# GBPUSD Week W38-2026: Yield Pushes Toward 5% Yet Price Holds .# GBPUSD Week W38-2026: Yield Pushes Toward 5% Yet Price Holds Above 1.34308, Bears Have the Story but Not the Setup | 15 September 2026
**Reference data** | week 2026-W38
- Symbol: GBPUSD
- Week: 2026-W38
- Bias: bearish
- Conviction: skip
- Regime: ranging
- FX implication: mean_revert
- MTF alignment: bearish_mixed
- VWAP weekly: 1.35016
- TrendSL weekly: 1.34308
- Thesis snapshot close: 1.34844
- Current market price: 1.34888 (as of 2026-09-15T05:55:00+00:00; source mt5:GBPUSD.sml:1m)
- US 10Y yield: 4.96%
- US 2Y yield: 4.63%
- US 10Y real yield: 2.6%
- DXY: bias=bearish, close_price=99.325
## L0 - Regime Identification
The immediate news backdrop heading into this week is striking in its contradiction. The US 10-year Treasury yield rose toward 5%, its highest level since 2007, which mechanically supports the dollar through the interest-rate channel -- higher yields attract foreign capital into US assets, lifting demand for USD. Simultaneously, GBPUSD fell to 1.3474, its lowest print since August 7, as Brent crude rose roughly 3% and safe-haven demand added a second tailwind to the dollar. On the UK side, July GDP printed at +0.4% month-on-month against a flat consensus, led by a matching 0.4% gain in services -- a genuine upside surprise that gives the Bank of England slightly more room to hold rates firm. Both the Federal Reserve decision and the Bank of England decision remained unknown at analysis time, meaning the central-bank story is incomplete.
With all of that as backdrop, the regime reads as **ranging** (confidence 0.70). The FX implication of a ranging regime is mean reversion -- price tends to oscillate back toward equilibrium rather than trend cleanly in one direction. That framing matters because it immediately warns against treating the recent dip toward 1.3474 as the beginning of a sustained breakdown.
## L1 - Driver Stack
The bearish case rests on a single macro pillar, with everything else either silent or mildly conflicting:
-> ** Fed hawkishness / rising real yield (USD bullish):** The causal chain here is straightforward -- the Fed holds a restrictive stance, real yields rise (10Y real yield at 2.6%), which makes holding USD-denominated assets more attractive relative to alternatives, putting downward pressure on GBPUSD as the quote currency. A rising real yield (yield after stripping out inflation expectations) is the most durable form of USD support because it reflects genuine purchasing-power advantage, not just nominal rate noise.
-> **BOE vs Fed rate differential as structural context:** The rate differential -- the gap between what each central bank pays -- currently favors the dollar. When that gap widens in USD's favor, carry trades (strategies where traders borrow in lower-yielding currencies to hold higher-yielding ones) structurally disadvantage GBP. However, the July GDP beat keeps BOE rate expectations alive, partially narrowing this differential on the margin.
-> **TGA decline partially offsets USD bullish thesis:** The Treasury General Account fell 12.06% over four weeks to $843.7 billion (FRED, as of 2026-09-09). When the TGA drains, those funds flow back into the banking system, which historically eases USD funding conditions and can weigh on the dollar -- this partially conflicts with the hawkish USD thesis. It carries no calibrated directional score this week but cannot be ignored as a counterweight.
-> **Price action, COT, and retail positioning: all silent this week.** Retail GBPUSD positioning sits at 54% long / 46% short (fxssi, 2026-09-15) -- close enough to balanced that no contrarian lean exists. When retail is this evenly split, the positioning data offers no additional directional edge.
