L&S Volatility Index Refurbished█ Introduction
This is my second version of the L&S Volatility Index, hence the name "Refurbished".
The first version can be found at this link:
The reason I released a separate version is because I rewrote the source code from scratch with the aim of both improving the indicator and staying as close as possible to the original concept.
I feel that the first version was somewhat exotic and polluted in relation to the indicator originally described by the authors.
In short, the main idea remains the same, however, the way of presenting the result has been changed, reiterating what was said.
█ CONCEPTS
The L&S Volatility Index measures the volatility of price in relation to a moving average.
The indicator was originally described by Brazilian traders Alexandre Wolwacz (Stormer) and Fábio Figueiredo (Vlad) from L&S Educação Financeira.
Basically, this indicator can be used in two ways:
1. In a mean reversion strategy, when there is an unusual distance from it;
2. In a trend following strategy, when the price is in an acceptable region.
As an indicator of volatility, the greatest utility is shown in first case.
This is because it allows identifying abnormal prices, extremely stretched in relation to an average, including market crashes.
How the calculation is done:
First, the distance of the price from a given average in percentage terms is measured.
Then, the historical average volatility is obtained.
Finally the indicator is calculated through the ratio between the distance and the historical volatility.
According to the description proposed by the creators, when the L&S Volatility Index is above 30 it means that the price is "stretched".
The closer to 100 the more stretched.
When it reaches 0, it means the price is on average.
█ What to look for
Basically, you should look at non-standard prices.
How to identify it?
When the oscillator is outside the Dynamic Zone and/or the Fixed Zone (above 30), it is because the price is stretched.
Nothing on the market is guaranteed.
As with the RSI, it is not because the RSI is overbought or oversold that the price will necessarily go down or up.
It is critical to know when NOT to buy, NOT to sell or NOT to do anything.
It is always important to consider the context.
█ Improvements
The following improvements have been implemented.
It should be noted that these improvements can be disabled, thus using the indicator in the "purest" version, the same as the one conceived by the creators.
Resources:
1. Customization of limits and zones:
2. Customization of the timeframe, which can be different from the current one.
3. Repaint option (prints the indicator in real time even if the bar has not yet closed. This produces more signals).
4. Customization of price inputs. This affects the calculation.
5. Customization of the reference moving average (the moving average used to calculate the price distance).
6. Customization of the historical volatility calculation strategy.
- Accumulated ATR: calculates the historical volatility based on the accumulated ATR.
- Returns: calculates the historical volatility based on the returns of the source.
Both forms of volatility calculation have their specific utilities and applications.
Therefore, it is worthwhile to have both approaches available, and one should not necessarily replace the other.
Each method has its advantages and may be more appropriate in different contexts.
The first approach, using the accumulated ATR, can be useful when you want to take into account the implied volatility of prices over time,
reflecting broader price movements and higher impact events. It can be especially relevant in scenarios where unexpected events can drastically affect prices.
The second approach, using the standard deviation of returns, is more common and traditionally used to measure historical volatility.
It considers the variability of prices relative to their average, providing a more general measure of market volatility.
Therefore, both forms of calculation have their merits and can be useful depending on the context and specific analysis needs.
Having both options available gives users flexibility in choosing the most appropriate volatility measure for the situation at hand.
* When choosing "Accumulated ATR", if the indicator becomes difficult to see, there are 3 possibilities:
a) manually adjust the Fixed Zone value;
b) disable the Fixed Zone and use only the Dynamic Zone;
c) normalize the indicator.
7. Signal line (a moving average of the oscillator).
8. Option to normalize the indicator or not.
9. Colors to facilitate direction interpretation.
Since the L&S is a volatility indicator, it does not show whether the price is rising or falling.
This can sometimes confuse the user.
That said, the idea here is to show certain colors where the price is relative to the average, making it easier to analyze.
10. Alert messages for automations.
Wyszukaj w skryptach "Implied volatility"
vol_rangesThis script shows three measures of volatility:
historical (hv): realized volatility of the recent past
median (mv): a long run average of realized volatility
implied (iv): a user-defined volatility
Historical and median volatility are based on the EWMA, rather than standard deviation, method of calculating volatility. Since Tradingview's built in ema function uses a window, the "window" parameter determines how much historical data is used to calculate these volatility measures. E.g. 30 on a daily chart means the previous 30 days.
The plots above and below historical candles show past projections based on these measures. The "periods to expiration" dictates how far the projection extends. At 30 periods to expiration (default), the plot will indicate the one standard deviation range from 30 periods ago. This is calculated by multiplying the volatility measure by the square root of time. For example, if the historical volatility (hv) was 20% and the window is 30, then the plot is drawn over: close * 1.2 * sqrt(30/252).
At the most recent candle, this same calculation is simply drawn as a line projecting into the future.
This script is intended to be used with a particular options contract in mind. For example, if the option expires in 15 days and has an implied volatility of 25%, choose 15 for the window and 25 for the implied volatility options. The ranges drawn will reflect the two standard deviation range both in the future (lines) and at any point in the past (plots) for HV (blue), MV (red), and IV (grey).
ATR > VXN Alert (5m)ATR > VXN Volatility Divergence Indicator
This custom TradingView indicator monitors real-time volatility divergence between realized volatility (via Average True Range, ATR) and implied volatility (via the CBOE NASDAQ Volatility Index, VXN). It is inspired by the GJR-GARCH (Glosten-Jagannathan-Runkle Generalized Autoregressive Conditional Heteroskedasticity) model, which captures asymmetric volatility dynamics—particularly how markets respond more sharply to negative shocks than to positive ones.
Core Logic:
Chart on NQ (5 minute timeframe)
ATR (5-min) reflects realized intraday volatility of the Nasdaq 100 futures (NQ).
VXN (5-min, delayed) represents forward-looking implied volatility.
The indicator highlights regime shifts in volatility:
ATR < VXN: Volatility compression → potential energy building up (market coiling).
ATR > VXN: Volatility expansion → real movement exceeds expectations → potential breakout zone.
Visuals & Alerts:
Background turns green when ATR crosses above VXN, signaling a bullish expansion regime.
Background turns red when ATR drops below VXN, signaling compression or risk-off environment.
Custom alerts trigger on volatility regime shifts for breakout traders.
Application (Manual GJR-GARCH Strategy):
Similar to how the GJR-GARCH model captures volatility clustering and asymmetry, this indicator identifies when actual price volatility (ATR) begins to spike beyond implied forecasts (VXN), often after periods of contraction—mirroring a conditional variance shock in the GARCH framework.
Traders can align with directional bias using technical confluence (order flow, structure breaks, liquidity zones) once expansion is confirmed.
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.
Williams Vix Fix ultra complete indicator (Tartigradia)Williams VixFix is a realized volatility indicator developed by Larry Williams, and can help in finding market bottoms.
Indeed, as Williams describe in his paper, markets tend to find the lowest prices during times of highest volatility, which usually accompany times of highest fear. The VixFix is calculated as how much the current low price statistically deviates from the maximum within a given look-back period.
Although the VixFix originally only indicates market bottoms, its inverse may indicate market tops. As masa_crypto writes : "The inverse can be formulated by considering "how much the current high value statistically deviates from the minimum within a given look-back period." This transformation equates Vix_Fix_inverse. This indicator can be used for finding market tops, and therefore, is a good signal for a timing for taking a short position." However, in practice, the Inverse VixFix is much less reliable than the classical VixFix, but is nevertheless a good addition to get some additional context.
For more information on the Vix Fix, which is a strategy published under public domain:
* The VIX Fix, Larry Williams, Active Trader magazine, December 2007, web.archive.org
* Fixing the VIX: An Indicator to Beat Fear, Amber Hestla-Barnhart, Journal of Technical Analysis, March 13, 2015, ssrn.com
* Replicating the CBOE VIX using a synthetic volatility index trading algorithm, Dayne Cary and Gary van Vuuren, Cogent Economics & Finance, Volume 7, 2019, Issue 1, doi.org
Created By ChrisMoody on 12-26-2014...
V3 MAJOR Update on 1-05-2014
tista merged LazyBear's Black Dots filter in 2020:
Extended by Tartigradia in 10-2022:
* Can select a symbol different from current to calculate vixfix, allows to select SP:SPX to mimic the original VIX index.
* Inverse VixFix (from masa_crypto and web.archive.org)
* VixFix OHLC Bars plot
* Price / VixFix Candles plot (Pro Tip: draw trend lines to find good entry/exit points)
* Add ADX filtering, Minimaxis signals, Minimaxis filtering (from samgozman )
* Convert to pinescript v5
* Allow timeframe selection (MTF)
* Skip off days (more accurate reproduction of original VIX)
* Reorganized, cleaned up code, commented out parts, commented out or removed unused code (eg, some of the KC calculations)
* Changed default Bollinger Band settings to reduce false positives in crypto markets.
Set Index symbol to SPX, and index_current = false, and timeframe Weekly, to reproduce the original VIX as close as possible by the VIXFIX (use the Add Symbol option, because you want to plot CBOE:VIX on the same timeframe as the current chart, which may include extended session / weekends). With the Weekly timeframe, off days / extended session days should not change much, but with lower timeframes this is important, because nights and weekends can change how the graph appears and seemingly make them different because of timing misalignment when in reality they are not when properly aligned.
Black-Scholes 1973 OPM on Non-Dividend Paying Stocks [Loxx]Black-Scholes 1973 OPM on Non-Dividend Paying Stocks is an adaptation of the Black-Scholes-Merton Option Pricing Model including Analytical Greeks and implied volatility calculations. Making b equal to r yields the BSM model where dividends are not considered. The following information is an excerpt from Espen Gaarder Haug's book "Option Pricing Formulas". The options sensitivities (Greeks) are the partial derivatives of the Black-Scholes-Merton ( BSM ) formula. For our purposes here are, Analytical Greeks are broken down into various categories:
Delta Greeks: Delta, DDeltaDvol, Elasticity
Gamma Greeks: Gamma, GammaP, DGammaDSpot/speed, DGammaDvol/Zomma
Vega Greeks: Vega , DVegaDvol/Vomma, VegaP
Theta Greeks: Theta
Rate/Carry Greeks: Rho
Probability Greeks: StrikeDelta, Risk Neutral Density
(See the code for more details)
Black-Scholes-Merton Option Pricing
The BSM formula and its binomial counterpart may easily be the most used "probability model/tool" in everyday use — even if we con- sider all other scientific disciplines. Literally tens of thousands of people, including traders, market makers, and salespeople, use option formulas several times a day. Hardly any other area has seen such dramatic growth as the options and derivatives businesses. In this chapter we look at the various versions of the basic option formula. In 1997 Myron Scholes and Robert Merton were awarded the Nobel Prize (The Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel). Unfortunately, Fischer Black died of cancer in 1995 before he also would have received the prize.
It is worth mentioning that it was not the option formula itself that Myron Scholes and Robert Merton were awarded the Nobel Prize for, the formula was actually already invented, but rather for the way they derived it — the replicating portfolio argument, continuous- time dynamic delta hedging, as well as making the formula consistent with the capital asset pricing model (CAPM). The continuous dynamic replication argument is unfortunately far from robust. The popularity among traders for using option formulas heavily relies on hedging options with options and on the top of this dynamic delta hedging, see Higgins (1902), Nelson (1904), Mello and Neuhaus (1998), Derman and Taleb (2005), as well as Haug (2006) for more details on this topic. In any case, this book is about option formulas and not so much about how to derive them.
Provided here are the various versions of the Black-Scholes-Merton formula presented in the literature. All formulas in this section are originally derived based on the underlying asset S follows a geometric Brownian motion
dS = mu * S * dt + v * S * dz
where t is the expected instantaneous rate of return on the underlying asset, a is the instantaneous volatility of the rate of return, and dz is a Wiener process.
The formula derived by Black and Scholes (1973) can be used to value a European option on a stock that does not pay dividends before the option's expiration date. Letting c and p denote the price of European call and put options, respectively, the formula states that
c = S * N(d1) - X * e^(-r * T) * N(d2)
p = X * e^(-r * T) * N(d2) - S * N(d1)
where
d1 = (log(S / X) + (r + v^2 / 2) * T) / (v * T^0.5)
d2 = (log(S / X) + (r - v^2 / 2) * T) / (v * T^0.5) = d1 - v * T^0.5
**This version of the Black-Scholes formula can also be used to price American call options on a non-dividend-paying stock, since it will never be optimal to exercise the option before expiration.**
Inputs
S = Stock price.
X = Strike price of option.
T = Time to expiration in years.
r = Risk-free rate
b = Cost of carry
v = Volatility of the underlying asset price
cnd (x) = The cumulative normal distribution function
nd(x) = The standard normal density function
convertingToCCRate(r, cmp ) = Rate compounder
gImpliedVolatilityNR(string CallPutFlag, float S, float x, float T, float r, float b, float cm , float epsilon) = Implied volatility via Newton Raphson
gBlackScholesImpVolBisection(string CallPutFlag, float S, float x, float T, float r, float b, float cm ) = implied volatility via bisection
Implied Volatility: The Bisection Method
The Newton-Raphson method requires knowledge of the partial derivative of the option pricing formula with respect to volatility ( vega ) when searching for the implied volatility . For some options (exotic and American options in particular), vega is not known analytically. The bisection method is an even simpler method to estimate implied volatility when vega is unknown. The bisection method requires two initial volatility estimates (seed values):
1. A "low" estimate of the implied volatility , al, corresponding to an option value, CL
2. A "high" volatility estimate, aH, corresponding to an option value, CH
The option market price, Cm , lies between CL and cH . The bisection estimate is given as the linear interpolation between the two estimates:
v(i + 1) = v(L) + (c(m) - c(L)) * (v(H) - v(L)) / (c(H) - c(L))
Replace v(L) with v(i + 1) if c(v(i + 1)) < c(m), or else replace v(H) with v(i + 1) if c(v(i + 1)) > c(m) until |c(m) - c(v(i + 1))| <= E, at which point v(i + 1) is the implied volatility and E is the desired degree of accuracy.
Implied Volatility: Newton-Raphson Method
The Newton-Raphson method is an efficient way to find the implied volatility of an option contract. It is nothing more than a simple iteration technique for solving one-dimensional nonlinear equations (any introductory textbook in calculus will offer an intuitive explanation). The method seldom uses more than two to three iterations before it converges to the implied volatility . Let
v(i + 1) = v(i) + (c(v(i)) - c(m)) / (dc / dv (i))
until |c(m) - c(v(i + 1))| <= E at which point v(i + 1) is the implied volatility , E is the desired degree of accuracy, c(m) is the market price of the option, and dc/ dv (i) is the vega of the option evaluaated at v(i) (the sensitivity of the option value for a small change in volatility ).
Things to know
Only works on the daily timeframe and for the current source price.
You can adjust the text size to fit the screen
Generalized Black-Scholes-Merton w/ Analytical Greeks [Loxx]Generalized Black-Scholes-Merton w/ Analytical Greeks is an adaptation of the Black-Scholes-Merton Option Pricing Model including Analytical Greeks and implied volatility calculations. The following information is an excerpt from Espen Gaarder Haug's book "Option Pricing Formulas". The options sensitivities (Greeks) are the partial derivatives of the Black-Scholes-Merton (BSM) formula. Analytical Greeks for our purposes here are broken down into various categories:
Delta Greeks: Delta, DDeltaDvol, Elasticity
Gamma Greeks: Gamma, GammaP, DGammaDSpot/speed, DGammaDvol/Zomma
Vega Greeks: Vega, DVegaDvol/Vomma, VegaP
Theta Greeks: Theta
Rate/Carry Greeks: Rho, Rho futures option, Carry Rho, Phi/Rho2
Probability Greeks: StrikeDelta, Risk Neutral Density
(See the code for more details)
Black-Scholes-Merton Option Pricing
The BSM formula and its binomial counterpart may easily be the most used "probability model/tool" in everyday use — even if we con- sider all other scientific disciplines. Literally tens of thousands of people, including traders, market makers, and salespeople, use option formulas several times a day. Hardly any other area has seen such dramatic growth as the options and derivatives businesses. In this chapter we look at the various versions of the basic option formula. In 1997 Myron Scholes and Robert Merton were awarded the Nobel Prize (The Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel). Unfortunately, Fischer Black died of cancer in 1995 before he also would have received the prize.
It is worth mentioning that it was not the option formula itself that Myron Scholes and Robert Merton were awarded the Nobel Prize for, the formula was actually already invented, but rather for the way they derived it — the replicating portfolio argument, continuous- time dynamic delta hedging, as well as making the formula consistent with the capital asset pricing model (CAPM). The continuous dynamic replication argument is unfortunately far from robust. The popularity among traders for using option formulas heavily relies on hedging options with options and on the top of this dynamic delta hedging, see Higgins (1902), Nelson (1904), Mello and Neuhaus (1998), Derman and Taleb (2005), as well as Haug (2006) for more details on this topic. In any case, this book is about option formulas and not so much about how to derive them.
Provided here are the various versions of the Black-Scholes-Merton formula presented in the literature. All formulas in this section are originally derived based on the underlying asset S follows a geometric Brownian motion
dS = mu * S * dt + v * S * dz
where t is the expected instantaneous rate of return on the underlying asset, a is the instantaneous volatility of the rate of return, and dz is a Wiener process.
