Get started
S&P 500 IndexS&P 500 IndexS&P 500 Index

S&P 500 Index

No trades
See on Supercharts
OverviewNewsIdeasMindsTechnicalsSeasonalsComponents

Trade ideas

TradingView Storytellers: Share Your Videos, Inspire TradersCalling all creators, chart wizards, and video storytellers. 👋 Hey traders ! We know many of you aren’t just analyzing the markets and trading — you’re teaching, creating, and inspiring others. We see you! And now's your chance to get your content in the spotlight — share your best work with us. Top submissions will get featured front and center for the TradingView community. 👉 How to take part: 1️⃣ Share a short video (new or one you already have) that shows how you’re using your favorite TradingView features. 2️⃣ Submit it by filling out our quick questionnaire. That’s it! Your work could be shared with thousands of traders around the world, inspiring others and helping grow our community of creators. 🎁 As a little thank you, we’ll be gifting three free Premium annual plans to standout submissions. And who knows — you might even end up collaborating with us in the future. 👉 Fill out the questionnaire
SP:SPX
by TradingView
17
US 500 Index – Limited Correction Or Sentiment Reversal?With all the talk in the financial press last week of a potential AI bubble, soaring volatility in the precious metals market, and an on-going US government shutdown, perhaps it was understandable that traders were a little on edge going into Friday. So, when President Trump’s new threats of 100% tariffs on China were posted on social media late in the afternoon the reaction was a big downside correction, which saw the US 500 drop around 3.6% from its all-time highs of 6769 seen just a day earlier to a low of 6508. Since then, comments from President Trump and Vice President Vance over the weekend regarding China have seemed to be more conciliatory in tone, signalling an openness to get back to the negotiating table and hammer out a deal in some form. This has seen all markets breath a small sigh of relief and led the US 500 to open higher, currently trading up 2.2% around 6650 (0800 BST). However, whether this positivity continues may depend on multiple factors, including the technical outlook (more on this below). While trader sensitivity to the next round of comments from the US and Chinese administrations regarding the on-going trade tensions could remain high, they may also be keen to receive the latest Q3 earnings from the major US banks, with JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs and Citigroup reporting on Tuesday (before the open), then Bank of America and Morgan Stanley reporting on Wednesday (before the open). While the focus may be on assessing actual performance against expectations, it could also be important to hear the outlook for future revenue, the direction of US economic growth and the size of bad debt provisions. Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell also speaks on Tuesday at 1720 BST and with the US government shutdown delaying the release of the most recent inflation updates (CPI/PPI) which were due this week until later in October, any comments he makes regarding the inflation outlook or the potential for an October Fed rate cut could take on extra significance. Technical Update: Limited Correction or Sentiment Reversal? Headline-driven price sell-offs like the one experienced on Friday (Oct 10th) are unpredictable, underscoring the importance of disciplined risk management. If you're long of an asset during such volatility, having well-placed stop-losses is crucial to limit downside exposure, especially when liquidity starts to reduce, as it likely did ahead of today’s US holiday. These events serve as a reminder that protecting your trading capital is just as important as delivering profitable outcomes. After such a sharp sell-off, the question is whether it marks a brief, exaggerated correction within a broader uptrend or signals a deeper negative sentiment shift that could lead to further price weakness. The answer may well depend on how the price of the US 500 reacts in the upcoming sessions. Whether support levels hold, momentum stabilises, and buyers return or whether the price decline deepens and the next support levels give way. The jury may still be out on this, but as the chart above shows, judging the potential key support and resistance levels could help gauge the next directional risks. A closing break of either side may offer signals to the next phase of price activity. If the Sell-Off Reflects a Negative Sentiment Shift: Friday’s sharp decline may have already breached some initial support levels, raising the risk of a more extended phase of price weakness. The daily Bollinger mid-average (currently 6668) is typically viewed by traders as a support level in an uptrend and this level was broken on a closing basis within Friday’s decline. Despite this morning’s rally, 6668 could now act as a resistance, and if it remains intact, could keep upside activity in check for now. While 6668 resistance holds on a closing basis, this morning’s recovery may be viewed by some as a reactionary bounce following Friday’s sharp decline, leaving possibilities of renewed selling pressure later in the week. If this proves to be the case, closing breaks below potential support at 6550, a level which is equal to half the rebound from Friday’s low, might lead to renewed downside pressure. This may open tests of 6490, the 50% retracement of the August 1st to October 9th rally, with a closing break below this level, suggesting scope for moves toward 6224 which is the 61.8% retracement. If the Sell-Off Proves to be a Limited Correction: While Friday’s decline was sharper and larger than any since the June 2025 lows, traders may now be watching whether current price strength can close back above the 6668 Bollinger mid-average. While not a guarantee of renewed price strength, past declines since June 23rd 2025, have seen US 500 prices recover to close back above this line, leading to resumed attempts at upside strength. A closing break back above 6668 may once again open attempts to push to higher levels. If confirmed, a break above resistance at 6668 may lead to further upside back toward 6769, which is the October 9th all-time high. Should this level give way, further strength may extend toward 6866, which is the 38.2% Fibonacci extension of last week’s sharp decline. The material provided here has not been prepared accordance with legal requirements designed to promote the independence of investment research and as such is considered to be a marketing communication. Whilst it is not subject to any prohibition on dealing ahead of the dissemination of investment research, we will not seek to take any advantage before providing it to our clients. Pepperstone doesn’t represent that the material provided here is accurate, current or complete, and therefore shouldn’t be relied upon as such. The information, whether from a third party or not, isn’t to be considered as a recommendation; or an offer to buy or sell; or the solicitation of an offer to buy or sell any security, financial product or instrument; or to participate in any particular trading strategy. It does not take into account readers’ financial situation or investment objectives. We advise any readers of this content to seek their own advice. Without the approval of Pepperstone, reproduction or redistribution of this information isn’t permitted.
