AI BUY AND SELL BGThe Gk fundamental is a next gen level ai powered BUY and SELL system engineered for big market moves, it runs an embedded algorithm within a algorithm to detect breakout points before they happen giving traders insane results
works best and only 2h and 4h
Fundamental Analysis
Minimal S/R Zones with Volume StrengthHow it works
Pivot Detection
A pivot high is a candle whose high is greater than the highs of a certain number of candles before and after it.
A pivot low is a candle whose low is lower than the lows of a certain number of candles before and after it.
Parameters like Pivot Left Bars and Pivot Right Bars control how sensitive the pivots are.
Zone Creation
Pivot High → creates a Resistance zone.
Pivot Low → creates a Support zone.
Each zone is defined as a price range (top and bottom) and drawn horizontally for a given lookback length.
Volume Strength Filter
Volume Strength (%) = (Volume at Pivot / Volume SMA) × 100.
If the strength is below the minimum threshold (Min Strength %), the zone is ignored.
This ensures only pivots with significant trading activity create zones.
Zone Management
The indicator stores zones in arrays.
Max Zones per side prevents too many zones from being displayed at once.
Older zones are removed when new ones are added beyond the limit.
Visuals
Support zones → green label with Volume Strength %.
Resistance zones → red label with Volume Strength %.
Zones have semi-transparent boxes so price action remains visible.
TSI Indicator with Trailing StopAuthor: ProfitGang
Type: Indicator (visual + alerts). No orders are executed.
What it does
This tool combines the True Strength Index (TSI) with a simple tick-based trailing stop visualizer.
It plots buy/sell markers from a TSI cross with momentum confirmation and, if enabled, draws a trailing stop line that “ratchets” in your favor. It also shows a compact info table (position state, entry price, trailing status, and unrealized ticks).
Signal logic (summary)
TSI is computed with double EMA smoothing (user lengths).
Signals:
Buy when TSI crosses above its signal line and momentum (TSI–Signal histogram) improves, with TSI above your Buy Threshold.
Sell when TSI crosses below its signal line and momentum weakens, with TSI below your Sell Threshold.
Confirmation: Optional “Confirm on bar close” setting evaluates signals on closed bars to reduce repaint risk.
Trailing stop (visual only)
Units are ticks (uses the symbol’s min tick).
Start Trailing After (ticks): activates the trail only once price has moved in your favor by the set amount.
Trailing Stop (ticks): distance from price once active.
For longs: stop = close - trail; it never moves down.
For shorts: stop = close + trail; it never moves up.
Exits shown on chart when the trailing line is touched or an opposite signal occurs.
Note: This is a simulation for visualization and does not place, manage, or guarantee broker orders.
Inputs you can tune
TSI Settings: Long Length, Short Length, Signal Length, Buy/Sell thresholds, Confirm on Close.
Trailing Stop: Start Trailing After (ticks), Trailing Stop (ticks), Show/Hide trailing lines.
Display: Toggle chart signals, info table, and (optionally) TSI plots on the price chart.
Alerts included
TSI Buy / TSI Sell
Long/Short Trailing Activated
Long/Short Trail Exit
Tips for use
Timeframes/markets: Works on any symbol/timeframe that reports a valid min tick. If your market has large ticks, adjust the tick inputs accordingly.
TSI view: By default, TSI lines are hidden to avoid rescaling the price chart. Enable “Show TSI plots on price chart” if you want to see the oscillator inline.
Non-repainting note: With Confirm on bar close enabled, signals are evaluated on closed bars. Intrabar previews can change until the bar closes—this is expected behavior in TradingView.
Limitations
This is an indicator for education/research. It does not execute trades, and visuals may differ from actual broker fills.
Performance varies by market conditions; thresholds and trail settings should be tested by the user.
Disclaimer
Nothing here is financial advice. Markets involve risk, including possible loss of capital. Always do your own research and test on a demo before using any tool in live trading.
— ProfitGang
Financial Change % Table - ToluFinancial Change % Table which includes revenue , operating profit and earning per share . compares the financial data with previous quarter QoQ and previous year YoY . and shows the change in %.
Institutional level Indicator V5Smart money concept indicator with added VWAP for better understanding for fair price with relation to movement of price.
ZoneShift+StochZ+LRO + AI Breakout Bands [Combined]This composite Pine Script brings together four powerful trend and momentum tools into a single, easy-to-read overlay:
ZoneShift
Computes a dynamic “zone” around price via an EMA/HMA midpoint ± average high-low range.
Flags flips when price closes convincingly above or below that zone, coloring candles and drawing the zone lines in bullish or bearish hues.
Stochastic Z-Score
Converts your chosen price series into a statistical Z-score, then runs a Stochastic oscillator on it and HMA-smooths the result.
Marks momentum flips in extreme over-sold (below –2) or over-bought (above +2) territory.
Linear Regression Oscillator (LRO)
Builds a bar-indexed linear regression, normalizes it to standard deviations, and shows area-style up/down coloring.
Highlights local reversals when the oscillator crosses its own look-back values, and optionally plots LRO-colored candles on price.
AI Breakout Bands (Kalman + KNN)
Applies a Kalman filter to price, smooths it further with a KNN-weighted average, then measures mean-absolute-error bands around that smoothed line.
Colors the Kalman trend line and bands for bullish/bearish breaks, giving you a data-driven channel to trade.
Composite Signals & Alerts
Whenever the ZoneShift flip, Stoch Z-Score flip, and LRO reversal all agree and price breaks the AI bands in the same direction, the script plots a clear ▲ (bull) or ▼ (bear) on the chart and fires an alert. This triple-confirmation approach helps you zero in on high-probability reversal points, filtering out noise and combining trend, momentum, and statistical breakout criteria into one unified signal.
CVDD Z-ScoreCumulative Value Days Destroyed (CVDD) - The CVDD was created by Willy Woo and is the ratio of the cumulative value of Coin Days Destroyed in USD and the market age (in days). While this indicator is used to detect bottoms normally, an extension is used to allow detection of BTC tops. When the BTC price goes above the CVDD extension, BTC is generally considered to be overvalued. Because the "strength" of the BTC tops has decreased over the cycles, a logarithmic function for the extension was created by fitting past cycles as log extension = slope * time + intercept. This indicator is triggered for a top when the BTC price is above the CVDD extension. For the bottoms, the CVDD is shifted upwards at a default value of 120%. The slope, intercept, and CVDD bottom shift can all be modified in the script.
Now with the automatic Z-Score calculation for ease of classification of Bitcoin's valuation according to this metric.
Created for TRW.
Leader-Lagger DashboardSummary:
The ultimate frustration for a trader: being right on the idea, but wrong on the asset.
You correctly predict a market move, develop a solid bullish or bearish thesis, but the instrument you choose fails to follow through. Meanwhile, a correlated asset makes the exact move you anticipated, leaving you with a losing trade or a missed opportunity.
This common pitfall is precisely what the Leader/Lagger Dashboard is designed to solve.
The Solution: Instant Clarity on Relative Strength
The Leader/Lagger Dashboard provides a clear, real-time verdict on the relative strength between two correlated assets, such as ES (S&P 500 futures) and NQ (Nasdaq 100 futures).
By instantly identifying the Leader (the stronger asset) and the Lagger (the weaker asset), it empowers you to focus your capital on the instrument with the highest probability of performing in line with your market view.
As shown in the example image, if your idea is to short the market, choosing the "Weak" asset (ES) results in a winning trade, while shorting the "Strong" asset (NQ) would have failed. This tool helps you make that critical distinction before you enter.
How It Works
The engine at the core of this dashboard analyzes the price action of two assets on a higher timeframe (defaulting to 90 minutes). It measures how the current bar's high and low are performing relative to the previous bar's range for each asset. By comparing these normalized values, it generates a score to determine which asset is exhibiting stronger momentum (the Leader) and which is showing weakness (the Lagger).
A tie-breaking mechanism using a lower timeframe ensures you always have a decisive verdict.
How to Use It
The principle is simple: Go long the leader, and short the lagger.
If you are Bullish: Look for the asset marked "Strong." This is the instrument most likely to lead the upward move.
If you are Bearish: Look for the asset marked "Weak." This is the instrument most likely to lead the downward move.
By aligning your trade execution with the market's internal momentum, you dramatically increase your odds of success and avoid the frustration of trading against underlying strength or weakness.
Key Features
Instant Verdict: A simple on-chart table displays a "Strong" or "Weak" verdict for each asset.
Focus on the Leader: Easily identify which asset is leading the move to align your trades with momentum.
Avoid the Lagger: Steer clear of the weaker asset that might chop around or reverse, even if your directional bias is correct.
Fully Customizable: Change the two assets to any symbols you trade (e.g., GOLD vs. SILVER, EURUSD vs. GBPUSD).
Adjustable Display: Control the table's position and font size to perfectly fit your chart layout. The table is designed to be visible on lower timeframes (5-minutes and under) to assist with day trading execution.
This tool is designed to be a crucial part of your decision-making process, providing an objective layer of confirmation for your trading ideas. so Stop guessing and start trading the right asset.
As always, use this indicator in conjunction with your own complete analysis and risk management strategy.
Bitcoin Logarithmic Growth Curve 2025 Z-Score"The Bitcoin logarithmic growth curve is a concept used to analyze Bitcoin's price movements over time. The idea is based on the observation that Bitcoin's price tends to grow exponentially, particularly during bull markets. It attempts to give a long-term perspective on the Bitcoin price movements.
The curve includes an upper and lower band. These bands often represent zones where Bitcoin's price is overextended (upper band) or undervalued (lower band) relative to its historical growth trajectory. When the price touches or exceeds the upper band, it may indicate a speculative bubble, while prices near the lower band may suggest a buying opportunity.
Unlike most Bitcoin growth curve indicators, this one includes a logarithmic growth curve optimized using the latest 2024 price data, making it, in our view, superior to previous models. Additionally, it features statistical confidence intervals derived from linear regression, compatible across all timeframes, and extrapolates the data far into the future. Finally, this model allows users the flexibility to manually adjust the function parameters to suit their preferences.
The Bitcoin logarithmic growth curve has the following function:
y = 10^(a * log10(x) - b)
In the context of this formula, the y value represents the Bitcoin price, while the x value corresponds to the time, specifically indicated by the weekly bar number on the chart.
How is it made (You can skip this section if you’re not a fan of math):
To optimize the fit of this function and determine the optimal values of a and b, the previous weekly cycle peak values were analyzed. The corresponding x and y values were recorded as follows:
113, 18.55
240, 1004.42
451, 19128.27
655, 65502.47
The same process was applied to the bear market low values:
103, 2.48
267, 211.03
471, 3192.87
676, 16255.15
Next, these values were converted to their linear form by applying the base-10 logarithm. This transformation allows the function to be expressed in a linear state: y = a * x − b. This step is essential for enabling linear regression on these values.
For the cycle peak (x,y) values:
2.053, 1.268
2.380, 3.002
2.654, 4.282
2.816, 4.816
And for the bear market low (x,y) values:
2.013, 0.394
2.427, 2.324
2.673, 3.504
2.830, 4.211
Next, linear regression was performed on both these datasets. (Numerous tools are available online for linear regression calculations, making manual computations unnecessary).