The formula derived by Black and Scholes (1973) can be used to value a European option on a stock that does not pay dividends before the option's expiration date. Letting c and p denote the price of European call and put options, respectively, the formula states that
c = S * N(d1) - X * e^(-r * T) * N(d2)
p = X * e^(-r * T) * N(d2) - S * N(d1)
where
d1 = (log(S / X) + (r + v^2 / 2) * T) / (v * T^0.5)
d2 = (log(S / X) + (r - v^2 / 2) * T) / (v * T^0.5) = d1 - v * T^0.5
Inputs
S = Stock price.
X = Strike price of option.
T = Time to expiration in years.
r = Risk-free rate
b = Cost of carry
v = Volatility of the underlying asset price
cnd (x) = The cumulative normal distribution function
nd(x) = The standard normal density function
convertingToCCRate(r, cmp ) = Rate compounder
gImpliedVolatilityNR(string CallPutFlag, float S, float x, float T, float r, float b, float cm , float epsilon) = Implied volatility via Newton Raphson
gBlackScholesImpVolBisection(string CallPutFlag, float S, float x, float T, float r, float b, float cm ) = implied volatility via bisection
Implied Volatility: The Bisection Method
The Newton-Raphson method requires knowledge of the partial derivative of the option pricing formula with respect to volatility ( vega ) when searching for the implied volatility . For some options (exotic and American options in particular), vega is not known analytically. The bisection method is an even simpler method to estimate implied volatility when vega is unknown. The bisection method requires two initial volatility estimates (seed values):
1. A "low" estimate of the implied volatility , al, corresponding to an option value, CL
2. A "high" volatility estimate, aH, corresponding to an option value, CH
The option market price, Cm , lies between CL and cH . The bisection estimate is given as the linear interpolation between the two estimates:
v(i + 1) = v(L) + (c(m) - c(L)) * (v(H) - v(L)) / (c(H) - c(L))
Replace v(L) with v(i + 1) if c(v(i + 1)) < c(m), or else replace v(H) with v(i + 1) if c(v(i + 1)) > c(m) until |c(m) - c(v(i + 1))| <= E, at which point v(i + 1) is the implied volatility and E is the desired degree of accuracy.
Implied Volatility: Newton-Raphson Method
The Newton-Raphson method is an efficient way to find the implied volatility of an option contract. It is nothing more than a simple iteration technique for solving one-dimensional nonlinear equations (any introductory textbook in calculus will offer an intuitive explanation). The method seldom uses more than two to three iterations before it converges to the implied volatility . Let
v(i + 1) = v(i) + (c(v(i)) - c(m)) / (dc / dv (i))
until |c(m) - c(v(i + 1))| <= E at which point v(i + 1) is the implied volatility , E is the desired degree of accuracy, c(m) is the market price of the option, and dc/ dv (i) is the vega of the option evaluaated at v(i) (the sensitivity of the option value for a small change in volatility ).
Things to know
Only works on the daily timeframe and for the current source price.
You can adjust the text size to fit the screen
Dynamic Equity Allocation Model"Cash is Trash"? Not Always. Here's Why Science Beats Guesswork.
Every retail trader knows the frustration: you draw support and resistance lines, you spot patterns, you follow market gurus on social media—and still, when the next bear market hits, your portfolio bleeds red. Meanwhile, institutional investors seem to navigate market turbulence with ease, preserving capital when markets crash and participating when they rally. What's their secret?
The answer isn't insider information or access to exotic derivatives. It's systematic, scientifically validated decision-making. While most retail traders rely on subjective chart analysis and emotional reactions, professional portfolio managers use quantitative models that remove emotion from the equation and process multiple streams of market information simultaneously.
This document presents exactly such a system—not a proprietary black box available only to hedge funds, but a fully transparent, academically grounded framework that any serious investor can understand and apply. The Dynamic Equity Allocation Model (DEAM) synthesizes decades of financial research from Nobel laureates and leading academics into a practical tool for tactical asset allocation.
Stop drawing colorful lines on your chart and start thinking like a quant. This isn't about predicting where the market goes next week—it's about systematically adjusting your risk exposure based on what the data actually tells you. When valuations scream danger, when volatility spikes, when credit markets freeze, when multiple warning signals align—that's when cash isn't trash. That's when cash saves your portfolio.
The irony of "cash is trash" rhetoric is that it ignores timing. Yes, being 100% cash for decades would be disastrous. But being 100% equities through every crisis is equally foolish. The sophisticated approach is dynamic: aggressive when conditions favor risk-taking, defensive when they don't. This model shows you how to make that decision systematically, not emotionally.
Whether you're managing your own retirement portfolio or seeking to understand how institutional allocation strategies work, this comprehensive analysis provides the theoretical foundation, mathematical implementation, and practical guidance to elevate your investment approach from amateur to professional.
The choice is yours: keep hoping your chart patterns work out, or start using the same quantitative methods that professionals rely on. The tools are here. The research is cited. The methodology is explained. All you need to do is read, understand, and apply.
The Dynamic Equity Allocation Model (DEAM) is a quantitative framework for systematic allocation between equities and cash, grounded in modern portfolio theory and empirical market research. The model integrates five scientifically validated dimensions of market analysis—market regime, risk metrics, valuation, sentiment, and macroeconomic conditions—to generate dynamic allocation recommendations ranging from 0% to 100% equity exposure. This work documents the theoretical foundations, mathematical implementation, and practical application of this multi-factor approach.
1. Introduction and Theoretical Background
1.1 The Limitations of Static Portfolio Allocation
Traditional portfolio theory, as formulated by Markowitz (1952) in his seminal work "Portfolio Selection," assumes an optimal static allocation where investors distribute their wealth across asset classes according to their risk aversion. This approach rests on the assumption that returns and risks remain constant over time. However, empirical research demonstrates that this assumption does not hold in reality. Fama and French (1989) showed that expected returns vary over time and correlate with macroeconomic variables such as the spread between long-term and short-term interest rates. Campbell and Shiller (1988) demonstrated that the price-earnings ratio possesses predictive power for future stock returns, providing a foundation for dynamic allocation strategies.
The academic literature on tactical asset allocation has evolved considerably over recent decades. Ilmanen (2011) argues in "Expected Returns" that investors can improve their risk-adjusted returns by considering valuation levels, business cycles, and market sentiment. The Dynamic Equity Allocation Model presented here builds on this research tradition and operationalizes these insights into a practically applicable allocation framework.
1.2 Multi-Factor Approaches in Asset Allocation
Modern financial research has shown that different factors capture distinct aspects of market dynamics and together provide a more robust picture of market conditions than individual indicators. Ross (1976) developed the Arbitrage Pricing Theory, a model that employs multiple factors to explain security returns. Following this multi-factor philosophy, DEAM integrates five complementary analytical dimensions, each tapping different information sources and collectively enabling comprehensive market understanding.
2. Data Foundation and Data Quality
2.1 Data Sources Used
The model draws its data exclusively from publicly available market data via the TradingView platform. This transparency and accessibility is a significant advantage over proprietary models that rely on non-public data. The data foundation encompasses several categories of market information, each capturing specific aspects of market dynamics.
First, price data for the S&P 500 Index is obtained through the SPDR S&P 500 ETF (ticker: SPY). The use of a highly liquid ETF instead of the index itself has practical reasons, as ETF data is available in real-time and reflects actual tradability. In addition to closing prices, high, low, and volume data are captured, which are required for calculating advanced volatility measures.
Fundamental corporate metrics are retrieved via TradingView's Financial Data API. These include earnings per share, price-to-earnings ratio, return on equity, debt-to-equity ratio, dividend yield, and share buyback yield. Cochrane (2011) emphasizes in "Presidential Address: Discount Rates" the central importance of valuation metrics for forecasting future returns, making these fundamental data a cornerstone of the model.
Volatility indicators are represented by the CBOE Volatility Index (VIX) and related metrics. The VIX, often referred to as the market's "fear gauge," measures the implied volatility of S&P 500 index options and serves as a proxy for market participants' risk perception. Whaley (2000) describes in "The Investor Fear Gauge" the construction and interpretation of the VIX and its use as a sentiment indicator.
Macroeconomic data includes yield curve information through US Treasury bonds of various maturities and credit risk premiums through the spread between high-yield bonds and risk-free government bonds. These variables capture the macroeconomic conditions and financing conditions relevant for equity valuation. Estrella and Hardouvelis (1991) showed that the shape of the yield curve has predictive power for future economic activity, justifying the inclusion of these data.
2.2 Handling Missing Data
A practical problem when working with financial data is dealing with missing or unavailable values. The model implements a fallback system where a plausible historical average value is stored for each fundamental metric. When current data is unavailable for a specific point in time, this fallback value is used. This approach ensures that the model remains functional even during temporary data outages and avoids systematic biases from missing data. The use of average values as fallback is conservative, as it generates neither overly optimistic nor pessimistic signals.
3. Component 1: Market Regime Detection
3.1 The Concept of Market Regimes
The idea that financial markets exist in different "regimes" or states that differ in their statistical properties has a long tradition in financial science. Hamilton (1989) developed regime-switching models that allow distinguishing between different market states with different return and volatility characteristics. The practical application of this theory consists of identifying the current market state and adjusting portfolio allocation accordingly.
DEAM classifies market regimes using a scoring system that considers three main dimensions: trend strength, volatility level, and drawdown depth. This multidimensional view is more robust than focusing on individual indicators, as it captures various facets of market dynamics. Classification occurs into six distinct regimes: Strong Bull, Bull Market, Neutral, Correction, Bear Market, and Crisis.
3.2 Trend Analysis Through Moving Averages
Moving averages are among the oldest and most widely used technical indicators and have also received attention in academic literature. Brock, Lakonishok, and LeBaron (1992) examined in "Simple Technical Trading Rules and the Stochastic Properties of Stock Returns" the profitability of trading rules based on moving averages and found evidence for their predictive power, although later studies questioned the robustness of these results when considering transaction costs.
The model calculates three moving averages with different time windows: a 20-day average (approximately one trading month), a 50-day average (approximately one quarter), and a 200-day average (approximately one trading year). The relationship of the current price to these averages and the relationship of the averages to each other provide information about trend strength and direction. When the price trades above all three averages and the short-term average is above the long-term, this indicates an established uptrend. The model assigns points based on these constellations, with longer-term trends weighted more heavily as they are considered more persistent.
3.3 Volatility Regimes
Volatility, understood as the standard deviation of returns, is a central concept of financial theory and serves as the primary risk measure. However, research has shown that volatility is not constant but changes over time and occurs in clusters—a phenomenon first documented by Mandelbrot (1963) and later formalized through ARCH and GARCH models (Engle, 1982; Bollerslev, 1986).
DEAM calculates volatility not only through the classic method of return standard deviation but also uses more advanced estimators such as the Parkinson estimator and the Garman-Klass estimator. These methods utilize intraday information (high and low prices) and are more efficient than simple close-to-close volatility estimators. The Parkinson estimator (Parkinson, 1980) uses the range between high and low of a trading day and is based on the recognition that this information reveals more about true volatility than just the closing price difference. The Garman-Klass estimator (Garman and Klass, 1980) extends this approach by additionally considering opening and closing prices.
The calculated volatility is annualized by multiplying it by the square root of 252 (the average number of trading days per year), enabling standardized comparability. The model compares current volatility with the VIX, the implied volatility from option prices. A low VIX (below 15) signals market comfort and increases the regime score, while a high VIX (above 35) indicates market stress and reduces the score. This interpretation follows the empirical observation that elevated volatility is typically associated with falling markets (Schwert, 1989).
3.4 Drawdown Analysis
A drawdown refers to the percentage decline from the highest point (peak) to the lowest point (trough) during a specific period. This metric is psychologically significant for investors as it represents the maximum loss experienced. Calmar (1991) developed the Calmar Ratio, which relates return to maximum drawdown, underscoring the practical relevance of this metric.
The model calculates current drawdown as the percentage distance from the highest price of the last 252 trading days (one year). A drawdown below 3% is considered negligible and maximally increases the regime score. As drawdown increases, the score decreases progressively, with drawdowns above 20% classified as severe and indicating a crisis or bear market regime. These thresholds are empirically motivated by historical market cycles, in which corrections typically encompassed 5-10% drawdowns, bear markets 20-30%, and crises over 30%.
3.5 Regime Classification
Final regime classification occurs through aggregation of scores from trend (40% weight), volatility (30%), and drawdown (30%). The higher weighting of trend reflects the empirical observation that trend-following strategies have historically delivered robust results (Moskowitz, Ooi, and Pedersen, 2012). A total score above 80 signals a strong bull market with established uptrend, low volatility, and minimal losses. At a score below 10, a crisis situation exists requiring defensive positioning. The six regime categories enable a differentiated allocation strategy that not only distinguishes binarily between bullish and bearish but allows gradual gradations.
4. Component 2: Risk-Based Allocation
4.1 Volatility Targeting as Risk Management Approach
The concept of volatility targeting is based on the idea that investors should maximize not returns but risk-adjusted returns. Sharpe (1966, 1994) defined with the Sharpe Ratio the fundamental concept of return per unit of risk, measured as volatility. Volatility targeting goes a step further and adjusts portfolio allocation to achieve constant target volatility. This means that in times of low market volatility, equity allocation is increased, and in times of high volatility, it is reduced.
Moreira and Muir (2017) showed in "Volatility-Managed Portfolios" that strategies that adjust their exposure based on volatility forecasts achieve higher Sharpe Ratios than passive buy-and-hold strategies. DEAM implements this principle by defining a target portfolio volatility (default 12% annualized) and adjusting equity allocation to achieve it. The mathematical foundation is simple: if market volatility is 20% and target volatility is 12%, equity allocation should be 60% (12/20 = 0.6), with the remaining 40% held in cash with zero volatility.
4.2 Market Volatility Calculation
Estimating current market volatility is central to the risk-based allocation approach. The model uses several volatility estimators in parallel and selects the higher value between traditional close-to-close volatility and the Parkinson estimator. This conservative choice ensures the model does not underestimate true volatility, which could lead to excessive risk exposure.
Traditional volatility calculation uses logarithmic returns, as these have mathematically advantageous properties (additive linkage over multiple periods). The logarithmic return is calculated as ln(P_t / P_{t-1}), where P_t is the price at time t. The standard deviation of these returns over a rolling 20-trading-day window is then multiplied by √252 to obtain annualized volatility. This annualization is based on the assumption of independently identically distributed returns, which is an idealization but widely accepted in practice.
The Parkinson estimator uses additional information from the trading range (High minus Low) of each day. The formula is: σ_P = (1/√(4ln2)) × √(1/n × Σln²(H_i/L_i)) × √252, where H_i and L_i are high and low prices. Under ideal conditions, this estimator is approximately five times more efficient than the close-to-close estimator (Parkinson, 1980), as it uses more information per observation.
4.3 Drawdown-Based Position Size Adjustment
In addition to volatility targeting, the model implements drawdown-based risk control. The logic is that deep market declines often signal further losses and therefore justify exposure reduction. This behavior corresponds with the concept of path-dependent risk tolerance: investors who have already suffered losses are typically less willing to take additional risk (Kahneman and Tversky, 1979).
The model defines a maximum portfolio drawdown as a target parameter (default 15%). Since portfolio volatility and portfolio drawdown are proportional to equity allocation (assuming cash has neither volatility nor drawdown), allocation-based control is possible. For example, if the market exhibits a 25% drawdown and target portfolio drawdown is 15%, equity allocation should be at most 60% (15/25).
4.4 Dynamic Risk Adjustment
An advanced feature of DEAM is dynamic adjustment of risk-based allocation through a feedback mechanism. The model continuously estimates what actual portfolio volatility and portfolio drawdown would result at the current allocation. If risk utilization (ratio of actual to target risk) exceeds 1.0, allocation is reduced by an adjustment factor that grows exponentially with overutilization. This implements a form of dynamic feedback that avoids overexposure.
Mathematically, a risk adjustment factor r_adjust is calculated: if risk utilization u > 1, then r_adjust = exp(-0.5 × (u - 1)). This exponential function ensures that moderate overutilization is gently corrected, while strong overutilization triggers drastic reductions. The factor 0.5 in the exponent was empirically calibrated to achieve a balanced ratio between sensitivity and stability.
5. Component 3: Valuation Analysis
5.1 Theoretical Foundations of Fundamental Valuation
DEAM's valuation component is based on the fundamental premise that the intrinsic value of a security is determined by its future cash flows and that deviations between market price and intrinsic value are eventually corrected. Graham and Dodd (1934) established in "Security Analysis" the basic principles of fundamental analysis that remain relevant today. Translated into modern portfolio context, this means that markets with high valuation metrics (high price-earnings ratios) should have lower expected returns than cheaply valued markets.
Campbell and Shiller (1988) developed the Cyclically Adjusted P/E Ratio (CAPE), which smooths earnings over a full business cycle. Their empirical analysis showed that this ratio has significant predictive power for 10-year returns. Asness, Moskowitz, and Pedersen (2013) demonstrated in "Value and Momentum Everywhere" that value effects exist not only in individual stocks but also in asset classes and markets.
5.2 Equity Risk Premium as Central Valuation Metric
The Equity Risk Premium (ERP) is defined as the expected excess return of stocks over risk-free government bonds. It is the theoretical heart of valuation analysis, as it represents the compensation investors demand for bearing equity risk. Damodaran (2012) discusses in "Equity Risk Premiums: Determinants, Estimation and Implications" various methods for ERP estimation.
DEAM calculates ERP not through a single method but combines four complementary approaches with different weights. This multi-method strategy increases estimation robustness and avoids dependence on single, potentially erroneous inputs.
The first method (35% weight) uses earnings yield, calculated as 1/P/E or directly from operating earnings data, and subtracts the 10-year Treasury yield. This method follows Fed Model logic (Yardeni, 2003), although this model has theoretical weaknesses as it does not consistently treat inflation (Asness, 2003).
