Author: NingNing By 2025, we had experienced less than four complete four-year cycles. However, basic statistical knowledge tells us that any conclusions drawn from extremely small statistical sample sizes (only three valid data points) require careful verification, rather than simple blind faith. In predicting large market cycles with small samples, the Bayesian probability method for deriving the correlation between 25Q4 and 19Q4 is more valuable than the four-year cycle theory. The 25Q4 criterion for 19Q4 can be converted into Bayesian formula notation: P(Bear Market | Merrill Lynch Clock Stagflation) = [P(Bear Market) / P(Merrill Lynch Clock Stagflation)] * (P(Merrill Lynch Clock Stagflation | Bear Market)) Bayesian probability parameter estimation P (Bear Market) - Prior Probability Since 1929: The S&P 500 has experienced 27 bear markets. Average frequency: once every 3.5 years Annual probability: Approximately 28.6% Quarterly probability (Q4-Q1 span): Approximately 15-20% Conservative estimate: P (bear market) ≈ 18% P(Stagflation → Recession) - Merrill Lynch Clock Transition Probability Historical probability of transition from stagflation to recession: The stagflation of the 1970s ultimately led to three recessions in 1973-74, 1980, and 1981-82. 2000-2001: The bursting of the tech bubble and a mild recession 2007-2008: Financial crisis, deep recession 2011-2012: European debt crisis, not fully recovered (avoided) 2018-2019: Trade war concerns, successful soft landing Statistical estimation: There have been approximately six "stagflation → recession" scenarios in the past 50 years. Four of them turned into a recession (66%). Two soft landings (34%) Current environment adjustments: The Federal Reserve actively cut interest rates (vs. passively raised interest rates in the 1970s). Labor market resilience (vs. 2008 financial systemic risk) Tariff policy uncertainty Global pressure to de-dollarize Estimated: P(stagflation → recession) ≈ 40-50% (median 45%) P(Stagflation → Recession | Bear Market) - Likelihood Probability Under the condition of a bear market, the probability of experiencing "stagflation → recession": Historical bear market classification: Recession-type bear markets (12 times): 1929, 1937, 1973-74, 1980, 1981-82, 1990, 2000-02, 2007-09, 2020, 2022 Non-recessionary bear markets (15 times): Other technical corrections In 12 recession-type bear markets: Periods that experienced stagflation: 1973-74, 1980, 1981-82, 2007-08 (approximately 4 times). Those that did not experience stagflation: 1929 (deflation), 2020 (pandemic impact), 2022 (pure inflation). Estimated: P(Stagflation → Recession | Bear Market) ≈ 33% Bayesian computation Standard formula: P(Bear Market | Stagflation → Recession) = P(Stagflation → Recession | Bear Market) × P(Bear Market) / P(Stagflation → Recession) = 0.33 × 0.18 / 0.45 = 0.0594 / 0.45 = 0.132 = 13.2% Scenario Analysis Matrix Key Difference Analysis: Why is the probability low? Overall Conclusion P(25Q4-26Q1 Bear Market) ≈ 15-20% Confidence interval: Lower limit (optimistic): 12% Median (benchmark): 17% Upper limit (pessimistic): 25% Strategy Tactical defense is needed, not strategic retreat.Author: NingNing By 2025, we had experienced less than four complete four-year cycles. However, basic statistical knowledge tells us that any conclusions drawn from extremely small statistical sample sizes (only three valid data points) require careful verification, rather than simple blind faith. In predicting large market cycles with small samples, the Bayesian probability method for deriving the correlation between 25Q4 and 19Q4 is more valuable than the four-year cycle theory. The 25Q4 criterion for 19Q4 can be converted into Bayesian formula notation: P(Bear Market | Merrill Lynch Clock Stagflation) = [P(Bear Market) / P(Merrill Lynch Clock Stagflation)] * (P(Merrill Lynch Clock Stagflation | Bear Market)) Bayesian probability parameter estimation P (Bear Market) - Prior Probability Since 1929: The S&P 500 has experienced 27 bear markets. Average frequency: once every 3.5 years Annual probability: Approximately 28.6% Quarterly probability (Q4-Q1 span): Approximately 15-20% Conservative estimate: P (bear market) ≈ 18% P(Stagflation → Recession) - Merrill Lynch Clock Transition Probability Historical probability of transition from stagflation to recession: The stagflation of the 1970s ultimately led to three recessions in 1973-74, 1980, and 1981-82. 2000-2001: The bursting of the tech bubble and a mild recession 2007-2008: Financial crisis, deep recession 2011-2012: European debt crisis, not fully recovered (avoided) 2018-2019: Trade war concerns, successful soft landing Statistical estimation: There have been approximately six "stagflation → recession" scenarios in the past 50 years. Four of them turned into a recession (66%). Two soft landings (34%) Current environment adjustments: The Federal Reserve actively cut interest rates (vs. passively raised interest rates in the 1970s). Labor market resilience (vs. 2008 financial systemic risk) Tariff policy uncertainty Global pressure to de-dollarize Estimated: P(stagflation → recession) ≈ 40-50% (median 45%) P(Stagflation → Recession | Bear Market) - Likelihood Probability Under the condition of a bear market, the probability of experiencing "stagflation → recession": Historical bear market classification: Recession-type bear markets (12 times): 1929, 1937, 1973-74, 1980, 1981-82, 1990, 2000-02, 2007-09, 2020, 2022 Non-recessionary bear markets (15 times): Other technical corrections In 12 recession-type bear markets: Periods that experienced stagflation: 1973-74, 1980, 1981-82, 2007-08 (approximately 4 times). Those that did not experience stagflation: 1929 (deflation), 2020 (pandemic impact), 2022 (pure inflation). Estimated: P(Stagflation → Recession | Bear Market) ≈ 33% Bayesian computation Standard formula: P(Bear Market | Stagflation → Recession) = P(Stagflation → Recession | Bear Market) × P(Bear Market) / P(Stagflation → Recession) = 0.33 × 0.18 / 0.45 = 0.0594 / 0.45 = 0.132 = 13.2% Scenario Analysis Matrix Key Difference Analysis: Why is the probability low? Overall Conclusion P(25Q4-26Q1 Bear Market) ≈ 15-20% Confidence interval: Lower limit (optimistic): 12% Median (benchmark): 17% Upper limit (pessimistic): 25% Strategy Tactical defense is needed, not strategic retreat.