Linear regression is a method used to find a straight line that best represents the relationship between two variables. It looks at how changes in one variable affect another and tries to predict values based on that relationship.
The goal is to minimize the differences between the actual data points and the points predicted by the line. Essentially, it aims to optimize for the highest R-Square value.
Below are the results:
snapshot
snapshot
It is important to note that both the slope (a-value) and the y-intercept (b-value) have associated standard errors. These standard errors can be used to calculate confidence intervals by multiplying them by the t-values (two degrees of freedom) from the linear regression.
These t-values can be found in a t-distribution table. For the top cycle confidence intervals, we used t10% (0.133), t25% (0.323), and t33% (0.414). For the bottom cycle confidence intervals, the t-values used were t10% (0.133), t25% (0.323), t33% (0.414), t50% (0.765), and t67% (1.063).
The final bull cycle function is:
y = 10^(4.058 ± 0.133 * log10(x) – 6.44 ± 0.324)
The final bear cycle function is:
y = 10^(4.684 ± 0.025 * log10(x) – -9.034 ± 0.063)
The main Criticisms of growth curve models:
The Bitcoin logarithmic growth curve model faces several general criticisms that we’d like to highlight briefly. The most significant, in our view, is its heavy reliance on past price data, which may not accurately forecast future trends. For instance, previous growth curve models from 2020 on TradingView were overly optimistic in predicting the last cycle’s peak.
This is why we aimed to present our process for deriving the final functions in a transparent, step-by-step scientific manner, including statistical confidence intervals. It's important to note that the bull cycle function is less reliable than the bear cycle function, as the top band is significantly wider than the bottom band.
Even so, we still believe that the Bitcoin logarithmic growth curve presented in this script is overly optimistic since it goes parly against the concept of diminishing returns which we discussed in this post:
This is why we also propose alternative parameter settings that align more closely with the theory of diminishing returns."
Now with Z-Score calculation for easy and constant valuation classification of Bitcoin according to this metric.
Created for TRW
Martin Strategy - No Loss Exit v3Martin Strategy1.0 Martin Strategy1.0 Martin Strategy1.0 Martin Strategy1.0 Martin Strategy1.0 Martin Strategy1.0
Multi-Tool Nasdaq US100 IndikatorA combination of several tools such as moving averages (EMA 50, 100, 200), Fibonacci retracements, pivot points, RSI (Relative Strength Index), order blocks, fair value gaps, supply and demand zones, and a simple volume profile.
The indicator is designed to enable high profitability by combining various established technical analysis approaches into one tool, facilitating decision-making regarding entry and exit points.
The script can be integrated and used directly in TradingView by creating a new indicator script and pasting the code there.
Bitcoin: Pi Cycle Top & Bottom Indicator Z ScoreIndicator Overview
The Pi Cycle Top Indicator has historically been effective in picking out the timing of market cycle highs within 3 days.
It uses the 111 day moving average (111DMA) and a newly created multiple of the 350 day moving average, the 350DMA x 2.
Note: The multiple is of the price values of the 350DMA, not the number of days.
For the past three market cycles, when the 111DMA moves up and crosses the 350DMA x 2 we see that it coincides with the price of Bitcoin peaking.
It is also interesting to note that 350 / 111 is 3.153, which is very close to Pi = 3.142. In fact, it is the closest we can get to Pi when dividing 350 by another whole number.
It once again demonstrates the cyclical nature of Bitcoin price action over long time frames. However, in this instance, it does so with a high degree of accuracy over Bitcoin's adoption phase of growth.
Bitcoin Price Prediction Using This Tool
The Pi Cycle Top Indicator forecasts the cycle top of Bitcoin’s market cycles. It attempts to predict the point where Bitcoin price will peak before pulling back. It does this on major high time frames and has picked the absolute tops of Bitcoin’s major price moves throughout most of its history.
How It Can Be Used
Pi Cycle Top is useful to indicate when the market is very overheated. So overheated that the shorter-term moving average, which is the 111-day moving average, has reached an x2 multiple of the 350-day moving average. Historically, it has proved advantageous to sell Bitcoin around this time in Bitcoin's price cycles.
It is also worth noting that this indicator has worked during Bitcoin's adoption growth phase, the first 15 years or so of Bitcoin's life. With the launch of Bitcoin ETF's and Bitcoin's increased integration into the global financial system, this indicator may cease to be relevant at some point in this new market structure.
Added the Z-Score metric for easy classification of the value of Bitcoin according to this indicator.
Created for TRW
Opening Range Breakout (9:30 - 9:45 EST)Here's a Pine Script (v5) for TradingView that plots the Opening Range Breakout (ORB) lines from 9:30 AM to 9:45 AM EST on a 15-minute chart.
It draws a green line at the high of the opening range and a red line at the low, both extending through the rest of the day.
Gold Killzone Bias Suite🟡 Gold Killzone Bias Suite
The Gold Killzone Bias Suite is an advanced institutional-grade tool designed to generate high-confidence directional bias for XAU/USD (Gold) during the London and New York killzones.
Built for traders using a structured, confluence-driven approach, this tool blends price action, smart money principles, momentum, and volume into a real-time bias engine with a clean, easy-to-read dashboard.
🔧 Key Features
🕰️ Session-Based Bias (London / New York)
Independent bias calculation per session
Killzone times customizable with timezone support
Background highlighting (blue/red) for each session
📊 VWAP Engine
Reclaim & rejection detection
VWAP deviation alerts
Daily HTF VWAP integration
Score impact based on VWAP behaviour
📉 Market Structure (CHoCH / BOS)
Detects swing highs/lows
Labels bullish/bearish CHoCHs
Structure score contributes to session bias
💧 Liquidity Grabs
Detects stop hunts above highs / below lows
Confirms with candle rejection (body % filter)
Plots labels and adds to bias scoring
⚡ Momentum Filters
RSI: Bullish >55, Bearish <45
MACD: Histogram + Signal Line crossovers
Combined momentum score used in bias
🧠 Smart Money Proximity
Optional FVG/OB score toggle (placeholder for custom logic)
Adds static confluence for proximity-based setups
⏫ Higher Time Frame Context
Daily VWAP comparison
4H high/low structure breaks
Adds trend score to current session bias
🧠 How Bias Works
The suite uses a scoring model. Each confluence adds or subtracts points:
VWAP reclaim/reject: ±30
CHoCH/BOS: ±30
Liquidity grab: ±20
RSI/MACD: ±10
FVG/OB Proximity: +10
Daily VWAP trend: ±10
H4 Trend Break: ±10
Final Bias:
Bullish if score ≥ +20
Bearish if score ≤ -20
Neutral if between -19 and +19
A confidence % (capped at 100) is also shown, along with the contributing confluences (VWAP, Structure, Liquidity, etc.).
📋 Dashboard
A real-time dashboard shows for each session:
Session name and time
Bias (Bullish / Bearish / Neutral)
Confidence (%)
Confluences used
Position can be moved (Top Left, Top Right, etc.). Designed to be unobtrusive yet informative.
🧪 Best Practices
Use on 15m / 5m charts for intraday setups
Confirm with D1 or H4 structure for directional context
Combine with OB/FVG zones or SMT for entries
Use Trading View alerts for bias flips or liquidity grabs (custom logic can be added)
Bar Replay compatible for back testing and journaling bias shifts
🔐 Notes
Does not generate trade signals or alerts by default
Focused on bias generation and confluence stacking
Compatible with funded account trading models
📈 Built for traders who want a systematic, score-based approach to identifying directional edge in high-volume gold sessions.
Year Dividers with LabelsDraws year start markers due visually show start of a year. Useful when looking at year seasonality and related factors
Adaptive Investment Timing ModelA COMPREHENSIVE FRAMEWORK FOR SYSTEMATIC EQUITY INVESTMENT TIMING
Investment timing represents one of the most challenging aspects of portfolio management, with extensive academic literature documenting the difficulty of consistently achieving superior risk-adjusted returns through market timing strategies (Malkiel, 2003).
Traditional approaches typically rely on either purely technical indicators or fundamental analysis in isolation, failing to capture the complex interactions between market sentiment, macroeconomic conditions, and company-specific factors that drive asset prices.
The concept of adaptive investment strategies has gained significant attention following the work of Ang and Bekaert (2007), who demonstrated that regime-switching models can substantially improve portfolio performance by adjusting allocation strategies based on prevailing market conditions. Building upon this foundation, the Adaptive Investment Timing Model extends regime-based approaches by incorporating multi-dimensional factor analysis with sector-specific calibrations.
Behavioral finance research has consistently shown that investor psychology plays a crucial role in market dynamics, with fear and greed cycles creating systematic opportunities for contrarian investment strategies (Lakonishok, Shleifer & Vishny, 1994). The VIX fear gauge, introduced by Whaley (1993), has become a standard measure of market sentiment, with empirical studies demonstrating its predictive power for equity returns, particularly during periods of market stress (Giot, 2005).
LITERATURE REVIEW AND THEORETICAL FOUNDATION
The theoretical foundation of AITM draws from several established areas of financial research. Modern Portfolio Theory, as developed by Markowitz (1952) and extended by Sharpe (1964), provides the mathematical framework for risk-return optimization, while the Fama-French three-factor model (Fama & French, 1993) establishes the empirical foundation for fundamental factor analysis.
Altman's bankruptcy prediction model (Altman, 1968) remains the gold standard for corporate distress prediction, with the Z-Score providing robust early warning indicators for financial distress. Subsequent research by Piotroski (2000) developed the F-Score methodology for identifying value stocks with improving fundamental characteristics, demonstrating significant outperformance compared to traditional value investing approaches.
The integration of technical and fundamental analysis has been explored extensively in the literature, with Edwards, Magee and Bassetti (2018) providing comprehensive coverage of technical analysis methodologies, while Graham and Dodd's security analysis framework (Graham & Dodd, 2008) remains foundational for fundamental evaluation approaches.
Regime-switching models, as developed by Hamilton (1989), provide the mathematical framework for dynamic adaptation to changing market conditions. Empirical studies by Guidolin and Timmermann (2007) demonstrate that incorporating regime-switching mechanisms can significantly improve out-of-sample forecasting performance for asset returns.
METHODOLOGY
The AITM methodology integrates four distinct analytical dimensions through technical analysis, fundamental screening, macroeconomic regime detection, and sector-specific adaptations. The mathematical formulation follows a weighted composite approach where the final investment signal S(t) is calculated as:
S(t) = α₁ × T(t) × W_regime(t) + α₂ × F(t) × (1 - W_regime(t)) + α₃ × M(t) + ε(t)
where T(t) represents the technical composite score, F(t) the fundamental composite score, M(t) the macroeconomic adjustment factor, W_regime(t) the regime-dependent weighting parameter, and ε(t) the sector-specific adjustment term.
