across sectors rather than carried by a relatively limited number of stronger groups.

Selective Leadership Inside Weak Technology Breadth

4. ETF Leadership Flared Midweek, but Friday Cut the List Back

The broad ETF scans produced one of the clearest examples of why Daily Monitoring and official Friday confirmation must remain separate.

On Thursday, R01 expanded sharply, signaling a broad increase in ETF leadership during the session. That improvement was meaningful as an early-warning development, but it did not survive into Friday at comparable scale

By the official Friday close, broad ETF leadership had contracted substantially. At the same time, eligible broad ETF weakness remained limited after Zerblix exclusions were applied.

The implication is straightforward: Thursday’s expansion showed that demand was capable of broadening, but Friday did not confirm that expansion as a durable weekly leadership shift.

That does not erase the midweek improvement. It lowers its confirmation status.

A stronger future signal would require eligible R01 leadership to expand again, persist through Friday, and receive support from improving X-column participation, sector breadth, relative strength and leadership persistence.

5. Macro Leadership Offered No Fresh Friday Confirmation

The locked 24-ETF macro universe was unusually quiet at the official close.

All six F-series scans finished Friday at confirmed zero:

• no fresh macro Double Top Breakouts,

• no fresh macro Double Bottom Breakdowns,

• no qualifying 52-week major leaders,

• no qualifying 52-week major weakness,

• no qualifying 3-month emerging leaders,

• and no qualifying 3-month emerging weakness.

These were processed zeros, not missing scans.

That result is particularly useful because DBC had appeared on Thursday as both the sole 52-week major leader and the sole 3-month emerging leader. Neither condition remained on the Friday scan.

The cross-asset message therefore remained muted. There was no new Friday macro signal strong enough to provide independent confirmation of a major change in equity regime.

Financial stress also remained subdued. The latest verified FRED STLFSI4 observation, dated August 28, was −0.8526, still below the index’s zero reference and consistent with below-average financial-market stress rather than an acute stress regime.

Low systemic stress, however, is not the same thing as broad equity confirmation. It removes one potential source of contradiction without supplying the missing participation and leadership confirmation on its own.

6. Canada: Stronger Participation, but Fresh Supply Still Led

Canada shared part of the U.S. improvement in participation, but the internal picture remained mixed.

The S&P/TSX 300 finished with 116 of 300 stocks in X columns, or 38.67%, up from 35.67% the previous Friday.

That is improvement, but the level remains considerably below a majority.

Fresh Canadian signals also leaned bearish at the official close. T01 recorded one fresh bullish Double Top Breakout, while T02 recorded three fresh bearish Double Bottom Breakdowns.

The Canadian structure therefore resembles the broader weekly theme: participation improved, but new demand did not yet dominate Friday's fresh-signal flow.

This should continue to be evaluated alongside the established strength previously observed in Canadian Energy and Materials rather than assuming the TSX is moving as a single uniform market.

7. The Friday Decision: Improvement Without a Confirmed Setup

Taken together, the evidence points to a market that improved during the week but did not complete the transition into broad structural confirmation.

First, participation improved. Every tracked U.S. index recorded a higher X-column percentage, and Canadian participation improved as well.

Second, that improvement remained incomplete. No tracked U.S. index reached 50% X-column participation, and the TSX remained below 40%.

Third, fresh supply narrowly exceeded fresh demand on Friday. The U.S. finished with 29 fresh bullish signals versus 34 fresh bearish signals, while Canada finished with one bullish signal versus three bearish.

Fourth, sector breadth remained fractured. Energy and Health Care were strong, but half of the ten standard sector BPIs finished below 50%, and eight deteriorated from the prior Friday.

Fifth, Thursday’s ETF leadership surge did not receive equivalent Friday confirmation. Broad leadership contracted sharply into the official close.

The practical conclusion is that the week showed meaningful improvement without broad confirmation. Demand strengthened enough to challenge the earlier deterioration, but the evidence was still too uneven to describe the move as a fully established risk-on shift.

Week Ahead: What Would Change the Evidence?

The first condition to watch is whether the X-column rebound continues. The most constructive development would be several U.S. universes moving decisively above 50%, particularly if the improvement broadens rather than remaining concentrated.

Second, fresh bullish signals need to regain the advantage and persist. Thursday demonstrated that demand can reappear quickly; Friday demonstrated that a one-session surge is not enough. A sustained positive D01-minus-D02 balance would strengthen the evidence considerably.

Third, sector breadth needs broader sponsorship. Energy can remain strong without carrying the entire market. Improvement in Technology, Industrials, Consumer Discretionary and other currently weak breadth groups would make the participation rebound more credible.

Fourth, ETF leadership needs persistence. Another large R01 expansion would be more significant if eligible leadership survives through Friday rather than collapsing from a weekday spike.

Fifth, new setups require convergence. Fresh signals should be reinforced where possible by Pattern Pressure, BPI, X-column participation, 4W/13W/26W relative strength, leadership persistence and chart follow-through.

Until those layers begin agreeing more consistently, the market remains in a transition zone: demand has improved enough to challenge the deterioration, but not enough to establish broad structural control.

Reader Reference

X-column Participation — The percentage of securities in a universe currently rising in X columns on their Point & Figure charts. It measures immediate demand-versus-supply participation.

Bullish Percent Index (BPI) — The percentage of securities in a universe carrying Point & Figure buy signals.

Pattern Pressure — The Zerblix-defined balance of selected bullish and bearish P&F patterns. It measures established structural pressure and is distinct from fresh signals, BPI and X-column participation.

Fresh signal — A newly appearing Double Top Breakout or Double Bottom Breakdown in the applicable fresh-signal scan.

Subscribe now

The first official reading presents a divided market. Leadership remains visible, financial stress is low and several intermediate relative-strength relationships are constructive. Beneath that surface, however, fewer securities are advancing in P&F X columns and newly emerging bearish signals have expanded. Demand has not disappeared, but it has become more selective while supply is pressing a broader portion of the market.

Leadership has not failed. Breadth has yet to confirm it.

---

The Weekly Conclusion

The market’s present condition is best described as selective leadership under deteriorating participation. Established leaders continue to carry the indexes, but the internal structure shows that the advance is drawing support from a smaller body of securities.

