Skip to main content
Track Dow Theory
14 / 29
Search the archiveLibrary
Library

1999issue C031-2

Confirming an equity idea with rate, commodity, and index spreads

A weekly confirmation lattice reads one equity idea against the Dow Theory pair, a Treasury bond rate proxy, the commodity-bond link, and a relative-strength spread. Shared trends leave the local signal in a coherent regime; splits are treated as a reason to downgrade it.

  • Intermarket analysis places a single equity idea inside a weekly lattice of related price paths: the Dow Theory pair, a bond-futures rate proxy, commodity inflation pressure, and a peer or sector spread.
  • A shared run of higher highs in the industrial and transportation averages is treated as confirmation that the equity backdrop is intact. A divergence is a warning of possible trend trouble, not proof of an immediate reversal.
  • Rising bond-futures prices are read as falling yields and as equity support. Falling commodities are read as contained inflation that tends to support bonds; rising commodities are read as pressure on bond prices.
  • Relative-strength spreads and group confirmation show whether a peer index or a related commodity group is still making the same sequence of highs and lows as the local idea.
Entries in this reading3 entries
Current trackDow Theory29 readingsIntermarket analysis136 readingsPrice-indicator divergence142 readings

Intermarket analysis compares one market’s price path with another’s, including by viewing two charts together. Editorial framing: around a single equity idea, that comparison is organized as a weekly confirmation lattice. The lattice is the industrial versus transport trend, the bond-price rate backdrop, commodity inflation pressure, and a peer or sector spread.

The Dow Theory pair

When both the industrial and transportation averages are making higher highs, that shared trend is treated as confirmation that the equity backdrop is intact. The two series form the Dow Theory pair. If one of those averages prints a new high and the other does not, the split is a divergence. It is framed as a warning of possible trend trouble, not as proof of an immediate reversal, because the pair can realign later. In July 1998 the industrial average made a new high while the transportation average failed to confirm, and that divergence was presented as a forewarning of a later downtrend.

A rising-rate setting is treated as negative for equities and a falling-rate setting as supportive. Treasury bond futures are used as the rate proxy because their prices move opposite yield. Bond futures had been in an uptrend for more than a year, peaked in October 1998, then moved sideways while the stock market kept rising, which was read as a still-supportive stable-rate backdrop.

Falling commodity prices are treated as a sign of low inflation pressure that can support a bond rally, while rising commodity prices are treated as an inflation concern that tends to push bond prices lower. That pairing is the commodity-bond link.

Relative-strength spreads and group confirmation

A relative-strength spread is a side-by-side comparison of two equity indexes or sectors to see which path is still making higher highs and higher lows. During December 1998 the S&P 500 consolidated in a slight downward pattern while NASDAQ continued to print higher highs and higher lows, used as an example of superior NASDAQ relative strength. On weekly charts, a cyclical index peaked in July 1998 and had not made a new high in 1999, while a retail index had, illustrating sector-pair selection by relative trend.

Group confirmation checks whether a stock group is tracking the same sequence of highs and lows as the related commodity. After a fourth-quarter rally, gold traded a sequence of lower highs and lower lows and the gold-stock index followed the same path, used to confirm that group’s relative weakness versus the broader equity market. These cross-market links are not static and reward historical review.

Dow industrials make a July 1998 high the transports do not confirm

Weekly Dow Jones Industrial Average versus the Dow Jones Transportation Average from August 1997 through July 1998. Industrials recover from the October 1997 break and print a new high in July, while transports stall after the spring peak and fail to confirm. That split is the Dow Theory warning the note is teaching. Levels are read off the CQG weekly candles, not from a printed table.
Weekly Dow Jones Industrial Average versus the Dow Jones Transportation Average from August 1997 through July 1998. Industrials recover from the October 1997 break and print a new high in July, while transports stall after the spring peak and fail to confirm. That split is the Dow Theory warning the note is teaching. Levels are read off the CQG weekly candles, not from a printed table.DJIA vs DJTA · Weekly · 1997-08-01T00:00:00.000Z to 1998-07-31T00:00:00.000Z

CQG prints both averages with an extra trailing zero (90000 for a 9000 industrials print). Points are weekly closes taken off the candles and restated in conventional index points. Raster resolution will not support tick-level precision.

Educational research material, not investment advice. Historical source context does not establish present-day performance.
14 of 29 in the Dow Theory track
20011-3 pp.Next on Dow TheoryWhy trend, range, and Dow rules need separate testsTrend-following is a single testable procedure that follows and exploits the prevailing direction of prices over the system holding period.
All readings on this track · 29 readings
  1. 1982A bounded-risk entry separates a forecast from a trend
  2. 1984Critiquing reward bias, single-scale charts, and exact-turn forecasts
  3. 1990Constructing dual-average primary-trend confirmation
  4. 1991Two-average confirmation before a primary reversal call
  5. 1991Delayed confirmation is not Dow Theory divergence
  6. 1991Confirmation delay and breadth divergence in a two-average case
  7. 1992Utilities as a rate-regime lead for equities
  8. 1992Critiquing unconfirmed Dow rallies with volume
  9. 1993When Dow Theory signals fail after the decision-makers change
  10. 1994Market life expectancy as a risk filter
  11. 1994Score industrial and transport sync before calling an intermediate-trend signal
  12. 1997A 1995 industrial-average breakout mapped from component trends
  13. 1998Confirm Dow trends with Market breadth and Head and shoulders
  14. 1999Confirming an equity idea with rate, commodity, and index spreads
  15. 2001Why trend, range, and Dow rules need separate tests
  16. 2001Bear-market confirmation via prior correction troughs
  17. 2002Constructing a Dow line before breakout confirmation
  18. 2002Two-average confirmation as a swing-by-swing classroom drill
  19. 2002Withhold the hypothesis until the second average confirms: a 2001 case
  20. 2002A primary-bear case study in cycle speed, Dow theory, and pattern legs
  21. 2003Four index proxies as a bear-regime dashboard
  22. 2004Dual-average confirmation at shared prior highs
  23. 2004Confirmation as the second clock on a trend break
  24. 2004The confirmation-reaction planning window after a joint break
  25. 2005Dow confirmation as a two-average trend test
  26. 2008Related-average confirmation lag after a correction
  27. 2008Intermediate confirmation outranks secular phasing
  28. 2012Align swings to nested energy regimes
  29. 2016From nonconfirmation to a bearish primary trend change
By fieldIntermarket and spreads148 readingsBy year199959 readings
All 29 readings tagged Dow Theory
Also on Dow Theory5 readings
1992Utilities as a rate-regime lead for equities2003Four index proxies as a bear-regime dashboard1991Delayed confirmation is not Dow Theory divergence1991Confirmation delay and breadth divergence in a two-average case1991Two-average confirmation before a primary reversal call