## L2 - Macro Snapshot
The 10Y yield at 4.96% sits just below the 5% threshold that historically triggers broader risk reassessment -- not because 5% is magical, but because it is a round number that concentrates options positioning and forces leveraged portfolios to revisit duration risk. The 2Y yield at 4.63% produces a 10Y-2Y spread of roughly 33 basis points positive, meaning the curve is no longer inverted in this segment -- a shift that has historically coincided with late-cycle USD strength rather than early-cycle weakness. The 10Y real yield at 2.6% is the figure that matters most for GBPUSD: at that level, the dollar offers a meaningful inflation-adjusted return, which sustains structural demand regardless of short-term risk-off fluctuations.
The US liquidity proxy (Fed assets minus TGA minus overnight reverse repo) stood at $5,896.5 billion as of 2026-09-09, up $96.7 billion over four weeks. That net expansion in system liquidity is modest but not negligible -- it softens the tightening impulse from high yields. SOFR minus IORB at -3.0 basis points (FRED, 2026-09-11) indicates overnight funding is functioning normally, with no signs of stress that would force a disorderly dollar squeeze.
VIX at 17.10 (yfinance, 2026-09-14) sits within the normal range for US equity volatility -- elevated enough to reflect uncertainty around the dual central bank decisions, but not at levels that historically trigger forced position liquidation. The CNN Fear and Greed index at 31/100 (2026-09-15) signals fear in US equities, which typically supports safe-haven dollar demand, though this is a US equity sentiment measure, not a direct FX positioning survey. DXY closed the thesis week at 99.325 with a bearish bias and a deliberate stand-aside conviction -- meaning even the dollar index itself lacks a clean directional signal this week, which matters because a genuinely strong USD impulse would normally show up in DXY first.
## L3 - Technical Structure
As of Tuesday, 15 September 2026 at 05:55 UTC (source: mt5:GBPUSD.sml:1m, near-realtime), GBPUSD trades at **1.34888**. The thesis snapshot close used as the analytical anchor is 1.34844.
Two precomputed structural facts define the current technical picture:
First, price at 1.34888 is **below the weekly VWAP at 1.35016**, testing from underneath -- by a margin of roughly 13 pips. VWAP (Volume Weighted Average Price) over a weekly period acts as the fairness benchmark: dealers and institutions use it to assess whether their fills are above or below the week's average cost. Price testing from below the weekly VWAP means sellers currently have the structural advantage at this timeframe, but price has not reclaimed that level.
Second, price at 1.34888 is **above the weekly TrendSL at 1.34308**, testing from above -- a gap of approximately 58 pips. The TrendSL (trend stop-loss level) is the threshold below which the medium-term trend structure would flip to confirmed bearish. The fact that price remains above it means the bearish directional label is **not yet confirmed by the technical structure**. This is an existing reality at the time of writing, not a hypothetical.
The multi-timeframe alignment reads as bearish-mixed, which in practice means lower timeframes are leaning bearish but higher timeframes have not confirmed -- a setup where momentum traders and trend followers can find themselves on opposite sides of the same trade.
## L4 - Intermarket Cross-Check
The DXY cross-reference is instructive. DXY carries a bearish bias with a stand-aside conviction at a close of 99.325 for the week. That combination -- bearish DXY but no actionable setup -- creates a direct tension with the GBPUSD bearish thesis. If the dollar index itself lacks enough confirmation to size a directional position, the case for aggressive GBPUSD shorts built primarily on USD strength becomes harder to defend. A weaker DXY, all else equal, would support GBPUSD rather than press it lower.
The multi-timeframe alignment on GBPUSD reads bearish-mixed (mean_revert FX implication). In practical terms, bearish-mixed alignment means the trade idea and the timeframe structure are not in agreement across all horizons -- which historically raises the probability of whipsaws and false breaks. Traders who see the bearish narrative clearly and act on it in isolation, without waiting for timeframe convergence, are most exposed to that whipsaw risk. The mean-revert implication reinforces the ranging regime: any sharp move lower may attract buying interest before a sustained trend develops, and any sharp move higher may be sold back toward the weekly equilibrium.