Why might the "four-year cycle theory" be wrong? Using Bayes' theorem to calculate market risk at the end of 2025.

2025/11/10 20:00
3 min read
For feedback or concerns regarding this content, please contact us at crypto.news@mexc.com

Author: NingNing

By 2025, we had experienced less than four complete four-year cycles. However, basic statistical knowledge tells us that any conclusions drawn from extremely small statistical sample sizes (only three valid data points) require careful verification, rather than simple blind faith.

In predicting large market cycles with small samples, the Bayesian probability method for deriving the correlation between 25Q4 and 19Q4 is more valuable than the four-year cycle theory.

The 25Q4 criterion for 19Q4 can be converted into Bayesian formula notation: P(Bear Market | Merrill Lynch Clock Stagflation) = [P(Bear Market) / P(Merrill Lynch Clock Stagflation)] * (P(Merrill Lynch Clock Stagflation | Bear Market))

Bayesian probability parameter estimation

P (Bear Market) - Prior Probability

Since 1929: The S&P 500 has experienced 27 bear markets.

Average frequency: once every 3.5 years

Annual probability: Approximately 28.6%

Quarterly probability (Q4-Q1 span): Approximately 15-20%

Conservative estimate: P (bear market) ≈ 18%

P(Stagflation → Recession) - Merrill Lynch Clock Transition Probability

Historical probability of transition from stagflation to recession:

The stagflation of the 1970s ultimately led to three recessions in 1973-74, 1980, and 1981-82.

2000-2001: The bursting of the tech bubble and a mild recession

2007-2008: Financial crisis, deep recession

2011-2012: European debt crisis, not fully recovered (avoided)

2018-2019: Trade war concerns, successful soft landing

Statistical estimation:

There have been approximately six "stagflation → recession" scenarios in the past 50 years.

Four of them turned into a recession (66%).

Two soft landings (34%)

Current environment adjustments:

The Federal Reserve actively cut interest rates (vs. passively raised interest rates in the 1970s).

Labor market resilience (vs. 2008 financial systemic risk)

Tariff policy uncertainty

Global pressure to de-dollarize

Estimated: P(stagflation → recession) ≈ 40-50% (median 45%)

P(Stagflation → Recession | Bear Market) - Likelihood Probability

Under the condition of a bear market, the probability of experiencing "stagflation → recession":

Historical bear market classification:

Recession-type bear markets (12 times): 1929, 1937, 1973-74, 1980, 1981-82, 1990, 2000-02, 2007-09, 2020, 2022

Non-recessionary bear markets (15 times): Other technical corrections

In 12 recession-type bear markets:

Periods that experienced stagflation: 1973-74, 1980, 1981-82, 2007-08 (approximately 4 times).

Those that did not experience stagflation: 1929 (deflation), 2020 (pandemic impact), 2022 (pure inflation).

Estimated: P(Stagflation → Recession | Bear Market) ≈ 33%

Bayesian computation

Standard formula:

P(Bear Market | Stagflation → Recession) = P(Stagflation → Recession | Bear Market) × P(Bear Market) / P(Stagflation → Recession)

= 0.33 × 0.18 / 0.45

= 0.0594 / 0.45

= 0.132 = 13.2%

Scenario Analysis Matrix

Key Difference Analysis: Why is the probability low?

Overall Conclusion

P(25Q4-26Q1 Bear Market) ≈ 15-20%

Confidence interval:

Lower limit (optimistic): 12%

Median (benchmark): 17%

Upper limit (pessimistic): 25%

Strategy

Tactical defense is needed, not strategic retreat.