Editor’s Verdict: An index can remain resilient while fewer of its components participate. That condition can persist, but it becomes increasingly dependent on the remaining leaders.

---

Breadth Lost Its Majority

An X column records an advancing price movement under P&F construction; an O column records a decline. Participation below 50% therefore means declining columns outnumber advancing columns. Structurally, the majority has shifted from columns of demand to columns of supply. This does not, by itself, establish a bear market because many securities may remain on earlier buy signals even after reversing into Os. It does establish that demand no longer controls a majority of the underlying securities.

Four markets weakened again during the latest week. Mid-cap participation improved by only 0.3 percentage point and remained below the dividing line. The Nasdaq 100 recorded the sharpest weekly deterioration, falling 11 points to 38.0%. A recovery above 50% across several universes would show demand regaining the majority; continued readings below that level, particularly with lower weekly lows, would confirm that supply remains broadly in control.

Fresh Supply Expanded

The fresh-signal record reinforced the warning. Across the combined S&P 500, S&P 400, S&P 600 and Nasdaq 100 universe, 72 stocks produced fresh double-bottom breakdowns while only 16 produced fresh double-top breakouts. Technology accounted for 28 bearish signals and industrials for 18; semiconductors alone supplied 21 of technology’s breakdowns. The imbalance shows that new downside penetrations were developing at more than four times the rate of new upside penetrations.

These are newly emerging events, not cumulative lists of securities that have been weak for weeks. A double-bottom breakdown forms when an O column falls beneath the preceding O-column low. The earlier low marks a level at which demand had previously absorbed the available supply. Penetration of that level indicates that sellers have returned with sufficient force to overcome that support and record a new P&F sell signal. Follow-through into lower boxes would strengthen the bearish implication. A rapid reversal into Xs, followed by recovery through the preceding rally column, would weaken it and raise the possibility of a failed breakdown.

Existing structure was less uniformly bearish. The S&P 500’s core bullish and bearish pattern counts were nearly balanced at 167 versus 164, while the TSX retained the strongest bullish prevalence at 109 versus 58. Broad Bullish Percentage readings also remained above 50%: S&P 500 61.40%, Nasdaq 100 59.41%, NYSE 55.24% and TSX 64.06%.

The distinction matters. Many established buy signals have survived, but fewer securities are presently advancing. In P&F terms, the market has moved from broad forward progress toward a corrective condition inside an older bullish structure. Supply has expanded without yet destroying that structure. Further deterioration in the Bullish Percentages would provide the next important confirmation that the correction is reaching established buy signals rather than merely reversing active columns.

Leadership Has Narrowed, Not Disappeared

Seven of the eleven sector ETFs outperformed SPY over 13 weeks, compared with five over four weeks and only three over 26 weeks. This progression describes leadership that is visible over the intermediate horizon but has not yet become a durable long-term condition. Sector Bullish Percentage remained strongest in energy at 80.95%, health care at 77.97%, financials at 73.68% and consumer staples at 72.22%. Utilities stood at 38.71%, communication services at 45.00% and industrials at 48.10%.

The broad ETF screen retained 46 core leaders against only two core weaknesses. International and value-oriented funds, software and cloud, silver miners, agriculture and high-yield credit supplied the principal leadership clusters. FUTY and WGMI were the two weakness funds. Demand therefore remains concentrated in identifiable groups rather than absent from the market. The weakness is not the lack of leadership; it is the failure of that leadership to draw broad participation behind it.

These are prevalence screens, not automatic recommendations. Leadership is most dependable when the price chart, relative-strength chart, group condition and broad market agree. A publication setup therefore requires manual review at the locked Zerblix settings, evidence of follow-through and a visible level at which the interpretation would weaken or fail.

Confirmed Setups Under Review

SIL: intermediate leadership meets near-term supply

Silver gained 14.63% over four weeks but declined 4.30% during the latest week. Despite that pullback, SIL, SILJ, SLVP and SLVR remained clustered in the ETF leadership screen, while Gold Miners Bullish Percentage improved 3.63 points to 68.49%.

Demand continued to control the column and carried the P&F plot to 101.78, matching the earlier May P&F high. Outside the close-only P&F chart, SIL traded as high as $104.49 on August 28, marginally exceeding May’s $104.10 intraday high. However, the fund closed at $99.14, so the intraday move did not print the 103.82 box or confirm a P&F breakout. A later close sufficient to print 103.82 would clear the matched P&F highs and establish a Double Top Breakout.

IGV: software retains selective demand

IGV appeared with CLOU, FDN and WCLD in the ETF leadership screen. At the stock level, ACN, APP, FIVN, MSFT and WDAY generated fresh bullish breakouts. This does not establish healthy technology breadth. It identifies a recognizable pocket of demand inside a sector experiencing substantial internal deterioration.

IGV remained in an X column and retained its August 3 Double Top Breakout. The original breakout occurred at 95.91, where demand overcame the preceding X-column high of 94.03—a level at which supply had previously stopped the advance. The subsequent rise to 110.17 demonstrated meaningful follow-through. A print at 112.38 would extend the current X column and provide further evidence that buyers remain willing to absorb supply at higher levels. A decline to approximately 103.82 would produce a normal three-box reversal into Os. Such a reversal would mark the return of supply but would not, by itself, invalidate the breakout. A later print at 86.87—below the preceding O-column low of 88.61—would generate a Double Bottom Breakdown and materially weaken the immediate bullish structure.

WGMI: crypto-miner weakness is chart-confirmed

Digital assets demonstrated why daily detection and Friday confirmation must remain separate. Fourteen digital-asset products appeared in Thursday’s leadership screen, including IBIT. None remained Friday, while WGMI entered core weakness. BlackRock reported that IBIT’s August 28 NAV declined 3.13%.

WGMI turned lower after reaching an intraday all-time high of $76.94 in June. Because the Zerblix P&F chart uses closing prices and 2% box scaling, that intraday extreme was not plotted directly; the highest completed P&F box was 71.26. Since then, supply has produced a succession of lower rally peaks and downside penetrations at progressively lower support levels.

Secondary Watchlist

Cross-Asset and Historical Context

The remaining asset classes did not confirm an indiscriminate flight from risk. EWT advanced 11.76% over four weeks and 3.45% during the latest week, but did not satisfy the stricter combined price-high and P&F condition. HYG remained constructive relative to IEF, TLT improved 1.01% for the week and financial stress remained low. UUP’s 1.00% weekly gain left it almost unchanged over four weeks, suggesting a rebound rather than an established intermediate currency trend. Real estate remained comparatively weak, with VNQ down 1.73% over four weeks.

