AMRS_LongOnly_PartTimerThis Script is created to back-test the data starting 01/01/2000 based on AMRS strategy.
AMRS is long only strategy. It is based on unique calculation around moving averages and 2 year high price.
There are few strategies for moving average crossovers but AMRS strategy is unique compared to other moving averages strategies as it has very specific below mentioned calculations evolving around moving average and stock price.
AMRS strategy is unique one to generate buying signals when stock price creates new 2 year high and retraces back to 13 day EMA value.
AMRS strategy is unique one having specific calculation for entry signal and exit signal as mentioned below. This strategy gives back testing results to help build conviction on entry/exits if trades were taken in past as per the AMRS rules.
As per AMRS strategy this script generates green arrow on each time when new 2 year high is made and also generates long signal indicated by white arrow when stock price retraces back to 13 day EMA value and price is within 10% range from 2 year high.
This strategy will generate white arrow on the chart for each buy signal when stock price reaches 13 day EMA after first Long signal is generated. These subsequent buy signals can be used for pyramiding.
Entry Signal Logic : 1. Stock should be trading near 2 year high.
2. Stock price should be within 10% range from 2 year high
3. Stock price should be less than or equal to 13 day EMA and grater than equal to 21 day EMA
This AMRS strategy also generates exit signal for already generated buy signal (open position).
Exit signal generated when stock price closes 5% below 21 day EMA or when stock price closes below 20% from most recent 2 year high price.
Exit Signal Logic : 1. Stock price closes 5% below 21 day EMA or stock price closes below 20% from most recent 2 year high price.
2. Since exit logic is based on closing price it is plotted on the chart next day.
3. So when exit signal is plotted on the chart, previous days stock price is either closed below 5% of 21 day EMA or corrected 20% from recent 2 year high.
Note : To Calculate last entry positions % return, by default all positions are getting closed on mentioned end date.
Script parameters :
start date as 01/01/2000 - Constructed from Start Year - 2000, Start Month - 1 Start Date - 1
End date (mostly current date) Constructed from Values in End Year, End Month, End Date.
Initial Capital - Defaulted to 100000
Order Size - 5% of Equity
Pyramiding - 3 orders
Commission - 0.2%
Slippage - 1 tick (Since this strategy exit is on close basis mostly there wont be any slippages)
Wyszukaj w skryptach "2000元+股票投资+最低门槛"
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.
Trend Range Detector (Zeiierman)█ Overview
Trend Range Detector (Zeiierman) is a market structure tool that identifies and tracks periods of price compression by forming adaptive range boxes based on volatility and price movement. When prices remain stable within a defined band, the script dynamically draws a range box; when prices break out of that structure, the box highlights the breakout in real-time.
By combining a volatility-based envelope with a custom weighted centerline, this tool filters out noise and isolates truly stable zones — providing a clean framework for traders who focus on accumulation, distribution, breakout anticipation, and reversion opportunities.
Whether you're range trading, spotting trend consolidations, or looking for volatility contractions before major moves, the Trend Range Detector gives you a mathematically adaptive, visually intuitive structure that maps the heartbeat of the market.
█ How It Works
⚪ Range Formation Engine
The core of this indicator revolves around two conditions:
Distance Filter: The maximum distance between all recent closes and a dynamic centerline must remain within a volatility envelope.
Volatility Envelope: Based on an ATR(2000) multiplied by a user-defined factor to account for broader market volatility trends.
If both conditions are satisfied over the most recent length bars, a range box is drawn to visually anchor the zone.
⚪ Dynamic Breakout Coloring
When price breaks out of the top or bottom of the active range box, the box color shifts in real-time:
Blue Boxes represent areas where price has remained within a defined volatility envelope over a sustained number of bars. These zones reflect stable, low-volatility periods, often associated with consolidation, equilibrium, or market indecision.
Green Boxes for bullish breakouts.
Red Boxes for bearish breakdowns.
This allows traders to visually spot transitions from consolidation to expansion phases without relying on lagging signals.
█ Why Use a Weighted Close Instead of SMA?
A standard Simple Moving Average (SMA) treats all past closes equally, which works well in theory, but not in dynamic, fast-shifting markets. In this script, we replace the traditional SMA with a speed-weighted average that reflects how aggressively the market has moved bar-to-bar.
⚪ Here's why it matters:
Bars with higher momentum (larger price differences between closes) are given more weight.
Slow, sideways candles (typical in noise or low volume) contribute less to the calculated centerline.
This method creates a more accurate snapshot of market behavior, especially during volatile phases. As a result, the indicator adapts to market conditions more effectively, helping traders identify real consolidation zones, not just average lines distorted by flat bars or noise.
█ How to Use
⚪ Range Detection
Boxes form only when price remains consistently close to the speed-weighted mean.
Helps identify sideways zones, consolidations, and low-volatility structures where price is “charging up.”
⚪ Breakout Confirmation
Once price exits the top or bottom boundary, the box immediately highlights the direction of the break.
Use this signal in conjunction with your own momentum, volume, or trend filters for higher-confidence trades.
█ Settings
Minimum Range Length: Number of candles required for a valid range to form.
Range Width Multiplier: Adjusts the envelope around the weighted average using ATR(2000).
Highlight Box Breaks: Enables real-time coloring of breakouts and breakdowns for immediate visual feedback.
-----------------
Disclaimer
The content provided in my scripts, indicators, ideas, algorithms, and systems is for educational and informational purposes only. It does not constitute financial advice, investment recommendations, or a solicitation to buy or sell any financial instruments. I will not accept liability for any loss or damage, including without limitation any loss of profit, which may arise directly or indirectly from the use of or reliance on such information.
All investments involve risk, and the past performance of a security, industry, sector, market, financial product, trading strategy, backtest, or individual's trading does not guarantee future results or returns. Investors are fully responsible for any investment decisions they make. Such decisions should be based solely on an evaluation of their financial circumstances, investment objectives, risk tolerance, and liquidity needs.
Risk-Adjusted Momentum Oscillator# Risk-Adjusted Momentum Oscillator (RAMO): Momentum Analysis with Integrated Risk Assessment
## 1. Introduction
Momentum indicators have been fundamental tools in technical analysis since the pioneering work of Wilder (1978) and continue to play crucial roles in systematic trading strategies (Jegadeesh & Titman, 1993). However, traditional momentum oscillators suffer from a critical limitation: they fail to account for the risk context in which momentum signals occur. This oversight can lead to significant drawdowns during periods of market stress, as documented extensively in the behavioral finance literature (Kahneman & Tversky, 1979; Shefrin & Statman, 1985).
The Risk-Adjusted Momentum Oscillator addresses this gap by incorporating real-time drawdown metrics into momentum calculations, creating a self-regulating system that automatically adjusts signal sensitivity based on current risk conditions. This approach aligns with modern portfolio theory's emphasis on risk-adjusted returns (Markowitz, 1952) and reflects the sophisticated risk management practices employed by institutional investors (Ang, 2014).
## 2. Theoretical Foundation
### 2.1 Momentum Theory and Market Anomalies
The momentum effect, first systematically documented by Jegadeesh & Titman (1993), represents one of the most robust anomalies in financial markets. Subsequent research has confirmed momentum's persistence across various asset classes, time horizons, and geographic markets (Fama & French, 1996; Asness, Moskowitz & Pedersen, 2013). However, momentum strategies are characterized by significant time-varying risk, with particularly severe drawdowns during market reversals (Barroso & Santa-Clara, 2015).
### 2.2 Drawdown Analysis and Risk Management
Maximum drawdown, defined as the peak-to-trough decline in portfolio value, serves as a critical risk metric in professional portfolio management (Calmar, 1991). Research by Chekhlov, Uryasev & Zabarankin (2005) demonstrates that drawdown-based risk measures provide superior downside protection compared to traditional volatility metrics. The integration of drawdown analysis into momentum calculations represents a natural evolution toward more sophisticated risk-aware indicators.
### 2.3 Adaptive Smoothing and Market Regimes
The concept of adaptive smoothing in technical analysis draws from the broader literature on regime-switching models in finance (Hamilton, 1989). Perry Kaufman's Adaptive Moving Average (1995) pioneered the application of efficiency ratios to adjust indicator responsiveness based on market conditions. RAMO extends this concept by incorporating volatility-based adaptive smoothing, allowing the indicator to respond more quickly during high-volatility periods while maintaining stability during quiet markets.
## 3. Methodology
### 3.1 Core Algorithm Design
The RAMO algorithm consists of several interconnected components:
#### 3.1.1 Risk-Adjusted Momentum Calculation
The fundamental innovation of RAMO lies in its risk adjustment mechanism:
Risk_Factor = 1 - (Current_Drawdown / Maximum_Drawdown × Scaling_Factor)
Risk_Adjusted_Momentum = Raw_Momentum × max(Risk_Factor, 0.05)
This formulation ensures that momentum signals are dampened during periods of high drawdown relative to historical maximums, implementing an automatic risk management overlay as advocated by modern portfolio theory (Markowitz, 1952).
#### 3.1.2 Multi-Algorithm Momentum Framework
RAMO supports three distinct momentum calculation methods:
1. Rate of Change: Traditional percentage-based momentum (Pring, 2002)
2. Price Momentum: Absolute price differences
3. Log Returns: Logarithmic returns preferred for volatile assets (Campbell, Lo & MacKinlay, 1997)
This multi-algorithm approach accommodates different asset characteristics and volatility profiles, addressing the heterogeneity documented in cross-sectional momentum studies (Asness et al., 2013).
### 3.2 Leading Indicator Components
#### 3.2.1 Momentum Acceleration Analysis
The momentum acceleration component calculates the second derivative of momentum, providing early signals of trend changes:
Momentum_Acceleration = EMA(Momentum_t - Momentum_{t-n}, n)
This approach draws from the physics concept of acceleration and has been applied successfully in financial time series analysis (Treadway, 1969).
#### 3.2.2 Linear Regression Prediction
RAMO incorporates linear regression-based prediction to project momentum values forward:
Predicted_Momentum = LinReg_Value + (LinReg_Slope × Forward_Offset)
This predictive component aligns with the literature on technical analysis forecasting (Lo, Mamaysky & Wang, 2000) and provides leading signals for trend changes.
#### 3.2.3 Volume-Based Exhaustion Detection
The exhaustion detection algorithm identifies potential reversal points by analyzing the relationship between momentum extremes and volume patterns:
Exhaustion = |Momentum| > Threshold AND Volume < SMA(Volume, 20)
This approach reflects the established principle that sustainable price movements require volume confirmation (Granville, 1963; Arms, 1989).
### 3.3 Statistical Normalization and Robustness
RAMO employs Z-score normalization with outlier protection to ensure statistical robustness:
Z_Score = (Value - Mean) / Standard_Deviation
Normalized_Value = max(-3.5, min(3.5, Z_Score))
This normalization approach follows best practices in quantitative finance for handling extreme observations (Taleb, 2007) and ensures consistent signal interpretation across different market conditions.
### 3.4 Adaptive Threshold Calculation
Dynamic thresholds are calculated using Bollinger Band methodology (Bollinger, 1992):
Upper_Threshold = Mean + (Multiplier × Standard_Deviation)
Lower_Threshold = Mean - (Multiplier × Standard_Deviation)
This adaptive approach ensures that signal thresholds adjust to changing market volatility, addressing the critique of fixed thresholds in technical analysis (Taylor & Allen, 1992).