PEPPERSTONE:US500
by Pepperstone
Trump’s Decision Shakes Global Financial MarketsTrump’s Decision Shakes Global Financial Markets On Friday, 10 October, President Trump made an unexpected statement about the possible introduction of 100% tariffs on Chinese goods, triggering sharp price swings across global markets: → Stock markets: The S&P 500 index tumbled by more than 3%, hitting its lowest level in over a month. → Currency markets: The US dollar slumped sharply against other major currencies. However, on Sunday, Donald Trump softened his tone on Truth Social, suggesting that trade relations with Beijing “will be absolutely fine”. Vice President JD Vance echoed this sentiment, adding that the United States is ready for talks if China is “prepared to act reasonably”. This shift in rhetoric from US officials helped markets recover, with the S&P 500 index rebounding sharply at Monday’s open, reclaiming much of Friday’s losses. Technical Analysis of the S&P 500 Chart In our previous analysis of the 4-hour S&P 500 chart (US SPX 500 mini on FXOpen) on 4 October, we identified an upward channel (shown in blue) and expressed several concerns: → The price was approaching the upper boundary of the channel, where long positions are often closed for profit. → The latest peak slightly exceeded the October high (A), suggesting a potential bearish divergence. → The news blackout caused by the government shutdown created an “information vacuum”, which could quickly turn sentiment negative if filled with adverse developments. The lower boundary of the blue channel offered only temporary support near 6,644 points on Friday before the price broke downwards. Doubling the channel width provides a projected target near 6,500, which coincides with Friday’s low. Given these factors, it can be assumed that the lower line of the blue channel now acts as the median of a broader range following Friday’s sell-off. This suggests that in the coming days, the S&P 500 index may stabilise as demand and supply find temporary balance along this line. Looking further ahead, the situation may resemble that of early April, when after a panic-driven market drop (also triggered by Trump’s tariff comments), the S&P 500 not only fully recovered but went on to reach new highs. Key Levels: → 6,705 – a level that has acted as both support and resistance this autumn; → 6,606 – the boundary of the bullish gap. This article represents the opinion of the Companies operating under the FXOpen brand only. It is not to be construed as an offer, solicitation, or recommendation with respect to products and services provided by the Companies operating under the FXOpen brand, nor is it to be considered financial advice.
FXOPEN:SPXM
by FXOpen
1
HOW-TO: Forecast Next-Bar Odds with Markov ProbCast🎯 Goal In 5 minutes, you’ll add Markov ProbCast to a chart, calibrate the “big-move” threshold θ for your instrument/timeframe, and learn how to read the next-bar probabilities and regime signals (🟩 Calm | 🟧 Neutral | 🟥 Volatile). 🧩 Add & basic setup Open any chart and timeframe you trade. Add Markov ProbCast — P(next-bar) Forecast Panel from the Public Library (search “Markov ProbCast”). Inputs (recommended starting point): • Returns: Log • Include Volume (z-score): On (Lookback = 60) • Include Range (HL/PrevClose): On • Rolling window N (transitions): 90 • θ as percent: start at 0.5% (we’ll calibrate next) • Freeze forecast at last close: On (stable readings) • Display: leave plots/partition/samples On 📏 Calibrate θ (2-minute method) Pick θ so the “>+θ” bucket truly flags meaningful bars for your market & timeframe. Try: • If intraday majors / large caps: θ ≈ 0.2%–0.6% on 1–5m; 0.3%–0.8% on 15–60m. • If high-vol crypto / small caps: θ ≈ 0.5%–1.5% on 1–5m; 0.8%–2.0% on 15–60m. Then watch the Partition row for a day: if the “>+θ” bucket is almost never triggered, lower θ a bit; if it’s firing constantly, raise θ. Aim so “>+θ” captures move sizes you actually care about. 📖 Read the panel (what the numbers mean) • P(next r > 0) : Directional tilt for the very next candle. • P(next r > +θ) : Odds of a “big” upside move beyond your θ. • P(next r < −θ) : Odds of a “big” downside move. • Partition (>+θ | 0..+θ | −θ..0 | <−θ): Four buckets that ≈ sum to 100%. • Next Regime Probs : Chance the market flips to 🟩 Calm / 🟧 Neutral / 🟥 Volatile next bar. • Samples : How many historical next-bar examples fed each next-state estimate (confidence cue). Note: Heavy calculations update on confirmed bars; with “Freeze” on, values won’t flicker intrabar. 📚 Two practical playbooks Breakout prep • Watch P(next r > +θ) trending up and staying elevated (e.g., > 25–35%). • A rising Next Regime: Volatile probability supports expansion context. • Combine with your trigger (structure break, session open, liquidity sweep). Mean-reversion defense • If already long and P(next r < −θ) lifts while Volatile odds rise, consider trimming size, widening stops, or waiting for a better setup. • Mirror the logic for shorts when P(next r > +θ) lifts. ⚙️ Tuning & tips • N=90 balances adaptivity and stability. For very fast regimes, try 60; for slower instruments, 120. • Keep Freeze at close on for cleaner alerts/decisions. • If Samples are small and values look jumpy, give it time (more bars) or increase N slightly. 🧠 Why this works (the math, briefly) We learn a 3-state regime and its transition matrix A (A = P(Sₜ₊₁=j | Sₜ=i)), estimate next-bar event odds conditioned on the next state (e.g., q_gt(j)=P(rₜ₊₁>+θ | Sₜ₊₁=j)), then forecast by mixing: P(event) = Σⱼ A · q(event | next=j). Laplace/Beta smoothing, per-state sample gating, and unconditional fallbacks keep estimates robust. ❓FAQ • Why do probabilities change across instruments/timeframes? Different volatility structure → different transitions and conditional odds. • Why do I sometimes see “…” or NA? Not enough recent samples for a next-state; the tool falls back until data accumulate. • Can I use it standalone? It’s a context/forecast panel—pair it with your entry/exit rules and risk management. 📣 Want more? If you’d like an edition with alerts , σ-based θ, quantile regime cutoffs, and a compact ribbon—or a full strategy that uses these probabilities for entries, filters, and sizing—please Like this post and comment “Pro” or “Strategy”. Your feedback decides what we release next.