August strength in SLV, GLD and EWT was also unusually large relative to their completed 5-, 10-, 15-year and full-history August averages. Seasonality supplies context, not confirmation; current supply and demand must take precedence.

What Would Confirm or Weaken the Warning?

The breadth warning would strengthen if participation remains below 50%, bearish breakouts continue to exceed bullish events, broad BPI readings begin falling materially or weakness expands beyond FUTY and WGMI. That sequence would show the present column deterioration spreading into the market’s older signal structure.

The warning would weaken if several markets recover majority X-column participation, the fresh-signal imbalance narrows, small caps and equal-weight indexes improve, and the remaining leaders produce follow-through accompanied by broader sector participation. Such action would indicate that demand is no longer confined to isolated groups and is again gaining control of the broader list.

Bottom Line

The August 28 evidence does not support an indiscriminate bearish conclusion. Leadership remains visible, credit is orderly and financial stress is low. It also does not support treating index resilience as proof of a healthy broad advance.

For swing-to-intermediate traders and investors, the practical response is disciplined selection. Existing leaders can be respected while their structures remain intact, but new exposure should require confirmation and an observable weakening level. Continued breadth deterioration would indicate that the remaining leaders are becoming increasingly isolated.

Confirmation remains more valuable than attempting to identify the perfect turning point.

Methodology and Sources

All market readings use the official Friday, August 28, 2026 close unless another date is stated. Stocks use 1% boxes; ETFs and indexes use 2% boxes; relative-strength ratios use 1% boxes. All use three-box reversals and daily close-only data. Fresh signals were true on August 28 and false on the preceding scan; R01/R02 and Pattern Pressure are prevalence measures. Returns use verified adjusted closes in Zerblix Master Workbook v35. Incomplete August 2026 data are separated from completed historical samples. Financial-stress data are from the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; IBIT fund data are from BlackRock.

Subscribe now

Disclaimer

This publication is for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice, a recommendation, an offer or a solicitation to buy or sell any security or financial instrument. Point & Figure signals, relative-strength readings, seasonal tendencies and historical relationships can fail. Past performance does not guarantee future results. Readers should conduct their own research and consider their objectives, financial circumstances and risk tolerance before making investment decisions.

Share

Point & Figure provides the structural foundation. Breadth, relative strength, cross-asset evidence and historical context provide confirmation and perspective.

Zerblix Report — Frequently Asked Questions

FAQ Topics

1. The Zerblix Approach

2. Point & Figure

3. Participation & Market Structure

4. Leadership & Cross-Asset Research

5. Research Discovery & Selective Drill-Down

6. Risk, Regime & Historical Context

7. Charting & Markets Covered

8. The Simplest Explanation

1. The Zerblix Approach

What is the goal of Zerblix Report?

Zerblix is designed to reduce the influence of short-term market noise and concentrate on changes that matter over an intermediate-term horizon.

The research asks:

• Is underlying market structure improving or deteriorating?

• Is participation broadening or contracting?

• Where is leadership developing or persisting?

• Are related markets confirming or contradicting that leadership?

• What would strengthen, weaken or invalidate the interpretation?

The objective is not to predict every market turn or identify the exact top or bottom.

Evidence first. Confirmation before conclusion.

What is the primary time frame?

Zerblix is primarily an intermediate-term research process, not an intraday trading service.

Monday through Thursday are used for Daily Monitoring, material change detection and early warning.

Verified evidence from Friday’s close establishes the authoritative weekly benchmark.

A weekday development may be important, but it is not automatically treated as a confirmed intermediate-term change.

Friday-to-Friday changes are interpreted within the longer leadership history. One strong or weak week should not overturn an established intermediate trend without supporting structural evidence.

The question is not simply:

What changed today?

The more important questions are:

Did the change persist, and does it materially alter the broader structure?

Why does Zerblix use several forms of evidence?

Markets rarely strengthen or weaken uniformly.

Zerblix therefore examines several complementary layers:

• Structure — What does the P&F evidence show about supply and demand?

• Participation — How broadly is the move supported?

• Leadership — Where is strength or weakness concentrating?

• Relative strength — Is that leadership improving against an appropriate benchmark?

• Cross-asset evidence — Are related markets confirming or contradicting the interpretation?

• Regime and history — Does the larger environment provide useful context?

No single measure is expected to answer every question.

Agreement among complementary measures strengthens confirmation. Disagreement may reveal divergence, concentration or transition.

Related P&F measures retain their separate meanings; they are not assumed to be independent data sources.

How does Zerblix verify its research?

Published numerical claims are checked against the authoritative research workbook.

Verification includes the effective date, universe, field, stored value and comparison period. Changes are recalculated from their underlying endpoints, and important measures are reconciled across supporting workbook representations when available.

Zerblix distinguishes among:

• a completed scan returning zero results;

• a scan that was not run;

• missing source material;

• and an unavailable reading.

A blank result is not treated as zero. Skipped observations are not filled in as though evidence existed.

Material uncertainty is resolved before the affected conclusion is published.

Is Zerblix investment advice?

No.

Zerblix provides research and market analysis for educational and informational purposes.

Terms such as developing setup, confirmed setup, leadership and weakness describe research conditions. They are not individualized investment recommendations.

2. Point & Figure

Why does Zerblix use Point & Figure?

Point & Figure, or P&F, filters minor price movement that can obscure larger structural changes.

X-columns record rising price movement.

O-columns record declining price movement.

Breakouts and breakdowns identify levels where demand or supply has exceeded an earlier structural reference.

The purpose is to observe the developing balance between supply and demand rather than react to every daily fluctuation.

That makes P&F especially useful for an intermediate-term research process.

What Point & Figure settings does Zerblix use?

For individual chart review, the primary Zerblix convention is:

• 1% percentage boxes

• Three-box reversal

• Daily close-only data

A 2% / three-box / daily-close chart may be used as a secondary check when additional compression helps clarify the larger structure.

A 60-minute P&F chart may be examined for tactical or intraday early warning. It does not override the daily-close structure.

Source scans and breadth measures are interpreted according to their own construction.