## 4. Implementation Details
### 4.1 Adaptive Smoothing Algorithm
The adaptive smoothing mechanism adjusts the exponential moving average alpha parameter based on market volatility:
Volatility_Percentile = Percentrank(Volatility, 100)
Adaptive_Alpha = Min_Alpha + ((Max_Alpha - Min_Alpha) × Volatility_Percentile / 100)
This approach ensures faster response during volatile periods while maintaining smoothness during stable conditions, implementing the adaptive efficiency concept pioneered by Kaufman (1995).
### 4.2 Risk Environment Classification
RAMO classifies market conditions into three risk environments:
- Low Risk: Current_DD < 30% × Max_DD
- Medium Risk: 30% × Max_DD ≤ Current_DD < 70% × Max_DD
- High Risk: Current_DD ≥ 70% × Max_DD
This classification system enables conditional signal generation, with long signals filtered during high-risk periods—a approach consistent with institutional risk management practices (Ang, 2014).
## 5. Signal Generation and Interpretation
### 5.1 Entry Signal Logic
RAMO generates enhanced entry signals through multiple confirmation layers:
1. Primary Signal: Crossover between indicator and signal line
2. Risk Filter: Confirmation of favorable risk environment for long positions
3. Leading Component: Early warning signals via acceleration analysis
4. Exhaustion Filter: Volume-based reversal detection
This multi-layered approach addresses the false signal problem common in traditional technical indicators (Brock, Lakonishok & LeBaron, 1992).
### 5.2 Divergence Analysis
RAMO incorporates both traditional and leading divergence detection:
- Traditional Divergence: Price and indicator divergence over 3-5 periods
- Slope Divergence: Momentum slope versus price direction
- Acceleration Divergence: Changes in momentum acceleration
This comprehensive divergence analysis framework draws from Elliott Wave theory (Prechter & Frost, 1978) and momentum divergence literature (Murphy, 1999).
## 6. Empirical Advantages and Applications
### 6.1 Risk-Adjusted Performance
The risk adjustment mechanism addresses the fundamental criticism of momentum strategies: their tendency to experience severe drawdowns during market reversals (Daniel & Moskowitz, 2016). By automatically reducing position sizing during high-drawdown periods, RAMO implements a form of dynamic hedging consistent with portfolio insurance concepts (Leland, 1980).
### 6.2 Regime Awareness
RAMO's adaptive components enable regime-aware signal generation, addressing the regime-switching behavior documented in financial markets (Hamilton, 1989; Guidolin, 2011). The indicator automatically adjusts its parameters based on market volatility and risk conditions, providing more reliable signals across different market environments.
### 6.3 Institutional Applications
The sophisticated risk management overlay makes RAMO particularly suitable for institutional applications where drawdown control is paramount. The indicator's design philosophy aligns with the risk budgeting approaches used by hedge funds and institutional investors (Roncalli, 2013).
## 7. Limitations and Future Research
### 7.1 Parameter Sensitivity
Like all technical indicators, RAMO's performance depends on parameter selection. While default parameters are optimized for broad market applications, asset-specific calibration may enhance performance. Future research should examine optimal parameter selection across different asset classes and market conditions.
### 7.2 Market Microstructure Considerations
RAMO's effectiveness may vary across different market microstructure environments. High-frequency trading and algorithmic market making have fundamentally altered market dynamics (Aldridge, 2013), potentially affecting momentum indicator performance.
### 7.3 Transaction Cost Integration
Future enhancements could incorporate transaction cost analysis to provide net-return-based signals, addressing the implementation shortfall documented in practical momentum strategy applications (Korajczyk & Sadka, 2004).
## References
Aldridge, I. (2013). *High-Frequency Trading: A Practical Guide to Algorithmic Strategies and Trading Systems*. 2nd ed. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Ang, A. (2014). *Asset Management: A Systematic Approach to Factor Investing*. New York: Oxford University Press.
Arms, R. W. (1989). *The Arms Index (TRIN): An Introduction to the Volume Analysis of Stock and Bond Markets*. Homewood, IL: Dow Jones-Irwin.
Asness, C. S., Moskowitz, T. J., & Pedersen, L. H. (2013). Value and momentum everywhere. *Journal of Finance*, 68(3), 929-985.
Barroso, P., & Santa-Clara, P. (2015). Momentum has its moments. *Journal of Financial Economics*, 116(1), 111-120.
Bollinger, J. (1992). *Bollinger on Bollinger Bands*. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Brock, W., Lakonishok, J., & LeBaron, B. (1992). Simple technical trading rules and the stochastic properties of stock returns. *Journal of Finance*, 47(5), 1731-1764.
Calmar, T. (1991). The Calmar ratio: A smoother tool. *Futures*, 20(1), 40.
Campbell, J. Y., Lo, A. W., & MacKinlay, A. C. (1997). *The Econometrics of Financial Markets*. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Chekhlov, A., Uryasev, S., & Zabarankin, M. (2005). Drawdown measure in portfolio optimization. *International Journal of Theoretical and Applied Finance*, 8(1), 13-58.
Daniel, K., & Moskowitz, T. J. (2016). Momentum crashes. *Journal of Financial Economics*, 122(2), 221-247.
Fama, E. F., & French, K. R. (1996). Multifactor explanations of asset pricing anomalies. *Journal of Finance*, 51(1), 55-84.
Granville, J. E. (1963). *Granville's New Key to Stock Market Profits*. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Guidolin, M. (2011). Markov switching models in empirical finance. In D. N. Drukker (Ed.), *Missing Data Methods: Time-Series Methods and Applications* (pp. 1-86). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing.
Hamilton, J. D. (1989). A new approach to the economic analysis of nonstationary time series and the business cycle. *Econometrica*, 57(2), 357-384.
Jegadeesh, N., & Titman, S. (1993). Returns to buying winners and selling losers: Implications for stock market efficiency. *Journal of Finance*, 48(1), 65-91.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. *Econometrica*, 47(2), 263-291.
Kaufman, P. J. (1995). *Smarter Trading: Improving Performance in Changing Markets*. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Korajczyk, R. A., & Sadka, R. (2004). Are momentum profits robust to trading costs? *Journal of Finance*, 59(3), 1039-1082.
Leland, H. E. (1980). Who should buy portfolio insurance? *Journal of Finance*, 35(2), 581-594.
Lo, A. W., Mamaysky, H., & Wang, J. (2000). Foundations of technical analysis: Computational algorithms, statistical inference, and empirical implementation. *Journal of Finance*, 55(4), 1705-1765.
Markowitz, H. (1952). Portfolio selection. *Journal of Finance*, 7(1), 77-91.
Murphy, J. J. (1999). *Technical Analysis of the Financial Markets: A Comprehensive Guide to Trading Methods and Applications*. New York: New York Institute of Finance.
Prechter, R. R., & Frost, A. J. (1978). *Elliott Wave Principle: Key to Market Behavior*. Gainesville, GA: New Classics Library.
Pring, M. J. (2002). *Technical Analysis Explained: The Successful Investor's Guide to Spotting Investment Trends and Turning Points*. 4th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Roncalli, T. (2013). *Introduction to Risk Parity and Budgeting*. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Shefrin, H., & Statman, M. (1985). The disposition to sell winners too early and ride losers too long: Theory and evidence. *Journal of Finance*, 40(3), 777-790.
Taleb, N. N. (2007). *The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable*. New York: Random House.
Taylor, M. P., & Allen, H. (1992). The use of technical analysis in the foreign exchange market. *Journal of International Money and Finance*, 11(3), 304-314.
Treadway, A. B. (1969). On rational entrepreneurial behavior and the demand for investment. *Review of Economic Studies*, 36(2), 227-239.
Wilder, J. W. (1978). *New Concepts in Technical Trading Systems*. Greensboro, NC: Trend Research.
Liquidity Sweep DetectorThe Liquidity Sweep Detector represents a technical analysis tool specifically designed to identify market microstructure patterns typically associated with institutional trading activity. According to Harris (2003), institutional traders frequently employ tactics where they momentarily break through price levels to trigger stop orders before redirecting the market in the opposite direction. This phenomenon, commonly referred to as "stop hunting" or "liquidity sweeping," constitutes a significant aspect of institutional order flow analysis (Osler, 2003). The current implementation provides retail traders with a means to identify these patterns, potentially aligning their trading decisions with institutional movements rather than becoming victims of such strategies.
Osler's (2003) research documents how stop-loss orders tend to cluster around significant price levels, creating concentrations of liquidity. Taylor (2005) argues that sophisticated institutional participants systematically exploit these liquidity clusters by inducing price movements that trigger these orders, subsequently profiting from the ensuing price reaction. The algorithmic detection of such patterns involves several key processes. First, the indicator identifies swing points—local maxima and minima—through comparison with historical price data within a definable lookback period. These swing points correspond to what Bulkowski (2011) describes as "significant pivot points" that frequently serve as liquidity zones where stop orders accumulate.
The core detection algorithm utilizes a multi-stage process to identify potential sweeps. For high sweeps, it monitors when price exceeds a previous swing high by a specified threshold percentage, followed by a bearish candle that closes below the original swing high level. Conversely, for low sweeps, it detects when price drops below a previous swing low by the threshold percentage, followed by a bullish candle closing above the original swing low. As noted by Lo and MacKinlay (2011), these price patterns often emerge when large institutional players attempt to capture liquidity before initiating significant directional moves.
The indicator maintains historical arrays of detected sweep events with their corresponding timestamps, enabling temporal analysis of market behavior following such events. Visual elements include horizontal lines marking sweep levels, background color highlighting for sweep events, and an information table displaying active sweeps with their corresponding price levels and elapsed time since detection. This visualization approach allows traders to quickly identify potential institutional activity without requiring complex interpretation of raw price data.
Parameter customization includes adjustable lookback periods for swing point identification, sweep threshold percentages for signal sensitivity, and display duration settings. These parameters allow traders to adapt the indicator to various market conditions and timeframes, as markets demonstrate different liquidity characteristics across instruments and periods (Madhavan, 2000).
Empirical studies by Easley et al. (2012) suggest that retail traders who successfully identify and act upon institutional liquidity sweeps may achieve superior risk-adjusted returns compared to conventional technical analysis approaches. However, as cautioned by Chordia et al. (2008), such patterns should be considered within broader market context rather than in isolation, as their predictive value varies significantly with overall market volatility and liquidity conditions.
References:
Bulkowski, T. (2011). Encyclopedia of Chart Patterns (2nd ed.). John Wiley & Sons.
Chordia, T., Roll, R., & Subrahmanyam, A. (2008). Liquidity and market efficiency. Journal of Financial Economics, 87(2), 249-268.
Easley, D., López de Prado, M., & O'Hara, M. (2012). Flow Toxicity and Liquidity in a High-frequency World. The Review of Financial Studies, 25(5), 1457-1493.
Harris, L. (2003). Trading and Exchanges: Market Microstructure for Practitioners. Oxford University Press.
Lo, A. W., & MacKinlay, A. C. (2011). A Non-Random Walk Down Wall Street. Princeton University Press.
Madhavan, A. (2000). Market microstructure: A survey. Journal of Financial Markets, 3(3), 205-258.
Osler, C. L. (2003). Currency Orders and Exchange Rate Dynamics: An Explanation for the Predictive Success of Technical Analysis. Journal of Finance, 58(5), 1791-1820.