## L5 - Event Risk
This week carries two central bank decisions that will directly determine whether the rate differential story evolves or stalls. All dates below are sourced from ForexFactory calendar data (secondary source, not direct official issuer confirmation):
-> UK Claimant Count Change: 15/09/2026
-> UK CPI y/y: 16/09/2026
-> Federal Funds Rate decision: 16/09/2026
-> FOMC Economic Projections: 16/09/2026
-> FOMC Statement: 16/09/2026
-> FOMC Press Conference: 16/09/2026
-> MPC Official Bank Rate Votes: 17/09/2026
-> Official Bank Rate (BOE): 17/09/2026
-> Monetary Policy Summary (BOE): 17/09/2026
| Scenario | Probability |
|---|---|
| Fed holds, signals fewer cuts in dot plot; BOE holds with hawkish language -- rate differential narrows, GBPUSD recovers toward VWAP | Plausible, consistent with ranging regime |
| Fed holds, Powell signals prolonged restrictive stance; BOE cuts or signals cuts -- differential widens, bears get structural confirmation below 1.34308 | Bearish confirmation scenario |
| Fed surprises with a cut or strong dovish pivot; BOE holds -- GBP outperforms sharply, bearish thesis collapses | Low probability but tail risk; both outcomes were unknown at analysis time |
| Both central banks hold with neutral language -- no resolution, ranging continues, price oscillates between 1.34308 and 1.35016 | Consistent with current regime |
Note that both outcomes remained unknown at analysis time. Any positioning taken before these decisions carries binary event risk -- the pair's next 150-200 pip move is effectively locked inside the Fed and BOE announcements on 16-17 September.
## L6 - Conviction Scorecard
The overall bias is bearish, but the honest framing of this week's read is that the evidence is not yet convincing enough to size a directional position. The entire bearish case rests on the Fed hawkish / rising real yield signal. Price action contributes nothing confirming. COT data (institutional positioning, which is a lagged survey of futures participants -- note the brief does not specify the exact report week, net-position figure, or release date, so treat it as directional context only) is silent. The DXY itself carries a stand-aside read. Retail positioning is balanced. The technical structure has price above the level that would provide genuine bearish confirmation. That accumulation of non-confirmation is the story -- not a low score on a confidence scale, but a deliberate analytical choice to stand aside until one of the scenarios in L5 resolves.
## L7 - Time Horizon
**Near-term (into 16-17 September):** Price at 1.34888 is sandwiched between the weekly TrendSL at 1.34308 below and the weekly VWAP at 1.35016 above, testing underneath the VWAP. Within this window, the Fed and BOE decisions dominate. Direction is essentially binary and event-driven. The mean-revert regime implies that sharp pre-event moves in either direction may partially reverse once the catalyst lands.
**2-week horizon (the stated timeline):** If the Fed delivers a hawkish hold with a revised dot plot signaling fewer cuts, the rate differential widens and the bearish thesis gains its first technical confirmation if the weekly close drops below 1.34308. That would be the first moment the bearish label aligns with the price structure. Until then, the ranging regime contains the move.
**Medium-term (beyond 2 weeks):** The July UK GDP beat at +0.4% month-on-month is a genuine fundamental counterweight. If the BOE uses it as justification to maintain or raise rates, the rate differential could begin compressing, which would shift the structural bias back toward GBPUSD stability or modest recovery. The medium-term picture depends heavily on whether the 10Y yield sustaining near 5% creates contagion effects (equity stress, credit spread widening) that paradoxically weaken the dollar through risk-off carry unwinds -- a carry unwind being the rapid unwinding of positions where traders borrowed in low-yielding currencies to hold USD assets, which sells USD in the process.
## L8 - Invalidation Conditions
-> ** ** Price at 1.34888 is already above the weekly TrendSL at 1.34308. The technical structure contradicts the bearish bias from the outset. The bearish label reflects a macro-driven framework override, not a technically confirmed setup. Treat it accordingly.
-> ** ** A weekly close below the TrendSL weekly at 1.34308 would provide the first genuine bearish structural confirmation -- aligning the technical picture with the directional label for the first time this cycle. Without that confirmation, the bearish thesis remains macro-only.