StockCharts’ P&F scan engine uses traditional scaling with three-box reversals. Its BPI calculations also use traditional box sizing with three-box reversals.

Those source measures should not be described as automatically using the preferred 1% chart-review setting.

Different settings can produce different columns, patterns and signal timing. Zerblix therefore identifies the construction relevant to the interpretation.

Does every P&F signal mean I should trade?

No.

A P&F signal identifies a structural event under the chart’s construction.

A stronger research interpretation may also require:

• supportive participation;

• improving relative strength;

• favorable group leadership;

• cross-market confirmation;

• continued follow-through;

• and a clearly identifiable condition that would weaken or fail the interpretation.

A technically valid signal can still fail.

Do I need to understand Point & Figure to read Zerblix?

No.

Readers do not need to become P&F specialists.

Zerblix emphasizes the practical interpretation:

• What is happening structurally?

• Is demand or supply gaining control?

• Is the change receiving confirmation?

• What would weaken the interpretation?

Readers who want to study the mechanics in greater detail can use StockCharts ChartSchool as a starting reference.

3. Participation & Market Structure

Why does participation matter?

A major index can rise while a relatively small group of securities supplies most of the strength.

Participation helps determine whether a move is broadening or becoming more concentrated.

Rising price with improving participation describes a different condition from rising price with deteriorating participation.

Narrow participation is not automatically bearish.

Its significance increases when it persists or when other structural evidence confirms the deterioration.

What is Pattern Pressure?

Pattern Pressure is a Zerblix-derived measure of the balance between a defined core set of bullish and bearish P&F pattern counts within a market or sector.

A strengthening reading indicates that bullish structures are gaining relative representation.

A weakening reading indicates that bearish structures are becoming more prevalent.

Pattern Pressure helps assess whether the underlying balance is shifting toward demand or supply.

It remains separate from BPI, X-column participation, fresh signals and the broader pattern-prevalence layer.

It is not a stand-alone market forecast.

What is a Bullish Percent Index?

The Bullish Percent Index, or BPI, measures the percentage of securities in a defined universe carrying active P&F buy signals.

It answers:

How much of this universe is on an active P&F buy signal?

BPI measures established buy-signal participation under the source construction.

It does not mean every security is currently rising or that every aspect of the market’s structure is bullish.

What is X-column participation?

X-column participation measures the percentage of securities currently in P&F X-columns under the source chart construction.

It answers:

How much of the universe is in a demand-oriented column?

This differs from BPI.

A security can remain on an active P&F buy signal while declining in an O-column. It can also move into an X-column before generating a new buy signal.

Therefore:

BPI = active buy-signal participation

X-column participation = current P&F column participation

An X-column does not necessarily mean the security rose during the latest session. Smaller counter-moves may not meet the reversal requirement.

Agreement between the two measures can strengthen an interpretation.

Disagreement may reveal improving demand before established signals confirm it, or deteriorating demand before buy signals reverse.

Are fresh signals, existing patterns and Pattern Pressure the same thing?

No.

A fresh signal identifies a newly occurring event under the specified scan criteria.

Pattern prevalence describes the distribution of structures already present in a verified universe.

Pattern Pressure summarizes the balance within Zerblix’s defined core pattern set.

These are separate forms of evidence.

Existing bearish patterns should not be added to fresh downside breaks and described as though all occurred during the same session.

Pattern families also differ in meaning and maturity. Double Tops, Triple Tops, Catapults, Triangles, traps and reversal formations are not treated as interchangeable.

Prevalence becomes especially useful when an unusual imbalance persists or agrees with participation, relative strength and signal follow-through.

What is signal survival?

Signal survival examines what happens after a qualifying fresh P&F signal.

Does the original structure hold? Does the move receive follow-through? Does it stall, reverse or fail?

The formal weekly ETF tracker follows qualifying Official Friday signals at 1-, 4- and 8-week checkpoints.

Weekday signals remain Daily Monitoring unless they separately qualify for the weekly process.

A completed Friday scan with no qualifying signals creates no new cohort. It does not establish a successful survival rate.

A fresh signal begins an observation; subsequent behavior determines its significance.

4. Leadership & Cross-Asset Research

How does Zerblix identify leadership?

Leadership analysis asks:

Where is strength developing, and where has it persisted?

Zerblix continuously tracks two fixed ETF groups.

U.S. equity and sector research

A 13-symbol set includes:

• SPY;

• QQQ;

• and the 11 major U.S. sector ETFs.

It helps identify leadership and deterioration within U.S. equities.

Cross-asset research

A 24-ETF macro universe covers:

• U.S. equity groups;

• developed international markets;

• emerging markets;

• rates and credit;

• commodities;

• real assets;

• and currencies.

Together, the groups form a 37-symbol weekly research universe.

Continuous tracking does not mean every scan or research layer must be rebuilt every day.

How does Zerblix measure relative strength?

Zerblix uses different relative-strength horizons according to the research question.

RS participation examines how many of the tracked U.S. sector ETFs outperform SPY over:

• 4 weeks — the recent relative move;

• 13 weeks — whether leadership or weakness is becoming established;

• 26 weeks — whether intermediate leadership or weakness is persistent.

The Sector Structure Board separately measures each sector’s relative performance versus SPY over:

• 1 week — recent acceleration or deterioration;

• 1 month — confirmation or challenge to leadership;

• 3 months — the primary intermediate rotation measure.

The 3-month reading carries the greatest weight in the sector board. The 1-month reading confirms or challenges it, while the 1-week reading primarily detects change.

Week-based and calendar-month horizons are identified explicitly rather than treated as interchangeable. Trading-session substitutions are disclosed when relevant.

Relative strength measures performance against a benchmark. Outperformance does not necessarily mean a positive absolute return.

It does not replace P&F structure, breadth, participation or signal follow-through.

Is 52-week position the same as relative rotation?

No.

52-week position describes where a security sits within its trailing adjusted-close price range.

Relative strength describes how its performance is changing against a benchmark.

A sector can remain near a 52-week high while its relative leadership weakens. It can also sit below its high while relative performance improves.

Zerblix keeps those conditions separate.

Does strong price performance mean leadership is structurally confirmed?

Not necessarily.

Price performance can reveal persistent leadership or identify an area worth investigating.