Taylor, M. P. (2005). Official Foreign Exchange Intervention as a Coordinating Signal in the Dollar-Yen Market. Pacific Economic Review, 10(1), 73-82.
PowerHouse SwiftEdge AI v2.10 StrategyOverview
The PowerHouse SwiftEdge AI v2.10 Strategy is a sophisticated trading system designed to identify high-probability trade setups in forex, stocks, and cryptocurrencies. By combining multi-timeframe trend analysis, momentum signals, volume confirmation, and smart money concepts (Change of Character and Break of Structure ), this strategy offers traders a robust tool to capitalize on market trends while minimizing false signals. The strategy’s unique “AI” component analyzes trends across multiple timeframes to provide a clear, actionable dashboard, making it accessible for both novice and experienced traders. The strategy is fully customizable, allowing users to tailor its filters to their trading style.
What It Does
This strategy generates Buy and Sell signals based on a confluence of technical indicators and smart money concepts. It uses:
Multi-Timeframe Trend Analysis: Confirms the market’s direction by analyzing trends on the 1-hour (60M), 4-hour (240M), and daily (D) timeframes.
Momentum Filter: Ensures trades align with strong price movements to avoid choppy markets.
Volume Filter: Validates signals with above-average volume to confirm market participation.
Breakout Filter: Requires price to break key levels for added confirmation.
Smart Money Signals (CHoCH/BOS): Identifies reversals (CHoCH) and trend continuations (BOS) based on pivot points.
AI Trend Dashboard: Summarizes trend strength, confidence, and predictions across timeframes, helping traders make informed decisions without needing to analyze complex data manually.
The strategy also plots dynamic support and resistance trendlines, take-profit (TP) levels, and “Get Ready” signals to alert users of potential setups before they fully develop. Trades are executed with predefined take-profit and stop-loss levels for disciplined risk management.
How It Works
The strategy integrates multiple components to create a cohesive trading system:
Multi-Timeframe Trend Analysis:
The strategy evaluates trends on three timeframes (1H, 4H, Daily) using Exponential Moving Averages (EMA) and Volume-Weighted Average Price (VWAP). A trend is considered bullish if the price is above both the EMA and VWAP, bearish if below, or neutral otherwise.
Signals are only generated when the trend on the user-selected higher timeframe aligns with the trade direction (e.g., Buy signals require a bullish higher timeframe trend). This reduces noise and ensures trades follow the broader market context.
Momentum Filter:
Measures the percentage price change between consecutive bars and compares it to a volatility-adjusted threshold (based on the Average True Range ). This ensures trades are taken only during significant price movements, filtering out low-momentum conditions.
Volume Filter (Optional):
Checks if the current volume exceeds a long-term average and shows positive short-term volume change. This confirms strong market participation, reducing the risk of false breakouts.
Breakout Filter (Optional):
Requires the price to break above (for Buy) or below (for Sell) recent highs/lows, ensuring the signal aligns with a structural shift in the market.
Smart Money Concepts (CHoCH/BOS):
Change of Character (CHoCH): Detects potential reversals when the price crosses under a recent pivot high (for Sell) or over a recent pivot low (for Buy) with a bearish or bullish candle, respectively.
Break of Structure (BOS): Confirms trend continuations when the price breaks below a recent pivot low (for Sell) or above a recent pivot high (for Buy) with strong momentum.
These signals are plotted as horizontal lines with labels, making it easy to visualize key levels.
AI Trend Dashboard:
Combines trend direction, momentum, and volatility (ATR) across timeframes to calculate a trend score. Scores above 0.5 indicate an “Up” trend, below -0.5 indicate a “Down” trend, and otherwise “Neutral.”
Displays a table summarizing trend strength (as a percentage), AI confidence (based on trend alignment), and Cumulative Volume Delta (CVD) for market context.
A second table (optional) shows trend predictions for 1H, 4H, and Daily timeframes, helping traders anticipate future market direction.
Dynamic Trendlines:
Plots support and resistance lines based on recent swing lows and highs within user-defined periods (shortTrendPeriod, longTrendPeriod). These lines adapt to market conditions and are colored based on trend strength.
Why This Combination?
The PowerHouse SwiftEdge AI v2.10 Strategy is original because it seamlessly integrates traditional technical analysis (EMA, VWAP, ATR, volume) with smart money concepts (CHoCH, BOS) and a proprietary AI-driven trend analysis. Unlike standalone indicators, this strategy:
Reduces False Signals: By requiring confluence across trend, momentum, volume, and breakout filters, it minimizes trades in choppy or low-conviction markets.
Adapts to Market Context: The ATR-based momentum threshold adjusts dynamically to volatility, ensuring signals remain relevant in both trending and ranging markets.
Simplifies Decision-Making: The AI dashboard distills complex multi-timeframe data into a user-friendly table, eliminating the need for manual analysis.
Leverages Smart Money: CHoCH and BOS signals capture institutional price action patterns, giving traders an edge in identifying reversals and continuations.
The combination of these components creates a balanced system that aligns short-term trade entries with longer-term market trends, offering a unique blend of precision, adaptability, and clarity.
How to Use
Add to Chart:
Apply the strategy to your TradingView chart on a liquid symbol (e.g., EURUSD, BTCUSD, AAPL) with a timeframe of 60 minutes or lower (e.g., 15M, 60M).
Configure Inputs:
Pivot Length: Adjust the number of bars (default: 5) to detect pivot highs/lows for CHoCH/BOS signals. Higher values reduce noise but may delay signals.
Momentum Threshold: Set the base percentage (default: 0.01%) for momentum confirmation. Increase for stricter signals.
Take Profit/Stop Loss: Define TP and SL in points (default: 10 each) for risk management.
Higher/Lower Timeframe: Choose timeframes (60M, 240M, D) for trend filtering. Ensure the chart timeframe is lower than or equal to the higher timeframe.
Filters: Enable/disable momentum, volume, or breakout filters to suit your trading style.
Trend Periods: Set shortTrendPeriod (default: 30) and longTrendPeriod (default: 100) for trendline plotting. Keep below 2000 to avoid buffer errors.
AI Dashboard: Toggle Enable AI Market Analysis to show/hide the prediction table and adjust its position.
Interpret Signals:
Buy/Sell Labels: Green "Buy" or red "Sell" labels indicate trade entries with predefined TP/SL levels plotted.
Get Ready Signals: Yellow "Get Ready BUY" or orange "Get Ready SELL" labels warn of potential setups.
CHoCH/BOS Lines: Aqua (CHoCH Sell), lime (CHoCH Buy), fuchsia (BOS Sell), or teal (BOS Buy) lines mark key levels.
Trendlines: Green/lime (support) or fuchsia/purple (resistance) dashed lines show dynamic support/resistance.
AI Dashboard: Check the top-right table for trend strength, confidence, and CVD. The optional bottom table shows trend predictions (Up, Down, Neutral).
Backtest and Trade:
Use TradingView’s Strategy Tester to evaluate performance. Adjust TP/SL and filters based on results.
Trade manually based on signals or automate with TradingView alerts (set alerts for Buy/Sell labels).
Originality and Value
The PowerHouse SwiftEdge AI v2.10 Strategy stands out by combining multi-timeframe analysis, smart money concepts, and an AI-driven dashboard into a single, user-friendly system. Its adaptive momentum threshold, robust filtering, and clear visualizations empower traders to make confident decisions without needing advanced technical knowledge. Whether you’re a day trader or swing trader, this strategy provides a versatile, data-driven approach to navigating dynamic markets.
Important Notes:
Risk Management: Always use appropriate position sizing and risk management, as the strategy’s TP/SL levels are customizable.
Symbol Compatibility: Test on liquid symbols with sufficient historical data (at least 2000 bars) to avoid buffer errors.
Performance: Backtest thoroughly to optimize settings for your market and timeframe.
Sharpe Ratio Forced Selling StrategyThis study introduces the “Sharpe Ratio Forced Selling Strategy”, a quantitative trading model that dynamically manages positions based on the rolling Sharpe Ratio of an asset’s excess returns relative to the risk-free rate. The Sharpe Ratio, first introduced by Sharpe (1966), remains a cornerstone in risk-adjusted performance measurement, capturing the trade-off between return and volatility. In this strategy, entries are triggered when the Sharpe Ratio falls below a specified low threshold (indicating excessive pessimism), and exits occur either when the Sharpe Ratio surpasses a high threshold (indicating optimism or mean reversion) or when a maximum holding period is reached.
The underlying economic intuition stems from institutional behavior. Institutional investors, such as pension funds and mutual funds, are often subject to risk management mandates and performance benchmarking, requiring them to reduce exposure to assets that exhibit deteriorating risk-adjusted returns over rolling periods (Greenwood and Scharfstein, 2013). When risk-adjusted performance improves, institutions may rebalance or liquidate positions to meet regulatory requirements or internal mandates, a behavior that can be proxied effectively through a rising Sharpe Ratio.
By systematically monitoring the Sharpe Ratio, the strategy anticipates when “forced selling” pressure is likely to abate, allowing for opportunistic entries into assets priced below fundamental value. Exits are equally mechanized, either triggered by Sharpe Ratio improvements or by a strict time-based constraint, acknowledging that institutional rebalancing and window-dressing activities are often time-bound (Coval and Stafford, 2007).
The Sharpe Ratio is particularly suitable for this framework due to its ability to standardize excess returns per unit of risk, ensuring comparability across timeframes and asset classes (Sharpe, 1994). Furthermore, adjusting returns by a dynamically updating short-term risk-free rate (e.g., US 3-Month T-Bills from FRED) ensures that macroeconomic conditions, such as shifting interest rates, are accurately incorporated into the risk assessment.
While the Sharpe Ratio is an efficient and widely recognized measure, the strategy could be enhanced by incorporating alternative or complementary risk metrics:
• Sortino Ratio: Unlike the Sharpe Ratio, the Sortino Ratio penalizes only downside volatility (Sortino and van der Meer, 1991). This would refine entries and exits to distinguish between “good” and “bad” volatility.
• Maximum Drawdown Constraints: Integrating a moving window maximum drawdown filter could prevent entries during persistent downtrends not captured by volatility alone.
• Conditional Value at Risk (CVaR): A measure of expected shortfall beyond the Value at Risk, CVaR could further constrain entry conditions by accounting for tail risk in extreme environments (Rockafellar and Uryasev, 2000).
• Dynamic Thresholds: Instead of static Sharpe thresholds, one could implement dynamic bands based on the historical distribution of the Sharpe Ratio, adjusting for volatility clustering effects (Cont, 2001).
Each of these risk parameters could be incorporated into the current script as additional input controls, further tailoring the model to different market regimes or investor risk appetites.
References
• Cont, R. (2001) ‘Empirical properties of asset returns: stylized facts and statistical issues’, Quantitative Finance, 1(2), pp. 223-236.
• Coval, J.D. and Stafford, E. (2007) ‘Asset Fire Sales (and Purchases) in Equity Markets’, Journal of Financial Economics, 86(2), pp. 479-512.
• Greenwood, R. and Scharfstein, D. (2013) ‘The Growth of Finance’, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 27(2), pp. 3-28.
• Rockafellar, R.T. and Uryasev, S. (2000) ‘Optimization of Conditional Value-at-Risk’, Journal of Risk, 2(3), pp. 21-41.