The second method (30% weight) extends earnings yield by share buyback yield. Share buybacks are a form of capital return to shareholders and increase value per share. Boudoukh et al. (2007) showed in "The Total Shareholder Yield" that the sum of dividend yield and buyback yield is a better predictor of future returns than dividend yield alone.
The third method (20% weight) implements the Gordon Growth Model (Gordon, 1962), which models stock value as the sum of discounted future dividends. Under constant growth g assumption: Expected Return = Dividend Yield + g. The model estimates sustainable growth as g = ROE × (1 - Payout Ratio), where ROE is return on equity and payout ratio is the ratio of dividends to earnings. This formula follows from equity theory: unretained earnings are reinvested at ROE and generate additional earnings growth.
The fourth method (15% weight) combines total shareholder yield (Dividend + Buybacks) with implied growth derived from revenue growth. This method considers that companies with strong revenue growth should generate higher future earnings, even if current valuations do not yet fully reflect this.
The final ERP is the weighted average of these four methods. A high ERP (above 4%) signals attractive valuations and increases the valuation score to 95 out of 100 possible points. A negative ERP, where stocks have lower expected returns than bonds, results in a minimal score of 10.
5.3 Quality Adjustments to Valuation
Valuation metrics alone can be misleading if not interpreted in the context of company quality. A company with a low P/E may be cheap or fundamentally problematic. The model therefore implements quality adjustments based on growth, profitability, and capital structure.
Revenue growth above 10% annually adds 10 points to the valuation score, moderate growth above 5% adds 5 points. This adjustment reflects that growth has independent value (Modigliani and Miller, 1961, extended by later growth theory). Net margin above 15% signals pricing power and operational efficiency and increases the score by 5 points, while low margins below 8% indicate competitive pressure and subtract 5 points.
Return on equity (ROE) above 20% characterizes outstanding capital efficiency and increases the score by 5 points. Piotroski (2000) showed in "Value Investing: The Use of Historical Financial Statement Information" that fundamental quality signals such as high ROE can improve the performance of value strategies.
Capital structure is evaluated through the debt-to-equity ratio. A conservative ratio below 1.0 multiplies the valuation score by 1.2, while high leverage above 2.0 applies a multiplier of 0.8. This adjustment reflects that high debt constrains financial flexibility and can become problematic in crisis times (Korteweg, 2010).
6. Component 4: Sentiment Analysis
6.1 The Role of Sentiment in Financial Markets
Investor sentiment, defined as the collective psychological attitude of market participants, influences asset prices independently of fundamental data. Baker and Wurgler (2006, 2007) developed a sentiment index and showed that periods of high sentiment are followed by overvaluations that later correct. This insight justifies integrating a sentiment component into allocation decisions.
Sentiment is difficult to measure directly but can be proxied through market indicators. The VIX is the most widely used sentiment indicator, as it aggregates implied volatility from option prices. High VIX values reflect elevated uncertainty and risk aversion, while low values signal market comfort. Whaley (2009) refers to the VIX as the "Investor Fear Gauge" and documents its role as a contrarian indicator: extremely high values typically occur at market bottoms, while low values occur at tops.
6.2 VIX-Based Sentiment Assessment
DEAM uses statistical normalization of the VIX by calculating the Z-score: z = (VIX_current - VIX_average) / VIX_standard_deviation. The Z-score indicates how many standard deviations the current VIX is from the historical average. This approach is more robust than absolute thresholds, as it adapts to the average volatility level, which can vary over longer periods.
A Z-score below -1.5 (VIX is 1.5 standard deviations below average) signals exceptionally low risk perception and adds 40 points to the sentiment score. This may seem counterintuitive—shouldn't low fear be bullish? However, the logic follows the contrarian principle: when no one is afraid, everyone is already invested, and there is limited further upside potential (Zweig, 1973). Conversely, a Z-score above 1.5 (extreme fear) adds -40 points, reflecting market panic but simultaneously suggesting potential buying opportunities.
6.3 VIX Term Structure as Sentiment Signal
The VIX term structure provides additional sentiment information. Normally, the VIX trades in contango, meaning longer-term VIX futures have higher prices than short-term. This reflects that short-term volatility is currently known, while long-term volatility is more uncertain and carries a risk premium. The model compares the VIX with VIX9D (9-day volatility) and identifies backwardation (VIX > 1.05 × VIX9D) and steep backwardation (VIX > 1.15 × VIX9D).
Backwardation occurs when short-term implied volatility is higher than longer-term, which typically happens during market stress. Investors anticipate immediate turbulence but expect calming. Psychologically, this reflects acute fear. The model subtracts 15 points for backwardation and 30 for steep backwardation, as these constellations signal elevated risk. Simon and Wiggins (2001) analyzed the VIX futures curve and showed that backwardation is associated with market declines.
6.4 Safe-Haven Flows
During crisis times, investors flee from risky assets into safe havens: gold, US dollar, and Japanese yen. This "flight to quality" is a sentiment signal. The model calculates the performance of these assets relative to stocks over the last 20 trading days. When gold or the dollar strongly rise while stocks fall, this indicates elevated risk aversion.
The safe-haven component is calculated as the difference between safe-haven performance and stock performance. Positive values (safe havens outperform) subtract up to 20 points from the sentiment score, negative values (stocks outperform) add up to 10 points. The asymmetric treatment (larger deduction for risk-off than bonus for risk-on) reflects that risk-off movements are typically sharper and more informative than risk-on phases.
Baur and Lucey (2010) examined safe-haven properties of gold and showed that gold indeed exhibits negative correlation with stocks during extreme market movements, confirming its role as crisis protection.
7. Component 5: Macroeconomic Analysis
7.1 The Yield Curve as Economic Indicator
The yield curve, represented as yields of government bonds of various maturities, contains aggregated expectations about future interest rates, inflation, and economic growth. The slope of the yield curve has remarkable predictive power for recessions. Estrella and Mishkin (1998) showed that an inverted yield curve (short-term rates higher than long-term) predicts recessions with high reliability. This is because inverted curves reflect restrictive monetary policy: the central bank raises short-term rates to combat inflation, dampening economic activity.
DEAM calculates two spread measures: the 2-year-minus-10-year spread and the 3-month-minus-10-year spread. A steep, positive curve (spreads above 1.5% and 2% respectively) signals healthy growth expectations and generates the maximum yield curve score of 40 points. A flat curve (spreads near zero) reduces the score to 20 points. An inverted curve (negative spreads) is particularly alarming and results in only 10 points.
The choice of two different spreads increases analysis robustness. The 2-10 spread is most established in academic literature, while the 3M-10Y spread is often considered more sensitive, as the 3-month rate directly reflects current monetary policy (Ang, Piazzesi, and Wei, 2006).
7.2 Credit Conditions and Spreads
Credit spreads—the yield difference between risky corporate bonds and safe government bonds—reflect risk perception in the credit market. Gilchrist and Zakrajšek (2012) constructed an "Excess Bond Premium" that measures the component of credit spreads not explained by fundamentals and showed this is a predictor of future economic activity and stock returns.
The model approximates credit spread by comparing the yield of high-yield bond ETFs (HYG) with investment-grade bond ETFs (LQD). A narrow spread below 200 basis points signals healthy credit conditions and risk appetite, contributing 30 points to the macro score. Very wide spreads above 1000 basis points (as during the 2008 financial crisis) signal credit crunch and generate zero points.
Additionally, the model evaluates whether "flight to quality" is occurring, identified through strong performance of Treasury bonds (TLT) with simultaneous weakness in high-yield bonds. This constellation indicates elevated risk aversion and reduces the credit conditions score.
7.3 Financial Stability at Corporate Level
While the yield curve and credit spreads reflect macroeconomic conditions, financial stability evaluates the health of companies themselves. The model uses the aggregated debt-to-equity ratio and return on equity of the S&P 500 as proxies for corporate health.
A low leverage level below 0.5 combined with high ROE above 15% signals robust corporate balance sheets and generates 20 points. This combination is particularly valuable as it represents both defensive strength (low debt means crisis resistance) and offensive strength (high ROE means earnings power). High leverage above 1.5 generates only 5 points, as it implies vulnerability to interest rate increases and recessions.
Korteweg (2010) showed in "The Net Benefits to Leverage" that optimal debt maximizes firm value, but excessive debt increases distress costs. At the aggregated market level, high debt indicates fragilities that can become problematic during stress phases.
8. Component 6: Crisis Detection
8.1 The Need for Systematic Crisis Detection
Financial crises are rare but extremely impactful events that suspend normal statistical relationships. During normal market volatility, diversified portfolios and traditional risk management approaches function, but during systemic crises, seemingly independent assets suddenly correlate strongly, and losses exceed historical expectations (Longin and Solnik, 2001). This justifies a separate crisis detection mechanism that operates independently of regular allocation components.
Reinhart and Rogoff (2009) documented in "This Time Is Different: Eight Centuries of Financial Folly" recurring patterns in financial crises: extreme volatility, massive drawdowns, credit market dysfunction, and asset price collapse. DEAM operationalizes these patterns into quantifiable crisis indicators.
8.2 Multi-Signal Crisis Identification
The model uses a counter-based approach where various stress signals are identified and aggregated. This methodology is more robust than relying on a single indicator, as true crises typically occur simultaneously across multiple dimensions. A single signal may be a false alarm, but the simultaneous presence of multiple signals increases confidence.
The first indicator is a VIX above the crisis threshold (default 40), adding one point. A VIX above 60 (as in 2008 and March 2020) adds two additional points, as such extreme values are historically very rare. This tiered approach captures the intensity of volatility.
The second indicator is market drawdown. A drawdown above 15% adds one point, as corrections of this magnitude can be potential harbingers of larger crises. A drawdown above 25% adds another point, as historical bear markets typically encompass 25-40% drawdowns.
The third indicator is credit market spreads above 500 basis points, adding one point. Such wide spreads occur only during significant credit market disruptions, as in 2008 during the Lehman crisis.
The fourth indicator identifies simultaneous losses in stocks and bonds. Normally, Treasury bonds act as a hedge against equity risk (negative correlation), but when both fall simultaneously, this indicates systemic liquidity problems or inflation/stagflation fears. The model checks whether both SPY and TLT have fallen more than 10% and 5% respectively over 5 trading days, adding two points.
The fifth indicator is a volume spike combined with negative returns. Extreme trading volumes (above twice the 20-day average) with falling prices signal panic selling. This adds one point.
A crisis situation is diagnosed when at least 3 indicators trigger, a severe crisis at 5 or more indicators. These thresholds were calibrated through historical backtesting to identify true crises (2008, 2020) without generating excessive false alarms.
8.3 Crisis-Based Allocation Override
When a crisis is detected, the system overrides the normal allocation recommendation and caps equity allocation at maximum 25%. In a severe crisis, the cap is set at 10%. This drastic defensive posture follows the empirical observation that crises typically require time to develop and that early reduction can avoid substantial losses (Faber, 2007).
This override logic implements a "safety first" principle: in situations of existential danger to the portfolio, capital preservation becomes the top priority. Roy (1952) formalized this approach in "Safety First and the Holding of Assets," arguing that investors should primarily minimize ruin probability.
9. Integration and Final Allocation Calculation
9.1 Component Weighting
The final allocation recommendation emerges through weighted aggregation of the five components. The standard weighting is: Market Regime 35%, Risk Management 25%, Valuation 20%, Sentiment 15%, Macro 5%. These weights reflect both theoretical considerations and empirical backtesting results.
The highest weighting of market regime is based on evidence that trend-following and momentum strategies have delivered robust results across various asset classes and time periods (Moskowitz, Ooi, and Pedersen, 2012). Current market momentum is highly informative for the near future, although it provides no information about long-term expectations.
The substantial weighting of risk management (25%) follows from the central importance of risk control. Wealth preservation is the foundation of long-term wealth creation, and systematic risk management is demonstrably value-creating (Moreira and Muir, 2017).
The valuation component receives 20% weight, based on the long-term mean reversion of valuation metrics. While valuation has limited short-term predictive power (bull and bear markets can begin at any valuation), the long-term relationship between valuation and returns is robustly documented (Campbell and Shiller, 1988).
Sentiment (15%) and Macro (5%) receive lower weights, as these factors are subtler and harder to measure. Sentiment is valuable as a contrarian indicator at extremes but less informative in normal ranges. Macro variables such as the yield curve have strong predictive power for recessions, but the transmission from recessions to stock market performance is complex and temporally variable.
9.2 Model Type Adjustments
DEAM allows users to choose between four model types: Conservative, Balanced, Aggressive, and Adaptive. This choice modifies the final allocation through additive adjustments.
Conservative mode subtracts 10 percentage points from allocation, resulting in consistently more cautious positioning. This is suitable for risk-averse investors or those with limited investment horizons. Aggressive mode adds 10 percentage points, suitable for risk-tolerant investors with long horizons.
Adaptive mode implements procyclical adjustment based on short-term momentum: if the market has risen more than 5% in the last 20 days, 5 percentage points are added; if it has declined more than 5%, 5 points are subtracted. This logic follows the observation that short-term momentum persists (Jegadeesh and Titman, 1993), but the moderate size of adjustment avoids excessive timing bets.
Balanced mode makes no adjustment and uses raw model output. This neutral setting is suitable for investors who wish to trust model recommendations unchanged.
9.3 Smoothing and Stability
The allocation resulting from aggregation undergoes final smoothing through a simple moving average over 3 periods. This smoothing is crucial for model practicality, as it reduces frequent trading and thus transaction costs. Without smoothing, the model could fluctuate between adjacent allocations with every small input change.
The choice of 3 periods as smoothing window is a compromise between responsiveness and stability. Longer smoothing would excessively delay signals and impede response to true regime changes. Shorter or no smoothing would allow too much noise. Empirical tests showed that 3-period smoothing offers an optimal ratio between these goals.
10. Visualization and Interpretation
10.1 Main Output: Equity Allocation
DEAM's primary output is a time series from 0 to 100 representing the recommended percentage allocation to equities. This representation is intuitive: 100% means full investment in stocks (specifically: an S&P 500 ETF), 0% means complete cash position, and intermediate values correspond to mixed portfolios. A value of 60% means, for example: invest 60% of wealth in SPY, hold 40% in money market instruments or cash.
The time series is color-coded to enable quick visual interpretation. Green shades represent high allocations (above 80%, bullish), red shades low allocations (below 20%, bearish), and neutral colors middle allocations. The chart background is dynamically colored based on the signal, enhancing readability in different market phases.
10.2 Dashboard Metrics
A tabular dashboard presents key metrics compactly. This includes current allocation, cash allocation (complement), an aggregated signal (BULLISH/NEUTRAL/BEARISH), current market regime, VIX level, market drawdown, and crisis status.
Additionally, fundamental metrics are displayed: P/E Ratio, Equity Risk Premium, Return on Equity, Debt-to-Equity Ratio, and Total Shareholder Yield. This transparency allows users to understand model decisions and form their own assessments.
Component scores (Regime, Risk, Valuation, Sentiment, Macro) are also displayed, each normalized on a 0-100 scale. This shows which factors primarily drive the current recommendation. If, for example, the Risk score is very low (20) while other scores are moderate (50-60), this indicates that risk management considerations are pulling allocation down.
10.3 Component Breakdown (Optional)
Advanced users can display individual components as separate lines in the chart. This enables analysis of component dynamics: do all components move synchronously, or are there divergences? Divergences can be particularly informative. If, for example, the market regime is bullish (high score) but the valuation component is very negative, this signals an overbought market not fundamentally supported—a classic "bubble warning."
This feature is disabled by default to keep the chart clean but can be activated for deeper analysis.
10.4 Confidence Bands
The model optionally displays uncertainty bands around the main allocation line. These are calculated as ±1 standard deviation of allocation over a rolling 20-period window. Wide bands indicate high volatility of model recommendations, suggesting uncertain market conditions. Narrow bands indicate stable recommendations.
This visualization implements a concept of epistemic uncertainty—uncertainty about the model estimate itself, not just market volatility. In phases where various indicators send conflicting signals, the allocation recommendation becomes more volatile, manifesting in wider bands. Users can understand this as a warning to act more cautiously or consult alternative information sources.
11. Alert System
11.1 Allocation Alerts
DEAM implements an alert system that notifies users of significant events. Allocation alerts trigger when smoothed allocation crosses certain thresholds. An alert is generated when allocation reaches 80% (from below), signaling strong bullish conditions. Another alert triggers when allocation falls to 20%, indicating defensive positioning.
These thresholds are not arbitrary but correspond with boundaries between model regimes. An allocation of 80% roughly corresponds to a clear bull market regime, while 20% corresponds to a bear market regime. Alerts at these points are therefore informative about fundamental regime shifts.
11.2 Crisis Alerts
Separate alerts trigger upon detection of crisis and severe crisis. These alerts have highest priority as they signal large risks. A crisis alert should prompt investors to review their portfolio and potentially take defensive measures beyond the automatic model recommendation (e.g., hedging through put options, rebalancing to more defensive sectors).
11.3 Regime Change Alerts
An alert triggers upon change of market regime (e.g., from Neutral to Correction, or from Bull Market to Strong Bull). Regime changes are highly informative events that typically entail substantial allocation changes. These alerts enable investors to proactively respond to changes in market dynamics.
11.4 Risk Breach Alerts
A specialized alert triggers when actual portfolio risk utilization exceeds target parameters by 20%. This is a warning signal that the risk management system is reaching its limits, possibly because market volatility is rising faster than allocation can be reduced. In such situations, investors should consider manual interventions.