P&F confirmation requires the relevant chart or scan evidence. Participation and group behavior provide additional tests.

Zerblix distinguishes price leadership from verified structural confirmation and identifies unavailable evidence.

An active P&F signal or column state is not inferred from price returns alone.

Why is cross-asset evidence useful?

Equities do not operate in isolation.

For example:

• Energy equities may strengthen alongside commodities.

• Credit may confirm or contradict an equity advance.

• Long-duration Treasuries may weaken while inflation-sensitive assets strengthen.

• International equities may improve while U.S. leadership narrows.

• A commodity may strengthen without equivalent confirmation from producer equities.

Cross-asset evidence helps determine whether related markets reinforce, contradict or provide context for the structural interpretation.

How does Zerblix use Canada?

Canada remains part of the core structural process.

The S&P/TSX 300 research universe is one of the five primary Pattern Pressure universes monitored during the week, alongside the S&P 500, S&P 400, S&P 600 and Nasdaq 100.

Canadian breadth, fresh signals and sector leadership can provide confirmation or divergence.

For example, Canadian Energy may remain strong while participation across the broader Canadian market contracts.

That difference may justify deeper research.

5. Research Discovery & Selective Drill-Down

Does every Zerblix idea have to come from a scan?

No.

The systematic framework supports discovery while leaving room for independent research.

An idea can begin in two ways.

Systematic discovery

Zerblix identifies something unusual through structure, participation, Pattern Pressure, relative strength, leadership or cross-asset evidence.

Independent observation

A sector, ETF, commodity, industry or individual security attracts attention outside the standing process.

Biotechnology, uranium, copper or a specialized industry ETF may deserve investigation even if the fixed research universe did not identify it first.

The distinction concerns how the idea was discovered.

The subsequent analysis still requires verification.

What happens when Zerblix identifies a strong area such as Energy?

The broad signal becomes a starting point for research.

The investigation may move through:

Sector → Industry → Related commodity or ETF → Individual security

Energy research might examine:

• broad Energy ETFs;

• exploration and production;

• oil services;

• crude oil;

• natural gas;

• or selected companies.

The purpose is to determine where leadership is concentrated and whether related evidence supports it.

Research stops when going deeper no longer adds meaningful information.

Can Zerblix investigate something outside the standing ETF universe?

Yes.

The fixed universe defines what Zerblix tracks continuously.

Additional industries, themes, commodities, ETFs and individual securities can be studied selectively when systematic evidence or an independent observation makes the question worthwhile.

An independently discovered idea should not be described as systematically detected Zerblix leadership unless the systematic evidence actually identified it.

How is a developing idea evaluated?

The analytical questions remain consistent:

• Structure — What does the intermediate-term P&F chart show?

• Supply and demand — Which side is gaining control?

• Relative strength — Is performance improving against an appropriate benchmark?

• Group confirmation — Is the surrounding sector or industry supportive?

• Cross-asset confirmation — Are related markets reinforcing or contradicting the idea?

• Follow-through — Is the structure holding and developing?

• Invalidation — What would materially weaken or fail the interpretation?

The process can be summarized as:

Discovery → Investigation → Structural Verification → Confirmation → Setup Classification

Mixed evidence is described as mixed. A classification is not forced when verification or confirmation is insufficient.

6. Risk, Regime & Historical Context

Why examine rates, credit, commodities and financial stress?

These markets can change the context surrounding an equity signal.

Zerblix may examine:

• Treasury behavior;

• credit;

• commodities;

• currencies;

• concentration;

• and financial stress.

These provide confirmation and regime context.

Their relevance depends on whether they materially improve the interpretation.

How does Zerblix study concentration?

Zerblix may compare relationships such as:

• RSP/SPY — equal-weight versus capitalization-weighted S&P 500;

• QQQE/QQQ — equal-weight versus capitalization-weighted Nasdaq 100.

These relationships help assess whether headline strength is broadening or becoming more dependent on larger securities.

Concentration is not automatically bearish.

Its significance depends on the surrounding structure, participation and persistence.

How does Zerblix use historical data?

Zerblix uses verified Friday adjusted-close history across its 37-symbol research universe, together with existing deeper historical series when needed.

Relevant horizons may include:

• 10 years and 5 years;

• 12 months and year to date;

• 6 months, 3 months and 1 month;

• and trailing 52-week price position.

These horizons are examined separately.

Historical research may study:

• leadership persistence;

• relative performance;

• drawdowns and recoveries;

• concentration;

• seasonality;

• cross-asset relationships;

• and behavior during different market regimes.

A requested trailing study uses the actual date span. A 10-year study begins on the corresponding calendar date 10 years before its cutoff.

The current partial year remains inside that period.

If an ETF lacks the full requested history, Zerblix identifies its available reliable history. Direct comparisons may use a common overlapping period when necessary.

Adjusted-price history supports returns and price-derived comparisons. It does not reconstruct unavailable P&F, BPI, Pattern Pressure, X-column or signal-survival evidence.

Historical evidence provides context, confirmation or contradiction. It does not override verified current structure by itself.

How does Zerblix study seasonality?

Seasonality examines recurring behavior during a particular calendar period.

Completed-month studies compare the same month across historical years.

Partial-month studies compare equivalent calendar cutoffs whenever possible. Trading-session substitutions are identified when relevant.

A published historical observation should identify:

• the period studied;

• the sample size;

• the calculation method;

• and the source.

Historical tendencies provide supporting evidence.

They do not override current structure.

Can Zerblix say a month has historically been positive or negative?

Yes, when verified data support the statement.

The observation should report what happened during the defined sample and distinguish that result from a prediction.

A favorable historical tendency does not establish that the next comparable period will behave the same way.

If current P&F structure, participation or leadership contradicts the historical tendency, the disagreement becomes part of the analysis.

7. Charting & Markets Covered

What charts does Zerblix use?

The appropriate visual depends on the research question.

VisualMain purposePoint & FigureStructure and supply/demandRatio linesRelative strengthLine chartsBehavior through timeBarsRankings and comparisonsCompact tablesExact valuesBreadth graphicsParticipation and divergence

The objective is to use the smallest visual that materially improves understanding.

Daily Monitoring and Official Friday observations remain distinguishable.

Missing observations are not visually connected as though continuous evidence existed.

Why doesn’t Zerblix rely heavily on indicators and candlestick patterns?