• Sharpe, W.F. (1966) ‘Mutual Fund Performance’, Journal of Business, 39(1), pp. 119-138.
• Sharpe, W.F. (1994) ‘The Sharpe Ratio’, Journal of Portfolio Management, 21(1), pp. 49-58.
• Sortino, F.A. and van der Meer, R. (1991) ‘Downside Risk’, Journal of Portfolio Management, 17(4), pp. 27-31.
Daily Bollinger Band StrategyOverview of the Daily Bollinger Band Strategy
1. Strategy Overview and Features
This strategy is a tool for backtesting a trading method that uses Bollinger Bands. It is *not* a tool for automated trading.
1-1. Main Display Items
The main chart displays the Bollinger Bands and the 200-day moving average.
It also shows the entry and exit points along with the position size (in units of 100 shares).
1-2. Summary of Trading Rules
For long (buy) strategies, the trade enters when the price crosses above the +1σ line of the Bollinger Bands, aiming to ride an upward trend. The position is exited when the price crosses below the middle band.
For short (sell) strategies, the trade enters when the price crosses below the -1σ line of the Bollinger Bands, aiming to ride a downward trend. The position is exited when the price crosses above the middle band.
1-3. Strategic Enhancements
The strategy uses the slope of the 200-day moving average to determine the trend direction and enter trades accordingly. This improves the win rate and payoff ratio.
Additionally, to reduce the probability of ruin, the risk per trade is limited to 1.0% of capital, and position sizing is adjusted using ATR (a volatility indicator).
2. Trading Rules
2-1. Chart Type
Only daily charts are used.
2-2. Indicators Used
(1) Bollinger Bands** (used for entry and exit signals)
- Period: Fixed at 80 days
- Upper and lower bands: Fixed at ±1σ
(2) Moving Average** (used to determine trend direction)
- Period: Fixed at 200 days
- Trend direction is judged based on whether the difference from the previous day is positive (upward) or negative (downward)
2-3. Buy Rules
Setup:
- Price crosses above the +1σ line from below
- Both the middle band and 200-day moving average are upward sloping
Entry:
- Buy at the next day’s market open using a market order
Exit:
- If the price crosses below the middle band, sell at the next day’s open using a market order
2-4. Sell Rules
Setup:
- Price crosses below the -1σ line from above
- Both the middle band and 200-day moving average are downward sloping
Entry:
- Sell at the next day’s market open using a market order
Exit:
- If the price crosses above the middle band, buy back at the next day’s open using a market order
2-5. Risk Management Rules
- Risk per trade: 1.0% of total capital (acceptable loss = capital × 1.0%)
- Position size: Acceptable loss ÷ 2ATR (rounded down to the nearest unit of 100 shares)
2-6. Other Notes
- No brokerage fees
- No pyramiding
- No partial exits
- No reverse positions (no “stop-and-reverse” trades)
3. Strategy Parameters
The following settings can be specified:
3-1. Period Settings
- Start date: Set the start date for the backtest period
- Stop date: Set the end date for the backtest period
3-2. Display of Trend and Signals
- Show trend: When checked, the background color of the bars is light red for an uptrend and light blue for a downtrend
- Show signal: When checked, entry and exit signals are displayed (note: signals are executed at the next day’s open, so there is a one-day lag in the display)
3-3. Capital Management Settings
- Funds: Capital available for trading (in JPY)
- Risk rate: Specify what percentage of the capital to risk per trade
Settings in the “Properties” tab are not used in this strategy.
4. Backtest Results (Example)
Here are the backtest results conducted by the author:
- Target Stocks: All components of the Nikkei 225
- Test Period: January 4, 2000 – December 30, 2024
- Data Points: 12,886
- Win Rate: 33.45%
- Net Profit: ¥82,132,380
- Payoff Ratio: 2.450
- Expected Value: ¥6,373.8
- Risk Rate: 1.0%
- Probability of Ruin: 0.00%
---
デイリー・ボリンジャーバンド・ストラテジーの概要
1. ストラテジーの概要と特徴
このストラテジーは、ボリンジャーバンドを使ったトレード手法のバックテストを行うツールです。自動売買を行うツールではありません。
1-1. 主な表示項目
メインチャートにボリンジャーバンドと 200日移動平均線を表示します。
また、エントリーと手仕舞いのタイミングと数量（100株単位）も表示されます。
1-2. トレードルールの概要
買い戦略の場合、ボリンジャーバンドの +1σ 超えでエントリーして上昇トレンドに乗り、ミドルバンドを割ったら決済します。
売り戦略の場合、ボリンジャーバンドの -1σ 割りでエントリーして下降トレンドに乗り、ミドルバンドを上抜けたら決済します。
1-3. ストラテジーの工夫点
200日移動平均線の傾きを見てトレンド方向にエントリーをしています。こうして勝率とペイオフレシオの成績を向上しています。
また、破産確率を抑えるために、リスク資金比率を 1.0% にして、ATR（ボラティリティ指標） を使って注文数を調整しています。
2. 売買ルール
2-1. 使用するチャート
日足チャートに限定します
2-2. 使用する指標
(1) ボリンジャーバンド（仕掛けと手仕舞いのシグナルに使用）
期間は80日に固定
上下バンドは ±1σ に固定
(2) 移動平均線（トレンドの方向を見るために使用）
期間は200日に固定
移動平均の値の前日との差がプラスのとき上向き、マイナスのとき下向きと判断
2-3. 買いのルール
セットアップ：ボリンジャーバンドの +1σ を価格が下から上に交差 かつ ミドルバンドと 200日移動平均線が上向き
仕掛け：翌日の寄り付きに成行で買う
手仕舞い：ボリンジャーバンドのミドルバンドを価格が上から下に交差したら、翌日の寄り付きに成行で売る
2-4. 売りのルール
セットアップ：ボリンジャーバンドの -1σ を価格が上から下に交差 かつ ミドルバンドと 200日移動平均線が下向き
仕掛け：翌日の寄り付きに成行で売る
手仕舞い：ボリンジャーバンドのミドルバンドを価格が下から上に交差したら、翌日の寄り付きに成行で買い戻す
2-5. 資金管理のルール
リスク資金比率：資産の 1.0%（許容損失 = 資産 × 1.0%）
注文数：許容損失 ÷ 2ATR（単元株数未満は切り捨て）
2-6. その他
仲介手数料：なし
ピラミッディング：なし
分割決済：なし
ドテン：しない
3. ストラテジーのパラメーター
次の項目が指定できます。
3-1. 期間の設定
Staer date : バックテストの検証期間の開始日を指定します
Stop date : バックテストの検証期間の終了日を指定します
3-2. トレンドとシグナルの表示
Show trend : チェックを入れると、バーの背景色が、トレンドが上昇のときは薄い赤で、下落のときは薄い青で表示されます
Show signal : チェックを入れると、エントリーと手仕舞いのシグナルを表示します（シグナルの出た翌日の寄り付きに売買をするので表示に1日のずれがあります）
3-3. 資金管理用の設定
Funds : トレード用の資金(円)
Risk rate : 許容損失を資金の何%にするかで指定します
「プロパティタブ」で設定する値は、このストラテジーでは有効ではありません。
4. バックテストの結果（例）
作者がバックテストを実施した結果をお知らせします。
対象銘柄：日経225構成銘柄すべて
対象期間：2000年1月4日～2024年12月30日
データ件数：12,886
勝率：33.45%
純利益：82,132,380
ペイオフレシオ：2.450
期待値：6,373.8
リスク資金比率：1.0%
破産確率：0.00%
Eclipse Dates IndicatorThis TradingView indicator displays vertical lines on eclipse dates from 1980 to 2030, with comprehensive filtering options for different types of eclipses.
Features
Date Range: Covers 221 eclipse events from 1980 to 2030
Eclipse Types: Filter by Solar and/or Lunar eclipses
Eclipse Subtypes: Filter by Total, Partial, Annular, Penumbral, and Hybrid eclipses
Year Range Selection: Focus on specific decades (1980-1990, 1990-2000, etc.)
Visual Customization: Separate styling for Solar and Lunar eclipses
Line Appearance: Customize color, style, and width
Label Options: Show/hide labels with customizable appearance
Eclipse Types
Show Solar Eclipses: Toggle visibility of Solar eclipses
Show Lunar Eclipses: Toggle visibility of Lunar eclipses
Eclipse Subtypes
Show Total Eclipses: Toggle visibility of Total eclipses
Show Partial Eclipses: Toggle visibility of Partial eclipses
Show Annular Eclipses: Toggle visibility of Annular eclipses
Show Penumbral Eclipses: Toggle visibility of Penumbral eclipses
Show Hybrid Eclipses: Toggle visibility of Hybrid eclipses
Visual Settings
Solar/Lunar Eclipse Line Color: Set the color for eclipse lines
Solar/Lunar Eclipse Line Style: Choose between solid, dashed, or dotted lines
Solar/Lunar Eclipse Line Width: Set the width of eclipse lines
Solar/Lunar Label Text Color: Set the color for label text
Solar/Lunar Label Background Color: Set the background color for labels
General Settings
Show Eclipse Labels: Toggle visibility of eclipse labels
Label Size: Choose between tiny, small, normal, or large labels
Extend Lines to Chart Borders: Toggle whether lines extend to chart borders
Year Range: Filter eclipses by decade (1980-1990, 1990-2000, etc.)
Usage Tips
For optimal visualization, use daily or weekly timeframes
When analyzing specific periods, use the Year Range filter
To focus on specific eclipse types, use the type and subtype filters
For cleaner charts, you can hide labels and only show lines
Customize colors to match your chart theme
Data Source
Eclipse data is sourced from NASA's Five Millennium Catalog of Solar Eclipses and includes both solar and lunar eclipses from 1980 to 2030.
Implied and Historical VolatilityAbstract
This TradingView indicator visualizes implied volatility (IV) derived from the VIX index and historical volatility (HV) computed from past price data of the S&P 500 (or any selected asset). It enables users to compare market participants' forward-looking volatility expectations (via VIX) with realized past volatility (via historical returns). Such comparisons are pivotal in identifying risk sentiment, volatility regimes, and potential mispricing in derivatives.
Functionality
Implied Volatility (IV):
The implied volatility is extracted from the VIX index, often referred to as the "fear gauge." The VIX represents the market's expectation of 30-day forward volatility, derived from options pricing on the S&P 500. Higher values of VIX indicate increased uncertainty and risk aversion (Whaley, 2000).
Historical Volatility (HV):
The historical volatility is calculated using the standard deviation of logarithmic returns over a user-defined period (default: 20 trading days). The result is annualized using a scaling factor (default: 252 trading days). Historical volatility represents the asset's past price fluctuation intensity, often used as a benchmark for realized risk (Hull, 2018).
Dynamic Background Visualization:
A dynamic background is used to highlight the relationship between IV and HV:
Yellow background: Implied volatility exceeds historical volatility, signaling elevated market expectations relative to past realized risk.
Blue background: Historical volatility exceeds implied volatility, suggesting the market might be underestimating future uncertainty.
Use Cases
Options Pricing and Trading:
The disparity between IV and HV provides insights into whether options are over- or underpriced. For example, when IV is significantly higher than HV, options traders might consider selling volatility-based derivatives to capitalize on elevated premiums (Natenberg, 1994).
Market Sentiment Analysis:
Implied volatility is often used as a proxy for market sentiment. Comparing IV to HV can help identify whether the market is overly optimistic or pessimistic about future risks.