CAPITALCOM:US500Education
by Algorific
SPX: Tariffs 2.0 slams marketSPX stumbles as trade tensions resurface, feeding volatility into Friday's close. Friday was a painful day on financial markets, with a correction of 2,71%. For one more time it all started with the announcement on social networks of the US President that the US will impose 100% tariffs on imports from China starting November 1st. The rest is history - around $2 trillion from markets was wiped out. A similar situation occurred in April this year, when the never-ending story about tariffs started. Finally, the market settled that around 40% tariffs on imports from China would not impact the US economy at the higher level. However, analysts are estimating that the 100% tariffs might hurt the US economy more severely. Semiconductor stocks like Nvidia and AMD led Friday’s market decline. Nvidia fell 5% amid uncertainty over its efforts to gain approval from the U.S. and China to sell downgraded AI chips. AMD, which had recently driven the tech rally, dropped nearly 8%. Apple and Tesla also saw sharp losses, down 3% and 5% respectively. However, the pullback wasn’t limited to China-exposed names, it was a broad-based sell-off, with 424 of the S&P 500 stocks closing in the red. The magnitude of the drop forced institutional investors to de-risk across the board, selling other positions to cover losses and raise cash as tech dragged portfolios lower. Only a few defensive names, including Walmart and tobacco-related stocks, managed to end the day slightly higher. The current question is what does Monday bring? On one side, investors might continue to perceive tariffs impact negatively, so the correction might continue. On the opposite side are investors who will be in the mood of wait-and-see if a current threat of 100% tariffs will actually come to effect, or some sort of agreement on the state levels will be achieved.
SP:SPX
by XBTFX
October 13 - October 17 2025I decided to go through and consolidate my charts this week to make for easier decision making. Friday’s sell off was a sign of weakness in a market that was already showing strain. While the drop on resumed trade war threats was swift, the rest of the market had a muted response. Heading into this week, we should see another big move and I will try to be open to trading either side depending on how this develops. 1. Macro Gold is still in its uptrend and that is unlikely to change anytime soon. I don’t have it charted here, but Gold’s volatility index CBOE:GVZ spiked during Friday’s session, however buyers seemed to be absorbing the volatility since it still closed up over 1%. Gold has already made a new ATH today and I do not expect to see the trend change this week. The dollar TVC:DXY seems to be near the top of its deviation from the flat EMA. I think we will see the dollar move lower which could boost Gold, Stocks, or both. Next, we saw TVC:US03MY remain relatively flat during Friday’s sell off while TVC:US10Y moved sharply lower during the session, making the TVC:US10Y -US03MY spread very tight once again. Since real yields are still edging up and the 3M bond stayed flat during the panic, that leads me to believe the bond market volatility was contained and may not be indicative of a true risk-off reaction. One reason why US Treasuries will continue to catch a bid is that as forward inflation expectations continue to slide (bottom left chart), the real return is still attractive compared to bonds from other major countries. We’ll see if the renewed trade sparring will change the forward inflation exceptions trend since the data from TIPS is delayed, however for now I’ll continue to base my perception on what I’m currently seeing on the chart. Lastly, Oil is continuing to see an average decline. Hopefully middle eastern peace efforts are successful, which could keep the price subdued. On the bottom chart I have combined the average of MCX:COPPER1! and Corn CBOT:ZC1! into a single line compared to TVC:DXY , which aims to show real demand (and/or inflation) pressure against the Dollar’s relative strength. Here we can see commodities took a hit on Friday but the trend is still very strong to the upside. Since forward inflation expectations are down and the dollar is flat, this may be pointing to the presence of real demand, which should be bullish for equities. 2. Risk Even when looking at the past six months on a line chart, the pullback, Friday’s drop was significant. As I mentioned last week, there are important risk-health items to watch for here. I’m now just charting the High Yield OAS - Investment Grade OAS spread, which was already starting to move up before Friday’s sell off. This data is only reported once per day for the previous session, so the impact on corporate bond yields is not yet known. This will be very important to pay attention to, as it could signal true aversion to risk. Next, the $ES1!/GOLD spread is declining and should continue until Gold enters a re-accumulation phase. Anyone’s guess when that will be so for now I think it’s safe to assume that Stocks will continue to underperform Gold, and if Friday’s drop was any indication of which side is in control, it serves as confirmation that stocks are sensitive to bad news. Buyers seem to be the ones getting absorbed. The third chart on the top shows that although CME_MINI:NQ1! has been outperforming CBOT_MINI:YM1! since the market bottomed, the momentum seems to be stalling out. I’ll be looking at the sectors to find any further signs of sustained rotation. 3. Sector Analysis My notes are best explained in the screenshot but my comment is that most of the decline on Friday came from AMEX:XLK (Tech sector) selling off. Other sectors performed better against SPX, with AMEX:XLP (Consumer Staples) seemingly breaking out of a decline, however as you can see from the chart on the right, it has still been the worst performer against the other indices over the past three months. One session is not enough to change the trend, however it will be important to watch for continued rotation out of tech and into other sectors. This could cause CME_MINI:NQ1! to decline against CBOT_MINI:YM1! as I suggested earlier, and would signal the market is positioning for a more sustained downturn - likely caused by disappointing growth. 4. Bias This is the chart I have tried to condense the most. I have switched to just using Line Break as my main chart for ES, which I found performed better than Renko when combined with my other indicators. On the lefthand side, I am using Session CVD but got rid of my other indicators and made a CVD Momentum indicator, which tracks the momentum of CVD rising or falling over an anchor period (1 week). I’m still using a range chart calculation for this chart, currently set to 20R. On the right, I am using what I’ll call my Volatility Dashboard, however it does not start producing a useful signal until premarket. Based on Volatility, it can be said with certainty that dealers went long on puts right before the sell-off began. From a technical standpoint, the price was in a rising wedge and dumped after it made a higher high that did not reach the upper trend line. Rising channels are generally bullish, however the extent of Friday’s free fall could mean that even if the price quickly recovers, it may be forming a top similar to what we saw last December. This is why risk indicators like corporate bond spreads, sector performance, and changes to the macro structure will be important to monitor over the coming days. — Conclusion For this week, all I can say with certainty is that I think there will be some good opportunities. Here is what I believe can be safely assessed from this analysis: 1. Stocks remain under pressure, however “smart money” will require more time to rotate out of tech, leading to repeated retests of the top of the range. 2. Tailwinds for stocks are potential real demand in agriculture and industrial material that is not impacting the market’s forward inflation expectation. 3. “Smart Money” will sell volatility (puts) into pullbacks if the price is set to be driven higher, or will do the opposite, buying volatility (puts) and selling calls on low volume rips This is why I will be looking for more confirmation before taking a side, as the market’s goal now is to clear out liquidity. When it comes to the larger trend, I tend to think that stocks do not seem to be showing strength over the larger macro structure, however that does not necessarily dictate that the index will come down another 8%. Instead, I think at the very least we will stay in a flat range for the time being. I do not think the market is ready to go on a bull run, nor do I think the environment is showing a risk-off bias that is strong enough to warrant stocks going straight down. If we meet resistance near the top of the range, I’ll look at volatility positioning and CVD for the signal to go short. Conversely, if we make a higher low I will go long on calls to the top of the range. Good luck to all and thanks for reading!