Those techniques can be useful.

Their limited use in Zerblix should not be interpreted as a claim that they are invalid.

Zerblix prioritizes:

Structure → Participation → Leadership / Relative Strength → Cross-Asset Context → Regime / History → Selective Research

Additional indicators are used when they contribute information that is not already captured.

The objective is to keep the analysis focused and reduce unnecessary clutter.

What markets does Zerblix cover?

The standing framework includes:

• U.S. large-cap equities;

• U.S. mid-cap equities;

• U.S. small-cap equities;

• Nasdaq equities;

• Canadian equities;

• U.S. sectors;

• developed international markets;

• emerging markets;

• Treasuries;

• credit;

• commodities;

• precious metals;

• real assets;

• and currencies.

Additional industries, themes, ETFs, commodities and individual securities may be researched selectively.

The broader coverage helps reveal where leadership, deterioration and risk are developing.

8. The Simplest Explanation

What is the easiest way to understand Zerblix?

Zerblix asks five connected questions.

Structure

What does the P&F evidence show about the balance between demand and supply?

P&F structure and Pattern Pressure help identify the underlying structural condition.

Participation

How much of the market supports that structure?

BPI and X-column participation help assess the breadth of support.

Leadership and cross-asset evidence

Where is strength or weakness developing, and are related markets confirming it?

Relative strength, sector research and the macro ETF universe help identify where leadership is persisting, improving or deteriorating.

Regime and history

Does the broader environment reinforce, contradict or add perspective to the current evidence?

Verified historical prices, concentration, stress and regime evidence provide context.

Selective research

What deserves a closer examination?

An idea may originate from the systematic process or an independent observation.

Research can move from a broad market observation to an asset class, sector, industry, ETF, commodity or individual security.

The research stops when the evidence no longer justifies going deeper.

The interpretation follows a consistent sequence:

Structure → Supply/demand → Implication → Confirmation/follow-through → Weakening/invalidation → Practical interpretation

Does Zerblix produce daily trading calls?

No.

Daily Monitoring is a selective early-warning and change-detection process.

The verified Friday close is the authoritative weekly benchmark.

Daily observations may reveal developing changes. Intermediate conclusions require the appropriate structural evidence and follow-through.

What is Zerblix ultimately trying to discover?

The central question is:

Did the research reveal something important that would not be obvious from the major indexes alone?

That may include:

• deterioration beneath a stable index;

• improving participation before headline strength becomes obvious;

• persistent sector leadership;

• a U.S./Canada divergence;

• commodity strength without producer-equity confirmation;

• credit contradicting equity strength;

• increasing market concentration;

• unusual international leadership;

• a selectively researched setup developing meaningful structure;

• or historical evidence adding perspective to a current condition.

If the evidence does not reveal something meaningful, Zerblix does not need to manufacture a conclusion or publication angle.

References

• StockCharts ChartSchool — Introduction to Point & Figure Charts

• StockCharts ChartSchool — Bullish Percent Index

• StockCharts Support — Scanning for P&F Chart Patterns

Zerblix Report

Evidence First. Confirmation Before Conclusion.

1. The Zerblix Approach
2. Point & Figure
3. Participation & Market Structure
4. Leadership & Cross-Asset Research
5. Research Discovery & Selective Drill-Down
6. Risk, Regime & Historical Context
7. Charting & Markets Covered
8. The Simplest Explanation

The Zerblix Approach

What is the goal of Zerblix Report?

Zerblix is designed to reduce the influence of short-term market noise and concentrate on changes that matter over a swing-to-intermediate-term horizon.

The research asks:

• Is underlying market structure improving or deteriorating?

• Is participation broadening or contracting?

• Where is leadership developing?

• Are related markets confirming or contradicting that leadership?

• What would strengthen, weaken or invalidate the interpretation?

The objective is not to predict every market turn or identify the exact top or bottom.

Evidence first. Confirmation before conclusion.

What is the primary time frame?

Zerblix is primarily an intermediate-term research process, not an intraday trading service.

Monday through Thursday are used for Daily Monitoring and early warning.

Friday’s close is the authoritative weekly benchmark.

A weekday development may be important, but it is not automatically treated as a confirmed structural conclusion.

The question is not simply:

What changed today?

The more important question is:

Did the change persist long enough to matter?

Why does Zerblix use several forms of evidence?

Markets rarely strengthen or weaken uniformly.

Zerblix therefore separates the research into several layers:

Structure — What is happening beneath price?

Participation — How broadly is the move supported?

Leadership — Where is strength or weakness concentrating?

Relative strength — Is that leadership improving against an appropriate benchmark?

Cross-asset evidence — Are sectors, bonds, credit, commodities, currencies or international markets confirming the message?

Regime and history — Does the larger environment provide useful context?

No single measure is expected to answer every question.

Confidence increases when independent evidence agrees.

Is Zerblix investment advice?

No.

Zerblix is research and market analysis intended for educational and informational purposes.

Terms such as developing setup, confirmed setup, leadership or weakness describe research conditions. They are not individualized investment recommendations.

2. Point & Figure

Why does Zerblix use Point & Figure?

Point & Figure, or P&F, removes much of the minor price movement that can make larger structural changes difficult to see.

X-columns represent rising prices.

O-columns represent declining prices.

Breakouts and breakdowns identify levels where demand or supply has exceeded an earlier structural reference.

The purpose is to observe the developing balance between supply and demand, rather than react to every daily fluctuation.

That makes P&F especially useful for an intermediate-term process.

What Point & Figure settings does Zerblix use?

The primary Zerblix convention is:

• 1% percentage boxes

• Three-box reversal

• Daily close-only

This is the standard construction used for intermediate-term structural analysis.

A 2% / three-box / daily-close chart may be used as a secondary longer-structure check when additional compression is useful.

A 60-minute P&F chart may be used for tactical or intraday early-warning research, but it does not override the daily-close structure.

If a specific chart uses another construction, Zerblix interprets that chart according to its actual settings.

The goal is consistency, not producing the largest number of signals.

Does every P&F signal mean I should trade?

No.

A P&F signal identifies a structural event.

It does not mean every surrounding condition supports the same conclusion.

A stronger interpretation may also require:

• supportive participation;

• improving relative strength;

• favorable leadership;

• cross-market confirmation;

• continued follow-through;

• and a clearly identifiable condition that would weaken or fail the interpretation.