Risk Management:
Institutional and retail investors alike use volatility measures to adjust portfolio risk exposure. Periods of high implied or historical volatility might necessitate rebalancing strategies to mitigate potential drawdowns (Campbell et al., 2001).
Volatility Trading Strategies:
Traders employing volatility arbitrage can benefit from understanding the IV/HV relationship. Strategies such as "long gamma" positions (buying options when IV < HV) or "short gamma" (selling options when IV > HV) are directly informed by these metrics.
Scientific Basis
The indicator leverages established financial principles:
Implied Volatility: Derived from the Black-Scholes-Merton model, implied volatility reflects the market's aggregate expectation of future price fluctuations (Black & Scholes, 1973).
Historical Volatility: Computed as the realized standard deviation of asset returns, historical volatility measures the intensity of past price movements, forming the basis for risk quantification (Jorion, 2007).
Behavioral Implications: IV often deviates from HV due to behavioral biases such as risk aversion and herding, creating opportunities for arbitrage (Baker & Wurgler, 2007).
Practical Considerations
Input Flexibility: Users can modify the length of the HV calculation and the annualization factor to suit specific markets or instruments.
Market Selection: The default ticker for implied volatility is the VIX (CBOE:VIX), but other volatility indices can be substituted for assets outside the S&P 500.
Data Frequency: This indicator is most effective on daily charts, as VIX data typically updates at a daily frequency.
Limitations
Implied volatility reflects the market's consensus but does not guarantee future accuracy, as it is subject to rapid adjustments based on news or events.
Historical volatility assumes a stationary distribution of returns, which might not hold during structural breaks or crises (Engle, 1982).
References
Black, F., & Scholes, M. (1973). "The Pricing of Options and Corporate Liabilities." Journal of Political Economy, 81(3), 637-654.
Whaley, R. E. (2000). "The Investor Fear Gauge." The Journal of Portfolio Management, 26(3), 12-17.
Hull, J. C. (2018). Options, Futures, and Other Derivatives. Pearson Education.
Natenberg, S. (1994). Option Volatility and Pricing: Advanced Trading Strategies and Techniques. McGraw-Hill.
Campbell, J. Y., Lo, A. W., & MacKinlay, A. C. (2001). The Econometrics of Financial Markets. Princeton University Press.
Jorion, P. (2007). Value at Risk: The New Benchmark for Managing Financial Risk. McGraw-Hill.
Baker, M., & Wurgler, J. (2007). "Investor Sentiment in the Stock Market." Journal of Economic Perspectives, 21(2), 129-151.
Forex Hammer and Hanging Man StrategyThe strategy is based on two key candlestick chart patterns: Hammer and Hanging Man. These chart patterns are widely used in technical analysis to identify potential reversal points in the market. Their relevance in the Forex market, known for its high liquidity and volatile price movements, is particularly pronounced. Both patterns provide insights into market sentiment and trader psychology, which are critical in currency trading, where short-term volatility plays a significant role.
1. Hammer:
• Typically occurs after a downtrend.
• Signals a potential trend reversal to the upside.
• A Hammer has:
• A small body (close and open are close to each other).
• A long lower shadow, at least twice as long as the body.
• No or a very short upper shadow.
2. Hanging Man:
• Typically occurs after an uptrend.
• Signals a potential reversal to the downside.
• A Hanging Man has:
• A small body, similar to the Hammer.
• A long lower shadow, at least twice as long as the body.
• A small or no upper shadow.
These patterns are a manifestation of market psychology, specifically the tug-of-war between buyers and sellers. The Hammer reflects a situation where sellers tried to push the price down but were overpowered by buyers, while the Hanging Man shows that buyers failed to maintain the upward movement, and sellers could take control.
Relevance of Chart Patterns in Forex
In the Forex market, chart patterns are vital tools because they offer insights into price action and market sentiment. Since Forex trading often involves large volumes of trades, chart patterns like the Hammer and Hanging Man are important for recognizing potential shifts in market momentum. These patterns are a part of technical analysis, which aims to forecast future price movements based on historical data, relying on the psychology of market participants.
Scientific Literature on the Relevance of Candlestick Patterns
1. Behavioral Finance and Candlestick Patterns:
Research on behavioral finance supports the idea that candlestick patterns, such as the Hammer and Hanging Man, are relevant because they reflect shifts in trader psychology and sentiment. According to Lo, Mamaysky, and Wang (2000), patterns like these could be seen as representations of collective investor behavior, influenced by overreaction, optimism, or pessimism, and can often signal reversals in market trends.
2. Statistical Validation of Chart Patterns:
Studies by Brock, Lakonishok, and LeBaron (1992) explored the profitability of technical analysis strategies, including candlestick patterns, and found evidence that certain patterns, such as the Hammer, can have predictive value in financial markets. While their study primarily focused on stock markets, their findings are generally applicable to the Forex market as well.
3. Market Efficiency and Candlestick Patterns:
The efficient market hypothesis (EMH) posits that all available information is reflected in asset prices, but some studies suggest that markets may not always be perfectly efficient, allowing for profitable exploitation of certain chart patterns. For instance, Jegadeesh and Titman (1993) found that momentum strategies, which often rely on price patterns and trends, could generate significant returns, suggesting that patterns like the Hammer or Hanging Man may provide a slight edge, particularly in short-term Forex trading.
Testing the Strategy in Forex Using the Provided Script
The provided script allows traders to test and evaluate the Hammer and Hanging Man patterns in Forex trading by entering positions when these patterns appear and holding the position for a specified number of periods. This strategy can be tested to assess its performance across different currency pairs and timeframes.
1. Testing on Different Timeframes:
• The effectiveness of candlestick patterns can vary across different timeframes, as market dynamics change with the level of detail in each timeframe. Shorter timeframes may provide more frequent signals, but with higher noise, while longer timeframes may produce more reliable signals, but with fewer opportunities. This multi-timeframe analysis could be an area to explore to enhance the strategy’s robustness.
2. Exit Strategies:
• The script incorporates an exit strategy where positions are closed after holding them for a specified number of periods. This is useful for testing how long the reversal patterns typically take to play out and when the optimal exit occurs for maximum profitability. It can also help to adjust the exit logic based on real-time market behavior.
Conclusion
The Hammer and Hanging Man patterns are widely recognized in technical analysis as potential reversal signals, and their application in Forex trading is valuable due to the market’s high volatility and liquidity. This strategy leverages these candlestick patterns to enter and exit trades based on shifts in market sentiment and psychology. Testing and optimization, as offered by the script, can help refine the strategy and improve its effectiveness.
For further refinement, it could be valuable to consider combining candlestick patterns with other technical indicators or using multi-timeframe analysis to confirm patterns and increase the probability of successful trades.
References:
• Lo, A. W., Mamaysky, H., & Wang, J. (2000). Foundations of Technical Analysis: Computational Algorithms, Statistical Inference, and Empirical Implementation. The Journal of Finance, 55(4), 1705-1770.
• Brock, W., Lakonishok, J., & LeBaron, B. (1992). Simple Technical Trading Rules and the Stochastic Properties of Stock Returns. The Journal of Finance, 47(5), 1731-1764.
• Jegadeesh, N., & Titman, S. (1993). Returns to Buying Winners and Selling Losers: Implications for Stock Market Efficiency. The Journal of Finance, 48(1), 65-91.
This provides a theoretical basis for the use of candlestick patterns in trading, supported by academic literature and research on market psychology and efficiency.
Volatility IndicatorThe volatility indicator presented here is based on multiple volatility indices that reflect the market’s expectation of future price fluctuations across different asset classes, including equities, commodities, and currencies. These indices serve as valuable tools for traders and analysts seeking to anticipate potential market movements, as volatility is a key factor influencing asset prices and market dynamics (Bollerslev, 1986).
Volatility, defined as the magnitude of price changes, is often regarded as a measure of market uncertainty or risk. Financial markets exhibit periods of heightened volatility that may precede significant price movements, whether upward or downward (Christoffersen, 1998). The indicator presented in this script tracks several key volatility indices, including the VIX (S&P 500), GVZ (Gold), OVX (Crude Oil), and others, to help identify periods of increased uncertainty that could signal potential market turning points.
Volatility Indices and Their Relevance
Volatility indices like the VIX are considered “fear gauges” as they reflect the market’s expectation of future volatility derived from the pricing of options. A rising VIX typically signals increasing investor uncertainty and fear, which often precedes market corrections or significant price movements. In contrast, a falling VIX may suggest complacency or confidence in continued market stability (Whaley, 2000).
The other volatility indices incorporated in the indicator script, such as the GVZ (Gold Volatility Index) and OVX (Oil Volatility Index), capture the market’s perception of volatility in specific asset classes. For instance, GVZ reflects market expectations for volatility in the gold market, which can be influenced by factors such as geopolitical instability, inflation expectations, and changes in investor sentiment toward safe-haven assets. Similarly, OVX tracks the implied volatility of crude oil options, which is a crucial factor for predicting price movements in energy markets, often driven by geopolitical events, OPEC decisions, and supply-demand imbalances (Pindyck, 2004).
Using the Indicator to Identify Market Movements
The volatility indicator alerts traders when specific volatility indices exceed a defined threshold, which may signal a change in market sentiment or an upcoming price movement. These thresholds, set by the user, are typically based on historical levels of volatility that have preceded significant market changes. When a volatility index exceeds this threshold, it suggests that market participants expect greater uncertainty, which often correlates with increased price volatility and the possibility of a trend reversal.
For example, if the VIX exceeds a pre-determined level (e.g., 30), it could indicate that investors are anticipating heightened volatility in the equity markets, potentially signaling a downturn or correction in the broader market. On the other hand, if the OVX rises significantly, it could point to an upcoming sharp movement in crude oil prices, driven by changing market expectations about supply, demand, or geopolitical risks (Geman, 2005).
Practical Application
To effectively use this volatility indicator in market analysis, traders should monitor the alert signals generated when any of the volatility indices surpass their thresholds. This can be used to identify periods of market uncertainty or potential market turning points across different sectors, including equities, commodities, and currencies. The indicator can help traders prepare for increased price movements, adjust their risk management strategies, or even take advantage of anticipated price swings through options trading or volatility-based strategies (Black & Scholes, 1973).
Traders may also use this indicator in conjunction with other technical analysis tools to validate the potential for significant market movements. For example, if the VIX exceeds its threshold and the market is simultaneously approaching a critical technical support or resistance level, the trader might consider entering a position that capitalizes on the anticipated price breakout or reversal.
Conclusion
This volatility indicator is a robust tool for identifying market conditions that are conducive to significant price movements. By tracking the behavior of key volatility indices, traders can gain insights into the market’s expectations of future price fluctuations, enabling them to make more informed decisions regarding market entries and exits. Understanding and monitoring volatility can be particularly valuable during times of heightened uncertainty, as changes in volatility often precede substantial shifts in market direction (French et al., 1987).
References
• Bollerslev, T. (1986). Generalized Autoregressive Conditional Heteroskedasticity. Journal of Econometrics, 31(3), 307-327.
• Christoffersen, P. F. (1998). Evaluating Interval Forecasts. International Economic Review, 39(4), 841-862.
• Whaley, R. E. (2000). Derivatives on Market Volatility. Journal of Derivatives, 7(4), 71-82.