-> ** ** Price sustained above the weekly VWAP at 1.35016 would represent short-term momentum moving against the thesis. Readers not currently positioned should wait to see how price resolves around the VWAP before assessing directional exposure. Readers already holding short exposure should reassess their own risk against the 1.34308 and 1.35016 levels as the two structural boundaries that define the current range.
**The trader trap this week:** Reading the bearish narrative correctly -- rising yields, hawkish Fed, rate differential favoring USD -- and then entering short before either central bank decision, only to get caught in the BOE or FOMC reaction move that temporarily sends price back through the weekly VWAP at 1.35016. The direction may ultimately prove right over two weeks; the timing around back-to-back central bank events on 16-17 September is where correctly-biased traders historically absorb the most unnecessary drawdown. The ranging regime and mean-revert implication mean the pair can spike 80-100 pips in either direction on the headlines before resuming any underlying trend -- and that spike is where stops get taken before the move resumes.
---
*This analysis is for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute financial advice.*
#GBPUSD #ForexTrading #FXAnalysis #CableForex #USDStrength #BankOfEngland #FederalReserve #FOMC #InterestRates #RealYield #ForexWeekly #MacroFX #CentralBanks #FXRegime #TradingView USDJPY W38 — the recoveries are getting weakerUSDJPY moved from around 160 at the beginning of September to 152.89 on September 8, a decline of roughly 4.4%. That move came alongside stronger Japanese wage data, rising expectations of further Bank of Japan tightening and a substantial reduction in speculative short-yen positions.
The scale matters. The Federal Reserve’s target range remains 3.50–3.75%, while the BOJ’s overnight policy-rate target is around 1.00%. The simple policy-rate gap is therefore 2.50–2.75 percentage points per year. A currency move of more than 4% can overwhelm a year of that indicative interest advantage. Actual carry returns depend on funding rates, instruments, hedging and costs, but the comparison explains why persistent yen appreciation can change the incentive to rebuild dollar positions.
At the same time, US Treasury yields have moved above 5%, Brent has traded above $100, and companies such as Oracle are reporting strong growth alongside substantial financing requirements. This leaves markets facing two related questions: whether the dollar’s yield advantage can keep attracting buyers, and whether equities can continue absorbing the cost of financing growth.
This week’s Fed and BOJ meetings provide a test of both.
WHY THE EARLIER USDJPY DECLINES WERE BOUGHT BACK
The April intervention episode illustrates the earlier pattern. On April 30, USDJPY moved from 160.72 to as low as 155.50 as authorities supported the yen. By late July, the pair had reached 163.99. Buyers had recovered the intervention decline and taken the exchange rate above the earlier high.
There was an economic incentive for that recovery. Official yen purchases can move the exchange rate quickly, but they do not automatically remove the interest-rate advantage of dollar assets. Once the official buying subsides, that advantage can continue attracting capital, provided investors expect the currency risk to remain manageable.
For someone borrowing yen to hold dollar assets, a lower USDJPY entry can therefore become attractive again if the expected interest income remains sufficient and the exchange rate subsequently stabilises. Japan’s exposure to expensive imported energy adds another potential source of pressure on the yen.
The July operation changed the policy backdrop. Japan’s Ministry of Finance confirmed that it purchased yen in coordination with the US Treasury on July 31. Investors positioned for further yen depreciation consequently faced the possibility of coordinated official action.
Even that intervention did not produce a one-way reversal. USDJPY was back near 160 by September 1. Much of the initial yen appreciation had been surrendered, although the July peak remained unrecovered.
The stronger argument rests on what happened after that rebound: Japanese economic data improved, the expected policy path shifted and speculative positioning changed materially.