SP:SPX
by ap769
Hellena | SPX500 (4H): SHORT to support area of 6646 .Colleagues, in the last forecast I was counting on price reaching the 6550 area, but that plan turned out to be a long term plan. I see the sense in making some shorter term targets. The closest target I see is the 6646 support area, where wave “4” ends. This is a corrective movement, so it is necessary to realize that the price may continue to fall after reaching the target. Fundamental context U.S. inflation remains elevated — CPI rose to about 2.9 % YoY, with core inflation around 3.1 %. At the same time, the labor market continues to cool, and corporate earnings show mixed results. Combined with the Fed’s cautious stance and ongoing fiscal uncertainty, this creates pressure on the stock market. Manage your capital correctly and competently! Only enter trades based on reliable patterns!
OANDA:SPX500USDShort
by Hellena_Trade
7
S&P 500 & Trade War: What Are the Technical Damages?The sudden resurgence of trade tensions between the United States and China triggered a shockwave across global financial markets last Friday, hitting the S&P 500 index hard. Beijing’s announcement of new export controls on rare earths, followed by Donald Trump’s threat to double tariffs on Chinese goods to 100%, has revived the specter of a full-scale trade war. This escalation caused a sharp technical correction in the U.S. index, which just experienced its worst session in six months. Although negotiations could still lead to an agreement by the end of October between China and the U.S., investors fear a direct impact on the margins of major industrial and tech companies—already weakened by rising import costs and record-high valuations. So, what are the technical damages on the S&P 500 from this renewed trade conflict between the world’s two largest economies? 1) The S&P 500 is rejecting from the upper boundary of its long-term bullish channel During the trading session on Tuesday, September 30, I shared a technical update on the S&P 500 questioning whether an annual high had been reached. The first chart below links to that analysis: The technical damage from the sharp decline on Friday, October 10, remains limited for now, as no major support levels have been broken. However, the S&P 500 has clearly rejected from the upper boundary of the long-term bullish channel in place since 2020 — an area that could correspond to the completion of wave 5 according to Elliott Wave analysis. For the start of this week, the 50-day moving average must be closely monitored, as its breakdown last February marked the beginning of the March/April correction tied to the trade war. The chart below shows the weekly Japanese candlesticks of the S&P 500: 2) The Russell 2000 index rejects below its all-time high Looking at market breadth, another notable technical weakness appears: the bearish rejection of the Russell 2000 index below its record high of 2,460 points. A rejection under resistance is one thing, but the key now is to avoid breaking support—particularly the 2,360-point level. 3) This technical rejection occurs at very high valuation levels The current valuation of the S&P 500 is historically elevated, near levels last seen during the 2000 dot-com bubble. The Shiller P/E ratio is approaching 40, signaling a pronounced overvaluation of U.S. equities. The 12-month forward P/E exceeds 30, well above its long-term average, while the Buffett indicator (market capitalization to GDP) is above 200%, an all-time record. Such an imbalance heightens the risk of a technical correction if interest rates rise or corporate earnings weaken due to the trade war. DISCLAIMER: This content is intended for individuals who are familiar with financial markets and instruments and is for information purposes only. The presented idea (including market commentary, market data and observations) is not a work product of any research department of Swissquote or its affiliates. This material is intended to highlight market action and does not constitute investment, legal or tax advice. If you are a retail investor or lack experience in trading complex financial products, it is advisable to seek professional advice from licensed advisor before making any financial decisions. This content is not intended to manipulate the market or encourage any specific financial behavior. Swissquote makes no representation or warranty as to the quality, completeness, accuracy, comprehensiveness or non-infringement of such content. The views expressed are those of the consultant and are provided for educational purposes only. Any information provided relating to a product or market should not be construed as recommending an investment strategy or transaction. Past performance is not a guarantee of future results. Swissquote and its employees and representatives shall in no event be held liable for any damages or losses arising directly or indirectly from decisions made on the basis of this content. The use of any third-party brands or trademarks is for information only and does not imply endorsement by Swissquote, or that the trademark owner has authorised Swissquote to promote its products or services. Swissquote is the marketing brand for the activities of Swissquote Bank Ltd (Switzerland) regulated by FINMA, Swissquote Capital Markets Limited regulated by CySEC (Cyprus), Swissquote Bank Europe SA (Luxembourg) regulated by the CSSF, Swissquote Ltd (UK) regulated by the FCA, Swissquote Financial Services (Malta) Ltd regulated by the Malta Financial Services Authority, Swissquote MEA Ltd. (UAE) regulated by the Dubai Financial Services Authority, Swissquote Pte Ltd (Singapore) regulated by the Monetary Authority of Singapore, Swissquote Asia Limited (Hong Kong) licensed by the Hong Kong Securities and Futures Commission (SFC) and Swissquote South Africa (Pty) Ltd supervised by the FSCA. Products and services of Swissquote are only intended for those permitted to receive them under local law. All investments carry a degree of risk. The risk of loss in trading or holding financial instruments can be substantial. The value of financial instruments, including but not limited to stocks, bonds, cryptocurrencies, and other assets, can fluctuate both upwards and downwards. There is a significant risk of financial loss when buying, selling, holding, staking, or investing in these instruments. SQBE makes no recommendations regarding any specific investment, transaction, or the use of any particular investment strategy. CFDs are complex instruments and come with a high risk of losing money rapidly due to leverage. The vast majority of retail client accounts suffer capital losses when trading in CFDs. You should consider whether you understand how CFDs work and whether you can afford to take the high risk of losing your money. Digital Assets are unregulated in most countries and consumer protection rules may not apply. As highly volatile speculative investments, Digital Assets are not suitable for investors without a high-risk tolerance. Make sure you understand each Digital Asset before you trade. Cryptocurrencies are not considered legal tender in some jurisdictions and are subject to regulatory uncertainties. The use of Internet-based systems can involve high risks, including, but not limited to, fraud, cyber-attacks, network and communication failures, as well as identity theft and phishing attacks related to crypto-assets.