• Pindyck, R. S. (2004). Volatility and the Pricing of Commodity Derivatives. Journal of Futures Markets, 24(11), 973-987.
• Geman, H. (2005). Commodities and Commodity Derivatives: Modeling and Pricing for Agriculturals, Metals and Energy. John Wiley & Sons.
• Black, F., & Scholes, M. (1973). The Pricing of Options and Corporate Liabilities. Journal of Political Economy, 81(3), 637-654.
• French, K. R., Schwert, G. W., & Stambaugh, R. F. (1987). Expected Stock Returns and Volatility. Journal of Financial Economics, 19(1), 3-29.
Z-Strike RecoveryThis strategy utilizes the Z-Score of daily changes in the VIX (Volatility Index) to identify moments of extreme market panic and initiate long entries. Scientific research highlights that extreme volatility levels often signal oversold markets, providing opportunities for mean-reversion strategies.
How the Strategy Works
Calculation of Daily VIX Changes:
The difference between today’s and yesterday’s VIX closing prices is calculated.
Z-Score Calculation:
The Z-Score quantifies how far the current change deviates from the mean (average), expressed in standard deviations:
Z-Score=(Daily VIX Change)−MeanStandard Deviation
Z-Score=Standard Deviation(Daily VIX Change)−Mean
The mean and standard deviation are computed over a rolling period of 16 days (default).
Entry Condition:
A long entry is triggered when the Z-Score exceeds a threshold of 1.3 (adjustable).
A high positive Z-Score indicates a strong overreaction in the market (panic).
Exit Condition:
The position is closed after 10 periods (days), regardless of market behavior.
Visualizations:
The Z-Score is plotted to make extreme values visible.
Horizontal threshold lines mark entry signals.
Bars with entry signals are highlighted with a blue background.
This strategy is particularly suitable for mean-reverting markets, such as the S&P 500.
Scientific Background
Volatility and Market Behavior:
Studies like Whaley (2000) demonstrate that the VIX, known as the "fear gauge," is highly correlated with market panic phases. A spike in the VIX is often interpreted as an oversold signal due to excessive hedging by investors.
Source: Whaley, R. E. (2000). The investor fear gauge. Journal of Portfolio Management, 26(3), 12-17.
Z-Score in Financial Strategies:
The Z-Score is a proven method for detecting statistical outliers and is widely used in mean-reversion strategies.
Source: Chan, E. (2009). Quantitative Trading. Wiley Finance.
Mean-Reversion Approach:
The strategy builds on the mean-reversion principle, which assumes that extreme market movements tend to revert to the mean over time.
Source: Jegadeesh, N., & Titman, S. (1993). Returns to Buying Winners and Selling Losers: Implications for Stock Market Efficiency. Journal of Finance, 48(1), 65-91.
Market Phases [OmegaTools]The Market Phases indicator utilizes the Detrended Price Oscillator (DPO) to assess various asset classes, bonds, or stock sectors across different market phases. It offers users the ability to monitor and compare trends in multiple markets through a normalized DPO approach, providing insights into relative overbought or oversold conditions. The indicator supports three distinct modes: "Asset Classes," "Bonds," and "Stock Sectors," allowing flexibility in market analysis based on user preference.
Key Features:
Detrended Price Oscillator (DPO) Calculation: The DPO is computed to remove longer-term trends and focus on shorter-term cyclical behavior. The indicator applies normalization using linear interpolation to smooth out the values for better comparison across different markets.
Three Analysis Modes:
Asset Classes: Compares the DPO for major asset classes, including stocks (S&P 500), bonds (US 10-Year), commodities (Gold), and the US Dollar Index (DXY).
Bonds: Analyzes the DPO across various bond categories such as investment-grade bonds (LQD), high-yield bonds (HYG), emerging market bonds (EMB), and corporate bonds.
Stock Sectors: Provides insight into key stock sectors, including Technology (XLK), Utilities (XLU), Financials (XLF), and Healthcare (XLV).
Real-Time Plotting:
The indicator plots the DPO values of the selected assets, bonds, or sectors on the chart. It provides a visual representation of the market phases, helping to identify potential market reversals or trends. Each plot is color-coded for clarity:
Blue: Asset/Sector 1
Red: Asset/Sector 2
Green: Asset/Sector 3
Orange: Asset/Sector 4
Table Display:
A dynamic table is displayed on the chart, showing the DPO values for the selected mode's assets or sectors. This allows quick comparison and evaluation of market trends.
Inputs:
DPO Length: Defines the lookback period for DPO calculation, adjustable between 10 and 500.
Normalization Length: Sets the length for normalizing the DPO values, with options ranging from 100 to 2000.
Mode: Choose between "Asset Classes," "Bonds," or "Stock Sectors" for tailored market analysis.
This tool is perfect for traders seeking to identify cyclical market phases, compare different asset classes, or monitor sector rotation dynamics. Use it to align your trading strategies with broader market trends and uncover potential trading opportunities across multiple markets.
Williams %R StrategyThe Williams %R Strategy implemented in Pine Script™ is a trading system based on the Williams %R momentum oscillator. The Williams %R indicator, developed by Larry Williams in 1973, is designed to identify overbought and oversold conditions in a market, helping traders time their entries and exits effectively (Williams, 1979). This particular strategy aims to capitalize on short-term price reversals in the S&P 500 (SPY) by identifying extreme values in the Williams %R indicator and using them as trading signals.
Strategy Rules:
Entry Signal:
A long position is entered when the Williams %R value falls below -90, indicating an oversold condition. This threshold suggests that the market may be near a short-term bottom, and prices are likely to reverse or rebound in the short term (Murphy, 1999).
Exit Signal:
The long position is exited when:
The current close price is higher than the previous day’s high, or
The Williams %R indicator rises above -30, indicating that the market is no longer oversold and may be approaching an overbought condition (Wilder, 1978).
Technical Analysis and Rationale:
The Williams %R is a momentum oscillator that measures the level of the close relative to the high-low range over a specific period, providing insight into whether an asset is trading near its highs or lows. The indicator values range from -100 (most oversold) to 0 (most overbought). When the value falls below -90, it indicates an oversold condition where a reversal is likely (Achelis, 2000). This strategy uses this oversold threshold as a signal to initiate long positions, betting on mean reversion—an established principle in financial markets where prices tend to revert to their historical averages (Jegadeesh & Titman, 1993).
Optimization and Performance:
The strategy allows for an adjustable lookback period (between 2 and 25 days) to determine the range used in the Williams %R calculation. Empirical tests show that shorter lookback periods (e.g., 2 days) yield the most favorable outcomes, with profit factors exceeding 2. This finding aligns with studies suggesting that shorter timeframes can effectively capture short-term momentum reversals (Fama, 1970; Jegadeesh & Titman, 1993).
Scientific Context:
Mean Reversion Theory: The strategy’s core relies on mean reversion, which suggests that prices fluctuate around a mean or average value. Research shows that such strategies, particularly those using oscillators like Williams %R, can exploit these temporary deviations (Poterba & Summers, 1988).
Behavioral Finance: The overbought and oversold conditions identified by Williams %R align with psychological factors influencing trading behavior, such as herding and panic selling, which often create opportunities for price reversals (Shiller, 2003).
Conclusion:
This Williams %R-based strategy utilizes a well-established momentum oscillator to time entries and exits in the S&P 500. By targeting extreme oversold conditions and exiting when these conditions revert or exceed historical ranges, the strategy aims to capture short-term gains. Scientific evidence supports the effectiveness of short-term mean reversion strategies, particularly when using indicators sensitive to momentum shifts.
References:
Achelis, S. B. (2000). Technical Analysis from A to Z. McGraw Hill.
Fama, E. F. (1970). Efficient Capital Markets: A Review of Theory and Empirical Work. The Journal of Finance, 25(2), 383-417.
Jegadeesh, N., & Titman, S. (1993). Returns to Buying Winners and Selling Losers: Implications for Stock Market Efficiency. The Journal of Finance, 48(1), 65-91.
Murphy, J. J. (1999). Technical Analysis of the Financial Markets: A Comprehensive Guide to Trading Methods and Applications. New York Institute of Finance.
Poterba, J. M., & Summers, L. H. (1988). Mean Reversion in Stock Prices: Evidence and Implications. Journal of Financial Economics, 22(1), 27-59.
Shiller, R. J. (2003). From Efficient Markets Theory to Behavioral Finance. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 17(1), 83-104.
Williams, L. (1979). How I Made One Million Dollars… Last Year… Trading Commodities. Windsor Books.
Wilder, J. W. (1978). New Concepts in Technical Trading Systems. Trend Research.
This explanation provides a scientific and evidence-based perspective on the Williams %R trading strategy, aligning it with fundamental principles in technical analysis and behavioral finance.
High Yield Spread Strategy with SMA FilterThis Pine Script strategy is designed for statistical analysis and research purposes only, not for live trading or financial decision-making. The script evaluates the relationship between financial volatility (measured by either the VIX or the High Yield Spread) and market positioning strategies (long or short) based on user-defined conditions. Specifically, it allows users to test the assumption that elevated levels of VIX or the High Yield Spread may justify short positions in the market—a widely held belief in financial circles—but this script demonstrates that shorting is not always the optimal choice, even under these conditions.
Key Components:
1. High Yield Spread and VIX:
• High Yield Spread is the difference between the yields of corporate high-yield (or “junk”) bonds and U.S. Treasury securities. A rising spread often reflects increased market risk perception.
• VIX (Volatility Index) is often referred to as the market’s “fear gauge.” Higher VIX levels usually indicate heightened market uncertainty or expected volatility.
2. Strategy Logic:
• The script allows users to specify a threshold for the VIX or High Yield Spread, and it automatically evaluates if the spread exceeds this level, which traditionally would suggest an environment for higher market risk and thus potentially favoring short trades.
• However, the strategy provides flexibility to enter long or short positions, even in a high-risk environment, emphasizing that a high VIX or High Yield Spread does not always warrant shorting.
3. SMA Filter:
• A Simple Moving Average (SMA) filter can be applied to the price data, where positions are only entered if the price is above or below the SMA (depending on the trade direction). This adds a technical component to the strategy, incorporating price trends into decision-making.
4. Hold Duration:
• The script also allows users to define how long to hold a position after entering, enabling an analysis of different timeframes.
Theoretical Background:
The traditional belief that high VIX or High Yield Spreads favor short positions is not universally supported by research. While a spike in the VIX or credit spreads is often associated with increased market risk, research suggests that excessive volatility does not always lead to negative returns. In fact, high volatility can sometimes signal an approaching market rebound.
For example:
• Studies have shown that long-term investments during periods of heightened volatility can yield favorable returns due to mean reversion. Whaley (2000) notes that VIX spikes are often followed by market recoveries as volatility tends to revert to its mean over time .
• Research by Blitz and Vliet (2007) highlights that low-volatility stocks have historically outperformed high-volatility stocks, suggesting that volatility may not always predict negative returns .
• Furthermore, credit spreads can widen in response to broader market stress, but these may overshoot the actual credit risk, presenting opportunities for long positions when spreads are high and risk premiums are mispriced .
Educational Purpose:
The goal of this script is to challenge assumptions about shorting during volatile periods, showing that long positions can be equally, if not more, effective during market stress. By incorporating an SMA filter and customizable logic for entering trades, users can test different hypotheses regarding the effectiveness of both long and short positions under varying market conditions.
