Possible bearish Wave 2 crest is the highest-ranked admissible primary count; cycle status is falling stack.
EBS · Market · Weekly research
PQVM Elliott Wave report
Invesco S&P 500 QVM UCITS ETF
Current structure
Hurst crest risk
74/100 setup score
100/100 data quality
The setup score is a rules-based composite, not a probability or price forecast.
Investment view
Based on weekly closing prices
What the current structure is saying
Setup lifecycle
Triggered
The lifecycle separates an interesting setup from price confirmation, an active thesis, maturity and invalidation.
A weekly close through 61.22, supported by an FLD cross and improving relative strength.
The underlying directional structure fails beyond 65.12; a forming endpoint can extend before that happens.
The active endpoint can move until its reversal is confirmed; earnings, gaps and volatility can jump through technical levels.
The picture behind the setup
Weekly wave structure and decision levels
Filled markers are confirmed pivots; the outlined marker is still forming. Decision lines show where the primary interpretation confirms or fails.
Close
30-week trend
Fair Value
Confirm
Directional failure
Scenario comparison
How the valid counts compete
Pre-emptive downside check
30/100Watch
This is a pre-emptive vulnerability checklist, not a probability of decline. It rises when mature wave structure, overextension, cycle rollover, count instability and event risk cluster before price breaks down.
Current read
The closing-price swing map is classified as hurst crest risk. Price is 6.4% above its 30-week trend. 4 of 7 available confirmation measures are constructive.
4 constructive · 0 neutral · 3 weak
Evidence of deterioration
- A weekly close below 61.22, the nearest confirmed swing low.
- Cycle pressure rolling from cresting into falling.
- Relative strength and market activity losing neutral.
Bearish structure weakens above
CHF 65.12Confirmed on 2026-06-19. Treat this as a structure reference, not an automatic trading level.
4-week return
-2.1%
13-week return
6.0%
26-week return
13.9%
52-week return
20.0%
From 52-week high
-5.8%
26-week volatility
12.4%
Wave structure
Price, trend and the active swing
The chart uses a 5.0% closing-price reversal threshold. Filled markers are confirmed pivots; the outlined final marker is still forming.
Primary admissible count
6% evidence weight
Possible bearish Wave 2 crest
Counts must pass hard Elliott geometry rules. Fibonacci relationships, alternation and cycle evidence rank admissible interpretations; evidence weights compare scenarios and are not forecast probabilities.
Confirm 61.22
Invalidate 65.12
Count stability Moderate · 68/100
PassWave 2 protects the Wave 1 originOrigin 65.12; Wave 2 62.62.
GuidelineWave 2 retracement is proportionateRetraced 36% of Wave 1.
Strategic degree uses a 8.0% weekly closing-price reversal threshold.
Primary degree uses a 5.0% weekly closing-price reversal threshold.
Tactical degree uses a 3.5% weekly closing-price reversal threshold.
1 weeks · Forming
Pivot from 2026-07-31
Pivot from 2026-06-19
Price is 6.4% from trend
Price is 23.6% from Fair Value
52.46 low · 66.46 high
Cycle timing
Are the main rhythms moving together?
Nominal cycles are starting bands, not fixed clocks. Each period adapts to the strongest nearby repeat in detrended weekly prices; projected turns are future intervals and require price confirmation.
Current medium-term pressure direction
25/100 constructive · 75/100 risk
Timing estimate, not a dated forecast
Timing estimate, not a dated forecast
Cycle pressure
Above zero is positive pressure; direction matters more than the absolute number.
Multi-cycle rhythm
The thick line is the blended reading; thinner lines show 20, 40 and 80-week components.
Nominal / estimated10w / 12w
Current phaseFalling
Period evidence1/100
FLD confirmationCrossed Down
Since last trough9w
Future trough interval0–6w
Nominal / estimated20w / 15w
Current phaseCresting
Period evidence0/100
FLD confirmationCrossed Down
Since last trough10w
Future trough interval1–9w
Nominal / estimated40w / 30w
Current phaseCresting
Period evidence4/100
FLD confirmationCrossed Up
Since last trough31w
Future trough interval12–46w
Nominal / estimated80w / 100w
Current phaseRising
Period evidence11/100
FLD confirmationCrossed Up
Since last trough18w
Future trough interval64–100w
Confirmation
57% confirmation alignment
Does price behaviour support the wave count?
Each measure answers a different question. Agreement across several measures is more useful than one strong reading in isolation.
Trend
6.4% above trend
Price is holding above its 30-week trend.
Cycle pressure
Cresting
The medium-term pressure curve is not rising.
Cycle alignment
Falling Stack
Several cycle lengths are weakening together.
