Actually, it's "for what it's worth". http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/FWIW http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=fwiw
Note that the model is predicting correctly, but out of phase. It appears to lead the market in phase by about 45 degrees. To get the market cycle, a Hilbert transform is often used: http://books.google.com/books?id=_K...Q6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=john ehlers phase&f=false The thing is, I don't understand (although I have a strong suspicion) why the phase lag is there, and how it changes dynamically. It doesn't matter though, as long as we are able to predict it even somewhat accurately, we can use options as the trading vehicle to time the market (to insulate us further from phase errors while minimizing theta). This is the last piece of the puzzle in practice to trade the model. As to the theory, I still have considerable amount of work.
I wonder if there is a relationship between the phase lag, and the delta of the optimal option(s) along the skew to use? Interesting idea, but probably a ratio'd risk reversal (.25/.75) is sufficient...
Interesting to see the predictions a bit back: http://www.distressedvolatility.com/2010/12/2011-s-forecasts-1250-to-1450-10y-yield.html Would not be surprised to see 1450 at this point, but I admit that I am impressed with the accuracy of these predictions > 1400. I was sure it was close to impossible. Of course, in gold terms, we have gone nowhere. Still....