Note: This strategy is not intended for live trading and should be used solely for educational and statistical exploration. Misinterpreting financial indicators can lead to incorrect investment decisions, and it is crucial to conduct comprehensive research before trading.
References:
1. Whaley, R. E. (2000). “The Investor Fear Gauge”. The Journal of Portfolio Management, 26(3), 12-17.
2. Blitz, D., & van Vliet, P. (2007). “The Volatility Effect: Lower Risk Without Lower Return”. Journal of Portfolio Management, 34(1), 102-113.
3. Bhamra, H. S., & Kuehn, L. A. (2010). “The Determinants of Credit Spreads: An Empirical Analysis”. Journal of Finance, 65(3), 1041-1072.
This explanation highlights the academic and research-backed foundation of the strategy and the nuances of volatility, while cautioning against the assumption that high VIX or High Yield Spread always calls for shorting.
Larry Conners Vix Reversal II Strategy (approx.)This Pine Script™ strategy is a modified version of the original Larry Connors VIX Reversal II Strategy, designed for short-term trading in market indices like the S&P 500. The strategy utilizes the Relative Strength Index (RSI) of the VIX (Volatility Index) to identify potential overbought or oversold market conditions. The logic is based on the assumption that extreme levels of market volatility often precede reversals in price.
How the Strategy Works
The strategy calculates the RSI of the VIX using a 25-period lookback window. The RSI is a momentum oscillator that measures the speed and change of price movements. It ranges from 0 to 100 and is often used to identify overbought and oversold conditions in assets.
Overbought Signal: When the RSI of the VIX rises above 61, it signals a potential overbought condition in the market. The strategy looks for a RSI downtick (i.e., when RSI starts to fall after reaching this level) as a trigger to enter a long position.
Oversold Signal: Conversely, when the RSI of the VIX drops below 42, the market is considered oversold. A RSI uptick (i.e., when RSI starts to rise after hitting this level) serves as a signal to enter a short position.
The strategy holds the position for a minimum of 7 days and a maximum of 12 days, after which it exits automatically.
Larry Connors: Background
Larry Connors is a prominent figure in quantitative trading, specializing in short-term market strategies. He is the co-author of several influential books on trading, such as Street Smarts (1995), co-written with Linda Raschke, and How Markets Really Work. Connors' work focuses on developing rules-based systems using volatility indicators like the VIX and oscillators such as RSI to exploit mean-reversion patterns in financial markets.
Risks of the Strategy
While the Larry Connors VIX Reversal II Strategy can capture reversals in volatile market environments, it also carries significant risks:
Over-Optimization: This modified version adjusts RSI levels and holding periods to fit recent market data. If market conditions change, the strategy might no longer be effective, leading to false signals.
Drawdowns in Trending Markets: This is a mean-reversion strategy, designed to profit when markets return to a previous mean. However, in strongly trending markets, especially during extended bull or bear phases, the strategy might generate losses due to early entries or exits.
Volatility Risk: Since this strategy is linked to the VIX, an instrument that reflects market volatility, large spikes in volatility can lead to unexpected, fast-moving market conditions, potentially leading to larger-than-expected losses.
Scientific Literature and Supporting Research
The use of RSI and VIX in trading strategies has been widely discussed in academic research. RSI is one of the most studied momentum oscillators, and numerous studies show that it can capture mean-reversion effects in various markets, including equities and derivatives.
Wong et al. (2003) investigated the effectiveness of technical trading rules such as RSI, finding that it has predictive power in certain market conditions, particularly in mean-reverting markets .
The VIX, often referred to as the “fear index,” reflects market expectations of volatility and has been a focal point in research exploring volatility-based strategies. Whaley (2000) extensively reviewed the predictive power of VIX, noting that extreme VIX readings often correlate with turning points in the stock market .
Modified Version of Original Strategy
This script is a modified version of Larry Connors' original VIX Reversal II strategy. The key differences include:
Adjusted RSI period to 25 (instead of 2 or 4 commonly used in Connors’ other work).
Overbought and oversold levels modified to 61 and 42, respectively.
Specific holding period (7 to 12 days) is predefined to reduce holding risk.
These modifications aim to adapt the strategy to different market environments, potentially enhancing performance under specific volatility conditions. However, as with any system, constant evaluation and testing in live markets are crucial.
References
Wong, W. K., Manzur, M., & Chew, B. K. (2003). How rewarding is technical analysis? Evidence from Singapore stock market. Applied Financial Economics, 13(7), 543-551.
Whaley, R. E. (2000). The investor fear gauge. Journal of Portfolio Management, 26(3), 12-17.
Larry Connors RSI 3 StrategyThe Larry Connors RSI 3 Strategy is a short-term mean-reversion trading strategy. It combines a moving average filter and a modified version of the Relative Strength Index (RSI) to identify potential buying opportunities in an uptrend. The strategy assumes that a short-term pullback within a long-term uptrend is an opportunity to buy at a discount before the trend resumes.
Components of the Strategy:
200-Day Simple Moving Average (SMA): The price must be above the 200-day SMA, indicating a long-term uptrend.
2-Period RSI: This is a very short-term RSI, used to measure the speed and magnitude of recent price changes. The standard RSI is typically calculated over 14 periods, but Connors uses just 2 periods to capture extreme overbought and oversold conditions.
Three-Day RSI Drop: The RSI must decline for three consecutive days, with the first drop occurring from an RSI reading above 60.
RSI Below 10: After the three-day drop, the RSI must reach a level below 10, indicating a highly oversold condition.
Buy Condition: All the above conditions must be satisfied to trigger a buy order.
Sell Condition: The strategy closes the position when the RSI rises above 70, signaling that the asset is overbought.
Who Was Larry Connors?
Larry Connors is a trader, author, and founder of Connors Research, a firm specializing in quantitative trading research. He is best known for developing strategies that focus on short-term market movements. Connors co-authored several popular books, including "Street Smarts: High Probability Short-Term Trading Strategies" with Linda Raschke, which has become a staple among traders seeking reliable, rule-based strategies. His research often emphasizes simplicity and robust testing, which appeals to both retail and institutional traders.
Scientific Foundations
The Relative Strength Index (RSI), originally developed by J. Welles Wilder in 1978, is a momentum oscillator that measures the speed and change of price movements. It oscillates between 0 and 100 and is typically used to identify overbought or oversold conditions in an asset. However, the use of a 2-period RSI in Connors' strategy is unconventional, as most traders rely on longer periods, such as 14. Connors' research showed that using a shorter period like 2 can better capture short-term reversals, particularly when combined with a longer-term trend filter such as the 200-day SMA.
Connors' strategies, including this one, are built on empirical research using historical data. For example, in a study of over 1,000 signals generated by this strategy, Connors found that it performed consistently well across various markets, especially when trading ETFs and large-cap stocks (Connors & Alvarez, 2009).
Risks and Considerations
While the Larry Connors RSI 3 Strategy is backed by empirical research, it is not without risks:
Mean-Reversion Assumption: The strategy is based on the premise that markets revert to the mean. However, in strong trending markets, the strategy may underperform as prices can remain oversold or overbought for extended periods.
Short-Term Nature: The strategy focuses on very short-term movements, which can result in frequent trading. High trading frequency can lead to increased transaction costs, which may erode profits.
Market Conditions: The strategy performs best in certain market environments, particularly in stable uptrends. In highly volatile or strongly trending markets, the strategy's performance can deteriorate.
Data and Backtesting Limitations: While backtests may show positive results, they rely on historical data and do not account for future market conditions, slippage, or liquidity issues.
Scientific literature suggests that while technical analysis strategies like this can be effective in certain market conditions, they are not foolproof. According to Lo et al. (2000), technical strategies may show patterns that are statistically significant, but these patterns often diminish once they are widely adopted by traders.
References
Connors, L., & Alvarez, C. (2009). Short-Term Trading Strategies That Work. TradingMarkets Publishing Group.
Lo, A. W., Mamaysky, H., & Wang, J. (2000). Foundations of Technical Analysis: Computational Algorithms, Statistical Inference, and Empirical Implementation. The Journal of Finance, 55(4), 1705-1770.
Wilder, J. W. (1978). New Concepts in Technical Trading Systems. Trend Research
Weighted US Liquidity ROC Indicator with FED RatesThe Weighted US Liquidity ROC Indicator is a technical indicator that measures the Rate of Change (ROC) of a weighted liquidity index. This index aggregates multiple monetary and liquidity measures to provide a comprehensive view of liquidity in the economy. The ROC of the liquidity index indicates the relative change in this index over a specified period, helping to identify trend changes and market movements.
1. Liquidity Components:
The indicator incorporates various monetary and liquidity measures, including M1, M2, the monetary base, total reserves of depository institutions, money market funds, commercial paper, and repurchase agreements (repos). Each of these components is assigned a weight that reflects its relative importance to overall liquidity.
2. ROC Calculation:
The Rate of Change (ROC) of the weighted liquidity index is calculated by finding the difference between the current value of the index and its value from a previous period (ROC period), then dividing this difference by the value from the previous period. This gives the percentage increase or decrease in the index.
3. Visualization:
The ROC value is plotted as a histogram, with positive and negative changes indicated by different colors. The Federal Funds Rate is also plotted separately to show the impact of central bank policy on liquidity.
Discussion of the Relationship Between Liquidity and Stock Market Returns
The relationship between liquidity and stock market returns has been extensively studied in financial economics. Here are some key insights supported by scientific research:
Liquidity and Stock Returns:
Liquidity Premium Theory: One of the primary theories is the liquidity premium theory, which suggests that assets with higher liquidity typically offer lower returns because investors are willing to accept lower yields for more liquid assets. Conversely, assets with lower liquidity may offer higher returns to compensate for the increased risk associated with their illiquidity (Amihud & Mendelson, 1986).
Empirical Evidence: Research by Fama and French (1992) has shown that liquidity is an important factor in explaining stock returns. Their studies suggest that stocks with lower liquidity tend to have higher expected returns, aligning with the liquidity premium theory.
Market Impact of Liquidity Changes:
Liquidity Shocks: Changes in liquidity can impact stock returns significantly. For example, an increase in liquidity is often associated with higher stock prices, as it reduces the cost of trading and enhances market efficiency (Chordia, Roll, & Subrahmanyam, 2000). Conversely, a liquidity shock, such as a sudden decrease in market liquidity, can lead to higher volatility and lower stock prices.
Financial Crises: During financial crises, liquidity tends to dry up, leading to sharp declines in stock market returns. For instance, studies on the 2008 financial crisis illustrate how a reduction in market liquidity exacerbated the decline in stock prices (Brunnermeier & Pedersen, 2009).
Central Bank Policies and Liquidity:
Monetary Policy Impact: Central bank policies, such as changes in the Federal Funds Rate, directly influence market liquidity. Lower interest rates generally increase liquidity by making borrowing cheaper, which can lead to higher stock market returns. On the other hand, higher rates can reduce liquidity and negatively impact stock prices (Bernanke & Gertler, 1999).
Policy Expectations: The anticipation of changes in monetary policy can also affect stock market returns. For example, expectations of rate cuts can lead to a rise in stock prices even before the actual policy change occurs (Kuttner, 2001).
Key References:
Amihud, Y., & Mendelson, H. (1986). "Asset Pricing and the Bid-Ask Spread." Journal of Financial Economics, 17(2), 223-249.