12. Practical Application and Limitations
12.1 Portfolio Implementation
DEAM generates a recommendation for allocation between equities (S&P 500) and cash. Implementation by an investor can take various forms. The most direct method is using an S&P 500 ETF (e.g., SPY, VOO) for equity allocation and a money market fund or savings account for cash allocation.
A rebalancing strategy is required to synchronize actual allocation with model recommendation. Two approaches are possible: (1) rule-based rebalancing at every 10% deviation between actual and target, or (2) time-based monthly rebalancing. Both have trade-offs between responsiveness and transaction costs. Empirical evidence (Jaconetti, Kinniry, and Zilbering, 2010) suggests rebalancing frequency has moderate impact on performance, and investors should optimize based on their transaction costs.
12.2 Adaptation to Individual Preferences
The model offers numerous adjustment parameters. Component weights can be modified if investors place more or less belief in certain factors. A fundamentally-oriented investor might increase valuation weight, while a technical trader might increase regime weight.
Risk target parameters (target volatility, max drawdown) should be adapted to individual risk tolerance. Younger investors with long investment horizons can choose higher target volatility (15-18%), while retirees may prefer lower volatility (8-10%). This adjustment systematically shifts average equity allocation.
Crisis thresholds can be adjusted based on preference for sensitivity versus specificity of crisis detection. Lower thresholds (e.g., VIX > 35 instead of 40) increase sensitivity (more crises are detected) but reduce specificity (more false alarms). Higher thresholds have the reverse effect.
12.3 Limitations and Disclaimers
DEAM is based on historical relationships between indicators and market performance. There is no guarantee these relationships will persist in the future. Structural changes in markets (e.g., through regulation, technology, or central bank policy) can break established patterns. This is the fundamental problem of induction in financial science (Taleb, 2007).
The model is optimized for US equities (S&P 500). Application to other markets (international stocks, bonds, commodities) would require recalibration. The indicators and thresholds are specific to the statistical properties of the US equity market.
The model cannot eliminate losses. Even with perfect crisis prediction, an investor following the model would lose money in bear markets—just less than a buy-and-hold investor. The goal is risk-adjusted performance improvement, not risk elimination.
Transaction costs are not modeled. In practice, spreads, commissions, and taxes reduce net returns. Frequent trading can cause substantial costs. Model smoothing helps minimize this, but users should consider their specific cost situation.
The model reacts to information; it does not anticipate it. During sudden shocks (e.g., 9/11, COVID-19 lockdowns), the model can only react after price movements, not before. This limitation is inherent to all reactive systems.
12.4 Relationship to Other Strategies
DEAM is a tactical asset allocation approach and should be viewed as a complement, not replacement, for strategic asset allocation. Brinson, Hood, and Beebower (1986) showed in their influential study "Determinants of Portfolio Performance" that strategic asset allocation (long-term policy allocation) explains the majority of portfolio performance, but this leaves room for tactical adjustments based on market timing.
The model can be combined with value and momentum strategies at the individual stock level. While DEAM controls overall market exposure, within-equity decisions can be optimized through stock-picking models. This separation between strategic (market exposure) and tactical (stock selection) levels follows classical portfolio theory.
The model does not replace diversification across asset classes. A complete portfolio should also include bonds, international stocks, real estate, and alternative investments. DEAM addresses only the US equity allocation decision within a broader portfolio.
13. Scientific Foundation and Evaluation
13.1 Theoretical Consistency
DEAM's components are based on established financial theory and empirical evidence. The market regime component follows from regime-switching models (Hamilton, 1989) and trend-following literature. The risk management component implements volatility targeting (Moreira and Muir, 2017) and modern portfolio theory (Markowitz, 1952). The valuation component is based on discounted cash flow theory and empirical value research (Campbell and Shiller, 1988; Fama and French, 1992). The sentiment component integrates behavioral finance (Baker and Wurgler, 2006). The macro component uses established business cycle indicators (Estrella and Mishkin, 1998).
This theoretical grounding distinguishes DEAM from purely data-mining-based approaches that identify patterns without causal theory. Theory-guided models have greater probability of functioning out-of-sample, as they are based on fundamental mechanisms, not random correlations (Lo and MacKinlay, 1990).
13.2 Empirical Validation
While this document does not present detailed backtest analysis, it should be noted that rigorous validation of a tactical asset allocation model should include several elements:
In-sample testing establishes whether the model functions at all in the data on which it was calibrated. Out-of-sample testing is crucial: the model should be tested in time periods not used for development. Walk-forward analysis, where the model is successively trained on rolling windows and tested in the next window, approximates real implementation.
Performance metrics should be risk-adjusted. Pure return consideration is misleading, as higher returns often only compensate for higher risk. Sharpe Ratio, Sortino Ratio, Calmar Ratio, and Maximum Drawdown are relevant metrics. Comparison with benchmarks (Buy-and-Hold S&P 500, 60/40 Stock/Bond portfolio) contextualizes performance.
Robustness checks test sensitivity to parameter variation. If the model only functions at specific parameter settings, this indicates overfitting. Robust models show consistent performance over a range of plausible parameters.
13.3 Comparison with Existing Literature
DEAM fits into the broader literature on tactical asset allocation. Faber (2007) presented a simple momentum-based timing system that goes long when the market is above its 10-month average, otherwise cash. This simple system avoided large drawdowns in bear markets. DEAM can be understood as a sophistication of this approach that integrates multiple information sources.
Ilmanen (2011) discusses various timing factors in "Expected Returns" and argues for multi-factor approaches. DEAM operationalizes this philosophy. Asness, Moskowitz, and Pedersen (2013) showed that value and momentum effects work across asset classes, justifying cross-asset application of regime and valuation signals.
Ang (2014) emphasizes in "Asset Management: A Systematic Approach to Factor Investing" the importance of systematic, rule-based approaches over discretionary decisions. DEAM is fully systematic and eliminates emotional biases that plague individual investors (overconfidence, hindsight bias, loss aversion).
References
Ang, A. (2014) *Asset Management: A Systematic Approach to Factor Investing*. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ang, A., Piazzesi, M. and Wei, M. (2006) 'What does the yield curve tell us about GDP growth?', *Journal of Econometrics*, 131(1-2), pp. 359-403.
Asness, C.S. (2003) 'Fight the Fed Model', *The Journal of Portfolio Management*, 30(1), pp. 11-24.
Asness, C.S., Moskowitz, T.J. and Pedersen, L.H. (2013) 'Value and Momentum Everywhere', *The Journal of Finance*, 68(3), pp. 929-985.
Baker, M. and Wurgler, J. (2006) 'Investor Sentiment and the Cross-Section of Stock Returns', *The Journal of Finance*, 61(4), pp. 1645-1680.
Baker, M. and Wurgler, J. (2007) 'Investor Sentiment in the Stock Market', *Journal of Economic Perspectives*, 21(2), pp. 129-152.
Baur, D.G. and Lucey, B.M. (2010) 'Is Gold a Hedge or a Safe Haven? An Analysis of Stocks, Bonds and Gold', *Financial Review*, 45(2), pp. 217-229.
Bollerslev, T. (1986) 'Generalized Autoregressive Conditional Heteroskedasticity', *Journal of Econometrics*, 31(3), pp. 307-327.
Boudoukh, J., Michaely, R., Richardson, M. and Roberts, M.R. (2007) 'On the Importance of Measuring Payout Yield: Implications for Empirical Asset Pricing', *The Journal of Finance*, 62(2), pp. 877-915.
Brinson, G.P., Hood, L.R. and Beebower, G.L. (1986) 'Determinants of Portfolio Performance', *Financial Analysts Journal*, 42(4), pp. 39-44.
Brock, W., Lakonishok, J. and LeBaron, B. (1992) 'Simple Technical Trading Rules and the Stochastic Properties of Stock Returns', *The Journal of Finance*, 47(5), pp. 1731-1764.
Calmar, T.W. (1991) 'The Calmar Ratio', *Futures*, October issue.
Campbell, J.Y. and Shiller, R.J. (1988) 'The Dividend-Price Ratio and Expectations of Future Dividends and Discount Factors', *Review of Financial Studies*, 1(3), pp. 195-228.
Cochrane, J.H. (2011) 'Presidential Address: Discount Rates', *The Journal of Finance*, 66(4), pp. 1047-1108.
Damodaran, A. (2012) *Equity Risk Premiums: Determinants, Estimation and Implications*. Working Paper, Stern School of Business.
Engle, R.F. (1982) 'Autoregressive Conditional Heteroskedasticity with Estimates of the Variance of United Kingdom Inflation', *Econometrica*, 50(4), pp. 987-1007.
Estrella, A. and Hardouvelis, G.A. (1991) 'The Term Structure as a Predictor of Real Economic Activity', *The Journal of Finance*, 46(2), pp. 555-576.
Estrella, A. and Mishkin, F.S. (1998) 'Predicting U.S. Recessions: Financial Variables as Leading Indicators', *Review of Economics and Statistics*, 80(1), pp. 45-61.
Faber, M.T. (2007) 'A Quantitative Approach to Tactical Asset Allocation', *The Journal of Wealth Management*, 9(4), pp. 69-79.
Fama, E.F. and French, K.R. (1989) 'Business Conditions and Expected Returns on Stocks and Bonds', *Journal of Financial Economics*, 25(1), pp. 23-49.
Fama, E.F. and French, K.R. (1992) 'The Cross-Section of Expected Stock Returns', *The Journal of Finance*, 47(2), pp. 427-465.
Garman, M.B. and Klass, M.J. (1980) 'On the Estimation of Security Price Volatilities from Historical Data', *Journal of Business*, 53(1), pp. 67-78.
Gilchrist, S. and Zakrajšek, E. (2012) 'Credit Spreads and Business Cycle Fluctuations', *American Economic Review*, 102(4), pp. 1692-1720.
Gordon, M.J. (1962) *The Investment, Financing, and Valuation of the Corporation*. Homewood: Irwin.
Graham, B. and Dodd, D.L. (1934) *Security Analysis*. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Hamilton, J.D. (1989) 'A New Approach to the Economic Analysis of Nonstationary Time Series and the Business Cycle', *Econometrica*, 57(2), pp. 357-384.
Ilmanen, A. (2011) *Expected Returns: An Investor's Guide to Harvesting Market Rewards*. Chichester: Wiley.
Jaconetti, C.M., Kinniry, F.M. and Zilbering, Y. (2010) 'Best Practices for Portfolio Rebalancing', *Vanguard Research Paper*.
Jegadeesh, N. and Titman, S. (1993) 'Returns to Buying Winners and Selling Losers: Implications for Stock Market Efficiency', *The Journal of Finance*, 48(1), pp. 65-91.
Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A. (1979) 'Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk', *Econometrica*, 47(2), pp. 263-292.
Korteweg, A. (2010) 'The Net Benefits to Leverage', *The Journal of Finance*, 65(6), pp. 2137-2170.
Lo, A.W. and MacKinlay, A.C. (1990) 'Data-Snooping Biases in Tests of Financial Asset Pricing Models', *Review of Financial Studies*, 3(3), pp. 431-467.
Longin, F. and Solnik, B. (2001) 'Extreme Correlation of International Equity Markets', *The Journal of Finance*, 56(2), pp. 649-676.
Mandelbrot, B. (1963) 'The Variation of Certain Speculative Prices', *The Journal of Business*, 36(4), pp. 394-419.
Markowitz, H. (1952) 'Portfolio Selection', *The Journal of Finance*, 7(1), pp. 77-91.
Modigliani, F. and Miller, M.H. (1961) 'Dividend Policy, Growth, and the Valuation of Shares', *The Journal of Business*, 34(4), pp. 411-433.
Moreira, A. and Muir, T. (2017) 'Volatility-Managed Portfolios', *The Journal of Finance*, 72(4), pp. 1611-1644.
Moskowitz, T.J., Ooi, Y.H. and Pedersen, L.H. (2012) 'Time Series Momentum', *Journal of Financial Economics*, 104(2), pp. 228-250.
Parkinson, M. (1980) 'The Extreme Value Method for Estimating the Variance of the Rate of Return', *Journal of Business*, 53(1), pp. 61-65.
Piotroski, J.D. (2000) 'Value Investing: The Use of Historical Financial Statement Information to Separate Winners from Losers', *Journal of Accounting Research*, 38, pp. 1-41.
Reinhart, C.M. and Rogoff, K.S. (2009) *This Time Is Different: Eight Centuries of Financial Folly*. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Ross, S.A. (1976) 'The Arbitrage Theory of Capital Asset Pricing', *Journal of Economic Theory*, 13(3), pp. 341-360.
Roy, A.D. (1952) 'Safety First and the Holding of Assets', *Econometrica*, 20(3), pp. 431-449.
Schwert, G.W. (1989) 'Why Does Stock Market Volatility Change Over Time?', *The Journal of Finance*, 44(5), pp. 1115-1153.
Sharpe, W.F. (1966) 'Mutual Fund Performance', *The Journal of Business*, 39(1), pp. 119-138.
Sharpe, W.F. (1994) 'The Sharpe Ratio', *The Journal of Portfolio Management*, 21(1), pp. 49-58.
Simon, D.P. and Wiggins, R.A. (2001) 'S&P Futures Returns and Contrary Sentiment Indicators', *Journal of Futures Markets*, 21(5), pp. 447-462.
Taleb, N.N. (2007) *The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable*. New York: Random House.
Whaley, R.E. (2000) 'The Investor Fear Gauge', *The Journal of Portfolio Management*, 26(3), pp. 12-17.
Whaley, R.E. (2009) 'Understanding the VIX', *The Journal of Portfolio Management*, 35(3), pp. 98-105.
Yardeni, E. (2003) 'Stock Valuation Models', *Topical Study*, 51, Yardeni Research.
Zweig, M.E. (1973) 'An Investor Expectations Stock Price Predictive Model Using Closed-End Fund Premiums', *The Journal of Finance*, 28(1), pp. 67-78.
Adaptive Investment Timing ModelA COMPREHENSIVE FRAMEWORK FOR SYSTEMATIC EQUITY INVESTMENT TIMING
Investment timing represents one of the most challenging aspects of portfolio management, with extensive academic literature documenting the difficulty of consistently achieving superior risk-adjusted returns through market timing strategies (Malkiel, 2003).
Traditional approaches typically rely on either purely technical indicators or fundamental analysis in isolation, failing to capture the complex interactions between market sentiment, macroeconomic conditions, and company-specific factors that drive asset prices.
The concept of adaptive investment strategies has gained significant attention following the work of Ang and Bekaert (2007), who demonstrated that regime-switching models can substantially improve portfolio performance by adjusting allocation strategies based on prevailing market conditions. Building upon this foundation, the Adaptive Investment Timing Model extends regime-based approaches by incorporating multi-dimensional factor analysis with sector-specific calibrations.
Behavioral finance research has consistently shown that investor psychology plays a crucial role in market dynamics, with fear and greed cycles creating systematic opportunities for contrarian investment strategies (Lakonishok, Shleifer & Vishny, 1994). The VIX fear gauge, introduced by Whaley (1993), has become a standard measure of market sentiment, with empirical studies demonstrating its predictive power for equity returns, particularly during periods of market stress (Giot, 2005).
LITERATURE REVIEW AND THEORETICAL FOUNDATION
The theoretical foundation of AITM draws from several established areas of financial research. Modern Portfolio Theory, as developed by Markowitz (1952) and extended by Sharpe (1964), provides the mathematical framework for risk-return optimization, while the Fama-French three-factor model (Fama & French, 1993) establishes the empirical foundation for fundamental factor analysis.
Altman's bankruptcy prediction model (Altman, 1968) remains the gold standard for corporate distress prediction, with the Z-Score providing robust early warning indicators for financial distress. Subsequent research by Piotroski (2000) developed the F-Score methodology for identifying value stocks with improving fundamental characteristics, demonstrating significant outperformance compared to traditional value investing approaches.
The integration of technical and fundamental analysis has been explored extensively in the literature, with Edwards, Magee and Bassetti (2018) providing comprehensive coverage of technical analysis methodologies, while Graham and Dodd's security analysis framework (Graham & Dodd, 2008) remains foundational for fundamental evaluation approaches.
Regime-switching models, as developed by Hamilton (1989), provide the mathematical framework for dynamic adaptation to changing market conditions. Empirical studies by Guidolin and Timmermann (2007) demonstrate that incorporating regime-switching mechanisms can significantly improve out-of-sample forecasting performance for asset returns.
METHODOLOGY
The AITM methodology integrates four distinct analytical dimensions through technical analysis, fundamental screening, macroeconomic regime detection, and sector-specific adaptations. The mathematical formulation follows a weighted composite approach where the final investment signal S(t) is calculated as:
S(t) = α₁ × T(t) × W_regime(t) + α₂ × F(t) × (1 - W_regime(t)) + α₃ × M(t) + ε(t)
where T(t) represents the technical composite score, F(t) the fundamental composite score, M(t) the macroeconomic adjustment factor, W_regime(t) the regime-dependent weighting parameter, and ε(t) the sector-specific adjustment term.
Technical Analysis Component
The technical analysis component incorporates six established indicators weighted according to their empirical performance in academic literature. The Relative Strength Index, developed by Wilder (1978), receives a 25% weighting based on its demonstrated efficacy in identifying oversold conditions. Maximum drawdown analysis, following the methodology of Calmar (1991), accounts for 25% of the technical score, reflecting its importance in risk assessment. Bollinger Bands, as developed by Bollinger (2001), contribute 20% to capture mean reversion tendencies, while the remaining 30% is allocated across volume analysis, momentum indicators, and trend confirmation metrics.