SP:SPX
by Swissquote
1
Trading Crude Oil and the Geopolitical Impact on Prices1. The Basics of Crude Oil Trading Crude oil trading involves buying and selling contracts that represent the value of oil, typically through futures, options, and spot markets. The two most widely used benchmarks are: West Texas Intermediate (WTI): A light, sweet crude primarily produced in the United States. Brent Crude: Extracted from the North Sea, it serves as the global benchmark for oil pricing. Oil prices are determined by a combination of market fundamentals (supply and demand), speculative activities, and geopolitical factors. Traders use various tools to forecast price movements, such as analyzing OPEC reports, inventory levels, and global economic data. The key players in oil trading include: Oil-producing countries and national oil companies (e.g., Saudi Aramco, Rosneft). International oil corporations (e.g., ExxonMobil, BP, Shell). Financial institutions and hedge funds. Retail traders and investors trading oil futures or ETFs. 2. Geopolitical Factors Influencing Crude Oil Prices Oil is not merely a commodity; it is a strategic resource. This makes it extremely sensitive to political instability, war, sanctions, and diplomatic decisions. Some of the major geopolitical influences on crude oil prices include: a. Conflicts in Oil-Producing Regions Most of the world’s oil reserves are located in politically volatile regions like the Middle East, Africa, and parts of South America. Any conflict in these areas can lead to supply disruptions or fears of shortage, pushing prices higher. For example: The Iraq War (2003) caused Brent crude prices to spike above $40 per barrel, reflecting fears of supply disruptions. The Yemen conflict and attacks on Saudi Aramco facilities in 2019 led to a sudden 15% increase in global oil prices within a day. Traders closely monitor these developments because they directly affect production, transportation, and export capacities. b. OPEC and OPEC+ Decisions The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), along with its allies (OPEC+), plays a critical role in controlling global oil supply. Decisions regarding production quotas can dramatically alter prices. For instance: When OPEC decided to cut output in 2016 to stabilize prices, Brent crude rose from around $30 to over $50 per barrel within months. In contrast, during the 2020 price war between Saudi Arabia and Russia, oil prices collapsed, with WTI even turning negative briefly. Geopolitical alliances and disagreements within OPEC+ remain a major source of price volatility. c. Sanctions and Trade Restrictions Economic sanctions imposed on oil-producing nations can limit their ability to export crude, tightening global supply and raising prices. Prominent examples include: Iranian oil sanctions by the U.S., which have repeatedly affected global oil markets. Sanctions on Russia following the invasion of Ukraine in 2022, which drastically reduced its oil exports to Europe, causing a surge in global prices. In such situations, traders speculate on potential supply shortages, leading to sharp movements in futures contracts. d. Strategic Petroleum Reserves (SPR) Releases Governments, especially major consumers like the U.S., China, and India, maintain strategic reserves of oil to cushion against supply disruptions. When tensions rise or prices spike, these countries may release oil from reserves to stabilize markets. For example, in 2022, the U.S. released millions of barrels from its SPR to counter rising prices after the Russia-Ukraine conflict. While these releases provide short-term relief, they rarely alter long-term price trends unless accompanied by broader policy shifts. e. Global Alliances and Energy Policies Energy policies and diplomatic relations also play a huge role. Countries may enter alliances to secure stable oil supplies or diversify their sources. For instance: The China-Russia energy partnership has reshaped global oil trade patterns. The U.S. shale revolution reduced American dependence on Middle Eastern oil, altering geopolitical power balances. 3. Case Studies: How Geopolitics Moves Oil Markets Case 1: The Russia-Ukraine War (2022–Present) This conflict caused one of the most dramatic spikes in oil prices in recent history. Russia, being one of the largest oil and gas exporters, faced severe sanctions from Western nations. As a result: Brent crude surged above $120 per barrel. European nations scrambled to find alternative suppliers. Energy inflation soared globally, contributing to a global economic slowdown. This case shows how a single geopolitical event can alter supply chains, trade routes, and investment flows within weeks. Case 2: The Middle East Tensions Recurring tensions between Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Israel have historically shaken oil markets. The closure threats of the Strait of Hormuz, through which nearly 20% of global oil passes, are particularly alarming for traders. Even rumors of blockade or military action lead to speculative buying and price hikes. Case 3: The U.S. Shale Boom While not a “conflict,” the rise of shale oil production in the United States changed global geopolitics. By 2018, the U.S. became the world’s largest oil producer, reducing its dependency on OPEC and reshaping global energy diplomacy. This led to more competitive pricing, strategic shifts in OPEC policies, and a new era of price volatility. 4. Trading Strategies During Geopolitical Uncertainty Professional traders and investors employ various strategies to navigate geopolitical risks in oil markets: a. Hedging Companies involved in energy-intensive industries use futures and options to hedge against price fluctuations. For example, airlines lock in fuel prices to avoid losses due to sudden price spikes. b. Speculative Trading Traders often capitalize on volatility triggered by geopolitical news. They use tools like technical analysis, sentiment indicators, and futures spreads to predict short-term price movements. c. Diversification Investors may diversify their portfolios across different commodities or asset classes (such as gold, natural gas, or renewable energy stocks) to reduce exposure to oil market volatility. d. Monitoring News and Reports Geopolitical events unfold rapidly. Traders rely on real-time news, OPEC bulletins, and government reports to make quick decisions. Platforms like Bloomberg, Reuters, and TradingView offer live analysis tools tailored to geopolitical risks. 5. The Role of Speculation and Market Psychology In modern oil markets, perception often drives prices as much as actual supply-demand data. A threat of conflict or a statement by a political leader can move prices instantly, even before any tangible disruption occurs. For instance: Tweets from policymakers or rumors of sanctions can trigger algorithmic trading activity. Fear of shortages leads to speculative buying, amplifying price rallies. Conversely, peace agreements or ceasefires often trigger sell-offs. This behavior shows how market psychology magnifies geopolitical effects, making oil one of the most sentiment-driven commodities. 6. Global Economic Impact of Oil Price Volatility Oil prices affect every sector of the global economy. The consequences of geopolitical-driven price swings are far-reaching: Inflation: Higher oil prices raise transportation and manufacturing costs, leading to overall inflation. Currency Fluctuations: Oil-exporting countries benefit from stronger currencies during price spikes, while import-dependent economies face weakening currencies. Stock Markets: Rising oil prices often pressure equities in energy-dependent industries but benefit oil producers. Interest Rates: Central banks may adjust interest rates in response to energy-driven inflation. Trade Balances: Nations that import large volumes of oil, like India and Japan, experience worsening trade deficits when oil prices rise. Thus, geopolitical disruptions in the oil market can reshape global financial stability. 7. The Transition to Renewable Energy and Future Outlook As the world moves toward renewable energy, the geopolitical landscape of oil is slowly shifting. However, oil remains indispensable in global energy consumption. Despite rising investments in solar and wind, oil still accounts for over 30% of the world’s primary energy supply. In the future: Energy diversification may reduce the geopolitical leverage of major oil producers. Green energy policies in the U.S., EU, and China may dampen long-term oil demand. Yet, short-term volatility driven by geopolitics is likely to persist as conflicts and alliances evolve. Furthermore, the rise of electric vehicles (EVs) and energy storage technologies will reshape demand patterns. However, developing economies will continue to rely heavily on oil for decades, ensuring that geopolitical influences remain potent. 8. Conclusion Trading crude oil is not merely a financial activity—it is a reflection of global power dynamics, politics, and economic interests. The intricate relationship between geopolitical events and oil prices ensures that traders must constantly monitor global developments, from military conflicts to OPEC meetings. Key takeaways: Oil is both an economic and political weapon. Geopolitical instability often leads to supply fears and price surges. Sanctions, wars, and alliances directly impact trading strategies and market psychology. Understanding global events is essential for successful crude oil trading. In essence, geopolitics is the invisible hand that moves the oil market. Whether it’s a conflict in the Middle East, sanctions on Russia, or production decisions in OPEC+, each event creates ripples across global trade and financial markets. For traders, mastering the art of interpreting these events is the key to navigating the world’s most volatile and influential commodity—crude oil.