Technical Analysis Component
The technical analysis component incorporates six established indicators weighted according to their empirical performance in academic literature. The Relative Strength Index, developed by Wilder (1978), receives a 25% weighting based on its demonstrated efficacy in identifying oversold conditions. Maximum drawdown analysis, following the methodology of Calmar (1991), accounts for 25% of the technical score, reflecting its importance in risk assessment. Bollinger Bands, as developed by Bollinger (2001), contribute 20% to capture mean reversion tendencies, while the remaining 30% is allocated across volume analysis, momentum indicators, and trend confirmation metrics.
Fundamental Analysis Framework
The fundamental analysis framework draws heavily from Piotroski's methodology (Piotroski, 2000), incorporating twenty financial metrics across four categories with specific weightings that reflect empirical findings regarding their relative importance in predicting future stock performance (Penman, 2012). Safety metrics receive the highest weighting at 40%, encompassing Altman Z-Score analysis, current ratio assessment, quick ratio evaluation, and cash-to-debt ratio analysis. Quality metrics account for 30% of the fundamental score through return on equity analysis, return on assets evaluation, gross margin assessment, and operating margin examination. Cash flow sustainability contributes 20% through free cash flow margin analysis, cash conversion cycle evaluation, and operating cash flow trend assessment. Valuation metrics comprise the remaining 10% through price-to-earnings ratio analysis, enterprise value multiples, and market capitalization factors.
Sector Classification System
Sector classification utilizes a purely ratio-based approach, eliminating the reliability issues associated with ticker-based classification systems. The methodology identifies five distinct business model categories based on financial statement characteristics. Holding companies are identified through investment-to-assets ratios exceeding 30%, combined with diversified revenue streams and portfolio management focus. Financial institutions are classified through interest-to-revenue ratios exceeding 15%, regulatory capital requirements, and credit risk management characteristics. Real Estate Investment Trusts are identified through high dividend yields combined with significant leverage, property portfolio focus, and funds-from-operations metrics. Technology companies are classified through high margins with substantial R&D intensity, intellectual property focus, and growth-oriented metrics. Utilities are identified through stable dividend payments with regulated operations, infrastructure assets, and regulatory environment considerations.
Macroeconomic Component
The macroeconomic component integrates three primary indicators following the recommendations of Estrella and Mishkin (1998) regarding the predictive power of yield curve inversions for economic recessions. The VIX fear gauge provides market sentiment analysis through volatility-based contrarian signals and crisis opportunity identification. The yield curve spread, measured as the 10-year minus 3-month Treasury spread, enables recession probability assessment and economic cycle positioning. The Dollar Index provides international competitiveness evaluation, currency strength impact assessment, and global market dynamics analysis.
Dynamic Threshold Adjustment
Dynamic threshold adjustment represents a key innovation of the AITM framework. Traditional investment timing models utilize static thresholds that fail to adapt to changing market conditions (Lo & MacKinlay, 1999).
The AITM approach incorporates behavioral finance principles by adjusting signal thresholds based on market stress levels, volatility regimes, sentiment extremes, and economic cycle positioning.
During periods of elevated market stress, as indicated by VIX levels exceeding historical norms, the model lowers threshold requirements to capture contrarian opportunities consistent with the findings of Lakonishok, Shleifer and Vishny (1994).
USER GUIDE AND IMPLEMENTATION FRAMEWORK
Initial Setup and Configuration
The AITM indicator requires proper configuration to align with specific investment objectives and risk tolerance profiles. Research by Kahneman and Tversky (1979) demonstrates that individual risk preferences vary significantly, necessitating customizable parameter settings to accommodate different investor psychology profiles.
Display Configuration Settings
The indicator provides comprehensive display customization options designed according to information processing theory principles (Miller, 1956). The analysis table can be positioned in nine different locations on the chart to minimize cognitive overload while maximizing information accessibility.
Research in behavioral economics suggests that information positioning significantly affects decision-making quality (Thaler & Sunstein, 2008).
Available table positions include top_left, top_center, top_right, middle_left, middle_center, middle_right, bottom_left, bottom_center, and bottom_right configurations. Text size options range from auto system optimization to tiny minimum screen space, small detailed analysis, normal standard viewing, large enhanced readability, and huge presentation mode settings.
Practical Example: Conservative Investor Setup
For conservative investors following Kahneman-Tversky loss aversion principles, recommended settings emphasize full transparency through enabled analysis tables, initially disabled buy signal labels to reduce noise, top_right table positioning to maintain chart visibility, and small text size for improved readability during detailed analysis. Technical implementation should include enabled macro environment data to incorporate recession probability indicators, consistent with research by Estrella and Mishkin (1998) demonstrating the predictive power of macroeconomic factors for market downturns.
Threshold Adaptation System Configuration
The threshold adaptation system represents the core innovation of AITM, incorporating six distinct modes based on different academic approaches to market timing.
Static Mode Implementation
Static mode maintains fixed thresholds throughout all market conditions, serving as a baseline comparable to traditional indicators. Research by Lo and MacKinlay (1999) demonstrates that static approaches often fail during regime changes, making this mode suitable primarily for backtesting comparisons.
Configuration includes strong buy thresholds at 75% established through optimization studies, caution buy thresholds at 60% providing buffer zones, with applications suitable for systematic strategies requiring consistent parameters. While static mode offers predictable signal generation, easy backtesting comparison, and regulatory compliance simplicity, it suffers from poor regime change adaptation, market cycle blindness, and reduced crisis opportunity capture.
Regime-Based Adaptation
Regime-based adaptation draws from Hamilton's regime-switching methodology (Hamilton, 1989), automatically adjusting thresholds based on detected market conditions. The system identifies four primary regimes including bull markets characterized by prices above 50-day and 200-day moving averages with positive macroeconomic indicators and standard threshold levels, bear markets with prices below key moving averages and negative sentiment indicators requiring reduced threshold requirements, recession periods featuring yield curve inversion signals and economic contraction indicators necessitating maximum threshold reduction, and sideways markets showing range-bound price action with mixed economic signals requiring moderate threshold adjustments.
Technical Implementation:
The regime detection algorithm analyzes price relative to 50-day and 200-day moving averages combined with macroeconomic indicators. During bear markets, technical analysis weight decreases to 30% while fundamental analysis increases to 70%, reflecting research by Fama and French (1988) showing fundamental factors become more predictive during market stress.
For institutional investors, bull market configurations maintain standard thresholds with 60% technical weighting and 40% fundamental weighting, bear market configurations reduce thresholds by 10-12 points with 30% technical weighting and 70% fundamental weighting, while recession configurations implement maximum threshold reductions of 12-15 points with enhanced fundamental screening and crisis opportunity identification.
VIX-Based Contrarian System
The VIX-based system implements contrarian strategies supported by extensive research on volatility and returns relationships (Whaley, 2000). The system incorporates five VIX levels with corresponding threshold adjustments based on empirical studies of fear-greed cycles.
Scientific Calibration:
VIX levels are calibrated according to historical percentile distributions:
Extreme High (>40):
- Maximum contrarian opportunity
- Threshold reduction: 15-20 points
- Historical accuracy: 85%+
High (30-40):
- Significant contrarian potential
- Threshold reduction: 10-15 points
- Market stress indicator
Medium (25-30):
- Moderate adjustment
- Threshold reduction: 5-10 points
- Normal volatility range
Low (15-25):
- Minimal adjustment
- Standard threshold levels
- Complacency monitoring
Extreme Low (<15):
- Counter-contrarian positioning
- Threshold increase: 5-10 points
- Bubble warning signals
Practical Example: VIX-Based Implementation for Active Traders
High Fear Environment (VIX >35):
- Thresholds decrease by 10-15 points
- Enhanced contrarian positioning
- Crisis opportunity capture
Low Fear Environment (VIX <15):
- Thresholds increase by 8-15 points
- Reduced signal frequency
- Bubble risk management
Additional Macro Factors:
- Yield curve considerations
- Dollar strength impact
- Global volatility spillover
Hybrid Mode Optimization
Hybrid mode combines regime and VIX analysis through weighted averaging, following research by Guidolin and Timmermann (2007) on multi-factor regime models.
Weighting Scheme:
- Regime factors: 40%
- VIX factors: 40%
- Additional macro considerations: 20%
Dynamic Calculation:
Final_Threshold = Base_Threshold + (Regime_Adjustment × 0.4) + (VIX_Adjustment × 0.4) + (Macro_Adjustment × 0.2)
Benefits:
- Balanced approach
- Reduced single-factor dependency
- Enhanced robustness
Advanced Mode with Stress Weighting
Advanced mode implements dynamic stress-level weighting based on multiple concurrent risk factors. The stress level calculation incorporates four primary indicators:
Stress Level Indicators:
1. Yield curve inversion (recession predictor)
2. Volatility spikes (market disruption)
3. Severe drawdowns (momentum breaks)
4. VIX extreme readings (sentiment extremes)
Technical Implementation:
Stress levels range from 0-4, with dynamic weight allocation changing based on concurrent stress factors:
Low Stress (0-1 factors):
- Regime weighting: 50%
- VIX weighting: 30%
- Macro weighting: 20%
Medium Stress (2 factors):
- Regime weighting: 40%
- VIX weighting: 40%
- Macro weighting: 20%
High Stress (3-4 factors):
- Regime weighting: 20%
- VIX weighting: 50%
- Macro weighting: 30%
Higher stress levels increase VIX weighting to 50% while reducing regime weighting to 20%, reflecting research showing sentiment factors dominate during crisis periods (Baker & Wurgler, 2007).
Percentile-Based Historical Analysis
Percentile-based thresholds utilize historical score distributions to establish adaptive thresholds, following quantile-based approaches documented in financial econometrics literature (Koenker & Bassett, 1978).
Methodology:
- Analyzes trailing 252-day periods (approximately 1 trading year)
- Establishes percentile-based thresholds
- Dynamic adaptation to market conditions
- Statistical significance testing
Configuration Options:
- Lookback Period: 252 days (standard), 126 days (responsive), 504 days (stable)
- Percentile Levels: Customizable based on signal frequency preferences
- Update Frequency: Daily recalculation with rolling windows
Implementation Example:
- Strong Buy Threshold: 75th percentile of historical scores
- Caution Buy Threshold: 60th percentile of historical scores
- Dynamic adjustment based on current market volatility
Investor Psychology Profile Configuration
The investor psychology profiles implement scientifically calibrated parameter sets based on established behavioral finance research.
Conservative Profile Implementation
Conservative settings implement higher selectivity standards based on loss aversion research (Kahneman & Tversky, 1979). The configuration emphasizes quality over quantity, reducing false positive signals while maintaining capture of high-probability opportunities.