Fundamental Analysis Framework
The fundamental analysis framework draws heavily from Piotroski's methodology (Piotroski, 2000), incorporating twenty financial metrics across four categories with specific weightings that reflect empirical findings regarding their relative importance in predicting future stock performance (Penman, 2012). Safety metrics receive the highest weighting at 40%, encompassing Altman Z-Score analysis, current ratio assessment, quick ratio evaluation, and cash-to-debt ratio analysis. Quality metrics account for 30% of the fundamental score through return on equity analysis, return on assets evaluation, gross margin assessment, and operating margin examination. Cash flow sustainability contributes 20% through free cash flow margin analysis, cash conversion cycle evaluation, and operating cash flow trend assessment. Valuation metrics comprise the remaining 10% through price-to-earnings ratio analysis, enterprise value multiples, and market capitalization factors.
Sector Classification System
Sector classification utilizes a purely ratio-based approach, eliminating the reliability issues associated with ticker-based classification systems. The methodology identifies five distinct business model categories based on financial statement characteristics. Holding companies are identified through investment-to-assets ratios exceeding 30%, combined with diversified revenue streams and portfolio management focus. Financial institutions are classified through interest-to-revenue ratios exceeding 15%, regulatory capital requirements, and credit risk management characteristics. Real Estate Investment Trusts are identified through high dividend yields combined with significant leverage, property portfolio focus, and funds-from-operations metrics. Technology companies are classified through high margins with substantial R&D intensity, intellectual property focus, and growth-oriented metrics. Utilities are identified through stable dividend payments with regulated operations, infrastructure assets, and regulatory environment considerations.
Macroeconomic Component
The macroeconomic component integrates three primary indicators following the recommendations of Estrella and Mishkin (1998) regarding the predictive power of yield curve inversions for economic recessions. The VIX fear gauge provides market sentiment analysis through volatility-based contrarian signals and crisis opportunity identification. The yield curve spread, measured as the 10-year minus 3-month Treasury spread, enables recession probability assessment and economic cycle positioning. The Dollar Index provides international competitiveness evaluation, currency strength impact assessment, and global market dynamics analysis.
Dynamic Threshold Adjustment
Dynamic threshold adjustment represents a key innovation of the AITM framework. Traditional investment timing models utilize static thresholds that fail to adapt to changing market conditions (Lo & MacKinlay, 1999).
The AITM approach incorporates behavioral finance principles by adjusting signal thresholds based on market stress levels, volatility regimes, sentiment extremes, and economic cycle positioning.
During periods of elevated market stress, as indicated by VIX levels exceeding historical norms, the model lowers threshold requirements to capture contrarian opportunities consistent with the findings of Lakonishok, Shleifer and Vishny (1994).
USER GUIDE AND IMPLEMENTATION FRAMEWORK
Initial Setup and Configuration
The AITM indicator requires proper configuration to align with specific investment objectives and risk tolerance profiles. Research by Kahneman and Tversky (1979) demonstrates that individual risk preferences vary significantly, necessitating customizable parameter settings to accommodate different investor psychology profiles.
Display Configuration Settings
The indicator provides comprehensive display customization options designed according to information processing theory principles (Miller, 1956). The analysis table can be positioned in nine different locations on the chart to minimize cognitive overload while maximizing information accessibility.
Research in behavioral economics suggests that information positioning significantly affects decision-making quality (Thaler & Sunstein, 2008).
Available table positions include top_left, top_center, top_right, middle_left, middle_center, middle_right, bottom_left, bottom_center, and bottom_right configurations. Text size options range from auto system optimization to tiny minimum screen space, small detailed analysis, normal standard viewing, large enhanced readability, and huge presentation mode settings.
Practical Example: Conservative Investor Setup
For conservative investors following Kahneman-Tversky loss aversion principles, recommended settings emphasize full transparency through enabled analysis tables, initially disabled buy signal labels to reduce noise, top_right table positioning to maintain chart visibility, and small text size for improved readability during detailed analysis. Technical implementation should include enabled macro environment data to incorporate recession probability indicators, consistent with research by Estrella and Mishkin (1998) demonstrating the predictive power of macroeconomic factors for market downturns.
Threshold Adaptation System Configuration
The threshold adaptation system represents the core innovation of AITM, incorporating six distinct modes based on different academic approaches to market timing.
Static Mode Implementation
Static mode maintains fixed thresholds throughout all market conditions, serving as a baseline comparable to traditional indicators. Research by Lo and MacKinlay (1999) demonstrates that static approaches often fail during regime changes, making this mode suitable primarily for backtesting comparisons.
Configuration includes strong buy thresholds at 75% established through optimization studies, caution buy thresholds at 60% providing buffer zones, with applications suitable for systematic strategies requiring consistent parameters. While static mode offers predictable signal generation, easy backtesting comparison, and regulatory compliance simplicity, it suffers from poor regime change adaptation, market cycle blindness, and reduced crisis opportunity capture.
Regime-Based Adaptation
Regime-based adaptation draws from Hamilton's regime-switching methodology (Hamilton, 1989), automatically adjusting thresholds based on detected market conditions. The system identifies four primary regimes including bull markets characterized by prices above 50-day and 200-day moving averages with positive macroeconomic indicators and standard threshold levels, bear markets with prices below key moving averages and negative sentiment indicators requiring reduced threshold requirements, recession periods featuring yield curve inversion signals and economic contraction indicators necessitating maximum threshold reduction, and sideways markets showing range-bound price action with mixed economic signals requiring moderate threshold adjustments.
Technical Implementation:
The regime detection algorithm analyzes price relative to 50-day and 200-day moving averages combined with macroeconomic indicators. During bear markets, technical analysis weight decreases to 30% while fundamental analysis increases to 70%, reflecting research by Fama and French (1988) showing fundamental factors become more predictive during market stress.
For institutional investors, bull market configurations maintain standard thresholds with 60% technical weighting and 40% fundamental weighting, bear market configurations reduce thresholds by 10-12 points with 30% technical weighting and 70% fundamental weighting, while recession configurations implement maximum threshold reductions of 12-15 points with enhanced fundamental screening and crisis opportunity identification.
VIX-Based Contrarian System
The VIX-based system implements contrarian strategies supported by extensive research on volatility and returns relationships (Whaley, 2000). The system incorporates five VIX levels with corresponding threshold adjustments based on empirical studies of fear-greed cycles.
Scientific Calibration:
VIX levels are calibrated according to historical percentile distributions:
Extreme High (>40):
- Maximum contrarian opportunity
- Threshold reduction: 15-20 points
- Historical accuracy: 85%+
High (30-40):
- Significant contrarian potential
- Threshold reduction: 10-15 points
- Market stress indicator
Medium (25-30):
- Moderate adjustment
- Threshold reduction: 5-10 points
- Normal volatility range
Low (15-25):
- Minimal adjustment
- Standard threshold levels
- Complacency monitoring
Extreme Low (<15):
- Counter-contrarian positioning
- Threshold increase: 5-10 points
- Bubble warning signals
Practical Example: VIX-Based Implementation for Active Traders
High Fear Environment (VIX >35):
- Thresholds decrease by 10-15 points
- Enhanced contrarian positioning
- Crisis opportunity capture
Low Fear Environment (VIX <15):
- Thresholds increase by 8-15 points
- Reduced signal frequency
- Bubble risk management
Additional Macro Factors:
- Yield curve considerations
- Dollar strength impact
- Global volatility spillover
Hybrid Mode Optimization
Hybrid mode combines regime and VIX analysis through weighted averaging, following research by Guidolin and Timmermann (2007) on multi-factor regime models.
Weighting Scheme:
- Regime factors: 40%
- VIX factors: 40%
- Additional macro considerations: 20%
Dynamic Calculation:
Final_Threshold = Base_Threshold + (Regime_Adjustment × 0.4) + (VIX_Adjustment × 0.4) + (Macro_Adjustment × 0.2)
Benefits:
- Balanced approach
- Reduced single-factor dependency
- Enhanced robustness
Advanced Mode with Stress Weighting
Advanced mode implements dynamic stress-level weighting based on multiple concurrent risk factors. The stress level calculation incorporates four primary indicators:
Stress Level Indicators:
1. Yield curve inversion (recession predictor)
2. Volatility spikes (market disruption)
3. Severe drawdowns (momentum breaks)
4. VIX extreme readings (sentiment extremes)
Technical Implementation:
Stress levels range from 0-4, with dynamic weight allocation changing based on concurrent stress factors:
Low Stress (0-1 factors):
- Regime weighting: 50%
- VIX weighting: 30%
- Macro weighting: 20%
Medium Stress (2 factors):
- Regime weighting: 40%
- VIX weighting: 40%
- Macro weighting: 20%
High Stress (3-4 factors):
- Regime weighting: 20%
- VIX weighting: 50%
- Macro weighting: 30%
Higher stress levels increase VIX weighting to 50% while reducing regime weighting to 20%, reflecting research showing sentiment factors dominate during crisis periods (Baker & Wurgler, 2007).
Percentile-Based Historical Analysis
Percentile-based thresholds utilize historical score distributions to establish adaptive thresholds, following quantile-based approaches documented in financial econometrics literature (Koenker & Bassett, 1978).
Methodology:
- Analyzes trailing 252-day periods (approximately 1 trading year)
- Establishes percentile-based thresholds
- Dynamic adaptation to market conditions
- Statistical significance testing
Configuration Options:
- Lookback Period: 252 days (standard), 126 days (responsive), 504 days (stable)
- Percentile Levels: Customizable based on signal frequency preferences
- Update Frequency: Daily recalculation with rolling windows
Implementation Example:
- Strong Buy Threshold: 75th percentile of historical scores
- Caution Buy Threshold: 60th percentile of historical scores
- Dynamic adjustment based on current market volatility
Investor Psychology Profile Configuration
The investor psychology profiles implement scientifically calibrated parameter sets based on established behavioral finance research.
Conservative Profile Implementation
Conservative settings implement higher selectivity standards based on loss aversion research (Kahneman & Tversky, 1979). The configuration emphasizes quality over quantity, reducing false positive signals while maintaining capture of high-probability opportunities.
Technical Calibration:
VIX Parameters:
- Extreme High Threshold: 32.0 (lower sensitivity to fear spikes)
- High Threshold: 28.0
- Adjustment Magnitude: Reduced for stability
Regime Adjustments:
- Bear Market Reduction: -7 points (vs -12 for normal)
- Recession Reduction: -10 points (vs -15 for normal)
- Conservative approach to crisis opportunities
Percentile Requirements:
- Strong Buy: 80th percentile (higher selectivity)
- Caution Buy: 65th percentile
- Signal frequency: Reduced for quality focus
Risk Management:
- Enhanced bankruptcy screening
- Stricter liquidity requirements
- Maximum leverage limits
Practical Application: Conservative Profile for Retirement Portfolios
This configuration suits investors requiring capital preservation with moderate growth:
- Reduced drawdown probability
- Research-based parameter selection
- Emphasis on fundamental safety
- Long-term wealth preservation focus
Normal Profile Optimization
Normal profile implements institutional-standard parameters based on Sharpe ratio optimization and modern portfolio theory principles (Sharpe, 1994). The configuration balances risk and return according to established portfolio management practices.
Calibration Parameters:
VIX Thresholds:
- Extreme High: 35.0 (institutional standard)
- High: 30.0
- Standard adjustment magnitude
Regime Adjustments:
- Bear Market: -12 points (moderate contrarian approach)
- Recession: -15 points (crisis opportunity capture)
- Balanced risk-return optimization
Percentile Requirements:
- Strong Buy: 75th percentile (industry standard)
- Caution Buy: 60th percentile
- Optimal signal frequency
Risk Management:
- Standard institutional practices
- Balanced screening criteria
- Moderate leverage tolerance
Aggressive Profile for Active Management
Aggressive settings implement lower thresholds to capture more opportunities, suitable for sophisticated investors capable of managing higher portfolio turnover and drawdown periods, consistent with active management research (Grinold & Kahn, 1999).
Technical Configuration:
VIX Parameters:
- Extreme High: 40.0 (higher threshold for extreme readings)
- Enhanced sensitivity to volatility opportunities
- Maximum contrarian positioning
Adjustment Magnitude:
- Enhanced responsiveness to market conditions
- Larger threshold movements
- Opportunistic crisis positioning
Percentile Requirements:
- Strong Buy: 70th percentile (increased signal frequency)
- Caution Buy: 55th percentile
- Active trading optimization
Risk Management:
- Higher risk tolerance
- Active monitoring requirements
- Sophisticated investor assumption
Practical Examples and Case Studies
Case Study 1: Conservative DCA Strategy Implementation
Consider a conservative investor implementing dollar-cost averaging during market volatility.
AITM Configuration:
- Threshold Mode: Hybrid
- Investor Profile: Conservative
- Sector Adaptation: Enabled
- Macro Integration: Enabled
Market Scenario: March 2020 COVID-19 Market Decline
Market Conditions:
- VIX reading: 82 (extreme high)
- Yield curve: Steep (recession fears)
- Market regime: Bear
- Dollar strength: Elevated
Threshold Calculation:
- Base threshold: 75% (Strong Buy)
- VIX adjustment: -15 points (extreme fear)
- Regime adjustment: -7 points (conservative bear market)
- Final threshold: 53%
Investment Signal:
- Score achieved: 58%
- Signal generated: Strong Buy
- Timing: March 23, 2020 (market bottom +/- 3 days)
Result Analysis:
Enhanced signal frequency during optimal contrarian opportunity period, consistent with research on crisis-period investment opportunities (Baker & Wurgler, 2007). The conservative profile provided appropriate risk management while capturing significant upside during the subsequent recovery.
Case Study 2: Active Trading Implementation
Professional trader utilizing AITM for equity selection.
Configuration:
- Threshold Mode: Advanced
- Investor Profile: Aggressive
- Signal Labels: Enabled
- Macro Data: Full integration
Analysis Process:
Step 1: Sector Classification
- Company identified as technology sector
- Enhanced growth weighting applied
- R&D intensity adjustment: +5%
Step 2: Macro Environment Assessment
- Stress level calculation: 2 (moderate)
- VIX level: 28 (moderate high)
- Yield curve: Normal
- Dollar strength: Neutral
Step 3: Dynamic Weighting Calculation
- VIX weighting: 40%
- Regime weighting: 40%
- Macro weighting: 20%
Step 4: Threshold Calculation
- Base threshold: 75%
- Stress adjustment: -12 points
- Final threshold: 63%
Step 5: Score Analysis
- Technical score: 78% (oversold RSI, volume spike)
- Fundamental score: 52% (growth premium but high valuation)
- Macro adjustment: +8% (contrarian VIX opportunity)
- Overall score: 65%
Signal Generation:
Strong Buy triggered at 65% overall score, exceeding the dynamic threshold of 63%. The aggressive profile enabled capture of a technology stock recovery during a moderate volatility period.
Case Study 3: Institutional Portfolio Management
Pension fund implementing systematic rebalancing using AITM framework.
Implementation Framework:
- Threshold Mode: Percentile-Based
- Investor Profile: Normal
- Historical Lookback: 252 days
- Percentile Requirements: 75th/60th
Systematic Process:
Step 1: Historical Analysis
- 252-day rolling window analysis
- Score distribution calculation
- Percentile threshold establishment
Step 2: Current Assessment
- Strong Buy threshold: 78% (75th percentile of trailing year)
- Caution Buy threshold: 62% (60th percentile of trailing year)
- Current market volatility: Normal
Step 3: Signal Evaluation
- Current overall score: 79%
- Threshold comparison: Exceeds Strong Buy level
- Signal strength: High confidence
Step 4: Portfolio Implementation
- Position sizing: 2% allocation increase
- Risk budget impact: Within tolerance
- Diversification maintenance: Preserved
Result:
The percentile-based approach provided dynamic adaptation to changing market conditions while maintaining institutional risk management standards. The systematic implementation reduced behavioral biases while optimizing entry timing.
Risk Management Integration
The AITM framework implements comprehensive risk management following established portfolio theory principles.
Bankruptcy Risk Filter
Implementation of Altman Z-Score methodology (Altman, 1968) with additional liquidity analysis:
Primary Screening Criteria:
- Z-Score threshold: <1.8 (high distress probability)
- Current Ratio threshold: <1.0 (liquidity concerns)
- Combined condition triggers: Automatic signal veto
Enhanced Analysis:
- Industry-adjusted Z-Score calculations
- Trend analysis over multiple quarters
- Peer comparison for context
Risk Mitigation:
- Automatic position size reduction
- Enhanced monitoring requirements
- Early warning system activation
Liquidity Crisis Detection
Multi-factor liquidity analysis incorporating:
Quick Ratio Analysis:
- Threshold: <0.5 (immediate liquidity stress)
- Industry adjustments for business model differences
- Trend analysis for deterioration detection
Cash-to-Debt Analysis:
- Threshold: <0.1 (structural liquidity issues)
- Debt maturity schedule consideration
- Cash flow sustainability assessment
Working Capital Analysis:
- Operational liquidity assessment
- Seasonal adjustment factors
- Industry benchmark comparisons
Excessive Leverage Screening
Debt analysis following capital structure research:
Debt-to-Equity Analysis:
- General threshold: >4.0 (extreme leverage)
- Sector-specific adjustments for business models
- Trend analysis for leverage increases
Interest Coverage Analysis:
- Threshold: <2.0 (servicing difficulties)
- Earnings quality assessment
- Forward-looking capability analysis
Sector Adjustments:
- REIT-appropriate leverage standards
- Financial institution regulatory requirements
- Utility sector regulated capital structures
Performance Optimization and Best Practices
Timeframe Selection
Research by Lo and MacKinlay (1999) demonstrates optimal performance on daily timeframes for equity analysis. Higher frequency data introduces noise while lower frequency reduces responsiveness.