SP:SPXEducation
by GlobalWolfStreet
The S&P500 paused on AI valuation concerns and trade fears The US equity rally, driven by optimism over AI momentum, Fed rate-cut expectations, and solid consumer data, lost steam after President Trump’s combative remarks toward China. Delta Air Lines beat 3Q estimates with profit up 4.1% YoY and EPS at 1.71 USD, while Costco’s (COST) Sep sales rose 8% YoY, underscoring resilient US consumption. However, Trump’s threat of steep tariff hikes triggered the S&P; 500’s sharpest one-day drop in three months. US500 extended its sharp decline, briefly testing the support at 6530. The index broke below the ascending channel's lower bound, suggesting a potential shift toward bearish momentum. If US500 breaks below the support at 6530 again, the index may retreat toward the next support at 6420. Conversely, if US500 breaches above EMA21 and the resistance at 6700, the index may advance toward the psychological resistance at 6800.
CAPITALCOM:US500
by inkicho_exness
SPX | Daily Analysis #1Lets take a look at OANDA:SPX500USD at start of the Monday and being ready for the week. Last Week: well, as you may know last week was a struggle and flashy crashy market for all and at least about 80% of indexes was turning red in Friday amid US and China trade war escalation. Start Of the Week: Personally I think the market will open with huge gap in down side and flame the Fear factor for the start of Monday. Horizon: Well, during 2018-2019 trade war showed us that this romance not gonna end soon and this story will continue at least 3-6 months. And if any tension rises, the markets will shot again. 4H Time Frame: As you can see, the index passed trough the latest Demand zone and heading to Supply zone. this area may good for some buyers to take action for catching or creating correction for Friday's move. if this will happen the price would go in $6580 area. and make some range towards 1st of November. ✔️ Personally, I’m waiting and observing for market re-action for THIS first day of market.
OANDA:SPX500USD
by DibaPrism
2
S&P 500 Faces Earnings Test Amid Shutdown Fog and Tariff FearsStocks Face Earnings Test as S&P 500 Heads for Worst Shutdown Performance Since 1990 The S&P 500 slipped on Friday, just two days after hitting a record high, as renewed tariff fears and the ongoing U.S. government shutdown weighed on sentiment. This week marks a key test as major Wall Street banks open the third-quarter earnings season, potentially offering direction amid what analysts call a “vacuum of government data” due to the shutdown. On Wednesday, the S&P 500 logged its 33rd record close of 2025, even as the shutdown that began October 1 dragged on. But Trump’s threat of a “massive increase” in tariffs on Chinese imports erased gains, leaving the index down 2% since the shutdown began — its worst such stretch since 1990, per Dow Jones Market Data. The delay of key reports like CPI inflation data has added “fog” to the market, making it harder to gauge the impact of tariffs on core prices. Still, analysts expect solid Q3 results, especially from banks, with FactSet’s John Butters noting a rare increase in EPS estimates — the first since late 2021. Volatility Returns — But Will Investors Buy the Dip? October, historically the most volatile month, lived up to its reputation. Friday’s drop left traders debating whether it was triggered by Trump’s post or simply profit-taking after record highs. S&P 500 – Technical Outlook Merging with Fundamentals The price dropped sharply by $165 within just six hours, reflecting strong volatility driven by both technical factors and fundamental uncertainty. From now on, market movements are expected to remain highly sensitive, especially as third-quarter earnings season begins this week — a phase that could significantly influence the indices amid the ongoing U.S. government shutdown. Technically, a short-term correction is expected toward 6550 – 6577 before renewed bearish pressure resumes. However, if the price closes a 4H candle below 6484, it would confirm continuation of the bearish trend toward 6450 and 6425, with further downside potential toward 6347 and 6283. On the other hand, as long as the price trades above 6506, buyers may attempt to correct the move upward toward 6550 – 6577. A sustained break below 6484, however, would clearly reestablish the bearish momentum. Pivot Line: 6506 Support Levels: 6450, 6425, 6348 Resistance Levels: 6550, 6570, 6620 Summary Expectation: Next likely direction — bearish continuation, possibly after a minor corrective pullback toward 6,570 – 6,600, unless buyers reclaim control above 6,620.