Market Opportunity
Moonveil Logo
Moonveil Price(MORE)
$0.000137
$0.000137$0.000137
-6.03%
USD
Moonveil (MORE) Live Price Chart
Disclaimer: The articles reposted on this site are sourced from public platforms and are provided for informational purposes only. They do not necessarily reflect the views of MEXC. All rights remain with the original authors. If you believe any content infringes on third-party rights, please contact crypto.news@mexc.com for removal. MEXC makes no guarantees regarding the accuracy, completeness, or timeliness of the content and is not responsible for any actions taken based on the information provided. The content does not constitute financial, legal, or other professional advice, nor should it be considered a recommendation or endorsement by MEXC.

You May Also Like

Franklin Templeton CEO Dismisses 50bps Rate Cut Ahead FOMC

Franklin Templeton CEO Dismisses 50bps Rate Cut Ahead FOMC

The post Franklin Templeton CEO Dismisses 50bps Rate Cut Ahead FOMC appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. Franklin Templeton CEO Jenny Johnson has weighed in on whether the Federal Reserve should make a 25 basis points (bps) Fed rate cut or 50 bps cut. This comes ahead of the Fed decision today at today’s FOMC meeting, with the market pricing in a 25 bps cut. Bitcoin and the broader crypto market are currently trading flat ahead of the rate cut decision. Franklin Templeton CEO Weighs In On Potential FOMC Decision In a CNBC interview, Jenny Johnson said that she expects the Fed to make a 25 bps cut today instead of a 50 bps cut. She acknowledged the jobs data, which suggested that the labor market is weakening. However, she noted that this data is backward-looking, indicating that it doesn’t show the current state of the economy. She alluded to the wage growth, which she remarked is an indication of a robust labor market. She added that retail sales are up and that consumers are still spending, despite inflation being sticky at 3%, which makes a case for why the FOMC should opt against a 50-basis-point Fed rate cut. In line with this, the Franklin Templeton CEO said that she would go with a 25 bps rate cut if she were Jerome Powell. She remarked that the Fed still has the October and December FOMC meetings to make further cuts if the incoming data warrants it. Johnson also asserted that the data show a robust economy. However, she noted that there can’t be an argument for no Fed rate cut since Powell already signaled at Jackson Hole that they were likely to lower interest rates at this meeting due to concerns over a weakening labor market. Notably, her comment comes as experts argue for both sides on why the Fed should make a 25 bps cut or…
Share
BitcoinEthereumNews2025/09/18 00:36
Polygon Tops RWA Rankings With $1.1B in Tokenized Assets

Polygon Tops RWA Rankings With $1.1B in Tokenized Assets

The post Polygon Tops RWA Rankings With $1.1B in Tokenized Assets appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. Key Notes A new report from Dune and RWA.xyz highlights Polygon’s role in the growing RWA sector. Polygon PoS currently holds $1.13 billion in RWA Total Value Locked (TVL) across 269 assets. The network holds a 62% market share of tokenized global bonds, driven by European money market funds. The Polygon POL $0.25 24h volatility: 1.4% Market cap: $2.64 B Vol. 24h: $106.17 M network is securing a significant position in the rapidly growing tokenization space, now holding over $1.13 billion in total value locked (TVL) from Real World Assets (RWAs). This development comes as the network continues to evolve, recently deploying its major “Rio” upgrade on the Amoy testnet to enhance future scaling capabilities. This information comes from a new joint report on the state of the RWA market published on Sept. 17 by blockchain analytics firm Dune and data platform RWA.xyz. The focus on RWAs is intensifying across the industry, coinciding with events like the ongoing Real-World Asset Summit in New York. Sandeep Nailwal, CEO of the Polygon Foundation, highlighted the findings via a post on X, noting that the TVL is spread across 269 assets and 2,900 holders on the Polygon PoS chain. The Dune and https://t.co/W6WSFlHoQF report on RWA is out and it shows that RWA is happening on Polygon. Here are a few highlights: – Leading in Global Bonds: Polygon holds 62% share of tokenized global bonds (driven by Spiko’s euro MMF and Cashlink euro issues) – Spiko U.S.… — Sandeep | CEO, Polygon Foundation (※,※) (@sandeepnailwal) September 17, 2025 Key Trends From the 2025 RWA Report The joint publication, titled “RWA REPORT 2025,” offers a comprehensive look into the tokenized asset landscape, which it states has grown 224% since the start of 2024. The report identifies several key trends driving this expansion. According to…
Share
BitcoinEthereumNews2025/09/18 00:40
OpenVPP accused of falsely advertising cooperation with the US government; SEC commissioner clarifies no involvement

OpenVPP accused of falsely advertising cooperation with the US government; SEC commissioner clarifies no involvement

PANews reported on September 17th that on-chain sleuth ZachXBT tweeted that OpenVPP ( $OVPP ) announced this week that it was collaborating with the US government to advance energy tokenization. SEC Commissioner Hester Peirce subsequently responded, stating that the company does not collaborate with or endorse any private crypto projects. The OpenVPP team subsequently hid the response. Several crypto influencers have participated in promoting the project, and the accounts involved have been questioned as typical influencer accounts.
Share
PANews2025/09/17 23:58