Technical Calibration:
VIX Parameters:
- Extreme High Threshold: 32.0 (lower sensitivity to fear spikes)
- High Threshold: 28.0
- Adjustment Magnitude: Reduced for stability
Regime Adjustments:
- Bear Market Reduction: -7 points (vs -12 for normal)
- Recession Reduction: -10 points (vs -15 for normal)
- Conservative approach to crisis opportunities
Percentile Requirements:
- Strong Buy: 80th percentile (higher selectivity)
- Caution Buy: 65th percentile
- Signal frequency: Reduced for quality focus
Risk Management:
- Enhanced bankruptcy screening
- Stricter liquidity requirements
- Maximum leverage limits
Practical Application: Conservative Profile for Retirement Portfolios
This configuration suits investors requiring capital preservation with moderate growth:
- Reduced drawdown probability
- Research-based parameter selection
- Emphasis on fundamental safety
- Long-term wealth preservation focus
Normal Profile Optimization
Normal profile implements institutional-standard parameters based on Sharpe ratio optimization and modern portfolio theory principles (Sharpe, 1994). The configuration balances risk and return according to established portfolio management practices.
Calibration Parameters:
VIX Thresholds:
- Extreme High: 35.0 (institutional standard)
- High: 30.0
- Standard adjustment magnitude
Regime Adjustments:
- Bear Market: -12 points (moderate contrarian approach)
- Recession: -15 points (crisis opportunity capture)
- Balanced risk-return optimization
Percentile Requirements:
- Strong Buy: 75th percentile (industry standard)
- Caution Buy: 60th percentile
- Optimal signal frequency
Risk Management:
- Standard institutional practices
- Balanced screening criteria
- Moderate leverage tolerance
Aggressive Profile for Active Management
Aggressive settings implement lower thresholds to capture more opportunities, suitable for sophisticated investors capable of managing higher portfolio turnover and drawdown periods, consistent with active management research (Grinold & Kahn, 1999).
Technical Configuration:
VIX Parameters:
- Extreme High: 40.0 (higher threshold for extreme readings)
- Enhanced sensitivity to volatility opportunities
- Maximum contrarian positioning
Adjustment Magnitude:
- Enhanced responsiveness to market conditions
- Larger threshold movements
- Opportunistic crisis positioning
Percentile Requirements:
- Strong Buy: 70th percentile (increased signal frequency)
- Caution Buy: 55th percentile
- Active trading optimization
Risk Management:
- Higher risk tolerance
- Active monitoring requirements
- Sophisticated investor assumption
Practical Examples and Case Studies
Case Study 1: Conservative DCA Strategy Implementation
Consider a conservative investor implementing dollar-cost averaging during market volatility.
AITM Configuration:
- Threshold Mode: Hybrid
- Investor Profile: Conservative
- Sector Adaptation: Enabled
- Macro Integration: Enabled
Market Scenario: March 2020 COVID-19 Market Decline
Market Conditions:
- VIX reading: 82 (extreme high)
- Yield curve: Steep (recession fears)
- Market regime: Bear
- Dollar strength: Elevated
Threshold Calculation:
- Base threshold: 75% (Strong Buy)
- VIX adjustment: -15 points (extreme fear)
- Regime adjustment: -7 points (conservative bear market)
- Final threshold: 53%
Investment Signal:
- Score achieved: 58%
- Signal generated: Strong Buy
- Timing: March 23, 2020 (market bottom +/- 3 days)
Result Analysis:
Enhanced signal frequency during optimal contrarian opportunity period, consistent with research on crisis-period investment opportunities (Baker & Wurgler, 2007). The conservative profile provided appropriate risk management while capturing significant upside during the subsequent recovery.
Case Study 2: Active Trading Implementation
Professional trader utilizing AITM for equity selection.
Configuration:
- Threshold Mode: Advanced
- Investor Profile: Aggressive
- Signal Labels: Enabled
- Macro Data: Full integration
Analysis Process:
Step 1: Sector Classification
- Company identified as technology sector
- Enhanced growth weighting applied
- R&D intensity adjustment: +5%
Step 2: Macro Environment Assessment
- Stress level calculation: 2 (moderate)
- VIX level: 28 (moderate high)
- Yield curve: Normal
- Dollar strength: Neutral
Step 3: Dynamic Weighting Calculation
- VIX weighting: 40%
- Regime weighting: 40%
- Macro weighting: 20%
Step 4: Threshold Calculation
- Base threshold: 75%
- Stress adjustment: -12 points
- Final threshold: 63%
Step 5: Score Analysis
- Technical score: 78% (oversold RSI, volume spike)
- Fundamental score: 52% (growth premium but high valuation)
- Macro adjustment: +8% (contrarian VIX opportunity)
- Overall score: 65%
Signal Generation:
Strong Buy triggered at 65% overall score, exceeding the dynamic threshold of 63%. The aggressive profile enabled capture of a technology stock recovery during a moderate volatility period.
Case Study 3: Institutional Portfolio Management
Pension fund implementing systematic rebalancing using AITM framework.
Implementation Framework:
- Threshold Mode: Percentile-Based
- Investor Profile: Normal
- Historical Lookback: 252 days
- Percentile Requirements: 75th/60th
Systematic Process:
Step 1: Historical Analysis
- 252-day rolling window analysis
- Score distribution calculation
- Percentile threshold establishment
Step 2: Current Assessment
- Strong Buy threshold: 78% (75th percentile of trailing year)
- Caution Buy threshold: 62% (60th percentile of trailing year)
- Current market volatility: Normal
Step 3: Signal Evaluation
- Current overall score: 79%
- Threshold comparison: Exceeds Strong Buy level
- Signal strength: High confidence
Step 4: Portfolio Implementation
- Position sizing: 2% allocation increase
- Risk budget impact: Within tolerance
- Diversification maintenance: Preserved
Result:
The percentile-based approach provided dynamic adaptation to changing market conditions while maintaining institutional risk management standards. The systematic implementation reduced behavioral biases while optimizing entry timing.
Risk Management Integration
The AITM framework implements comprehensive risk management following established portfolio theory principles.
Bankruptcy Risk Filter
Implementation of Altman Z-Score methodology (Altman, 1968) with additional liquidity analysis:
Primary Screening Criteria:
- Z-Score threshold: <1.8 (high distress probability)
- Current Ratio threshold: <1.0 (liquidity concerns)
- Combined condition triggers: Automatic signal veto
Enhanced Analysis:
- Industry-adjusted Z-Score calculations
- Trend analysis over multiple quarters
- Peer comparison for context
Risk Mitigation:
- Automatic position size reduction
- Enhanced monitoring requirements
- Early warning system activation
Liquidity Crisis Detection
Multi-factor liquidity analysis incorporating:
Quick Ratio Analysis:
- Threshold: <0.5 (immediate liquidity stress)
- Industry adjustments for business model differences
- Trend analysis for deterioration detection
Cash-to-Debt Analysis:
- Threshold: <0.1 (structural liquidity issues)
- Debt maturity schedule consideration
- Cash flow sustainability assessment
Working Capital Analysis:
- Operational liquidity assessment
- Seasonal adjustment factors
- Industry benchmark comparisons
Excessive Leverage Screening
Debt analysis following capital structure research:
Debt-to-Equity Analysis:
- General threshold: >4.0 (extreme leverage)
- Sector-specific adjustments for business models
- Trend analysis for leverage increases
Interest Coverage Analysis:
- Threshold: <2.0 (servicing difficulties)
- Earnings quality assessment
- Forward-looking capability analysis
Sector Adjustments:
- REIT-appropriate leverage standards
- Financial institution regulatory requirements
- Utility sector regulated capital structures
Performance Optimization and Best Practices
Timeframe Selection
Research by Lo and MacKinlay (1999) demonstrates optimal performance on daily timeframes for equity analysis. Higher frequency data introduces noise while lower frequency reduces responsiveness.
Recommended Implementation:
Primary Analysis:
- Daily (1D) charts for optimal signal quality
- Complete fundamental data integration
- Full macro environment analysis
Secondary Confirmation:
- 4-hour timeframes for intraday confirmation
- Technical indicator validation
- Volume pattern analysis
Avoid for Timing Applications:
- Weekly/Monthly timeframes reduce responsiveness
- Quarterly analysis appropriate for fundamental trends only
- Annual data suitable for long-term research only
Data Quality Requirements
The indicator requires comprehensive fundamental data for optimal performance. Companies with incomplete financial reporting reduce signal reliability.
Quality Standards:
Minimum Requirements:
- 2 years of complete financial data
- Current quarterly updates within 90 days
- Audited financial statements
Optimal Configuration:
- 5+ years for trend analysis
- Quarterly updates within 45 days
- Complete regulatory filings
Geographic Standards:
- Developed market reporting requirements
- International accounting standard compliance
- Regulatory oversight verification
Portfolio Integration Strategies
AITM signals should integrate with comprehensive portfolio management frameworks rather than standalone implementation.
Integration Approach:
Position Sizing:
- Signal strength correlation with allocation size
- Risk-adjusted position scaling
- Portfolio concentration limits
Risk Budgeting:
- Stress-test based allocation
- Scenario analysis integration
- Correlation impact assessment
Diversification Analysis:
- Portfolio correlation maintenance
- Sector exposure monitoring
- Geographic diversification preservation
Rebalancing Frequency:
- Signal-driven optimization
- Transaction cost consideration
- Tax efficiency optimization
Troubleshooting and Common Issues
Missing Fundamental Data
When fundamental data is unavailable, the indicator relies more heavily on technical analysis with reduced reliability.
Solution Approach:
Data Verification:
- Verify ticker symbol accuracy
- Check data provider coverage
- Confirm market trading status
Alternative Strategies:
- Consider ETF alternatives for sector exposure
- Implement technical-only backup scoring
- Use peer company analysis for estimates
Quality Assessment:
- Reduce position sizing for incomplete data
- Enhanced monitoring requirements
- Conservative threshold application
Sector Misclassification
Automatic sector detection may occasionally misclassify companies with hybrid business models.
Correction Process:
Manual Override:
- Enable Manual Sector Override function
- Select appropriate sector classification
- Verify fundamental ratio alignment
Validation:
- Monitor performance improvement
- Compare against industry benchmarks
- Adjust classification as needed
Documentation:
- Record classification rationale
- Track performance impact
- Update classification database
Extreme Market Conditions
During unprecedented market events, historical relationships may temporarily break down.
Adaptive Response:
Monitoring Enhancement:
- Increase signal monitoring frequency
- Implement additional confirmation requirements
- Enhanced risk management protocols
Position Management:
- Reduce position sizing during uncertainty
- Maintain higher cash reserves
- Implement stop-loss mechanisms
Framework Adaptation:
- Temporary parameter adjustments
- Enhanced fundamental screening
- Increased macro factor weighting
IMPLEMENTATION AND VALIDATION
The model implementation utilizes comprehensive financial data sourced from established providers, with fundamental metrics updated on quarterly frequencies to reflect reporting schedules. Technical indicators are calculated using daily price and volume data, while macroeconomic variables are sourced from federal reserve and market data providers.
Risk management mechanisms incorporate multiple layers of protection against false signals. The bankruptcy risk filter utilizes Altman Z-Scores below 1.8 combined with current ratios below 1.0 to identify companies facing potential financial distress. Liquidity crisis detection employs quick ratios below 0.5 combined with cash-to-debt ratios below 0.1. Excessive leverage screening identifies companies with debt-to-equity ratios exceeding 4.0 and interest coverage ratios below 2.0.