OANDA:SPX500USDShort
by SroshMayi
S&P 500 - Buy Zone PlanThe S&P 500 remains in a strong long-term uptrend, trading within a rising channel. After months of steady gains, price has now pulled back sharply from the top of the channel — a healthy correction within the bigger trend. 🔹 Buy Targets • Target 1 (Buy Zone): ~6,400 – first key support near the 50 SMA • Target 2 (Buy Zone): ~6,200 – aligning with the 100 SMA • Target 3 (Worst Case – Buy): ~6,000 – near the 200 SMA and major trendline support These levels represent staggered accumulation points, allowing for gradual buying if the correction deepens. 🔹 RSI View The RSI has dropped near 40, showing a cooling-off phase. If it dips below this level, it could signal oversold conditions and mark a potential bottom. 🔹 Outlook • The pullback looks like a gap-fill and mean reversion within the uptrend. • I’ll look to accumulate quality U.S. stocks around these targets, focusing on strong fundamentals and large-cap names. • The broader structure stays bullish unless the 200 SMA breaks decisively. 🧠 “Pullbacks in bull markets are opportunities, not threats.” 📜 Disclaimer: This is general information only and not financial advice. Always do your own research before investing.
SP:SPX
by Amer_Shouaeb
Bigger Market Correction ahead??? We can see a bigger correction in markets??? Its a nice probability. Its that happened could be a great opportunity to longs entry before we can see a new leg up in markets until the Q2-Q3 2026 for the end of 5 or 6 years current liquidity cycle . Then we can spect the beggining of the bigger bear market that we ever see in our times. (nobody know's) This its not finantial advice, just a trading idea for entertaiment and educational porpuose, dont follow this idea! Keep your owns idea in play , do your own reaserch and manage properly your money. The markets have bigger risks escenarios right now.
TVC:SPX
by ProfeBitcoin
1
SP500 4H🔹 Overall Outlook and Potential Price Movements In the charts above, we have outlined the overall outlook and possible price movement paths. As shown, each analysis highlights a key support or resistance zone near the current market price. The market’s reaction to these zones — whether a breakout or rejection — will likely determine the next direction of the price toward the specified levels. ⚠️ Important Note: The purpose of these trading perspectives is to identify key upcoming price levels and assess potential market reactions. The provided analyses are not trading signals in any way. ✅ Recommendation for Use: To make effective use of these analyses, it is advised to manually draw the marked zones on your chart. Then, on the 5-minute time frame, monitor the candlestick behavior and look for valid entry triggers before making any trading decisions.
VANTAGE:SP500
by Deltafx_Broker
The History of War, Gold, Fiat, and EquitiesGold vs. Equities — The 45-Year Cycle and a Pending Monetary Reset The interplay of war, gold, fiat money, and equities has long been a barometer of real wealth and economic stability. A recurring pattern emerges across modern history: approximately 45-year intervals when gold strengthens relative to equities. From the Panic of 1893 to the present, these cycles have coincided with major monetary shifts and geopolitical shocks. With a broadening 100-year pattern, rising geopolitical tension, and roughly $300 trillion in global debt, a monetary reset by the early 2030s is plausibly on the horizon. The 45-Year Cycle — Gold’s Strength at Equity Troughs The pattern’s first trough is traced to 1896, when William Jennings Bryan’s “Cross of Gold” speech preceded the Gold Standard Act of 1900. Equities were weak after the Panic of 1893, and gold gained prominence. Thirteen years later, the Federal Reserve would be created. More on the 45-year cycle later. The 50-Year Jubilee Cycle The Torah’s 50-year Jubilee cycle, as outlined in Leviticus 25:8–12, is a profound economic and social reset that follows seven 7-year Shemitah cycles, totaling 49 years, with the 50th year designated as the Jubilee. Each Shemitah cycle concludes with a sabbatical year (year 7, 14, 21, 28, 35, 42, 49), during which the land rests, debts are released, and economic imbalances are addressed (Leviticus 25:1–7). The Jubilee, occurring in the 50th year, amplifies this reset by mandating the return of ancestral lands, freeing of slaves, and further debt forgiveness, symbolizing a divine restoration of societal equity. While built on the 49-year framework of seven Shemitahs, the 50th year stands distinct, marking a transformative culmination rather than a simple extension of the Shemitah cycle. The five-year Jubilee windows highlighted at the base of the chart compliment the 45-year cycles previously noted. The 4 year Jubilee windows are projected from the roaring 20s peak in 1929 and the 1932 bear market low four years later. The next Jubilee window is scheduled to occur some time between 2029 and 2031. Returning to History and the 45-Year Cycles: The Panic of 1907 and the Fed The Panic of 1907 was a severe crisis, with bank runs, failing trust companies, and a liquidity crunch centered in New York. The collapse of copper speculators (F. Augustus Heinze and Charles W. Morse) triggered runs on institutions like the Knickerbocker Trust. Private bankers led by J.P. Morgan injected liquidity (over $25 million) to stabilize the system. The shock exposed the absence of a lender of last resort and precipitated reforms. Congress responded with the Aldrich–Vreeland Act (1908) and the National Monetary Commission, whose 1911 report recommended a central bank to supply “elastic currency.” After debate and hearings, President Woodrow Wilson signed the Federal Reserve Act on December 23, 1913, creating a decentralized central bank with 12 regional banks. Some alternative accounts (e.g., The Creature from Jekyll Island) argue that the panic was exploited to centralize financial control. Mainstream history, however, treats the panic as the genuine catalyst for reform. Whatever the intent, the Fed’s creation shifted the tools available to manage crises—and, over time, central banks have played an instrumental role in financing wars and expanding Fiat currency. The Fed and World War I World War I began in Europe in 1914 (U.S. entry in 1917). The Fed began operations in November 1914 and later supported wartime financing by: Marketing Liberty Bonds (~$21.5 billion raised, 1917–1919). Providing low-interest loans to banks buying Treasury securities (via 1916-era amendments). Expanding the money supply, which contributed to wartime inflation. Although the Fed was created primarily to prevent panics and stabilize banking, its early role in war finance shifted expectations about central banking’s functions. From Confiscation to Bretton Woods to the Nixon Shock In 1933, during the Great Depression, the U.S. effectively nationalized gold—private ownership was outlawed, and the official price was later reset at $35/oz by the Gold Reserve Act of 1934. Private ownership remained restricted until President Ford legalized it again in 1974. World War II and the Bretton Woods Agreement (1944) cemented gold’s role: the dollar became the anchor of the system, and other currencies pegged to it. That status persisted until August 15, 1971, when President Nixon suspended dollar-gold convertibility—the “Nixon Shock”—moving the world toward fiat currencies. The Petrodollar and Post-1971 Arrangements After 1971, the U.S. worked to preserve dollar demand. The petrodollar system emerged in the early 1970s: following the 1973 oil shock, a U.S.