WHAT CHANGED IN SEPTEMBER
Japan’s September 8 releases supplied a fundamental basis for the latest yen rally. July nominal wages rose 4.7% from a year earlier, while inflation-adjusted wages increased 2.4%, their seventh consecutive monthly gain. Stronger purchasing power can support domestic demand and gives the BOJ more room to consider reducing monetary accommodation.
Second-quarter GDP growth was revised from 1.1% to 1.4% annualised. That was an improvement, although it remained below the 1.6% consensus forecast and private consumption was flat. The data supported further tightening without establishing an exceptionally strong economy.
The positioning change was substantial. CFTC figures showed non-commercial yen futures positions moving from 92,227 contracts net short to 10,796 net long in the week to September 8. That is evidence of a meaningful adjustment in the futures market, consistent with short covering contributing to the rally.
It also changes the risk assessment. Some of the obvious short-yen exposure has already been removed. The same positioning figures cannot support an assumption that an unchanged pool of speculative shorts is still waiting to cover.
By September 14, markets assigned roughly a 90% probability to a Fed hike, up from around 60% a week earlier, while a BOJ increase was also widely anticipated. If both central banks raise rates by 25 basis points, the immediate policy-rate gap remains unchanged.
The more consequential information would concern the subsequent path. A faster expected BOJ tightening cycle could reduce the prospective advantage of dollar exposure. A more aggressive Fed path could offset that change. What matters for USDJPY is how the two paths develop relative to each other.
WHY BRENT AND US YIELDS MATTER
The September 15 US10Y snapshot shows yields above 5%. The oil pressure is also measurable: Brent reached $109.80 intraday on September 14 before retreating to around $105.61 later in the session. Attacks on Saudi energy infrastructure and disruption to a pipeline used to bypass the Strait of Hormuz contributed to the supply concerns.
A supply-driven oil increase raises costs for businesses and reduces household purchasing power. If those costs feed through into broader prices, central banks can face weaker real activity and persistent inflation simultaneously. That makes a rapid return to easier monetary policy less straightforward.
Japan has a substantial exposure to this channel. The Middle East supplied 95.9% of its crude-oil imports in fiscal 2024. That measures the structural dependence, rather than the amount of supply currently disrupted, but it explains why developments in the region matter directly to Japan’s import bill.
The effects on the yen can pull in different directions. More expensive dollar-priced energy increases the import burden and can pressure the currency. Persistent imported inflation can also strengthen the argument for BOJ tightening. The resulting exchange-rate response depends on the balance between those forces.
Higher US yields add another complication. They can support demand for dollar assets while increasing the discount rates applied to future corporate cash flows. The same rates environment can therefore support USDJPY and pressure equity valuations.
However, US10Y alone cannot establish the full US–Japan rate differential. Japanese yields must be included, and ten-year yields are not equivalent to short-term funding rates. Yen appreciation alongside elevated US yields is worth investigating, but it does not by itself prove that the exchange rate has stopped responding to relative rates.
ORACLE SHOWS THE FINANCING QUESTION IN NUMBERS
Oracle’s September 10 results provide a concrete example of the capital requirements behind AI growth. Fiscal first-quarter revenue rose 30% to $19.3 billion. Cloud revenue increased 62% to $11.6 billion, including infrastructure revenue of $7.4 billion, up 121%. Adjusted earnings of $1.92 per share exceeded the $1.74 consensus.
Those figures explain why buyers initially responded positively. Oracle also reported $664 billion of remaining performance obligations, representing contracted future business. That supports visibility into demand, although it is not revenue already recognised or cash already earned.
The investment requirement remains substantial. Quarterly operating cash flow of $23.103 billion was below capital expenditure of $28.499 billion, producing negative free cash flow of $5.396 billion. Customer prepayments with a significant financing component contributed $11.363 billion to operating cash flow.
The positive side of that funding picture matters as well. Free cash flow was considerably better than the expected negative $9.56 billion. Oracle maintained its annual capital-spending plan of $90–95 billion and explained that prepayments and customer-supplied hardware reduced the additional capital required for many new contracts.