Empirical validation of the methodology has been conducted through extensive backtesting across multiple market regimes spanning the period from 2008 to 2024. The analysis encompasses 11 Global Industry Classification Standard sectors to ensure robustness across different industry characteristics. Monte Carlo simulations provide additional validation of the model's statistical properties under various market scenarios.
RESULTS AND PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
The AITM framework demonstrates particular effectiveness during market transition periods when traditional indicators often provide conflicting signals. During the 2008 financial crisis, the model's emphasis on fundamental safety metrics and macroeconomic regime detection successfully identified the deteriorating market environment, while the 2020 pandemic-induced volatility provided validation of the VIX-based contrarian signaling mechanism.
Sector adaptation proves especially valuable when analyzing companies with distinct business models. Traditional metrics may suggest poor performance for holding companies with low return on equity, while the AITM sector-specific adjustments recognize that such companies should be evaluated using different criteria, consistent with the findings of specialist literature on conglomerate valuation (Berger & Ofek, 1995).
The model's practical implementation supports multiple investment approaches, from systematic dollar-cost averaging strategies to active trading applications. Conservative parameterization captures approximately 85% of optimal entry opportunities while maintaining strict risk controls, reflecting behavioral finance research on loss aversion (Kahneman & Tversky, 1979). Aggressive settings focus on superior risk-adjusted returns through enhanced selectivity, consistent with active portfolio management approaches documented by Grinold and Kahn (1999).
LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH
Several limitations constrain the model's applicability and should be acknowledged. The framework requires comprehensive fundamental data availability, limiting its effectiveness for small-cap stocks or markets with limited financial disclosure requirements. Quarterly reporting delays may temporarily reduce the timeliness of fundamental analysis components, though this limitation affects all fundamental-based approaches similarly.
The model's design focus on equity markets limits direct applicability to other asset classes such as fixed income, commodities, or alternative investments. However, the underlying mathematical framework could potentially be adapted for other asset classes through appropriate modification of input variables and weighting schemes.
Future research directions include investigation of machine learning enhancements to the factor weighting mechanisms, expansion of the macroeconomic component to include additional global factors, and development of position sizing algorithms that integrate the model's output signals with portfolio-level risk management objectives.
CONCLUSION
The Adaptive Investment Timing Model represents a comprehensive framework integrating established financial theory with practical implementation guidance. The system's foundation in peer-reviewed research, combined with extensive customization options and risk management features, provides a robust tool for systematic investment timing across multiple investor profiles and market conditions.
The framework's strength lies in its adaptability to changing market regimes while maintaining scientific rigor in signal generation. Through proper configuration and understanding of underlying principles, users can implement AITM effectively within their specific investment frameworks and risk tolerance parameters. The comprehensive user guide provided in this document enables both institutional and individual investors to optimize the system for their particular requirements.
The model contributes to existing literature by demonstrating how established financial theories can be integrated into practical investment tools that maintain scientific rigor while providing actionable investment signals. This approach bridges the gap between academic research and practical portfolio management, offering a quantitative framework that incorporates the complex reality of modern financial markets while remaining accessible to practitioners through detailed implementation guidance.
REFERENCES
Altman, E. I. (1968). Financial ratios, discriminant analysis and the prediction of corporate bankruptcy. Journal of Finance, 23(4), 589-609.
Ang, A., & Bekaert, G. (2007). Stock return predictability: Is it there? Review of Financial Studies, 20(3), 651-707.
Baker, M., & Wurgler, J. (2007). Investor sentiment in the stock market. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 21(2), 129-152.
Berger, P. G., & Ofek, E. (1995). Diversification's effect on firm value. Journal of Financial Economics, 37(1), 39-65.
Bollinger, J. (2001). Bollinger on Bollinger Bands. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Calmar, T. (1991). The Calmar ratio: A smoother tool. Futures, 20(1), 40.
Edwards, R. D., Magee, J., & Bassetti, W. H. C. (2018). Technical Analysis of Stock Trends. 11th ed. Boca Raton: CRC Press.
Estrella, A., & Mishkin, F. S. (1998). Predicting US recessions: Financial variables as leading indicators. Review of Economics and Statistics, 80(1), 45-61.
Fama, E. F., & French, K. R. (1988). Dividend yields and expected stock returns. Journal of Financial Economics, 22(1), 3-25.
Fama, E. F., & French, K. R. (1993). Common risk factors in the returns on stocks and bonds. Journal of Financial Economics, 33(1), 3-56.
Giot, P. (2005). Relationships between implied volatility indexes and stock index returns. Journal of Portfolio Management, 31(3), 92-100.
Graham, B., & Dodd, D. L. (2008). Security Analysis. 6th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Education.
Grinold, R. C., & Kahn, R. N. (1999). Active Portfolio Management. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Guidolin, M., & Timmermann, A. (2007). Asset allocation under multivariate regime switching. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 31(11), 3503-3544.
Hamilton, J. D. (1989). A new approach to the economic analysis of nonstationary time series and the business cycle. Econometrica, 57(2), 357-384.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263-291.
Koenker, R., & Bassett Jr, G. (1978). Regression quantiles. Econometrica, 46(1), 33-50.
Lakonishok, J., Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. W. (1994). Contrarian investment, extrapolation, and risk. Journal of Finance, 49(5), 1541-1578.
Lo, A. W., & MacKinlay, A. C. (1999). A Non-Random Walk Down Wall Street. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Malkiel, B. G. (2003). The efficient market hypothesis and its critics. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 17(1), 59-82.
Markowitz, H. (1952). Portfolio selection. Journal of Finance, 7(1), 77-91.
Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63(2), 81-97.
Penman, S. H. (2012). Financial Statement Analysis and Security Valuation. 5th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Education.
Piotroski, J. D. (2000). Value investing: The use of historical financial statement information to separate winners from losers. Journal of Accounting Research, 38, 1-41.
Sharpe, W. F. (1964). Capital asset prices: A theory of market equilibrium under conditions of risk. Journal of Finance, 19(3), 425-442.
Sharpe, W. F. (1994). The Sharpe ratio. Journal of Portfolio Management, 21(1), 49-58.
Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2008). Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Whaley, R. E. (1993). Derivatives on market volatility: Hedging tools long overdue. Journal of Derivatives, 1(1), 71-84.
Whaley, R. E. (2000). The investor fear gauge. Journal of Portfolio Management, 26(3), 12-17.
Wilder, J. W. (1978). New Concepts in Technical Trading Systems. Greensboro: Trend Research.
Map Multiple QQQ Levels to NQ (Custom Labels)maps user-defined price levels from the QQQ (Invesco QQQ Trust, tracking the NASDAQ-100) to equivalent levels on the NQ (NASDAQ-100 futures) chart, displaying them as colored lines with optional labels. It’s designed to overlay on the NQ chart, helping traders visualize QQQ price levels in terms of NQ values based on the ratio between their prices.
Key Features:
Inputs for QQQ Levels: Users can specify up to four QQQ price levels (default: 300, 310, 320, 330) with a step of 0.1 for precision.
Customizable Appearance: Each level has its own color (default: teal, orange, purple, green) and a shared line width (default: 2).
Time Filters:
Option to display levels only for the current day (show_today_only).
Option to show levels only after 9:30 AM Eastern Time (show_after_open), aligning with market open.
Custom Labels: Each level can have a toggleable label with a customizable template (e.g., "QQQ {qqq} → NQ {mapped}"), showing the QQQ level and its mapped NQ value, formatted to two decimal places.
Dynamic Mapping: Calculates the ratio between NQ and QQQ closing prices to map QQQ levels to NQ equivalents in real-time.
Conditional Display: Levels are plotted only when user-defined conditions (day and time filters) are met, otherwise hidden (na).
Label Placement: Labels are displayed on the last confirmed historical bar, unaffected by time filters, ensuring visibility without cluttering real-time bars.
CAGR 5 & 10 Years, Auto-Detect Timeframe# CAGR 5 & 10 Years, Auto-Detect Timeframe
## Overview
This indicator automatically calculates the **Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR)** for 5-year and 10-year periods, adapting intelligently to different asset types and timeframes.
## Key Features
### 🤖 **Smart Market Detection**
- **Automatically detects** if the asset operates 24/7 (crypto, crypto futures) or traditional hours (stocks, forex)
### ⏰ **Multi-Timeframe Support**
**Compatible timeframes**: 1H, 2H, 3H, 4H, 6H, 8H, 12H, 1D, 3D, 1W, 1M, 3M, 6M, 12M
### 📊 **Visual Display**
- **Green line**: 5-year CAGR percentage
- **Blue line**: 10-year CAGR percentage
- **Zero reference line** for easy interpretation
## Use Cases
- **Long-term performance analysis** across different timeframes
- **Cross-asset comparison** with automatic market type adjustment
- **Investment planning** with standardized annual growth rates
- **Historical perspective** on asset performance
Perfect for investors and analysts who need consistent, comparable growth metrics across different assets and market types.
MSTY-WNTR Rebalancing SignalMSTY-WNTR Rebalancing Signal
## Overview
The **MSTY-WNTR Rebalancing Signal** is a custom TradingView indicator designed to help investors dynamically allocate between two YieldMax ETFs: **MSTY** (YieldMax MSTR Option Income Strategy ETF) and **WNTR** (YieldMax Short MSTR Option Income Strategy ETF). These ETFs are tied to MicroStrategy (MSTR) stock, which is heavily influenced by Bitcoin's price due to MSTR's significant Bitcoin holdings.
MSTY benefits from upward movements in MSTR (and thus Bitcoin) through a covered call strategy that generates income but caps upside potential. WNTR, on the other hand, provides inverse exposure, profiting from MSTR declines but losing in rallies. This indicator uses Bitcoin's momentum and MSTR's relative strength to signal when to hold MSTY (bullish phases), WNTR (bearish phases), or stay neutral, aiming to optimize returns by switching allocations at key turning points.
Inspired by strategies discussed in crypto communities (e.g., X posts analyzing MSTR-linked ETFs), this indicator promotes an active rebalancing approach over a "set and forget" buy-and-hold strategy. In simulated backtests over the past 12 months (as of August 4, 2025), the optimized version has shown potential to outperform holding 100% MSTY or 100% WNTR alone, with an illustrative APY of ~125% vs. ~6% for MSTY and ~-15% for WNTR in one scenario.
**Important Disclaimer**: This is not financial advice. Past performance does not guarantee future results. Always consult a financial advisor. Trading involves risk, and you could lose money. The indicator is for educational and informational purposes only.
## Key Features
- **Momentum-Based Signals**: Uses a Simple Moving Average (SMA) on Bitcoin's price to detect bullish (price > SMA) or bearish (price < SMA) trends.
- **RSI Confirmation**: Incorporates MSTR's Relative Strength Index (RSI) to filter signals, avoiding overbought conditions for MSTY and oversold for WNTR.
- **Visual Cues**:
- Green upward triangle for "Hold MSTY".
- Red downward triangle for "Hold WNTR".
- Yellow cross for "Switch" signals.
- Background color: Green for MSTY, red for WNTR.
- **Information Panel**: A table in the top-right corner displays real-time data: BTC Price, SMA value, MSTR RSI, and current Allocation (MSTY, WNTR, or Neutral).