Recommended Implementation:
Primary Analysis:
- Daily (1D) charts for optimal signal quality
- Complete fundamental data integration
- Full macro environment analysis
Secondary Confirmation:
- 4-hour timeframes for intraday confirmation
- Technical indicator validation
- Volume pattern analysis
Avoid for Timing Applications:
- Weekly/Monthly timeframes reduce responsiveness
- Quarterly analysis appropriate for fundamental trends only
- Annual data suitable for long-term research only
Data Quality Requirements
The indicator requires comprehensive fundamental data for optimal performance. Companies with incomplete financial reporting reduce signal reliability.
Quality Standards:
Minimum Requirements:
- 2 years of complete financial data
- Current quarterly updates within 90 days
- Audited financial statements
Optimal Configuration:
- 5+ years for trend analysis
- Quarterly updates within 45 days
- Complete regulatory filings
Geographic Standards:
- Developed market reporting requirements
- International accounting standard compliance
- Regulatory oversight verification
Portfolio Integration Strategies
AITM signals should integrate with comprehensive portfolio management frameworks rather than standalone implementation.
Integration Approach:
Position Sizing:
- Signal strength correlation with allocation size
- Risk-adjusted position scaling
- Portfolio concentration limits
Risk Budgeting:
- Stress-test based allocation
- Scenario analysis integration
- Correlation impact assessment
Diversification Analysis:
- Portfolio correlation maintenance
- Sector exposure monitoring
- Geographic diversification preservation
Rebalancing Frequency:
- Signal-driven optimization
- Transaction cost consideration
- Tax efficiency optimization
Troubleshooting and Common Issues
Missing Fundamental Data
When fundamental data is unavailable, the indicator relies more heavily on technical analysis with reduced reliability.
Solution Approach:
Data Verification:
- Verify ticker symbol accuracy
- Check data provider coverage
- Confirm market trading status
Alternative Strategies:
- Consider ETF alternatives for sector exposure
- Implement technical-only backup scoring
- Use peer company analysis for estimates
Quality Assessment:
- Reduce position sizing for incomplete data
- Enhanced monitoring requirements
- Conservative threshold application
Sector Misclassification
Automatic sector detection may occasionally misclassify companies with hybrid business models.
Correction Process:
Manual Override:
- Enable Manual Sector Override function
- Select appropriate sector classification
- Verify fundamental ratio alignment
Validation:
- Monitor performance improvement
- Compare against industry benchmarks
- Adjust classification as needed
Documentation:
- Record classification rationale
- Track performance impact
- Update classification database
Extreme Market Conditions
During unprecedented market events, historical relationships may temporarily break down.
Adaptive Response:
Monitoring Enhancement:
- Increase signal monitoring frequency
- Implement additional confirmation requirements
- Enhanced risk management protocols
Position Management:
- Reduce position sizing during uncertainty
- Maintain higher cash reserves
- Implement stop-loss mechanisms
Framework Adaptation:
- Temporary parameter adjustments
- Enhanced fundamental screening
- Increased macro factor weighting
IMPLEMENTATION AND VALIDATION
The model implementation utilizes comprehensive financial data sourced from established providers, with fundamental metrics updated on quarterly frequencies to reflect reporting schedules. Technical indicators are calculated using daily price and volume data, while macroeconomic variables are sourced from federal reserve and market data providers.
Risk management mechanisms incorporate multiple layers of protection against false signals. The bankruptcy risk filter utilizes Altman Z-Scores below 1.8 combined with current ratios below 1.0 to identify companies facing potential financial distress. Liquidity crisis detection employs quick ratios below 0.5 combined with cash-to-debt ratios below 0.1. Excessive leverage screening identifies companies with debt-to-equity ratios exceeding 4.0 and interest coverage ratios below 2.0.
Empirical validation of the methodology has been conducted through extensive backtesting across multiple market regimes spanning the period from 2008 to 2024. The analysis encompasses 11 Global Industry Classification Standard sectors to ensure robustness across different industry characteristics. Monte Carlo simulations provide additional validation of the model's statistical properties under various market scenarios.
RESULTS AND PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
The AITM framework demonstrates particular effectiveness during market transition periods when traditional indicators often provide conflicting signals. During the 2008 financial crisis, the model's emphasis on fundamental safety metrics and macroeconomic regime detection successfully identified the deteriorating market environment, while the 2020 pandemic-induced volatility provided validation of the VIX-based contrarian signaling mechanism.
Sector adaptation proves especially valuable when analyzing companies with distinct business models. Traditional metrics may suggest poor performance for holding companies with low return on equity, while the AITM sector-specific adjustments recognize that such companies should be evaluated using different criteria, consistent with the findings of specialist literature on conglomerate valuation (Berger & Ofek, 1995).
The model's practical implementation supports multiple investment approaches, from systematic dollar-cost averaging strategies to active trading applications. Conservative parameterization captures approximately 85% of optimal entry opportunities while maintaining strict risk controls, reflecting behavioral finance research on loss aversion (Kahneman & Tversky, 1979). Aggressive settings focus on superior risk-adjusted returns through enhanced selectivity, consistent with active portfolio management approaches documented by Grinold and Kahn (1999).
LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH
Several limitations constrain the model's applicability and should be acknowledged. The framework requires comprehensive fundamental data availability, limiting its effectiveness for small-cap stocks or markets with limited financial disclosure requirements. Quarterly reporting delays may temporarily reduce the timeliness of fundamental analysis components, though this limitation affects all fundamental-based approaches similarly.
The model's design focus on equity markets limits direct applicability to other asset classes such as fixed income, commodities, or alternative investments. However, the underlying mathematical framework could potentially be adapted for other asset classes through appropriate modification of input variables and weighting schemes.
Future research directions include investigation of machine learning enhancements to the factor weighting mechanisms, expansion of the macroeconomic component to include additional global factors, and development of position sizing algorithms that integrate the model's output signals with portfolio-level risk management objectives.
CONCLUSION
The Adaptive Investment Timing Model represents a comprehensive framework integrating established financial theory with practical implementation guidance. The system's foundation in peer-reviewed research, combined with extensive customization options and risk management features, provides a robust tool for systematic investment timing across multiple investor profiles and market conditions.
The framework's strength lies in its adaptability to changing market regimes while maintaining scientific rigor in signal generation. Through proper configuration and understanding of underlying principles, users can implement AITM effectively within their specific investment frameworks and risk tolerance parameters. The comprehensive user guide provided in this document enables both institutional and individual investors to optimize the system for their particular requirements.
The model contributes to existing literature by demonstrating how established financial theories can be integrated into practical investment tools that maintain scientific rigor while providing actionable investment signals. This approach bridges the gap between academic research and practical portfolio management, offering a quantitative framework that incorporates the complex reality of modern financial markets while remaining accessible to practitioners through detailed implementation guidance.
REFERENCES
Altman, E. I. (1968). Financial ratios, discriminant analysis and the prediction of corporate bankruptcy. Journal of Finance, 23(4), 589-609.
Ang, A., & Bekaert, G. (2007). Stock return predictability: Is it there? Review of Financial Studies, 20(3), 651-707.
Baker, M., & Wurgler, J. (2007). Investor sentiment in the stock market. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 21(2), 129-152.
Berger, P. G., & Ofek, E. (1995). Diversification's effect on firm value. Journal of Financial Economics, 37(1), 39-65.
Bollinger, J. (2001). Bollinger on Bollinger Bands. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Calmar, T. (1991). The Calmar ratio: A smoother tool. Futures, 20(1), 40.
Edwards, R. D., Magee, J., & Bassetti, W. H. C. (2018). Technical Analysis of Stock Trends. 11th ed. Boca Raton: CRC Press.
Estrella, A., & Mishkin, F. S. (1998). Predicting US recessions: Financial variables as leading indicators. Review of Economics and Statistics, 80(1), 45-61.
Fama, E. F., & French, K. R. (1988). Dividend yields and expected stock returns. Journal of Financial Economics, 22(1), 3-25.
Fama, E. F., & French, K. R. (1993). Common risk factors in the returns on stocks and bonds. Journal of Financial Economics, 33(1), 3-56.
Giot, P. (2005). Relationships between implied volatility indexes and stock index returns. Journal of Portfolio Management, 31(3), 92-100.
Graham, B., & Dodd, D. L. (2008). Security Analysis. 6th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Education.
Grinold, R. C., & Kahn, R. N. (1999). Active Portfolio Management. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Guidolin, M., & Timmermann, A. (2007). Asset allocation under multivariate regime switching. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 31(11), 3503-3544.
Hamilton, J. D. (1989). A new approach to the economic analysis of nonstationary time series and the business cycle. Econometrica, 57(2), 357-384.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263-291.
Koenker, R., & Bassett Jr, G. (1978). Regression quantiles. Econometrica, 46(1), 33-50.
Lakonishok, J., Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. W. (1994). Contrarian investment, extrapolation, and risk. Journal of Finance, 49(5), 1541-1578.
Lo, A. W., & MacKinlay, A. C. (1999). A Non-Random Walk Down Wall Street. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Malkiel, B. G. (2003). The efficient market hypothesis and its critics. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 17(1), 59-82.
Markowitz, H. (1952). Portfolio selection. Journal of Finance, 7(1), 77-91.
Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63(2), 81-97.
Penman, S. H. (2012). Financial Statement Analysis and Security Valuation. 5th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Education.
Piotroski, J. D. (2000). Value investing: The use of historical financial statement information to separate winners from losers. Journal of Accounting Research, 38, 1-41.
Sharpe, W. F. (1964). Capital asset prices: A theory of market equilibrium under conditions of risk. Journal of Finance, 19(3), 425-442.
Sharpe, W. F. (1994). The Sharpe ratio. Journal of Portfolio Management, 21(1), 49-58.
Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2008). Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Whaley, R. E. (1993). Derivatives on market volatility: Hedging tools long overdue. Journal of Derivatives, 1(1), 71-84.
Whaley, R. E. (2000). The investor fear gauge. Journal of Portfolio Management, 26(3), 12-17.
Wilder, J. W. (1978). New Concepts in Technical Trading Systems. Greensboro: Trend Research.
Asay (1982) Margined Futures Option Pricing Model [Loxx]Asay (1982) Margined Futures Option Pricing Model is an adaptation of the Black-Scholes-Merton Option Pricing Model including Analytical Greeks and implied volatility calculations. The following information is an excerpt from Espen Gaarder Haug's book "Option Pricing Formulas". This version is to price Options on Futures where premium is fully margined. This means the Risk-free Rate, dividend, and cost to carry are all zero. The options sensitivities (Greeks) are the partial derivatives of the Black-Scholes-Merton ( BSM ) formula. Analytical Greeks for our purposes here are broken down into various categories:
Delta Greeks: Delta, DDeltaDvol, Elasticity
Gamma Greeks: Gamma, GammaP, DGammaDvol, Speed
Vega Greeks: Vega , DVegaDvol/Vomma, VegaP
Theta Greeks: Theta
Probability Greeks: StrikeDelta, Risk Neutral Density
(See the code for more details)
Black-Scholes-Merton Option Pricing
The Black-Scholes-Merton model can be "generalized" by incorporating a cost-of-carry rate b. This model can be used to price European options on stocks, stocks paying a continuous dividend yield, options on futures , and currency options:
c = S * e^((b - r) * T) * N(d1) - X * e^(-r * T) * N(d2)
p = X * e^(-r * T) * N(-d2) - S * e^((b - r) * T) * N(-d1)
where
d1 = (log(S / X) + (b + v^2 / 2) * T) / (v * T^0.5)
d2 = d1 - v * T^0.5
b = r ... gives the Black and Scholes (1973) stock option model.
b = r — q ... gives the Merton (1973) stock option model with continuous dividend yield q.
b = 0 ... gives the Black (1976) futures option model.
b = 0 and r = 0 ... gives the Asay (1982) margined futures option model. <== this is the one used for this indicator!
b = r — rf ... gives the Garman and Kohlhagen (1983) currency option model.
Inputs
S = Stock price.
X = Strike price of option.
T = Time to expiration in years.
r = Risk-free rate
d = dividend yield
v = Volatility of the underlying asset price
cnd (x) = The cumulative normal distribution function
nd(x) = The standard normal density function
convertingToCCRate(r, cmp ) = Rate compounder
gImpliedVolatilityNR(string CallPutFlag, float S, float x, float T, float r, float b, float cm , float epsilon) = Implied volatility via Newton Raphson
gBlackScholesImpVolBisection(string CallPutFlag, float S, float x, float T, float r, float b, float cm ) = implied volatility via bisection
Implied Volatility: The Bisection Method
The Newton-Raphson method requires knowledge of the partial derivative of the option pricing formula with respect to volatility ( vega ) when searching for the implied volatility . For some options (exotic and American options in particular), vega is not known analytically. The bisection method is an even simpler method to estimate implied volatility when vega is unknown. The bisection method requires two initial volatility estimates (seed values):
1. A "low" estimate of the implied volatility , al, corresponding to an option value, CL
2. A "high" volatility estimate, aH, corresponding to an option value, CH
The option market price, Cm , lies between CL and cH . The bisection estimate is given as the linear interpolation between the two estimates:
v(i + 1) = v(L) + (c(m) - c(L)) * (v(H) - v(L)) / (c(H) - c(L))
Replace v(L) with v(i + 1) if c(v(i + 1)) < c(m), or else replace v(H) with v(i + 1) if c(v(i + 1)) > c(m) until |c(m) - c(v(i + 1))| <= E, at which point v(i + 1) is the implied volatility and E is the desired degree of accuracy.
Implied Volatility: Newton-Raphson Method
The Newton-Raphson method is an efficient way to find the implied volatility of an option contract. It is nothing more than a simple iteration technique for solving one-dimensional nonlinear equations (any introductory textbook in calculus will offer an intuitive explanation). The method seldom uses more than two to three iterations before it converges to the implied volatility . Let
v(i + 1) = v(i) + (c(v(i)) - c(m)) / (dc / dv (i))
until |c(m) - c(v(i + 1))| <= E at which point v(i + 1) is the implied volatility , E is the desired degree of accuracy, c(m) is the market price of the option, and dc/ dv (i) is the vega of the option evaluaated at v(i) (the sensitivity of the option value for a small change in volatility ).
Things to know
Only works on the daily timeframe and for the current source price.
You can adjust the text size to fit the screen
Black-76 Options on Futures [Loxx]Black-76 Options on Futures is an adaptation of the Black-Scholes-Merton Option Pricing Model including Analytical Greeks and implied volatility calculations. The following information is an excerpt from Espen Gaarder Haug's book "Option Pricing Formulas". This version is to price Options on Futures. The options sensitivities (Greeks) are the partial derivatives of the Black-Scholes-Merton ( BSM ) formula. Analytical Greeks for our purposes here are broken down into various categories:
Delta Greeks: Delta, DDeltaDvol, Elasticity
Gamma Greeks: Gamma, GammaP, DGammaDvol, Speed
Vega Greeks: Vega , DVegaDvol/Vomma, VegaP
Theta Greeks: Theta
Rate/Carry Greeks: Rho futures option
Probability Greeks: StrikeDelta, Risk Neutral Density
(See the code for more details)
Black-Scholes-Merton Option Pricing
The Black-Scholes-Merton model can be "generalized" by incorporating a cost-of-carry rate b. This model can be used to price European options on stocks, stocks paying a continuous dividend yield, options on futures , and currency options:
c = S * e^((b - r) * T) * N(d1) - X * e^(-r * T) * N(d2)
p = X * e^(-r * T) * N(-d2) - S * e^((b - r) * T) * N(-d1)
where
d1 = (log(S / X) + (b + v^2 / 2) * T) / (v * T^0.5)
d2 = d1 - v * T^0.5
b = r ... gives the Black and Scholes (1973) stock option model.
b = r — q ... gives the Merton (1973) stock option model with continuous dividend yield q.
b = 0 ... gives the Black (1976) futures option model. <== this is the one used for this indicator!
b = 0 and r = 0 ... gives the Asay (1982) margined futures option model.
b = r — rf ... gives the Garman and Kohlhagen (1983) currency option model.
Inputs
S = Stock price.
X = Strike price of option.
T = Time to expiration in years.
r = Risk-free rate
d = dividend yield
v = Volatility of the underlying asset price
cnd (x) = The cumulative normal distribution function
nd(x) = The standard normal density function
convertingToCCRate(r, cmp ) = Rate compounder
gImpliedVolatilityNR(string CallPutFlag, float S, float x, float T, float r, float b, float cm , float epsilon) = Implied volatility via Newton Raphson
gBlackScholesImpVolBisection(string CallPutFlag, float S, float x, float T, float r, float b, float cm ) = implied volatility via bisection
Implied Volatility: The Bisection Method
The Newton-Raphson method requires knowledge of the partial derivative of the option pricing formula with respect to volatility ( vega ) when searching for the implied volatility . For some options (exotic and American options in particular), vega is not known analytically. The bisection method is an even simpler method to estimate implied volatility when vega is unknown. The bisection method requires two initial volatility estimates (seed values):
1. A "low" estimate of the implied volatility , al, corresponding to an option value, CL
2. A "high" volatility estimate, aH, corresponding to an option value, CH
The option market price, Cm , lies between CL and cH . The bisection estimate is given as the linear interpolation between the two estimates:
v(i + 1) = v(L) + (c(m) - c(L)) * (v(H) - v(L)) / (c(H) - c(L))
Replace v(L) with v(i + 1) if c(v(i + 1)) < c(m), or else replace v(H) with v(i + 1) if c(v(i + 1)) > c(m) until |c(m) - c(v(i + 1))| <= E, at which point v(i + 1) is the implied volatility and E is the desired degree of accuracy.