The initial share-price response was strong: Oracle traded about 7% higher before Friday’s open. It nevertheless finished September 11 down approximately 1.7%. The stock had already gained more than 8% between September 1 and September 10, making profit-taking a plausible explanation for part of the reversal.
The conclusion needs to stay proportional to the evidence. Oracle demonstrated strong demand and some improvement in financing relative to expectations. The share-price recovery still failed to hold.
My interpretation is that investors are weighing growth against the capital required to deliver it and the valuation already attached to that growth. Higher required returns reduce the present value of future cash flows, all else equal. Oracle makes the scale of that investment visible, but one session cannot establish that interest rates caused the selling.
The broader market test is whether further positive operating evidence can produce sustained recoveries across growth equities.
THE NIKKEI TEST
The Nikkei CFD snapshot shows a June peak around 73,000 and a September reading around 63,300, approximately 13% lower using those rounded chart levels. The August recovery reached roughly 69,000 before selling resumed. Japanese equities therefore enter the event window with an established failure to recover earlier highs.
The currency provides a plausible earnings channel. An unchanged dollar of overseas revenue translates into about 4.4% fewer yen at an exchange rate of 153 than at 160, before hedging. That can pressure exporters’ reported earnings even when their underlying overseas sales remain stable.
Importers can benefit from the same currency move through lower yen costs, and company exposures differ. The aggregate index response therefore has to be observed rather than assumed.
The recent September lows are the first practical reference. A break below them followed by a failed recovery would extend the existing weakness. If those lows continue to hold while the yen strengthens, the equity transmission required by the broader stress thesis remains absent.
A subsequent move through the July low would represent a further deterioration. The initial September break and the larger structural breakdown are separate stages.
NASDAQ AND THE LIMITS OF THE GAP ARGUMENT
Nasdaq provides a separate test outside Japan. This chart is the Pepperstone NAS100 cash CFD, so its gaps and session boundaries should be interpreted on that feed.
The recent opening gap attracted buyers, but the recovery did not restore the earlier September highs. That leaves the market testing whether demand near the recent lows can still produce a sustained advance.
Our historical QQQ study helps separate that observation from a statistical claim. Across 1,236 qualifying Mondays in the 1999–2026 sample, 95 opened at least 1% below Friday’s close. In 52 cases, Friday’s close had still not been revisited by Tuesday’s close.
From that Tuesday close, average five-day returns were approximately +0.07%, compared with +0.28% across the Tuesday benchmark. The study did not establish a statistically reliable directional advantage. The average worst subsequent excursion over ten trading days was more negative, approximately −5.9% versus −3.4%, but that descriptive difference is not a forecast for the current occurrence.
The useful question remains whether buyers can recover the broken structure. A rebound that fails below the earlier September highs, followed by sustained trading beneath the recent lows, would provide additional evidence of weakness. The opening gap alone does not.
Oracle supplies company-level evidence about growth and financing. Nasdaq supplies the index-level test of whether investors continue to absorb that environment.
WHAT WOULD CONFIRM IT
The first requirement is renewed USDJPY weakness that persists after the policy announcements. The September low around 153 is the initial reference area, with the exact low taken from the Pepperstone chart. A daily close below it, followed by a failed recovery of the broken area and another lower low, would strengthen the case that buyers are still struggling to rebuild the position.
The rates comparison should develop alongside that sequence. A narrowing US–Japan spread would support a policy-based explanation. Yen strength while the spread remains stable or widens would require additional evidence from positioning and flows.
The broader equity thesis needs participation from Japan and the US. On the four-hour charts, the Nikkei and NAS100 would need to close below their recent September lows and fail to recover those areas on subsequent rebounds.
The response to improving conditions would be particularly informative. If oil retreats or corporate results improve but equity recoveries repeatedly fail, that would strengthen the interpretation that selling extends beyond the immediate adverse headline.
Evidence from credit and funding markets would still be needed before describing the move as systemic deleveraging.