Fama, E. F., & French, K. R. (1992). "The Cross-Section of Expected Stock Returns." Journal of Finance, 47(2), 427-465.
Chordia, T., Roll, R., & Subrahmanyam, A. (2000). "Market Liquidity and Trading Activity." Journal of Finance, 55(2), 265-289.
Brunnermeier, M. K., & Pedersen, L. H. (2009). "Market Liquidity and Funding Liquidity." Review of Financial Studies, 22(6), 2201-2238.
Bernanke, B. S., & Gertler, M. (1999). "Monetary Policy and Asset Prices." NBER Working Paper No. 7559.
Kuttner, K. N. (2001). "Monetary Policy Surprises and Interest Rates: Evidence from the Fed Funds Futures Market." Journal of Monetary Economics, 47(3), 523-544.
These studies collectively highlight how liquidity influences stock market returns and how changes in liquidity conditions, influenced by monetary policy and other factors, can significantly impact stock prices and market stability.
Monte Carlo Future Moves [ChartPrime]ORIGINS AND HISTORICAL BACKGROUND:
Prior to the the advent of the Monte Carlo method, examining well-understood deterministic problems via simulation generally utilized statistical sampling to gauge uncertainty estimations. The Monte Carlo (MC) approach inverts this paradigm by modeling with probabilistic metaheuristics to address deterministic problems. Addressing Buffon's needle problem, an early form of the Monte Carlo method estimated π (3.14159) by dropping needles on a floor. Later, the modern MC inception primarily began when Stanislaw Ulam was playing solitaire games while experiencing illness and recovery.
Ulam further developed, applied, and ascribed "Monte Carlo" as a classified code name to maintain a level of secrecy for the modern method applications during collaborative investigations on neutron diffusion and collision intricacies with John von Neumann. Despite having relevant data, physicist's conventional deterministic mathematical methods were unable to solve mysterious "neutronion problems". Monte Carlo filled in the gaps necessary to resolve this perplexing neutron problem with innovative statistics, and the resilient MC continues onward to have diverse application in many fields of science. MC also extends into the realm of relevance within finance.
APPLICATION IN FINANCE:
Building on its historical roots, the Monte Carlo method's transition into finance opened new avenues for risk assessment and predictive analysis. In financial markets, characterized by uncertainty and complex variables, this method offers a powerful tool for simulating a wide range of scenarios and assessing probabilities of different outcomes. By employing probabilistic models to predict price movements, the Monte Carlo method helps in creating more resilient and informed trading strategies. This approach is particularly valuable in options pricing, portfolio management, and risk assessment, where understanding the range of potential outcomes is crucial for making sound investment decisions. Our indicator utilizes this methodology, blending traditional financial analysis with advanced statistical techniques.
THE INDICATOR:
The Monte Carlo Future Moves (ChartPrime) indicator is designed to predict future price movements. It simulates various possible price paths, showing the likelihood of different outcomes. We have designed it to be simple to use and understand by displaying lines indicating the most likely bullish and bearish outcomes. The arrows point to these areas making it intuitive to understand. Also included is extreme price levels shown in blue and yellow. This is the most likely extreme range that the price will move to. The outcome distribution is there to show you the range of outcomes along with a visual representation of the possible future outcomes. To make things more user friendly we have also included a representation of this distribution as a background heatmap. The brighter the price level, the more likely the price will end at that level. Finally, we have also included a market bias indication on the side that shows you the general bullish/bearish probabilities.
HOW TO USE:
To use this indicator you want to first assess the market bias. From there you want to target the most likely polar outcome. You can use the range of outcomes to assess your risk and set a stop within a reasonable range of the desired target. By default the indicator projects 10 steps into the future, however this can be easily adjusted in the settings. Generally this indicator excels at mid-term estimations and may yield inconclusive results if the prediction period is too short or too long. You can change the granularity of the outcomes to give you a more or less detailed view of the future. That being said, a lower resolution can make the predictions less useful while a higher resolution can give you a less useful picture. If you decide to use a higher resolution we have included an option to smooth the final result. This is intended to reduce the uncertainty and noise in the predicted outcomes. It is advised to use the minimum level of smoothing possible as a high level of smoothing will greatly reduce the accuracy.
INPUT SECTION:
Derivative Source changes how the indicator sees the price movements. When you set this to Candle it will use the difference between the open and close of each candle. If set to Move, it will use the difference between closing prices. If you are in a market with gaps, you might want to use Candle as this will prevent the indicator from seeing gaps.
Number of Simulations is a crucial setting as it is the core of this indicator. This determines the number of simulations the indicator will use to get its final result. By default it is set to 1000 as we feel like that is around the minimum number of simulations required to get a reasonable output while maintaining stability. In tests the maximum number of simulations we have been able to consistently achieve is 2000.
Lookback is the number of historical candles to account for. A lookback that is too short will not have enough data to accurately assess the likelihood of a price movement, while a period that is too large can make the data less relevant. By default this is set to 1000 as we feel like this is a reasonable tradeoff between volume of data and relevance.
Steps Into Future is the prediction period. By default we have picked a period of 10 steps as this has a good balance between accuracy and usability. The more steps into the future you go, the more uncertain the future outcome will be.
Outcome Granularity controls the precision of the simulated outcomes. By default this is set to 40 as its a good balance between resolution and accuracy.
Outcome Smoothing allows you to smooth the outcome distribution. By default this is set to 0 as it is generally not needed for lower resolutions. Smoothing levels beyond 2 are not recommended as it will negatively impact the output.
Returns Granularity controls the level of definition in the collected price movements. This directly impacts indicator performance and is set to 50 by default because its a good balance between fidelity and usability. When this number is too small, the simulations will be less accurate while numbers too large will negatively impact the probabilities of the movements.
Drift is the trend component in the simulation. This adds the directionality of the simulations by biasing the movements in the current direction of the market. We have included both the standard formula for drift and linear regression. Both methods are well suited for simulating future price movements and have their own advantages. The drift period is set to 100 by default as its a good balance between current and historical directionality. You may want to increase or decrease this number depending on the current market conditions but it is advised to use a period that isn't too small. If your period is too small it can skew the outcomes too much resulting in poor performance. When this is set to 0 it will use the same period as your lookback.
Volatility Adjust , adjusts the simulation to include current volatility. This makes sure that the price movements in the simulation reflects the current market conditions better by making sure that each price move is at least a minimum size.
Returns Style allows you to pick between using percent moves and log returns. We have opted to make percent move the default as it is more intuitive for beginners however both settings yield similar results. Log returns can be less cpu intensive so it might be desirable for longer term predictions.
Precision adjusts the rounding of used when collecting the frequency of price movement sizes. By default this is set to 4 as its is fairly accurate without impacting performance too much. A larger number will make the indicator more precise but at the cost of cpu time. Precision levels that are too small can greatly reduce the accuracy of the simulation and even break the indicator all together.
Update Every Bar allows you to recalculate the prediction every bar and is there for you if you want to strictly use the market bias. It is not recommended to enable this feature but it is there for flexibility.
Side of Chart allows you to pick what side of the price action you want the visuals to be on. When its set to the right everything will be to the right of the starting point and when its set to Left it will position everything to the left of the starting point.
Move Visualization is there to give you an arrow to the most likely bullish and bearish moves. It is meant as a visual aid and visualization tool. The color of these arrows use the same colors as the distribution.
Most Likely Move is a horizontal line that indicates the most likely move. It is positioned in the same location as the Move Visualization.
Standard Deviation is horizontal lines at the extremities of the simulated price action. These represent the most likely range of the future outcomes. You can adjust the multiplier of the standard deviation but by default it is set to 2.
Most Likely Direction is a vertical bar that shows you the sum of the up and down probabilities. It is there to show you the bias of the outcomes and guide you in decision making.
Max Probability Zone is a horizontal line that highlights the location of the highest probability move. You can think of it almost like the POC in a volume distribution but in this case it is the "most likely" single outcome.
Outcome Distribution allows you to toggle the distribution on or off. This is the distribution of all of the simulated outcomes. You can toggle the scale width of the distribution to fit your visual style.
Distribution Text toggles the probability text inside of the distribution bars. When you have a large number for the outcome granularity this text may not be visible and you may want to disable this feature.
Background is a heatmap of the outcome distribution. This allows you to visualize the underlying distribution without the need for the distribution histogram. The brighter the color, the more likely the outcome is for that level. It can be useful for visualizing the range of possible outcomes.
Starting Line is simply a horizontal line indicating the starting point of the simulation. It just the opening price for the starting position.
Extend Lines allows you to extend the lines and background past the prediction period.
CONCLUSION:
With its intuitive visuals and flexible settings, the Monte Carlo Future Moves (ChartPrime) indicator is practice and easy to use. It brings clarity to price movement predictions, helping you to build confidence in your strategies. This indicator not only reflects the evolution of technical analysis but also touches on data-driven insights.
Enjoy
ICT Times [joshu]This TradingView indicator provides a comprehensive view of ICT killzones, Silver Bullet times, and ICT Macros, enhancing your trading experience.
In those time windows price either seeks liquidity or imbalances and you often find the most energetic price moves and turning points.
Features:
Automatic Adaptation: The ICT killzones intelligently adapt to the specific chart you are using. For Forex charts, it follows the ICT Forex times:
Asia: 2000-0000
London: 0200-0500
New York: 0700-1000
London Close: 1000-1200
For other charts, it uses the following session times:
Asia: 2000-0000
London: 0200-0500
New York AM: 0830-1100
New York PM: 1330-1600
Silver Bullet Times:
0300-0400
1000-1100
1400-1500
How to Use:
Simply apply the indicator to your chart, and the session boxes and Silver Bullet times will be plotted automatically.
10x Bull Vs. Bear VP Intraday Sessions [Kioseff Trading]Hello!
This script "10x Bull Vs. Bear VP Intraday Sessions" lets the user configure up to 10 session ranges for Bull Vs. Bear volume profiles!
Features
Up To 10 Fixed Ranges!
Volume Profile Anchored to Fixed Range
Delta Ladder Anchored to Range
Bull vs Bear Profiles!
Standard Poc and Value Area Lines, in Addition to Separated POCs and Value Area Lines for Bull Profiles and Bear Profiles
Configurable Value Area Target
Up to 2000 Profile Rows per Visible Range
Stylistic Options for Profiles
This script generates Bull vs. Bear volume profiles for up to 10 fixed ranges!
Up to 2000 volume profile levels (price levels) Can be calculated for each profile, thanks to the new polyline feature, allowing for less aggregation / more precision of volume at price and volume delta.
Bull vs Bear Profiles
The image above shows primary functionality!
Green profiles = buying volume
Red profiles = selling volume
All colors are configurable.
Bullish & bearish POC + value areas for each fixed range are displayable!
That’s about it :D
This indicator is part of a series titled “Bull vs. Bear”.
If you have any suggestions please feel free to share!
Range Deviations @joshuuuThis indicator is able to show ranges, the equlibrium (50%) and range deviations.
It has four pre-defined options and one custom version.
Asia (2000-0000) ny time
CBDR(1400-2000) ny time
Flout(1400-0000) ny time
ONS (OverNightSession)(0400-0800) chicago time
Custom (you can choose the times)
ICT (Inner Circle Traders) teaches, that those range deviations of asia,cbdr,flout can be used to find the daily high/low.
TCM (The Currency Merchant) teaches, that a move out of the range often is a false move to trap traders into the wrong direction.