A technically valid signal can still fail.

Do I need to understand Point & Figure to read Zerblix?

No.

Readers do not need to become P&F specialists.

Zerblix focuses on the practical interpretation:

What is happening structurally?

Is demand or supply gaining control?

Is the change receiving confirmation?

What would weaken the interpretation?

Readers who want to study the mechanics in greater detail can use StockCharts ChartSchool as a starting reference.

3. Participation & Market Structure

Why does participation matter?

A major index can rise while a relatively small group of securities provides most of the strength.

Participation helps determine whether a market move is becoming broader or more concentrated.

For example:

Rising price + improving participation

describes a different condition from:

Rising price + deteriorating participation

Narrow participation is not automatically bearish.

Its importance increases when it persists or when other evidence begins to confirm the deterioration.

What is Pattern Pressure?

Pattern Pressure is a Zerblix-derived measure of the balance between selected bullish and bearish P&F structures within a market or sector.

A strengthening reading indicates that bullish formations are gaining relative representation.

A weakening reading indicates that bearish formations are becoming more prevalent.

Pattern Pressure helps determine whether underlying structure is shifting toward demand or supply.

It is not a stand-alone market forecast.

What is a Bullish Percent Index?

The Bullish Percent Index, or BPI, measures the percentage of securities in a defined universe carrying active P&F buy signals.

It answers:

How much of the market has established bullish P&F structure?

BPI is therefore a measure of established buy-signal participation.

What is X-column participation?

X-column participation measures the percentage of securities currently advancing in P&F X-columns.

It answers:

How much of the market is presently showing demand?

This differs from BPI.

A security can remain on an established P&F buy signal while temporarily declining in an O-column.

So:

BPI = established buy-signal participation

X-column participation = current demand participation

Agreement between the two can strengthen an interpretation.

Disagreement can also be useful because it may show that short-term demand is improving before broader structure confirms it—or deteriorating before established buy signals have fully reversed.

Are new P&F signals the same as existing patterns?

No.

A new P&F signal identifies a structural event that has just occurred.

An existing pattern or prevalence reading describes a condition that is already present.

Zerblix keeps those two forms of evidence separate.

A large number of existing bearish patterns, for example, should not be added to the number of new downside breaks and described as if all of them occurred during the same session.

4. Leadership & Cross-Asset Research

How does Zerblix identify leadership?

Leadership analysis asks:

Where is strength actually developing?

Zerblix continuously tracks two main ETF groups.

U.S. equity and sector leadership

A 13-symbol U.S. benchmark set includes:

• SPY;

• QQQ;

• and the 11 major U.S. sector ETFs.

It helps answer:

Where is strength or weakness developing inside U.S. equities?

Cross-asset leadership

A 24-ETF macro universe covers:

• U.S. equity structure;

• developed international markets;

• emerging markets;

• rates and credit;

• commodities;

• real assets;

• and currencies.

Together, the two groups form a 37-symbol weekly research universe.

The 24-ETF macro universe and the 13-symbol U.S. set remain the fixed continuous tracking framework.

How does Zerblix measure relative strength?

Zerblix normally examines verified relative strength across three intermediate-term horizons:

4 weeks — the recent relative move

13 weeks — whether leadership or weakness is becoming established

26 weeks — whether intermediate leadership or weakness is persistent

The benchmark depends on the research question.

For example, an Energy ETF may be compared with the broad U.S. market, while equal-weight and capitalization-weighted indexes may be compared when studying concentration.

Agreement across several time horizons provides stronger evidence than one isolated short-term move.

Relative strength is a confirmation layer.

It does not replace P&F structure, breadth or participation.

Why is cross-asset evidence useful?

Equities do not operate in isolation.

For example:

• Energy equities may strengthen alongside commodities.

• Credit may confirm or contradict an equity advance.

• Long-duration Treasuries may weaken while inflation-sensitive assets strengthen.

• International equities may improve while U.S. leadership narrows.

• A commodity may strengthen without equivalent confirmation from the related producer equities.

Cross-asset evidence does not replace the structural signal.

It helps determine whether other markets confirm, contradict or simply provide context.

How does Zerblix use Canada?

Canada remains part of the core structural process.

The S&P/TSX 300 is one of the five primary Pattern Pressure universes monitored during the week.

Canadian breadth, new P&F signals and sector leadership can also provide useful confirmation or divergence.

For example, Canadian Energy may remain structurally strong while participation across the broader Canadian market contracts.

That difference may justify deeper research.

5. Research Discovery & Selective Drill-Down

Does every Zerblix idea have to come from a scan?

No.

The systematic Zerblix framework is a discovery tool, not a restriction on what can be researched.

An idea can begin in two ways.

Systematic discovery

Zerblix identifies something unusual through structure, Pattern Pressure, participation, relative strength, leadership or cross-asset evidence.

Independent observation

A sector, ETF, commodity, industry or individual security may attract attention independently.

For example, biotechnology, uranium, copper or a specialized industry ETF could become interesting even if it was not first identified by the standing research universe.

The distinction is simply how the idea was discovered.

The subsequent analysis still requires evidence.

What happens when Zerblix identifies a strong area such as Energy?

The broad signal becomes a starting point for research.

The investigation might proceed through:

Energy → sector ETF → industry group → commodity → specialized ETF → individual security

For example, Energy strength could lead to research involving:

• broad Energy ETFs;

• exploration and production;

• oil services;

• crude oil;

• natural gas;

• or selected individual companies.

The purpose is not to examine everything.

The objective is to discover where the leadership is actually concentrated.

Can Zerblix investigate something outside the standing ETF universe?

Yes.

The fixed ETF universe defines what Zerblix tracks continuously.

It does not define the maximum boundary of what can be researched.

Areas such as:

• biotechnology;

• semiconductors;

• uranium;

• copper;

• natural gas;

• specialized industry ETFs;

• individual stocks;

• or other suitable themes

can be studied when the evidence or an independent observation makes them interesting.

An independently discovered idea should simply not be described as Zerblix-detected leadership unless the systematic evidence actually identified it.

How is a developing idea evaluated?

Regardless of how an idea was discovered, the analytical questions remain consistent:

Structure — What does the intermediate-term P&F chart show?