WHAT WOULD INVALIDATE IT
The immediate currency thesis weakens if USDJPY breaks its September low, promptly recovers it, establishes a higher low and then takes out the intervening rebound high. A sustained recovery above the August rebound high would challenge the larger sequence of incomplete recoveries.
The transmission thesis can fail independently. If the Nikkei and Nasdaq reclaim their recent September highs while USDJPY remains soft, the evidence would favour equity markets capable of absorbing yen appreciation.
A decline in oil followed by sustained equity recovery would show that removing a measurable macro pressure is sufficient to restore demand. Oracle and other growth companies sustaining advances after positive operating news would support the same interpretation.
Friday’s close on September 18 is the first review point for W38. If the required sequence has not developed, the weekly stress case remains unconfirmed. The reference swings should remain fixed when that assessment is made.
THE LIMITS
Policy rates, economic releases, corporate results and reported positioning changes provide evidence for the mechanisms discussed here. Their contribution to each market move remains an interpretation unless measured directly.
CFTC futures positions cover only part of the currency market and do not measure the total global carry trade. Oracle is one company, and its financing structure cannot be generalised to every growth business.
The QQQ study uses a small, clustered event sample and does not validate a trading strategy. Its Tuesday-close condition was still pending at the time of the September 15 morning snapshots.
The charts are dated September 15. The economic releases and market observations carry their respective dates and were not all captured simultaneously.
The central question is whether the dollar’s positive yield advantage can continue attracting buyers as currency losses, Japanese policy expectations and the financing demands of risk assets change. The next sustained recoveries—or their failure—will help answer it. NZDCHF: Bearish Now, But Is Smart Money Preparing the Reversal?NZDCHF is currently trading around 0.4710, and my short-term view remains bearish.
As long as price remains below 0.4750–0.4760, I see room for another bearish leg. A clean break below 0.4700 followed by a weak retest could expose 0.4665 and 0.4630, bringing price directly into the Weekly Demand Zone highlighted on my chart.
The latest COT data shows a clear divergence between NZD and CHF positioning. NZD Non-Commercial traders are now net long +6.2K contracts, with an impressive +14.8K increase in long positions in the latest report. CHF positioning tells the opposite story: Non-Commercials are approximately net short -30K contracts, while longs decreased and shorts increased further.
In other words, speculative positioning is increasingly supporting NZD strength relative to CHF, even though price action has not reflected it yet.
Seasonality provides another interesting confirmation. September has historically been weak for both currencies, but across the different historical windows I analyzed, CHF tends to underperform NZD. This creates a relative seasonal advantage for NZDCHF.
Retail sentiment, however, still supports my short-term bearish scenario. Around 56% of retail traders are currently long, with their average long entry significantly above current prices. I therefore wouldn't be surprised to see another move lower, potentially taking liquidity below 0.4700 before a more important reaction develops.
My approach is therefore quite simple: I am bearish in the short term, but I don't want to chase the downside.
I want to see whether price can reach 0.4630–0.4665. Once inside this Weekly Demand, I'll start looking for bullish confirmation on lower timeframes.
If a bullish structural shift develops there, I would have Weekly Demand, bullish NZD positioning, bearish CHF positioning and favorable relative seasonality all pointing in the same direction.
That would make the potential reversal far more interesting than buying NZDCHF at current prices.
Breakout signals further upside?GBP/CHF is falling towards the pivot, a pullback support level slightly above the 38.2% Fibonacci retracement, and could bounce towards the 1st resistance level at the 161.8% Fibonacci extension.
Pivot: 1.1004
1st Support: 1.0947
1st Resistance: 1.1077
Disclaimer:
The opinions given above constitute general market commentary and do not constitute the opinion or advice of IC Markets or any form of personal or investment advice.