Implied Volatility: Newton-Raphson Method
The Newton-Raphson method is an efficient way to find the implied volatility of an option contract. It is nothing more than a simple iteration technique for solving one-dimensional nonlinear equations (any introductory textbook in calculus will offer an intuitive explanation). The method seldom uses more than two to three iterations before it converges to the implied volatility . Let
v(i + 1) = v(i) + (c(v(i)) - c(m)) / (dc / dv (i))
until |c(m) - c(v(i + 1))| <= E at which point v(i + 1) is the implied volatility , E is the desired degree of accuracy, c(m) is the market price of the option, and dc/ dv (i) is the vega of the option evaluaated at v(i) (the sensitivity of the option value for a small change in volatility ).
Things to know
Only works on the daily timeframe and for the current source price.
You can adjust the text size to fit the screen
Garman and Kohlhagen (1983) for Currency Options [Loxx]Garman and Kohlhagen (1983) for Currency Options is an adaptation of the Black-Scholes-Merton Option Pricing Model including Analytical Greeks and implied volatility calculations. The following information is an excerpt from Espen Gaarder Haug's book "Option Pricing Formulas". This version of BSMOPM is to price Currency Options. The options sensitivities (Greeks) are the partial derivatives of the Black-Scholes-Merton ( BSM ) formula. Analytical Greeks for our purposes here are broken down into various categories:
Delta Greeks: Delta, DDeltaDvol, Elasticity
Gamma Greeks: Gamma, GammaP, DGammaDSpot/speed, DGammaDvol/Zomma
Vega Greeks: Vega , DVegaDvol/Vomma, VegaP, Speed
Theta Greeks: Theta
Rate/Carry Greeks: Rho, Rho futures option, Carry Rho, Phi/Rho2
Probability Greeks: StrikeDelta, Risk Neutral Density
(See the code for more details)
Black-Scholes-Merton Option Pricing for Currency Options
The Garman and Kohlhagen (1983) modified Black-Scholes model can be used to price European currency options; see also Grabbe (1983). The model is mathematically equivalent to the Merton (1973) model presented earlier. The only difference is that the dividend yield is replaced by the risk-free rate of the foreign currency rf:
c = S * e^(-rf * T) * N(d1) - X * e^(-r * T) * N(d2)
p = X * e^(-r * T) * N(-d2) - S * e^(-rf * T) * N(-d1)
where
d1 = (log(S / X) + (r - rf + v^2 / 2) * T) / (v * T^0.5)
d2 = d1 - v * T^0.5
For more information on currency options, see DeRosa (2000)
Inputs
S = Stock price.
X = Strike price of option.
T = Time to expiration in years.
r = Risk-free rate
rf = Risk-free rate of the foreign currency
v = Volatility of the underlying asset price
cnd (x) = The cumulative normal distribution function
nd(x) = The standard normal density function
convertingToCCRate(r, cmp ) = Rate compounder
gImpliedVolatilityNR(string CallPutFlag, float S, float x, float T, float r, float b, float cm , float epsilon) = Implied volatility via Newton Raphson
gBlackScholesImpVolBisection(string CallPutFlag, float S, float x, float T, float r, float b, float cm ) = implied volatility via bisection
Implied Volatility: The Bisection Method
The Newton-Raphson method requires knowledge of the partial derivative of the option pricing formula with respect to volatility ( vega ) when searching for the implied volatility . For some options (exotic and American options in particular), vega is not known analytically. The bisection method is an even simpler method to estimate implied volatility when vega is unknown. The bisection method requires two initial volatility estimates (seed values):
1. A "low" estimate of the implied volatility , al, corresponding to an option value, CL
2. A "high" volatility estimate, aH, corresponding to an option value, CH
The option market price, Cm , lies between CL and cH . The bisection estimate is given as the linear interpolation between the two estimates:
v(i + 1) = v(L) + (c(m) - c(L)) * (v(H) - v(L)) / (c(H) - c(L))
Replace v(L) with v(i + 1) if c(v(i + 1)) < c(m), or else replace v(H) with v(i + 1) if c(v(i + 1)) > c(m) until |c(m) - c(v(i + 1))| <= E, at which point v(i + 1) is the implied volatility and E is the desired degree of accuracy.
Implied Volatility: Newton-Raphson Method
The Newton-Raphson method is an efficient way to find the implied volatility of an option contract. It is nothing more than a simple iteration technique for solving one-dimensional nonlinear equations (any introductory textbook in calculus will offer an intuitive explanation). The method seldom uses more than two to three iterations before it converges to the implied volatility . Let
v(i + 1) = v(i) + (c(v(i)) - c(m)) / (dc / dv (i))
until |c(m) - c(v(i + 1))| <= E at which point v(i + 1) is the implied volatility , E is the desired degree of accuracy, c(m) is the market price of the option, and dc/ dv (i) is the vega of the option evaluaated at v(i) (the sensitivity of the option value for a small change in volatility ).
Things to know
Only works on the daily timeframe and for the current source price.
You can adjust the text size to fit the screen
Related indicators:
BSM OPM 1973 w/ Continuous Dividend Yield
Black-Scholes 1973 OPM on Non-Dividend Paying Stocks
Generalized Black-Scholes-Merton w/ Analytical Greeks
Generalized Black-Scholes-Merton Option Pricing Formula
Sprenkle 1964 Option Pricing Model w/ Num. Greeks
Modified Bachelier Option Pricing Model w/ Num. Greeks
Bachelier 1900 Option Pricing Model w/ Numerical Greeks
BSM OPM 1973 w/ Continuous Dividend Yield [Loxx]Generalized Black-Scholes-Merton w/ Analytical Greeks is an adaptation of the Black-Scholes-Merton Option Pricing Model including Analytical Greeks and implied volatility calculations. The following information is an excerpt from Espen Gaarder Haug's book "Option Pricing Formulas". The options sensitivities (Greeks) are the partial derivatives of the Black-Scholes-Merton ( BSM ) formula. Analytical Greeks for our purposes here are broken down into various categories:
Delta Greeks: Delta, DDeltaDvol, Elasticity
Gamma Greeks: Gamma, GammaP, DGammaDSpot/speed, DGammaDvol/Zomma
Vega Greeks: Vega , DVegaDvol/Vomma, VegaP
Theta Greeks: Theta
Rate/Carry Greeks: Rho, Rho futures option, Carry Rho, Phi/Rho2
Probability Greeks: StrikeDelta, Risk Neutral Density
(See the code for more details)
Black-Scholes-Merton Option Pricing
The Black-Scholes-Merton model can be "generalized" by incorporating a cost-of-carry rate b. This model can be used to price European options on stocks, stocks paying a continuous dividend yield, options on futures, and currency options:
c = S * e^((b - r) * T) * N(d1) - X * e^(-r * T) * N(d2)
p = X * e^(-r * T) * N(-d2) - S * e^((b - r) * T) * N(-d1)
where
d1 = (log(S / X) + (b + v^2 / 2) * T) / (v * T^0.5)
d2 = d1 - v * T^0.5
b = r ... gives the Black and Scholes (1973) stock option model.
b = r — q ... gives the Merton (1973) stock option model with continuous dividend yield q. <== this is the one used for this indicator!
b = 0 ... gives the Black (1976) futures option model.
b = 0 and r = 0 ... gives the Asay (1982) margined futures option model.
b = r — rf ... gives the Garman and Kohlhagen (1983) currency option model.
Inputs
S = Stock price.
X = Strike price of option.
T = Time to expiration in years.
r = Risk-free rate
d = dividend yield
v = Volatility of the underlying asset price
cnd (x) = The cumulative normal distribution function
nd(x) = The standard normal density function
convertingToCCRate(r, cmp ) = Rate compounder
gImpliedVolatilityNR(string CallPutFlag, float S, float x, float T, float r, float b, float cm , float epsilon) = Implied volatility via Newton Raphson
gBlackScholesImpVolBisection(string CallPutFlag, float S, float x, float T, float r, float b, float cm ) = implied volatility via bisection
Implied Volatility: The Bisection Method
The Newton-Raphson method requires knowledge of the partial derivative of the option pricing formula with respect to volatility ( vega ) when searching for the implied volatility . For some options (exotic and American options in particular), vega is not known analytically. The bisection method is an even simpler method to estimate implied volatility when vega is unknown. The bisection method requires two initial volatility estimates (seed values):
1. A "low" estimate of the implied volatility , al, corresponding to an option value, CL
2. A "high" volatility estimate, aH, corresponding to an option value, CH
The option market price, Cm , lies between CL and cH . The bisection estimate is given as the linear interpolation between the two estimates:
v(i + 1) = v(L) + (c(m) - c(L)) * (v(H) - v(L)) / (c(H) - c(L))
Replace v(L) with v(i + 1) if c(v(i + 1)) < c(m), or else replace v(H) with v(i + 1) if c(v(i + 1)) > c(m) until |c(m) - c(v(i + 1))| <= E, at which point v(i + 1) is the implied volatility and E is the desired degree of accuracy.
Implied Volatility: Newton-Raphson Method
The Newton-Raphson method is an efficient way to find the implied volatility of an option contract. It is nothing more than a simple iteration technique for solving one-dimensional nonlinear equations (any introductory textbook in calculus will offer an intuitive explanation). The method seldom uses more than two to three iterations before it converges to the implied volatility . Let
v(i + 1) = v(i) + (c(v(i)) - c(m)) / (dc / dv (i))
until |c(m) - c(v(i + 1))| <= E at which point v(i + 1) is the implied volatility , E is the desired degree of accuracy, c(m) is the market price of the option, and dc/ dv (i) is the vega of the option evaluaated at v(i) (the sensitivity of the option value for a small change in volatility ).
Things to know
Only works on the daily timeframe and for the current source price.
You can adjust the text size to fit the screen
vol_coneDraws a volatility cone on the chart, using the contract's realized volatility (rv). The inputs are:
- window: the number of past periods to use for computing the realized volatility. VIX uses 30 calendar days, which is 21 trading days, so 21 is the default.
- stdevs: the number of standard deviations that the cone will cover.
- periods to project: the length of the volatility cone.
- periods per year: the number of periods in a year. for a daily chart, this is 252. for a thirty minute chart on a contract that trades 23 hours a day, this is 23 * 2 * 252 = 11592. for an accurate cone, this input must be set correctly, according to the chart's time frame.
- history: show the lagged projections. in other words, if the cone is set to project 21 periods in the future, the lines drawn show the top and bottom edges of the cone from 23 periods ago.
- rate: the current interest or discount rate. this is used to compute the forward price of the underlying contract. using an accurate forward price allows you to compare the realized volatility projection to the implied volatility projections derived from options prices.
Example settings for a 30 minute chart of a contract that trades 23 hours per day, with 1 standard deviation, a 21 day rv calculation, and half a day projected:
- stdevs: 1
- periods to project: 23
- window: 23 * 2 * 21 = 966
- periods per year: 23 * 2 * 252 = 11592
Additionally, a table is drawn in the upper right hand corner, with several values:
- rv: the contract's current realized volatility.
- rnk: the rv's percentile rank, compared to the rv values on past bars.
- acc: the proportion of times price settled inside, versus outside, the volatility cone, "periods to project" into the future. this should be around 65-70% for most contracts when the cone is set to 1 standard deviation.
- up: the upper bound of the cone for the projection period.
- dn: the lower bound of the cone for the projection period.
Limitations:
- pinescript only seems to be able to draw a limited distance into the future. If you choose too many "periods to project", the cone will start drawing vertically at some limit.
- the cone is not totally smooth owing to the facts a) it is comprised of a limited number of lines and b) each bar does not represent the same amount of time in pinescript, as some cross weekends, session gaps, etc.
Z-Score Normalized Volatility IndicesVolatility is one of the most important measures in financial markets, reflecting the extent of variation in asset prices over time. It is commonly viewed as a risk indicator, with higher volatility signifying greater uncertainty and potential for price swings, which can affect investment decisions. Understanding volatility and its dynamics is crucial for risk management and forecasting in both traditional and alternative asset classes.
Z-Score Normalization in Volatility Analysis
The Z-score is a statistical tool that quantifies how many standard deviations a given data point is from the mean of the dataset. It is calculated as:
Z = \frac{X - \mu}{\sigma}
Where X is the value of the data point, \mu is the mean of the dataset, and \sigma is the standard deviation of the dataset. In the context of volatility indices, the Z-score allows for the normalization of these values, enabling their comparison regardless of the original scale. This is particularly useful when analyzing volatility across multiple assets or asset classes.
This script utilizes the Z-score to normalize various volatility indices:
1. VIX (CBOE Volatility Index): A widely used indicator that measures the implied volatility of S&P 500 options. It is considered a barometer of market fear and uncertainty (Whaley, 2000).
2. VIX3M: Represents the 3-month implied volatility of the S&P 500 options, providing insight into medium-term volatility expectations.
3. VIX9D: The implied volatility for a 9-day S&P 500 options contract, which reflects short-term volatility expectations.
4. VVIX: The volatility of the VIX itself, which measures the uncertainty in the expectations of future volatility.
5. VXN: The Nasdaq-100 volatility index, representing implied volatility in the Nasdaq-100 options.
6. RVX: The Russell 2000 volatility index, tracking the implied volatility of options on the Russell 2000 Index.
7. VXD: Volatility for the Dow Jones Industrial Average.
8. MOVE: The implied volatility index for U.S. Treasury bonds, offering insight into expectations for interest rate volatility.
9. BVIX: Volatility of Bitcoin options, a useful indicator for understanding the risk in the cryptocurrency market.
10. GVZ: Volatility index for gold futures, reflecting the risk perception of gold prices.
11. OVX: Measures implied volatility for crude oil futures.
Volatility Clustering and Z-Score
The concept of volatility clustering—where high volatility tends to be followed by more high volatility—is well documented in financial literature. This phenomenon is fundamental in volatility modeling and highlights the persistence of periods of heightened market uncertainty (Bollerslev, 1986).
Moreover, studies by Andersen et al. (2012) explore how implied volatility indices, like the VIX, serve as predictors for future realized volatility, underlining the relationship between expected volatility and actual market behavior. The Z-score normalization process helps in making volatility data comparable across different asset classes, enabling more effective decision-making in volatility-based strategies.
Applications in Trading and Risk Management
By using Z-score normalization, traders can more easily assess deviations from the mean in volatility, helping to identify periods when volatility is unusually high or low. This can be used to adjust risk exposure or to implement volatility-based trading strategies, such as mean reversion strategies. Research suggests that volatility mean-reversion is a reliable pattern that can be exploited for profit (Christensen & Prabhala, 1998).
References:
• Andersen, T. G., Bollerslev, T., Diebold, F. X., & Vega, C. (2012). Realized volatility and correlation dynamics: A long-run approach. Journal of Financial Economics, 104(3), 385-406.
• Bollerslev, T. (1986). Generalized autoregressive conditional heteroskedasticity. Journal of Econometrics, 31(3), 307-327.
• Christensen, B. J., & Prabhala, N. R. (1998). The relation between implied and realized volatility. Journal of Financial Economics, 50(2), 125-150.
• Whaley, R. E. (2000). Derivatives on market volatility and the VIX index. Journal of Derivatives, 8(1), 71-84.
rv_iv_vrpThis script provides realized volatility (rv), implied volatility (iv), and volatility risk premium (vrp) information for each of CBOE's volatility indices. The individual outputs are:
- Blue/red line: the realized volatility. This is an annualized, 20-period moving average estimate of realized volatility--in other words, the variability in the instrument's actual returns. The line is blue when realized volatility is below implied volatility, red otherwise.
- Fuchsia line (opaque): the median of realized volatility. The median is based on all data between the "start" and "end" dates.
- Gray line (transparent): the implied volatility (iv). According to CBOE's volatility methodology, this is similar to a weighted average of out-of-the-money ivs for options with approximately 30 calendar days to expiration. Notice that we compare rv20 to iv30 because there are about twenty trading periods in thirty calendar days.
- Fuchsia line (transparent): the median of implied volatility.
- Lightly shaded gray background: the background between "start" and "end" is shaded a very light gray.
- Table: the table shows the current, percentile, and median values for iv, rv, and vrp. Percentile means the value is greater than "N" percent of all values for that measure.
-----
Volatility risk premium (vrp) is simply the difference between implied and realized volatility. Along with implied and realized volatility, traders interpret this measure in various ways. Some prefer to be buying options when there volatility, implied or realized, reaches absolute levels, or low risk premium, whereas others have the opposite opinion. However, all volatility traders like to look at these measures in relation to their past values, which this script assists with.
By the way, this script is similar to my "vol premia," which provides the vrp data for all of these instruments on one page. However, this script loads faster and lets you see historical data. I recommend viewing the indicator and the corresponding instrument at the same time, to see how volatility reacts to changes in the underlying price.
Fear Volatility Gate [by Oberlunar]The Fear Volatility Gate by Oberlunar is a filter designed to enhance operational prudence by leveraging volatility-based risk indices. Its architecture is grounded in the empirical observation that sudden shifts in implied volatility often precede instability across financial markets. By dynamically interpreting signals from globally recognized "fear indices", such as the VIX, the indicator aims to identify periods of elevated systemic uncertainty and, accordingly, restrict or flag potential trade entries.