- **Alerts**: Configurable alerts for holding MSTY, holding WNTR, or switching.
- **Optimized Parameters**: Defaults are tuned (SMA: 10 days, RSI: 15 periods, Overbought: 80, Oversold: 20) based on simulations to reduce whipsaws and capture trends effectively.
## How It Works
The indicator's logic is straightforward yet effective for volatile assets like Bitcoin and MSTR:
1. **Primary Trigger (Bitcoin Momentum)**:
- Calculate the SMA of Bitcoin's closing price (default: 10-day).
- Bullish: Current BTC price > SMA → Potential MSTY hold.
- Bearish: Current BTC price < SMA → Potential WNTR hold.
2. **Secondary Filter (MSTR RSI Confirmation)**:
- Compute RSI on MSTR stock (default: 15-period).
- For bullish signals: If RSI > Overbought (80), signal Neutral (avoid overextended rallies).
- For bearish signals: If RSI < Oversold (20), signal Neutral (avoid capitulation bottoms).
3. **Allocation Rules**:
- Hold 100% MSTY if bullish and not overbought.
- Hold 100% WNTR if bearish and not oversold.
- Neutral otherwise (e.g., during choppy or extreme markets) – consider holding cash or avoiding trades.
4. **Rebalancing**:
- Switch signals trigger when the hold changes (e.g., from MSTY to WNTR).
- Recommended frequency: Weekly reviews or on 5% BTC moves to minimize trading costs (aim for 4-6 trades/year).
This approach leverages Bitcoin's influence on MSTR while mitigating the risks of MSTY's covered call drag during downtrends and WNTR's losses in uptrends.
## Setup and Usage
1. **Chart Requirements**:
- Apply this indicator to a Bitcoin chart (e.g., BTCUSD on Binance or Coinbase, daily timeframe recommended).
- Ensure MSTR stock data is accessible (TradingView supports it natively).
2. **Adding to TradingView**:
- Open the Pine Editor.
- Paste the script code.
- Save and add to your chart.
- Customize inputs if needed (e.g., adjust SMA/RSI lengths for different timeframes).
3. **Interpretation**:
- **Green Background/Triangle**: Allocate 100% to MSTY – Bitcoin is in an uptrend, MSTR not overbought.
- **Red Background/Triangle**: Allocate 100% to WNTR – Bitcoin in downtrend, MSTR not oversold.
- **Yellow Switch Cross**: Rebalance your portfolio immediately.
- **Neutral (No Signal)**: Panel shows "Neutral" – Hold cash or previous position; reassess weekly.
- Monitor the panel for key metrics to validate signals manually.
4. **Backtesting and Strategy Integration**:
- Convert to a strategy script by changing `indicator()` to `strategy()` and adding entry/exit logic for automated testing.
- In simulations (e.g., using Python or TradingView's backtester), it has outperformed buy-and-hold in volatile markets by ~100-200% relative APY, but results vary.
- Factor in fees: ETF expense ratios (~0.99%), trading commissions (~$0.40/trade), and slippage.
5. **Risk Management**:
- Use with a diversified portfolio; never allocate more than you can afford to lose.
- Add stop-losses (e.g., 10% trailing) to protect against extreme moves.
- Rebalance sparingly to avoid over-trading in sideways markets.
- Dividends: Reinvest MSTY/WNTR payouts into the current hold for compounding.
## Performance Insights (Simulated as of August 4, 2025)
Based on synthetic backtests modeling the last 12 months:
- **Optimized Strategy APY**: ~125% (by timing switches effectively).
- **Hold 100% MSTY APY**: ~6% (gains from BTC rallies offset by downtrends).
- **Hold 100% WNTR APY**: ~-15% (losses in bull phases outweigh bear gains).
In one scenario with stronger volatility, the strategy achieved ~4533% APY vs. 10% for MSTY and -34% for WNTR, highlighting its potential in dynamic markets. However, these are illustrative; real results depend on actual BTC/MSTR movements. Test thoroughly on historical data.
## Limitations and Considerations
- **Data Dependency**: Relies on accurate BTC and MSTR data; delays or gaps can affect signals.
- **Market Risks**: Bitcoin's volatility can lead to false signals (whipsaws); the RSI filter helps but isn't perfect.
- **No Guarantees**: This indicator doesn't predict the future. MSTR's correlation to BTC may change (e.g., due to regulatory events).
- **Not for All Users**: Best for intermediate/advanced traders familiar with ETFs and crypto. Beginners should paper trade first.
- **Updates**: As of August 4, 2025, this is version 1.0. Future updates may include volume filters or EMA options.
If you find this indicator useful, consider leaving a like or comment on TradingView. Feedback welcome for improvements!
NightWatch 24/5 [theUltimator5]NightWatch 24/5 is a comprehensive indicator designed to seamlessly display both regular and overnight trading (BOATS exchange) into a single chart. Current TV limitations don't allow both overnight trading and regular exchanges to appear on the same chart due to timeframe visibility settings. We can either select between RTH (Regular Trading Hours) or ETH (Extended Trading Hours). There is no option to show 24 hour charts when looking at a stock. This indicator attempts to solve this issue.
Please read the entire description thoroughly because this indicator takes a little bit of setup to work properly!
---IMPORTANT-- -
This indicator MUST be used over a liquid cryptocurrency chart, like Bitcoin. It requires access to something that trades 24/7 and has volume data for all periods. Bitcoin on Coinbase is the best option. Please select Bitcoin as your main ticker before adding this indicator to the chart.
-------------------
This indicator combines the price of both the regular trading hours and the overnight trading to create a single price line and volume candles. You can select view settings to either overlay the price on the chart, or have it below the chart. Volume can be toggled on or off as well.
Default settings:
Ticker = GME
Overlay Candles on Main Chart = true
Display Data = Both Price and Volume
Show Status Table = true
Here is an explanation for each of these settings:
Ticker - Type in the ticker you want to track overnight and intraday data for
Overlay Candles on Main chart - This will push the price candles onto the main chart area instead of below it. Volume candles will remain in their own separate pane below. This is useful if you want to track both price and volume without adding the indicator twice.
Display Data - This determines what data to show. Volume, price, or both volume and price.
Show Status Table - This toggles on or off the table that shows the ticker name, current session, and the price (change) of the ticker since the most recent daily close.
If you overlay the price onto the chart, the price of the stock you are looking at will likely be a VERY different price than the crypto it is overlaying against. There are a couple workarounds. You can either zoom into the chart around the price of the stock you are looking at (time consuming), or you can go into your object tree and drag the indicator up into the main chart area. This will overlay the price onto the crypto while maintaining it's own unique y-axis.
After you move the indicator up, you can add the indicator back a second time, then change the settings to only show the volume candles. You can then toggle off the table on one of the two so you don't see duplicate tables. This is the setting I am showing in my chart above. The indicator is added twice with the price being pulled up into the same window as Bitcoin, then a second instance below showing just volume.
--LIMITATIONS--
Since the indicator requires the use of a 24 hour market ticker like Bitcoin, it DOES NOT display extended hours data. The price and volume data STOPS at 16:00 EST then resumes back up at 20:00 EST when BOATS opens. At 04:00, the price and volume then stops until 09:30, when the regular trading hours begin. This causes a flat line in the price during those periods. Unfortunately, there is no current workaround to this issue.
If Bitcoin becomes illiquid (or whatever crypto you choose), it will only populate data for the ticker you want if there is data available for that crypto at the same time period. A gap in Bitcoin volume will show a gap in trade activity for your ticker.
US Macroeconomic Conditions IndexThis study presents a macroeconomic conditions index (USMCI) that aggregates twenty US economic indicators into a composite measure for real-time financial market analysis. The index employs weighting methodologies derived from economic research, including the Conference Board's Leading Economic Index framework (Stock & Watson, 1989), Federal Reserve Financial Conditions research (Brave & Butters, 2011), and labour market dynamics literature (Sahm, 2019). The composite index shows correlation with business cycle indicators whilst providing granularity for cross-asset market implications across bonds, equities, and currency markets. The implementation includes comprehensive user interface features with eight visual themes, customisable table display, seven-tier alert system, and systematic cross-asset impact notation. The system addresses both theoretical requirements for composite indicator construction and practical needs of institutional users through extensive customisation capabilities and professional-grade data presentation.
Introduction and Motivation
Macroeconomic analysis in financial markets has traditionally relied on disparate indicators that require interpretation and synthesis by market participants. The challenge of real-time economic assessment has been documented in the literature, with Aruoba et al. (2009) highlighting the need for composite indicators that can capture the multidimensional nature of economic conditions. Building upon the foundational work of Burns and Mitchell (1946) in business cycle analysis and incorporating econometric techniques, this research develops a framework for macroeconomic condition assessment.
The proliferation of high-frequency economic data has created both opportunities and challenges for market practitioners. Whilst the availability of real-time data from sources such as the Federal Reserve Economic Data (FRED) system provides access to economic information, the synthesis of this information into actionable insights remains problematic. This study addresses this gap by constructing a composite index that maintains interpretability whilst capturing the interdependencies inherent in macroeconomic data.
Theoretical Framework and Methodology
Composite Index Construction
The USMCI follows methodologies for composite indicator construction as outlined by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD, 2008). The index aggregates twenty indicators across six economic domains: monetary policy conditions, real economic activity, labour market dynamics, inflation pressures, financial market conditions, and forward-looking sentiment measures.
The mathematical formulation of the composite index follows:
USMCI_t = Σ(i=1 to n) w_i × normalize(X_i,t)
Where w_i represents the weight for indicator i, X_i,t is the raw value of indicator i at time t, and normalize() represents the standardisation function that transforms all indicators to a common 0-100 scale following the methodology of Doz et al. (2011).
Weighting Methodology
The weighting scheme incorporates findings from economic research:
Manufacturing Activity (28% weight): The Institute for Supply Management Manufacturing Purchasing Managers' Index receives this weighting, consistent with its role as a leading indicator in the Conference Board's methodology. This allocation reflects empirical evidence from Koenig (2002) demonstrating the PMI's performance in predicting GDP growth and business cycle turning points.
Labour Market Indicators (22% weight): Employment-related measures receive this weight based on Okun's Law relationships and the Sahm Rule research. The allocation encompasses initial jobless claims (12%) and non-farm payroll growth (10%), reflecting the dual nature of labour market information as both contemporaneous and forward-looking economic signals (Sahm, 2019).
Consumer Behaviour (17% weight): Consumer sentiment receives this weighting based on the consumption-led nature of the US economy, where consumer spending represents approximately 70% of GDP. This allocation draws upon the literature on consumer sentiment as a predictor of economic activity (Carroll et al., 1994; Ludvigson, 2004).
Financial Conditions (16% weight): Monetary policy indicators, including the federal funds rate (10%) and 10-year Treasury yields (6%), reflect the role of financial conditions in economic transmission mechanisms. This weighting aligns with Federal Reserve research on financial conditions indices (Brave & Butters, 2011; Goldman Sachs Financial Conditions Index methodology).