Any opinions, news, research, analyses, prices, other information, or links to third-party sites contained on this website are provided on an "as-is" basis, are intended to be informative only, and are not advice, a recommendation, research, a record of our trading prices, an offer of, or solicitation for, a transaction in any financial instrument and thus should not be treated as such. The information provided does not involve any specific investment objectives, financial situation, or needs of any specific person who may receive it. Please be aware that past performance is not a reliable indicator of future performance and/or results. Past performance or forward-looking scenarios based upon the reasonable beliefs of the third-party provider are not a guarantee of future performance. Actual results may differ materially from those anticipated in forward-looking or past performance statements. IC Markets makes no representation or warranty and assumes no liability as to the accuracy or completeness of the information provided, nor any loss arising from any investment based on a recommendation, forecast, or any information supplied by any third party. EUR/USD | Next targets - Fiber bouncing back up?Well hello folks, good morning, hope you are well. Amirali here with another analysis.
As you can see in the 4H chart of EURUSD, it has been on bearish run ever since it reached the Supply Zone and has swept away the sellside liquidity below the 1.1566 level, and on its way to sweep the liquidity below the 1.1562 level. Currently, it's being traded at around 1.1566 level.
Now I expect Fiber to sweep the sellside liquidity below the 1.1562 level and then bounce back up. The ideal scenario is for Fiber is to drop to the FVG Consequent Encroachment which is at 1.1551 and then bounce up. With President Trump announcing yesterday that the IR is keen on making a deal with the US, this may ease down the geopolitical tensions and send EURUSD toward higher targets.
Targets: 1.1570, 1.1578, 1.1586, 1.1594 and 1.1600.
However, if EURUSD fails to stabilize above the FVG C.E., further drop towards the 1.1511 level can be expected, to sweep the sellside liquidity there and then use the Bullish OB as the stepping stone to bounce back up. Risky bullish reversal?EUR/JPY has bounced off the pivot and could potentially rise towards the 1st resistance.
Pivot: 178.31
1st Support: 177.84
1st Resistance: 179.55
Disclaimer:
The opinions given above constitute general market commentary and do not constitute the opinion or advice of IC Markets or any form of personal or investment advice.
Any opinions, news, research, analyses, prices, other information, or links to third-party sites contained on this website are provided on an "as-is" basis, are intended to be informative only, and are not advice, a recommendation, research, a record of our trading prices, an offer of, or solicitation for, a transaction in any financial instrument and thus should not be treated as such. The information provided does not involve any specific investment objectives, financial situation, or needs of any specific person who may receive it. Please be aware that past performance is not a reliable indicator of future performance and/or results. Past performance or forward-looking scenarios based upon the reasonable beliefs of the third-party provider are not a guarantee of future performance. Actual results may differ materially from those anticipated in forward-looking or past performance statements. IC Markets makes no representation or warranty and assumes no liability as to the accuracy or completeness of the information provided, nor any loss arising from any investment based on a recommendation, forecast, or any information supplied by any third party. Falling towards key support?EUR/GBP is falling towards the pivot, which acts as an overlap support and could bounce towards the 1st resistance.
Pivot: 0.8538
1st Suport: 0.8511
1st Resistance: 0.8577
Disclaimer:
The opinions given above constitute general market commentary and do not constitute the opinion or advice of IC Markets or any form of personal or investment advice.
Any opinions, news, research, analyses, prices, other information, or links to third-party sites contained on this website are provided on an "as-is" basis, are intended to be informative only, and are not advice, a recommendation, research, a record of our trading prices, an offer of, or solicitation for, a transaction in any financial instrument and thus should not be treated as such. The information provided does not involve any specific investment objectives, financial situation, or needs of any specific person who may receive it. Please be aware that past performance is not a reliable indicator of future performance and/or results. Past performance or forward-looking scenarios based upon the reasonable beliefs of the third-party provider are not a guarantee of future performance. Actual results may differ materially from those anticipated in forward-looking or past performance statements. IC Markets makes no representation or warranty and assumes no liability as to the accuracy or completeness of the information provided, nor any loss arising from any investment based on a recommendation, forecast, or any information supplied by any third party.
Short