Supply and demand — Which side is gaining control?

Relative strength — Is the security outperforming an appropriate benchmark?

Group confirmation — Is the surrounding sector, industry or asset class supportive?

Cross-asset confirmation — Are related markets reinforcing or contradicting the idea?

Follow-through — Is the structure persisting?

Invalidation — What would materially weaken or fail the interpretation?

The process can be summarized as:

Discovery → Investigation → Structural Verification → Confirmation → Setup Classification

6. Risk, Regime & Historical Context

Why examine rates, credit, commodities and financial stress?

These markets can change the context surrounding an equity signal.

Zerblix may examine:

• Treasury behavior;

• credit;

• commodities;

• currencies;

• concentration;

• and financial-stress measures.

These are used primarily as confirmation and regime evidence, not as stand-alone trading systems.

How does Zerblix study concentration?

Zerblix may compare relationships such as:

RSP/SPY — equal-weight versus capitalization-weighted S&P 500

QQQE/QQQ — equal-weight versus capitalization-weighted Nasdaq 100

These relationships help determine whether headline index strength is broadening or becoming increasingly dependent on larger securities.

Concentration is not automatically bearish.

Its significance depends on the surrounding structure and participation.

How does Zerblix use historical data?

Zerblix maintains a verified Friday adjusted-close history across its 37-symbol research universe and a separate deeper adjusted-close history for longer studies.

Historical research may examine:

• seasonality;

• relative performance;

• leadership persistence;

• drawdowns and recoveries;

• concentration;

• cross-asset relationships;

• and regime behavior.

When Zerblix studies a specific historical period, it uses the actual requested date span.

For example:

10 years through September 18, 2026 = September 18, 2016 through September 18, 2026.

The current partial year remains part of the study.

If an ETF does not have the full requested history, Zerblix uses the instrument’s actual reliable history and identifies the available period rather than creating a false common starting date.

For a direct comparison between securities, a common overlapping period may be used when necessary.

Historical evidence provides context, not prediction.

It may confirm, contradict or remain neutral to current structure, but it does not override verified current P&F and breadth evidence by itself.

How does Zerblix study seasonality?

Seasonality asks whether a market has shown a recurring tendency during a particular calendar period.

For a completed month, Zerblix can compare that month with the same month in prior years.

For a partial-month study, such as performance through September 18, each historical year is compared through the same calendar cutoff whenever possible.

If the exact date was not a trading day, the nearest valid trading session is used and the substitution should be disclosed.

A published historical observation should identify:

• the period studied;

• the sample size;

• the calculation method;

• and the source.

Historical tendencies are supporting evidence.

They do not override current structure.

Can Zerblix say a month has historically been positive or negative?

Yes, when the data support the statement.

For example:

“XLE was positive in seven of the previous 10 comparable Octobers.”

That tells the reader what happened historically.

It does not mean the next October must behave the same way.

If current P&F structure, breadth or leadership contradicts the historical tendency, that disagreement becomes part of the research.

7. Charting & Markets Covered

What charts does Zerblix use?

The appropriate chart depends on the research question.

Point & Figure — structure and supply/demand

Ratio lines — relative strength

Line charts — trends through time

Bars — rankings and comparisons

Compact tables — exact values

Breadth graphics — changes in participation

The objective is not to use the most complicated chart.

It is to use the smallest visual that materially improves understanding.

Why doesn’t Zerblix rely heavily on indicators and candlestick patterns?

Those techniques can be useful.

Their limited use in Zerblix should not be interpreted as a claim that they are invalid.

The research priority is:

Structure → Participation → Leadership / Relative Strength → Cross-Asset Context → Regime / History → Selective Research

Additional indicators are most useful when they contribute information that is not already being captured.

The objective is to reduce analytical clutter rather than increase it.

What markets does Zerblix cover?

The standing research framework includes:

• U.S. large-cap equities;

• U.S. mid-cap equities;

• U.S. small-cap equities;

• Nasdaq equities;

• Canadian equities;

• U.S. sectors;

• developed international markets;

• emerging markets;

• Treasuries;

• credit;

• commodities;

• precious metals;

• real assets;

• and currencies.

Additional sectors, industries, ETFs, commodities or individual securities may be researched selectively.

The purpose is not to trade every market.

The broader universe helps reveal where leadership, deterioration and risk are developing.

8. The Simplest Explanation

What is the easiest way to understand Zerblix?

The Zerblix process can be summarized as:

Structure → Participation → Leadership / Cross-Asset → Regime / History → Selective Research

Structure

What is happening beneath the market?

P&F structure and Pattern Pressure help determine whether the balance is moving toward demand or supply.

Participation

How much of the market supports the move?

BPI and X-column participation help determine whether the structure is broadly supported.

Leadership / Cross-Asset

Where is strength or weakness developing?

Relative strength, U.S. sector leadership and the 24-ETF macro universe help identify where demand or supply is concentrating.

Regime / History

Does the broader environment confirm, contradict or add context to the current evidence?

Verified historical price, concentration, stress and regime data provide longer-horizon perspective.

Selective Research

What deserves a closer look?

An idea can originate from the systematic Zerblix process or from an independent observation.

When warranted, research can move through:

Market → Asset Class → Sector / Theme → ETF / Commodity → Individual Security

and then examine the relevant intermediate-term P&F structure.

The research stops when the evidence no longer justifies going deeper.

Does Zerblix produce daily trading calls?

No.

Daily Monitoring is an early-warning process.

Friday is the authoritative weekly benchmark.

The purpose is to distinguish temporary movement from structural change.

What is Zerblix ultimately trying to discover?

The central question is:

Did Zerblix reveal something important that would not be obvious from looking at the major indexes alone?

That may include:

• deterioration beneath a stable index;

• improving participation before headline strength becomes obvious;

• persistent sector leadership;

• a U.S./Canada divergence;

• commodity strength without equivalent equity confirmation;

• credit contradicting equity strength;

• increasing market concentration;

• an international market developing unusual leadership;

• an independently discovered setup developing meaningful structure;

• or historical evidence adding perspective to a current condition.

If the evidence does not reveal something meaningful, Zerblix does not need to manufacture a conclusion or publication angle.

Reference

StockCharts ChartSchool — Point & Figure Basics

StockCharts ChartSchool — Bullish Percent Index (BPI)

Subscribe now