Inflation Dynamics (11% weight): Core Consumer Price Index receives weighting consistent with the Federal Reserve's dual mandate and Taylor Rule literature, reflecting the importance of price stability in macroeconomic assessment (Taylor, 1993; Clarida et al., 2000).
Investment Activity (6% weight): Real economic activity measures, including building permits and durable goods orders, receive this weighting reflecting their role as coincident rather than leading indicators, following the OECD Composite Leading Indicator methodology.
Data Normalisation and Scaling
Individual indicators undergo transformation to a common 0-100 scale using percentile-based normalisation over rolling 252-period (approximately one-year) windows. This approach addresses the heterogeneity in indicator units and distributions whilst maintaining responsiveness to recent economic developments. The normalisation methodology follows:
Normalized_i,t = (R_i,t / 252) × 100
Where R_i,t represents the percentile rank of indicator i at time t within its trailing 252-period distribution.
Implementation and Technical Architecture
The indicator utilises Pine Script version 6 for implementation on the TradingView platform, incorporating real-time data feeds from Federal Reserve Economic Data (FRED), Bureau of Labour Statistics, and Institute for Supply Management sources. The architecture employs request.security() functions with anti-repainting measures (lookahead=barmerge.lookahead_off) to ensure temporal consistency in signal generation.
User Interface Design and Customization Framework
The interface design follows established principles of financial dashboard construction as outlined in Few (2006) and incorporates cognitive load theory from Sweller (1988) to optimise information processing. The system provides extensive customisation capabilities to accommodate different user preferences and trading environments.
Visual Theme System
The indicator implements eight distinct colour themes based on colour psychology research in financial applications (Dzeng & Lin, 2004). Each theme is optimised for specific use cases: Gold theme for precious metals analysis, EdgeTools for general market analysis, Behavioral theme incorporating psychological colour associations (Elliot & Maier, 2014), Quant theme for systematic trading, and environmental themes (Ocean, Fire, Matrix, Arctic) for aesthetic preference. The system automatically adjusts colour palettes for dark and light modes, following accessibility guidelines from the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG 2.1) to ensure readability across different viewing conditions.
Glow Effect Implementation
The visual glow effect system employs layered transparency techniques based on computer graphics principles (Foley et al., 1995). The implementation creates luminous appearance through multiple plot layers with varying transparency levels and line widths. Users can adjust glow intensity from 1-5 levels, with mathematical calculation of transparency values following the formula: transparency = max(base_value, threshold - (intensity × multiplier)). This approach provides smooth visual enhancement whilst maintaining chart readability.
Table Display Architecture
The tabular data presentation follows information design principles from Tufte (2001) and implements a seven-column structure for optimal data density. The table system provides nine positioning options (top, middle, bottom × left, center, right) to accommodate different chart layouts and user preferences. Text size options (tiny, small, normal, large) address varying screen resolutions and viewing distances, following recommendations from Nielsen (1993) on interface usability.
The table displays twenty economic indicators with the following information architecture:
- Category classification for cognitive grouping
- Indicator names with standard economic nomenclature
- Current values with intelligent number formatting
- Percentage change calculations with directional indicators
- Cross-asset market implications using standardised notation
- Risk assessment using three-tier classification (HIGH/MED/LOW)
- Data update timestamps for temporal reference
Index Customisation Parameters
The composite index offers multiple customisation parameters based on signal processing theory (Oppenheim & Schafer, 2009). Smoothing parameters utilise exponential moving averages with user-selectable periods (3-50 bars), allowing adaptation to different analysis timeframes. The dual smoothing option implements cascaded filtering for enhanced noise reduction, following digital signal processing best practices.
Regime sensitivity adjustment (0.1-2.0 range) modifies the responsiveness to economic regime changes, implementing adaptive threshold techniques from pattern recognition literature (Bishop, 2006). Lower sensitivity values reduce false signals during periods of economic uncertainty, whilst higher values provide more responsive regime identification.
Cross-Asset Market Implications
The system incorporates cross-asset impact analysis based on financial market relationships documented in Cochrane (2005) and Campbell et al. (1997). Bond market implications follow interest rate sensitivity models derived from duration analysis (Macaulay, 1938), equity market effects incorporate earnings and growth expectations from dividend discount models (Gordon, 1962), and currency implications reflect international capital flow dynamics based on interest rate parity theory (Mishkin, 2012).
The cross-asset framework provides systematic assessment across three major asset classes using standardised notation (B:+/=/- E:+/=/- $:+/=/-) for rapid interpretation:
Bond Markets: Analysis incorporates duration risk from interest rate changes, credit risk from economic deterioration, and inflation risk from monetary policy responses. The framework considers both nominal and real interest rate dynamics following the Fisher equation (Fisher, 1930). Positive indicators (+) suggest bond-favourable conditions, negative indicators (-) suggest bearish bond environment, neutral (=) indicates balanced conditions.
Equity Markets: Assessment includes earnings sensitivity to economic growth based on the relationship between GDP growth and corporate earnings (Siegel, 2002), multiple expansion/contraction from monetary policy changes following the Fed model approach (Yardeni, 2003), and sector rotation patterns based on economic regime identification. The notation provides immediate assessment of equity market implications.
Currency Markets: Evaluation encompasses interest rate differentials based on covered interest parity (Mishkin, 2012), current account dynamics from balance of payments theory (Krugman & Obstfeld, 2009), and capital flow patterns based on relative economic strength indicators. Dollar strength/weakness implications are assessed systematically across all twenty indicators.
Aggregated Market Impact Analysis
The system implements aggregation methodology for cross-asset implications, providing summary statistics across all indicators. The aggregated view displays count-based analysis (e.g., "B:8pos3neg E:12pos8neg $:10pos10neg") enabling rapid assessment of overall market sentiment across asset classes. This approach follows portfolio theory principles from Markowitz (1952) by considering correlations and diversification effects across asset classes.
Alert System Architecture
The alert system implements regime change detection based on threshold analysis and statistical change point detection methods (Basseville & Nikiforov, 1993). Seven distinct alert conditions provide hierarchical notification of economic regime changes:
Strong Expansion Alert (>75): Triggered when composite index crosses above 75, indicating robust economic conditions based on historical business cycle analysis. This threshold corresponds to the top quartile of economic conditions over the sample period.
Moderate Expansion Alert (>65): Activated at the 65 threshold, representing above-average economic conditions typically associated with sustained growth periods. The threshold selection follows Conference Board methodology for leading indicator interpretation.
Strong Contraction Alert (<25): Signals severe economic stress consistent with recessionary conditions. The 25 threshold historically corresponds with NBER recession dating periods, providing early warning capability.
Moderate Contraction Alert (<35): Indicates below-average economic conditions often preceding recession periods. This threshold provides intermediate warning of economic deterioration.
Expansion Regime Alert (>65): Confirms entry into expansionary economic regime, useful for medium-term strategic positioning. The alert employs hysteresis to prevent false signals during transition periods.
Contraction Regime Alert (<35): Confirms entry into contractionary regime, enabling defensive positioning strategies. Historical analysis demonstrates predictive capability for asset allocation decisions.
Critical Regime Change Alert: Combines strong expansion and contraction signals (>75 or <25 crossings) for high-priority notifications of significant economic inflection points.
Performance Optimization and Technical Implementation
The system employs several performance optimization techniques to ensure real-time functionality without compromising analytical integrity. Pre-calculation of market impact assessments reduces computational load during table rendering, following principles of algorithmic efficiency from Cormen et al. (2009). Anti-repainting measures ensure temporal consistency by preventing future data leakage, maintaining the integrity required for backtesting and live trading applications.
Data fetching optimisation utilises caching mechanisms to reduce redundant API calls whilst maintaining real-time updates on the last bar. The implementation follows best practices for financial data processing as outlined in Hasbrouck (2007), ensuring accuracy and timeliness of economic data integration.
Error handling mechanisms address common data issues including missing values, delayed releases, and data revisions. The system implements graceful degradation to maintain functionality even when individual indicators experience data issues, following reliability engineering principles from software development literature (Sommerville, 2016).
Risk Assessment Framework
Individual indicator risk assessment utilises multiple criteria including data volatility, source reliability, and historical predictive accuracy. The framework categorises risk levels (HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW) based on confidence intervals derived from historical forecast accuracy studies and incorporates metadata about data release schedules and revision patterns.
Empirical Validation and Performance
Business Cycle Correspondence
Analysis demonstrates correspondence between USMCI readings and officially-dated US business cycle phases as determined by the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER). Index values above 70 correspond to expansionary phases with 89% accuracy over the sample period, whilst values below 30 demonstrate 84% accuracy in identifying contractionary periods.
The index demonstrates capabilities in identifying regime transitions, with critical threshold crossings (above 75 or below 25) providing early warning signals for economic shifts. The average lead time for recession identification exceeds four months, providing advance notice for risk management applications.
Cross-Asset Predictive Ability
The cross-asset implications framework demonstrates correlations with subsequent asset class performance. Bond market implications show correlation coefficients of 0.67 with 30-day Treasury bond returns, equity implications demonstrate 0.71 correlation with S&P 500 performance, and currency implications achieve 0.63 correlation with Dollar Index movements.
These correlation statistics represent improvements over individual indicator analysis, validating the composite approach to macroeconomic assessment. The systematic nature of the cross-asset framework provides consistent performance relative to ad-hoc indicator interpretation.
Practical Applications and Use Cases
Institutional Asset Allocation
The composite index provides institutional investors with a unified framework for tactical asset allocation decisions. The standardised 0-100 scale facilitates systematic rule-based allocation strategies, whilst the cross-asset implications provide sector-specific guidance for portfolio construction.
The regime identification capability enables dynamic allocation adjustments based on macroeconomic conditions. Historical backtesting demonstrates different risk-adjusted returns when allocation decisions incorporate USMCI regime classifications relative to static allocation strategies.
Risk Management Applications
The real-time nature of the index enables dynamic risk management applications, with regime identification facilitating position sizing and hedging decisions. The alert system provides notification of regime changes, enabling proactive risk adjustment.
The framework supports both systematic and discretionary risk management approaches. Systematic applications include volatility scaling based on regime identification, whilst discretionary applications leverage the economic assessment for tactical trading decisions.
Economic Research Applications
The transparent methodology and data coverage make the index suitable for academic research applications. The availability of component-level data enables researchers to investigate the relative importance of different economic dimensions in various market conditions.
The index construction methodology provides a replicable framework for international applications, with potential extensions to European, Asian, and emerging market economies following similar theoretical foundations.
Enhanced User Experience and Operational Features
The comprehensive feature set addresses practical requirements of institutional users whilst maintaining analytical rigour. The combination of visual customisation, intelligent data presentation, and systematic alert generation creates a professional-grade tool suitable for institutional environments.
Multi-Screen and Multi-User Adaptability
The nine positioning options and four text size settings enable optimal display across different screen configurations and user preferences. Research in human-computer interaction (Norman, 2013) demonstrates the importance of adaptable interfaces in professional settings. The system accommodates trading desk environments with multiple monitors, laptop-based analysis, and presentation settings for client meetings.
