A short excerpt from Kosta Ouzas's YouTube video arguing that identifying the top of a financial cycle requires an explicit timing element. The speaker asserts cycles must show some periodic regularity (allowing limited irregularity, e.g., ±~3 months) for peak/extension claims to be meaningful.
You don't know that it's the top of a cycle unless you have a timing element. The timing element is essential to call something a cycle. So I don't know what it means to extend a cycle to a certain time in the future because Based on what? Why will you say that this is the peak now, six months later? Based on what idea? The main idea that we have about cycles. That they are periodic. They could have some irregularity to say, okay, they are periodic up to maybe three months. They can happen three months early, three months later. That is acceptable. But there has to be some kind of regularity in the cycle.