–Saudi understanding (1974) helped ensure oil continued to be priced in dollars and that oil revenues were recycled into U.S. Treasuries—supporting the dollar’s global role despite its fiat status. Devaluations, Floating Rates, and the End of Bretton Woods Two formal “devaluations” followed the Nixon Shock: Smithsonian Agreement (Dec 18, 1971): Raised the official gold price from $35 to $38/oz (an 8.57% change) as a stopgap attempt to stabilize fixed rates without restoring convertibility. It widened exchange banding but proved unsustainable. On February 12, 1973, the official gold price was revalued to $42.22/oz (roughly a 10% change), a symbolic acknowledgment that Bretton Woods was collapsing. By March 1973, major economies had effectively moved to floating exchange rates, and market gold prices surged. These moves were reactive attempts to adjust the dollar’s value amid trade deficits, inflation, and speculative pressures. They ultimately ushered in a fiat era, where market forces, not official pegs, set the price of gold. Triffin’s Dilemma — Then and Now Triffin’s Dilemma describes the structural tension faced by a reserve currency issuer: it must supply enough currency to ensure global liquidity (running deficits) while risking domestic instability and a loss of confidence. Britain faced this under the gold standard; the U.S. faced it under Bretton Woods and again after 1971, albeit in a different form. Modern manifestations include inflation, persistent fiscal and external deficits, and mounting debt. International policy coordination (e.g., the Plaza and Louvre Accords) repeatedly tried—and only partially succeeded—to manage these tensions. The Plaza (1985) and Louvre (1987) Accords Plaza Accord (Sept 22, 1985): G5 nations coordinated to depreciate the dollar (it had appreciated ~50% since 1980). The goal was to ease U.S. trade imbalances. The dollar fell substantially vs. the yen and mark by 1987. Louvre Accord (Feb 22, 1987): G6 sought to stabilize the dollar after its rapid decline following the Plaza Accord, setting informal target zones and coordinating intervention. It temporarily checked volatility but did not solve underlying imbalances. Both accords illustrate the extreme difficulty in balancing global liquidity needs with domestic economic health in a fiat system. De-industrialization, Bubbles, and the Broadening Pattern Orthodox history would argue that U.S. de-industrialization in the 1990s was rational at the time. Globalization and cost arbitrage provided short-term benefits, but they increased trade deficits, foreign dependency, and robbed the middle class of high-paying jobs. That loss of capacity heightens vulnerability to dollar shocks and complicates any re-industrialization efforts today. Measured in gold, equities have experienced expanding ranges: Equity peaks (1929, 1967, 1999) were followed by troughs where gold outperformed (1896, 1941, 1980/86). Gold peaked in 1980, even though the cyclical trough in the broader pattern was nearer 1986—showing that cycles can shift. The dot-com peak (1999) marked a secular low for gold relative to equities. The ensuing crashes, 9/11, and the War in Afghanistan, followed by the 2008–2009 Financial Crisis (GFC), moved markets profoundly—both nominally and in terms of gold. From 1999, relative equity values fell until a trough around 2011 (coinciding with the European debt crisis). Quantitative easing and policy responses (2010 onward) restored growth, but frailties remained (e.g., repo market stress in 2018). COVID produced another shock; aggressive fiscal and monetary responses engineered a V-shaped asset recovery but also higher inflation. Relative to gold, equities peaked in 1999 and have trended lower since. As nominal stock prices register all-time-highs in dollars—fueled by AI and other themes—equities are historically overvalued. When priced against gold, the apparent bubble in nominal terms looks more like an extended bear market ready for its next down-leg. The Broadening Pattern and the Next Trough A broadening pattern illustrates the gold equity ratio range expanding with each major peak and trough. If we accept a roughly 45-year rhythm from the 1980/86 period, the next cyclical trough may fall between 2025 and 2031, with 2031 a focal point. Whether this manifests as a runaway gold price, a sharp equity collapse, or both remains uncertain. If a sovereign-debt crisis or major war escalates, changes could accelerate—some scenarios even speculate about a negotiated new monetary framework (e.g., “Mar-A-Lago Accords”) in the next 5–15 years. Geopolitics and the $300 Trillion Debt Geopolitical tension compounds financial stress. The Russia-Ukraine war, plausibly the start of World War III, NATO involvement, and nuclear saber-rattling evoke systemic risk. Global debt—estimated at around $300 trillion (over 300% of GDP per the Institute of International Finance)—is unsustainable. U.S. public debt (~$38 trillion) now carries interest costs comparable to defense spending. Central bank money creation to service debt erodes confidence in fiat currencies and boosts demand for gold. Historical monetary resets (Bretton Woods, Nixon Shock) followed similar pressures of debt and conflict. A modern reset could push gold well beyond current records—potentially into the high thousands or five-figure territory if confidence collapses. Implications of a Pending Monetary Reset A reset might take various forms: A partial return to a gold-linked standard, perhaps supplemented by tokenized/digital assets. Forced debt restructuring or coordinated global defaults. Rapid adoption of digital currencies (including state-issued tokens—CBDCs) as part of a new settlement architecture. Given Triffin’s Dilemma, inflated financial assets, and interconnected global linkages, a modern reset could be far larger in scale and speed than past adjustments. Assets, trade, and supply chains are far larger and more intertwined than in 1971, increasing contagion risk. Practical takeaway: investors should consider gold’s role in portfolios; policymakers must confront debt sustainability or risk a market-driven reckoning that could disrupt global finance. Conclusion The Torah's 50-year Jubilee, the 45-year cycle and the century-long broadening pattern suggest we are approaching a structural turning point. Triffin’s Dilemma, decades of accumulated imbalances, de-industrialization, and escalating geopolitical risk suggest a monetary reset is plausible between 2030 and 2035—possibly sooner under severe stress. A modern reset would be more disruptive than past episodes because today’s global economy is larger, more integrated, and technologically complex. The question is not only whether such a reset will occur, but how policymakers and markets will manage it. The stakes—global financial stability and the relative value of fiat versus real assets—could not be higher.
SP:SPXEducation
by Wave-Tech
19