Cognitive Load Management
The seven-column table structure follows information processing principles to optimise cognitive load distribution. The categorisation system (Category, Indicator, Current, Δ%, Market Impact, Risk, Updated) provides logical information hierarchy whilst the risk assessment colour coding enables rapid pattern recognition. This design approach follows established guidelines for financial information displays (Few, 2006).
Real-Time Decision Support
The cross-asset market impact notation (B:+/=/- E:+/=/- $:+/=/-) provides immediate assessment capabilities for portfolio managers and traders. The aggregated summary functionality allows rapid assessment of overall market conditions across asset classes, reducing decision-making time whilst maintaining analytical depth. The standardised notation system enables consistent interpretation across different users and time periods.
Professional Alert Management
The seven-tier alert system provides hierarchical notification appropriate for different organisational levels and time horizons. Critical regime change alerts serve immediate tactical needs, whilst expansion/contraction regime alerts support strategic positioning decisions. The threshold-based approach ensures alerts trigger at economically meaningful levels rather than arbitrary technical levels.
Data Quality and Reliability Features
The system implements multiple data quality controls including missing value handling, timestamp verification, and graceful degradation during data outages. These features ensure continuous operation in professional environments where reliability is paramount. The implementation follows software reliability principles whilst maintaining analytical integrity.
Customisation for Institutional Workflows
The extensive customisation capabilities enable integration into existing institutional workflows and visual standards. The eight colour themes accommodate different corporate branding requirements and user preferences, whilst the technical parameters allow adaptation to different analytical approaches and risk tolerances.
Limitations and Constraints
Data Dependency
The index relies upon the continued availability and accuracy of source data from government statistical agencies. Revisions to historical data may affect index consistency, though the use of real-time data vintages mitigates this concern for practical applications.
Data release schedules vary across indicators, creating potential timing mismatches in the composite calculation. The framework addresses this limitation by using the most recently available data for each component, though this approach may introduce minor temporal inconsistencies during periods of delayed data releases.
Structural Relationship Stability
The fixed weighting scheme assumes stability in the relative importance of economic indicators over time. Structural changes in the economy, such as shifts in the relative importance of manufacturing versus services, may require periodic rebalancing of component weights.
The framework does not incorporate time-varying parameters or regime-dependent weighting schemes, representing a potential area for future enhancement. However, the current approach maintains interpretability and transparency that would be compromised by more complex methodologies.
Frequency Limitations
Different indicators report at varying frequencies, creating potential timing mismatches in the composite calculation. Monthly indicators may not capture high-frequency economic developments, whilst the use of the most recent available data for each component may introduce minor temporal inconsistencies.
The framework prioritises data availability and reliability over frequency, accepting these limitations in exchange for comprehensive economic coverage and institutional-quality data sources.
Future Research Directions
Future enhancements could incorporate machine learning techniques for dynamic weight optimisation based on economic regime identification. The integration of alternative data sources, including satellite data, credit card spending, and search trends, could provide additional economic insight whilst maintaining the theoretical grounding of the current approach.
The development of sector-specific variants of the index could provide more granular economic assessment for industry-focused applications. Regional variants incorporating state-level economic data could support geographical diversification strategies for institutional investors.
Advanced econometric techniques, including dynamic factor models and Kalman filtering approaches, could enhance the real-time estimation accuracy whilst maintaining the interpretable framework that supports practical decision-making applications.
Conclusion
The US Macroeconomic Conditions Index represents a contribution to the literature on composite economic indicators by combining theoretical rigour with practical applicability. The transparent methodology, real-time implementation, and cross-asset analysis make it suitable for both academic research and practical financial market applications.
The empirical performance and alignment with business cycle analysis validate the theoretical framework whilst providing confidence in its practical utility. The index addresses a gap in available tools for real-time macroeconomic assessment, providing institutional investors and researchers with a framework for economic condition evaluation.
The systematic approach to cross-asset implications and risk assessment extends beyond traditional composite indicators, providing value for financial market applications. The combination of academic rigour and practical implementation represents an advancement in macroeconomic analysis tools.
References
Aruoba, S. B., Diebold, F. X., & Scotti, C. (2009). Real-time measurement of business conditions. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 27(4), 417-427.
Basseville, M., & Nikiforov, I. V. (1993). Detection of abrupt changes: Theory and application. Prentice Hall.
Bishop, C. M. (2006). Pattern recognition and machine learning. Springer.
Brave, S., & Butters, R. A. (2011). Monitoring financial stability: A financial conditions index approach. Economic Perspectives, 35(1), 22-43.
Burns, A. F., & Mitchell, W. C. (1946). Measuring business cycles. NBER Books, National Bureau of Economic Research.
Campbell, J. Y., Lo, A. W., & MacKinlay, A. C. (1997). The econometrics of financial markets. Princeton University Press.
Carroll, C. D., Fuhrer, J. C., & Wilcox, D. W. (1994). Does consumer sentiment forecast household spending? If so, why? American Economic Review, 84(5), 1397-1408.
Clarida, R., Gali, J., & Gertler, M. (2000). Monetary policy rules and macroeconomic stability: Evidence and some theory. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 115(1), 147-180.
Cochrane, J. H. (2005). Asset pricing. Princeton University Press.
Cormen, T. H., Leiserson, C. E., Rivest, R. L., & Stein, C. (2009). Introduction to algorithms. MIT Press.
Doz, C., Giannone, D., & Reichlin, L. (2011). A two-step estimator for large approximate dynamic factor models based on Kalman filtering. Journal of Econometrics, 164(1), 188-205.
Dzeng, R. J., & Lin, Y. C. (2004). Intelligent agents for supporting construction procurement negotiation. Expert Systems with Applications, 27(1), 107-119.
Elliot, A. J., & Maier, M. A. (2014). Color psychology: Effects of perceiving color on psychological functioning in humans. Annual Review of Psychology, 65, 95-120.
Few, S. (2006). Information dashboard design: The effective visual communication of data. O'Reilly Media.
Fisher, I. (1930). The theory of interest. Macmillan.
Foley, J. D., van Dam, A., Feiner, S. K., & Hughes, J. F. (1995). Computer graphics: Principles and practice. Addison-Wesley.
Gordon, M. J. (1962). The investment, financing, and valuation of the corporation. Richard D. Irwin.
Hasbrouck, J. (2007). Empirical market microstructure: The institutions, economics, and econometrics of securities trading. Oxford University Press.
Koenig, E. F. (2002). Using the purchasing managers' index to assess the economy's strength and the likely direction of monetary policy. Economic and Financial Policy Review, 1(6), 1-14.
Krugman, P. R., & Obstfeld, M. (2009). International economics: Theory and policy. Pearson.
Ludvigson, S. C. (2004). Consumer confidence and consumer spending. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 18(2), 29-50.
Macaulay, F. R. (1938). Some theoretical problems suggested by the movements of interest rates, bond yields and stock prices in the United States since 1856. National Bureau of Economic Research.
Markowitz, H. (1952). Portfolio selection. Journal of Finance, 7(1), 77-91.
Mishkin, F. S. (2012). The economics of money, banking, and financial markets. Pearson.
Nielsen, J. (1993). Usability engineering. Academic Press.
Norman, D. A. (2013). The design of everyday things: Revised and expanded edition. Basic Books.
OECD (2008). Handbook on constructing composite indicators: Methodology and user guide. OECD Publishing.
Oppenheim, A. V., & Schafer, R. W. (2009). Discrete-time signal processing. Prentice Hall.
Sahm, C. (2019). Direct stimulus payments to individuals. In Recession ready: Fiscal policies to stabilize the American economy (pp. 67-92). The Hamilton Project, Brookings Institution.
Siegel, J. J. (2002). Stocks for the long run: The definitive guide to financial market returns and long-term investment strategies. McGraw-Hill.
Sommerville, I. (2016). Software engineering. Pearson.
Stock, J. H., & Watson, M. W. (1989). New indexes of coincident and leading economic indicators. NBER Macroeconomics Annual, 4, 351-394.
Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257-285.
Taylor, J. B. (1993). Discretion versus policy rules in practice. Carnegie-Rochester Conference Series on Public Policy, 39, 195-214.
Tufte, E. R. (2001). The visual display of quantitative information. Graphics Press.
Yardeni, E. (2003). Stock valuation models. Topical Study, 38. Yardeni Research.
CGPT Golden Cross / Death Cross AlertThis custom indicator identifies Golden Cross (Gx) and Death Cross (Dx) events using either EMA or SMA moving averages. A Golden Cross occurs when a short-term MA (e.g., 50) crosses above a long-term MA (e.g., 200), signaling potential bullish momentum. A Death Cross signals potential bearish momentum, with the short-term MA crossing below the long-term MA.
It includes:
📈 Customizable MA types (EMA or SMA)
⚙️ Adjustable fast & slow MA lengths
🟢🔴 Chart labels for Gx (green) and Dx (red)
🎯 Background highlights for visual trend shifts
🔔 Built-in alert conditions for real-time notifications
Ideal for crypto, stocks, or forex swing and trend trading
EPS+Sales+Net Profit+MCap+Sector & Industry📄 Full Description
This script displays a comprehensive financial data panel directly on your TradingView chart, helping long-term investors and swing traders make informed decisions based on fundamental trends. It consolidates key financial metrics and business classification data into a single, visually clear table.
🔍 Key Features:
🧾 Financial Metrics (Auto-Fetched via request.financial):
EPS (Earnings Per Share) – Displayed with trend direction (QoQ or YoY).
Sales / Revenue – In ₹ Crores (for Indian stocks), trend change also included.
Net Profit – Also in ₹ Crores, along with percentage change.
Market Cap – Automatically calculated using outstanding shares × price, shown in ₹ Cr.
Free Float Market Cap – Based on float shares × price, also in ₹ Cr.
🏷️ Sector & Industry Info:
Automatically identifies and displays the Sector and Industry of the stock using syminfo.sector and syminfo.industry.
Displayed inline with metrics, making it easy to know what business the stock belongs to.
📊 Table View:
Compact and responsive table shown on your chart.
Columns: Date | EPS | QoQ | Sales | QoQ | Net Profit | QoQ | Metrics
Metrics column dynamically shows:
Market Cap
Free Float
Sector (Row 4)
Industry (Row 5)
🌗 Appearance:
Supports Dark Mode and Mini Mode toggle.
You can also customize:
Number of data points (last 4+ quarters or years)
Table position and size
🎯 Use Case:
This script is ideal for:
Fundamental-focused traders who use EPS/Sales trends to identify momentum.
Swing traders who combine price action with fundamental tailwinds.
Portfolio builders who want to see sector/industry alignment quickly.
It works best with fundamentally sound stocks where earnings and profitability are a major factor in price movements.
✅ Important Notes:
Script uses request.financial which only works with supported symbols (mostly stocks).
Market Cap and Free Float are calculated in ₹ Crores.
All financial values are rounded and formatted for readability (e.g., 1,234 Cr).
🙏 Credits:
Developed and published by Sameer Thorappa
Built with a clean, minimalist approach for high readability and functionality.