Relative strength
-0.4
Underperforming its benchmark
Market activity
+29.7
Participation is supportive
Market dynamics
+0.1
Price and volume behaviour is supportive
30-week momentum
+15.6
Medium-term momentum is positive
4 constructive, 3 weak and 0 neutral measures.
This is a count of rules-based evidence, not a recommendation.Market activity
Whether participation is supporting the move.
Relative strength
Performance against the market benchmark.
30-week momentum
The pace of the medium-term price move.
Market dynamics
A separate scale prevents this lower-range measure being hidden by relative strength.
Risk and participation
How much movement sits behind the pattern?
Wave structure is easier to judge when drawdown, volatility and participation are visible beside it.
52-week low52.46
52-week high66.46
Based on the latest 26 weekly returns
Average high-to-low range over 13 weeks
From the highest close in the stored record
Of its trailing 20-week average
Drawdown history
Distance below the highest prior weekly close.
Realised volatility
Annualised variability of the latest 26 weekly returns.
Relative volume
Weekly volume as a percentage of its 20-week average.
Market, peer and event context
Is the structure isolated—or supported by its environment?
Peer breadth tests whether the sector is moving with this security. Event and options context tests whether a catalyst could overwhelm otherwise valid technical structure.
54% constructive
13 of 24 analysed peers have a bullish rule-valid primary count.
33% have improving cycle stacks Breadth shows whether peers share the structure. Cohort outcomes use non-overlapping, point-in-time trend and momentum states from the same sector and report benchmark excess return when matching benchmark bars exist; they are context, not a backtest of the Elliott count.No near collision identified
No stored event or positioning warning currently conflicts with the count.
Event and positioning context tests whether a scheduled catalyst or the options-implied move could overwhelm the technical structure.| Peer-state horizon | Independent samples | Positive | Median | Median excess vs ^SSMI | 10th–90th percentile |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4 weeks | 696 | 62% | 0.9% | 0.0% | -6.5% to 6.5% |
| 13 weeks | 244 | 71% | 3.4% | 1.4% | -11.5% to 17.5% |
| 26 weeks | 133 | 77% | 5.5% | 3.5% | -16.9% to 26.3% |
Historical context
48 similar weekly states
What followed similar readings in this security?
Matches compare trend, cycle direction, momentum, relative strength and market dynamics using only information available at each historical week.
Median forward return
Median outcome after each matching historical week.
| Horizon | Matches | Positive | Median | Range |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4 weeks | 48 | 60% | 1.1% | -8.7% to 10.3% |
| 13 weeks | 48 | 69% | 1.8% | -13.6% to 24.8% |
| 26 weeks | 45 | 71% | 8.3% | -8.3% to 31.9% |
Overlapping historical matches are descriptive context, not independent observations or a forecast.
Evidence quality100/100
This measures usable history, indicator coverage and confirmed swing points. It does not measure the chance of the scenario succeeding.
- Weekly history
- 100/100
- Indicator coverage
- 100/100
- Confirmed structure
- 100/100
Rules, references and limitations
- Swing points use weekly closes and a 5.0% adaptive reversal threshold.
- The final swing is provisional until the reversal threshold is met.
- Candidate counts must pass the Wave 2 origin, Wave 3 progression/length and Wave 4 overlap rules when those waves are present.
- Fibonacci proportions and alternation rank valid candidates but never rescue a hard-rule failure.
- Primary and alternate evidence weights compare admissible counts; they are not probabilities.
- Nominal Hurst periods adapt to observed weekly rhythm. Future windows include measured timing uncertainty and require FLD or price confirmation.
Audit trail
Recent swing points
The exact points used to construct the visible wave map.
| Date | Status | Type | Price | Move | Duration |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-05-26 | Confirmed | Low | 36.14 | -15.6% | 30 weeks |
| 2023-09-29 | Confirmed | High | 39.02 | 8.0% | 18 weeks |
| 2023-10-27 | Confirmed | Low | 36.73 | -5.9% | 4 weeks |
| 2024-06-21 | Confirmed | High | 50.46 | 37.4% | 34 weeks |
| 2024-08-02 | Confirmed | Low | 47.04 | -6.8% | 6 weeks |
| 2025-01-31 | Confirmed | High | 57.00 | 21.2% | 26 weeks |
| 2025-04-11 | Confirmed | Low | 46.47 | -18.5% | 10 weeks |
| 2025-10-24 | Confirmed | High | 66.46 | 43.0% | 28 weeks |
| 2025-11-21 | Confirmed | Low | 52.46 | -21.1% | 4 weeks |
| 2026-06-19 | Confirmed | High | 65.12 | 24.1% | 30 weeks |
| 2026-07-31 | Confirmed | Low | 61.22 | -6.0% | 6 weeks |
| 2026-08-07 | Forming | High | 62.62 | 2.3% | 1 weeks |