I exemplify "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing" and I have a little knowledge about stocks and math. Fractals are a thing I can point to on T-shirts and mousepads from the '90s; ask me to derive a Mandelbrot set and I will hum loudly and walk away. Nonetheless this sounds a lot like technical analysis (IE phrenology) to me. Which, to be fair, the least-clickbaity-of-the-three-places-I've-seen-this article suggests:
- The question concerning the credibility of such a pessimistic forecast remains open. If financial markets do not change qualitatively in the coming years, the worst-case scenario of the development of events has the chance of becoming a reality. However, one must bear in mind the significant difference between the worlds of mathematics or physics and the world of finance. Mathematical laws and models constructed within physics are effective and relatively uncomplicated, among others due to the internal simplicity and immutability of the objects they concern. Financial markets are much more complex. Their participants are changeable: they remember, they learn, they can react both logically and emotionally. There is no shortage of examples proving that when knowledge about a law with the power to forecast is disseminated among a significant number of market participants, the market changes rapidly and the detected regularity disappears. Will the same happen in the case of the impending hyper-crash?
So I'm curious as to what, exactly, they're modeling and where the dependent and independent variables lie. After all, you can apply Elliott Wave theory to a coin toss if you pick your timescale correctly after the fact.