The rationale behind the Fear Volatility Gate is rooted in the understanding that implied volatility represents a forward-looking estimate of market risk. When volatility indices rise sharply, it reflects increased demand for options and a broader perception of uncertainty. In such contexts, price movements can become less predictable, more erratic, and often decoupled from technical structures. Rather than relying on price alone, this filter provides an external perspective—derived from derivative markets—on whether current conditions justify caution.
The indicator operates in two primary modes: single-source and composite . In the single-source configuration, a user-defined volatility index is monitored individually. In composite mode, the filter can synthesize input from multiple indices simultaneously, offering a more comprehensive macro-risk assessment. The filtering logic is adaptable, allowing signals to be combined using inclusive (ANY), strict (ALL), or majority consensus logic. This allows the trader to tailor sensitivity based on the operational context or asset class.
The indices available for selection cover a broad spectrum of market sectors. In the equity domain, the filter supports the CBOE Volatility Index ( CBOE:VIX VIX) for the S&P 500, the Nasdaq-100 Volatility Index ( CBOE:VXN VXN), the Russell 2000 Volatility Index ( CBOEFTSE:RVX RVX), and the Dow Jones Volatility Index ( CBOE:VXD VXD). For commodities, it integrates the Crude Oil Volatility Index ( CBOE:OVX ), the Gold Volatility Index ( CBOE:GVZ ), and the Silver Volatility Index ( CBOE:VXSLV ). From the fixed income perspective, it includes the ICE Bank of America MOVE Index ( OKX:MOVEUSD ), the Volatility Index for the TLT ETF ( CBOE:VXTLT VXTLT), and the 5-Year Treasury Yield Index ( CBOE:FVX.P FVX). Within the cryptocurrency space, it incorporates the Bitcoin Volmex Implied Volatility Index ( VOLMEX:BVIV BVIV), the Ethereum Volmex Implied Volatility Index ( VOLMEX:EVIV EVIV), the Deribit Bitcoin Volatility Index ( DERIBIT:DVOL DVOL), and the Deribit Ethereum Volatility Index ( DERIBIT:ETHDVOL ETHDVOL). Additionally, the user may define a custom instrument for specialized tracking.
To determine whether market conditions are considered high-risk, the indicator supports three modes of evaluation.
The moving average cross mode compares a fast Hull Moving Average to a slower one, triggering a signal when short-term volatility exceeds long-term expectations.
The Z-score mode standardizes current volatility relative to historical mean and standard deviation, identifying significant deviations that may indicate abnormal market stress.
The percentile mode ranks the current value against a historical distribution, providing a relative perspective particularly useful when dealing with non-normal or skewed distributions.
When at least one selected index meets the condition defined by the chosen mode, and if the filtering logic confirms it, the indicator can mark the trading environment as “blocked”. This status is visually highlighted through background color changes and symbolic markers on the chart. An optional tabular interface provides detailed diagnostics, including raw values, fast-slow MA comparison, Z-scores, percentile levels, and binary risk status for each active index.
The Fear Volatility Gate is not a predictive tool in itself but rather a dynamic constraint layer that reinforces discipline under conditions of macro instability. It is particularly valuable when trading systems are exposed to highly leveraged or short-duration strategies, where market noise and sentiment can temporarily override structural price behavior. By synchronizing trading signals with volatility regimes, the filter promotes a more cautious, informed approach to decision-making.
This approach does not assume that all volatility spikes are harmful or that market corrections are imminent. Rather, it acknowledges that periods of elevated implied volatility statistically coincide with increased execution risk, slippage, and spread widening, all of which may erode the profitability of even the most technically accurate setups.
Therefore, the Fear Volatility Gate acts as a protective mechanism.
Oberlunar 👁️⭐
Dynamic Volatility Differential Model (DVDM)The Dynamic Volatility Differential Model (DVDM) is a quantitative trading strategy designed to exploit the spread between implied volatility (IV) and historical (realized) volatility (HV). This strategy identifies trading opportunities by dynamically adjusting thresholds based on the standard deviation of the volatility spread. The DVDM is versatile and applicable across various markets, including equity indices, commodities, and derivatives such as the FDAX (DAX Futures).
Key Components of the DVDM:
1. Implied Volatility (IV):
The IV is derived from options markets and reflects the market’s expectation of future price volatility. For instance, the strategy uses volatility indices such as the VIX (S&P 500), VXN (Nasdaq 100), or RVX (Russell 2000), depending on the target market. These indices serve as proxies for market sentiment and risk perception (Whaley, 2000).
2. Historical Volatility (HV):
The HV is computed from the log returns of the underlying asset’s price. It represents the actual volatility observed in the market over a defined lookback period, adjusted to annualized levels using a multiplier of \sqrt{252} for daily data (Hull, 2012).
3. Volatility Spread:
The difference between IV and HV forms the volatility spread, which is a measure of divergence between market expectations and actual market behavior.
4. Dynamic Thresholds:
Unlike static thresholds, the DVDM employs dynamic thresholds derived from the standard deviation of the volatility spread. The thresholds are scaled by a user-defined multiplier, ensuring adaptability to market conditions and volatility regimes (Christoffersen & Jacobs, 2004).
Trading Logic:
1. Long Entry:
A long position is initiated when the volatility spread exceeds the upper dynamic threshold, signaling that implied volatility is significantly higher than realized volatility. This condition suggests potential mean reversion, as markets may correct inflated risk premiums.
2. Short Entry:
A short position is initiated when the volatility spread falls below the lower dynamic threshold, indicating that implied volatility is significantly undervalued relative to realized volatility. This signals the possibility of increased market uncertainty.
3. Exit Conditions:
Positions are closed when the volatility spread crosses the zero line, signifying a normalization of the divergence.
Advantages of the DVDM:
1. Adaptability:
Dynamic thresholds allow the strategy to adjust to changing market conditions, making it suitable for both low-volatility and high-volatility environments.
2. Quantitative Precision:
The use of standard deviation-based thresholds enhances statistical reliability and reduces subjectivity in decision-making.
3. Market Versatility:
The strategy’s reliance on volatility metrics makes it universally applicable across asset classes and markets, ensuring robust performance.
Scientific Relevance:
The strategy builds on empirical research into the predictive power of implied volatility over realized volatility (Poon & Granger, 2003). By leveraging the divergence between these measures, the DVDM aligns with findings that IV often overestimates future volatility, creating opportunities for mean-reversion trades. Furthermore, the inclusion of dynamic thresholds aligns with risk management best practices by adapting to volatility clustering, a well-documented phenomenon in financial markets (Engle, 1982).
References:
1. Christoffersen, P., & Jacobs, K. (2004). The importance of the volatility risk premium for volatility forecasting. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 39(2), 375-397.
2. Engle, R. F. (1982). Autoregressive conditional heteroskedasticity with estimates of the variance of United Kingdom inflation. Econometrica, 50(4), 987-1007.
3. Hull, J. C. (2012). Options, Futures, and Other Derivatives. Pearson Education.
4. Poon, S. H., & Granger, C. W. J. (2003). Forecasting volatility in financial markets: A review. Journal of Economic Literature, 41(2), 478-539.
5. Whaley, R. E. (2000). The investor fear gauge. Journal of Portfolio Management, 26(3), 12-17.
This strategy leverages quantitative techniques and statistical rigor to provide a systematic approach to volatility trading, making it a valuable tool for professional traders and quantitative analysts.
Crypto Options Greeks & Volatility Analyzer [BackQuant]Crypto Options Greeks & Volatility Analyzer
Overview
The Crypto Options Greeks & Volatility Analyzer is a comprehensive analytical tool that calculates Black-Scholes option Greeks up to the third order for Bitcoin and Ethereum options. It integrates implied volatility data from VOLMEX indices and provides multiple visualization layers for options risk analysis.
Quick Introduction to Options Trading
Options are financial derivatives that give the holder the right, but not the obligation, to buy or sell an underlying asset at a predetermined price (strike price) within a specific time period (expiration date). Understanding options requires grasping two fundamental concepts:
Call Options : Give the right to buy the underlying asset at the strike price. Calls increase in value when the underlying price rises above the strike price.
Put Options : Give the right to sell the underlying asset at the strike price. Puts increase in value when the underlying price falls below the strike price.
The Language of Options: Greeks
Options traders use "Greeks" - mathematical measures that describe how an option's price changes in response to various factors:
Delta : How much the option price moves for each $1 change in the underlying
Gamma : How fast delta changes as the underlying moves
Theta : Daily time decay - how much value erodes each day
Vega : Sensitivity to implied volatility changes
Rho : Sensitivity to interest rate changes
These Greeks are essential for understanding risk. Just as a pilot needs instruments to fly safely, options traders need Greeks to navigate market conditions and manage positions effectively.
Why Volatility Matters
Implied volatility (IV) represents the market's expectation of future price movement. High IV means:
Options are more expensive (higher premiums)
Market expects larger price swings
Better for option sellers
Low IV means:
Options are cheaper
Market expects smaller moves
Better for option buyers
This indicator helps you visualize and quantify these critical concepts in real-time.
Back to the Indicator
Key Features & Components
1. Complete Greeks Calculations
The indicator computes all standard Greeks using the Black-Scholes-Merton model adapted for cryptocurrency markets:
First Order Greeks:
Delta (Δ) : Measures the rate of change of option price with respect to underlying price movement. Ranges from 0 to 1 for calls and -1 to 0 for puts.
Vega (ν) : Sensitivity to implied volatility changes, expressed as price change per 1% change in IV.
Theta (Θ) : Time decay measured in dollars per day, showing how much value erodes with each passing day.
Rho (ρ) : Interest rate sensitivity, measuring price change per 1% change in risk-free rate.
Second Order Greeks:
Gamma (Γ) : Rate of change of delta with respect to underlying price, indicating how quickly delta will change.
Vanna : Cross-derivative measuring delta's sensitivity to volatility changes and vega's sensitivity to price changes.
Charm : Delta decay over time, showing how delta changes as expiration approaches.
Vomma (Volga) : Vega's sensitivity to volatility changes, important for volatility trading strategies.
Third Order Greeks:
Speed : Rate of change of gamma with respect to underlying price (∂Γ/∂S).
Zomma : Gamma's sensitivity to volatility changes (∂Γ/∂σ).
Color : Gamma decay over time (∂Γ/∂T).
Ultima : Third-order volatility sensitivity (∂²ν/∂σ²).
2. Implied Volatility Analysis
The indicator includes a sophisticated IV ranking system that analyzes current implied volatility relative to its recent history:
IV Rank : Percentile ranking of current IV within its 30-day range (0-100%)
IV Percentile : Percentage of days in the lookback period where IV was lower than current
IV Regime Classification : Very Low, Low, High, or Very High
Color-Coded Headers : Visual indication of volatility regime in the Greeks table
Trading regime suggestions based on IV rank:
IV Rank > 75%: "Favor selling options" (high premium environment)
IV Rank 50-75%: "Neutral / Sell spreads"
IV Rank 25-50%: "Neutral / Buy spreads"
IV Rank < 25%: "Favor buying options" (low premium environment)
3. Gamma Zones Visualization
Gamma zones display horizontal price levels where gamma exposure is highest:
Purple horizontal lines indicate gamma concentration areas
Opacity scaling : Darker shading represents higher gamma values
Percentage labels : Shows gamma intensity relative to ATM gamma
Customizable zones : 3-10 price levels can be analyzed
These zones are critical for understanding:
Pin risk around expiration
Potential for explosive price movements
Optimal strike selection for gamma trading
Market maker hedging flows
4. Probability Cones (Expected Move)
The probability cones project expected price ranges based on current implied volatility:
1 Standard Deviation (68% probability) : Shown with dashed green/red lines
2 Standard Deviations (95% probability) : Shown with dotted green/red lines
Time-scaled projection : Cones widen as expiration approaches
Lognormal distribution : Accounts for positive skew in asset prices
Applications:
Strike selection for credit spreads
Identifying high-probability profit zones
Setting realistic price targets
Risk management for undefined risk strategies
5. Breakeven Analysis
The indicator plots key price levels for options positions:
White line : Strike price
Green line : Call breakeven (Strike + Premium)
Red line : Put breakeven (Strike - Premium)
These levels update dynamically as option premiums change with market conditions.
6. Payoff Structure Visualization
Optional P&L labels display profit/loss at expiration for various price levels:
Shows P&L at -2 sigma, -1 sigma, ATM, +1 sigma, and +2 sigma price levels
Separate calculations for calls and puts
Helps visualize option payoff diagrams directly on the chart
Updates based on current option premiums
Configuration Options
Calculation Parameters
Asset Selection : BTC or ETH (limited by VOLMEX IV data availability)
Expiry Options : 1D, 7D, 14D, 30D, 60D, 90D, 180D
Strike Mode : ATM (uses current spot) or Custom (manual strike input)
Risk-Free Rate : Adjustable annual rate for discounting calculations
Display Settings
Greeks Display : Toggle first, second, and third-order Greeks independently
Visual Elements : Enable/disable probability cones, gamma zones, P&L labels
Table Customization : Position (6 options) and text size (4 sizes)
Price Levels : Show/hide strike and breakeven lines
Technical Implementation
Data Sources
Spot Prices : INDEX:BTCUSD and INDEX:ETHUSD for underlying prices
Implied Volatility : VOLMEX:BVIV (Bitcoin) and VOLMEX:EVIV (Ethereum) indices
Real-Time Updates : All calculations update with each price tick
Mathematical Framework
The indicator implements the full Black-Scholes-Merton model:
Standard normal distribution approximations using Abramowitz and Stegun method
Proper annualization factors (365-day year)
Continuous compounding for interest rate calculations
Lognormal price distribution assumptions
Alert Conditions
Four categories of automated alerts:
Price-Based : Underlying crossing strike price
Gamma-Based : 50% surge detection for explosive moves
Moneyness : Deep ITM alerts when |delta| > 0.9
Time/Volatility : Near expiration and vega spike warnings
Practical Applications
For Options Traders
Monitor all Greeks in real-time for active positions
Identify optimal entry/exit points using IV rank
Visualize risk through probability cones and gamma zones
Track time decay and plan rolls
For Volatility Traders
Compare IV across different expiries
Identify mean reversion opportunities
Monitor vega exposure across strikes
Track higher-order volatility sensitivities
Conclusion
The Crypto Options Greeks & Volatility Analyzer transforms complex mathematical models into actionable visual insights. By combining institutional-grade Greeks calculations with intuitive overlays like probability cones and gamma zones, it bridges the gap between theoretical options knowledge and practical trading application.
Whether you're:
A directional trader using options for leverage
A volatility trader capturing IV mean reversion
A hedger managing portfolio risk
Or simply learning about options mechanics
This tool provides the quantitative foundation needed for informed decision-making in cryptocurrency options markets.
Remember that options trading involves substantial risk and complexity. The Greeks and visualizations provided by this indicator are tools for analysis - they should be combined with proper risk management, position sizing, and a thorough understanding of options strategies.
As crypto options markets continue to mature and grow, having professional-grade analytics becomes increasingly important. This indicator ensures you're equipped with the same analytical capabilities used by institutional traders, adapted specifically for the unique characteristics of 24/7 cryptocurrency markets.
[blackcat] L1 Dynamic Volatility IndicatorThe volatility indicator (Volatility) is used to measure the magnitude and instability of price changes in financial markets or a specific asset. This thing is usually used to assess how risky the market is. The higher the volatility, the greater the fluctuation in asset prices, but brother, the risk is also relatively high! Here are some related terms and explanations:
- Historical Volatility: The actual volatility of asset prices over a certain period of time in the past. This thing is measured by calculating historical data.
- Implied Volatility: The volatility inferred from option market prices, used to measure market expectations for future price fluctuations.
- VIX Index (Volatility Index): Often referred to as the "fear index," it predicts the volatility of the US stock market within 30 days in advance. This is one of the most famous volatility indicators in global financial markets.
Volatility indicators are very important for investors and traders because they can help them understand how unstable and risky the market is, thereby making wiser investment decisions.
Today I want to introduce a volatility indicator that I have privately held for many years. It can use colors to judge sharp rises and falls! Of course, if you are smart enough, you can also predict some potential sharp rises and falls by looking at the trend!
In the financial field, volatility indicators measure the magnitude and instability of price changes in different assets. They are usually used to assess the level of market risk. The higher the volatility, the greater the fluctuation in asset prices and therefore higher risk. Historical Volatility refers to the actual volatility of asset prices over a certain period of time in the past, which can be measured by calculating historical data; while Implied Volatility is derived from option market prices and used to measure market expectations for future price fluctuations. In addition, VIX Index is commonly known as "fear index" and is used to predict volatility in the US stock market within 30 days. It is one of the most famous volatility indicators in global financial markets.
Volatility indicators are very important for investors and traders because they help them understand market uncertainty and risk, enabling them to make wiser investment decisions. The L1 Dynamic Volatility Indicator that I am introducing today is an indicator that measures volatility and can also judge sharp rises and falls through colors!
This indicator combines two technical indicators: Dynamic Volatility (DV) and ATR (Average True Range), displaying warnings about sharp rises or falls through color coding. DV has a slow but relatively smooth response, while ATR has a fast but more oscillating response. By utilizing their complementary characteristics, it is possible to construct a structure similar to MACD's fast-slow line structure. Of course, in order to achieve fast-slow lines for DV and ATR, first we need to unify their coordinate axes by normalizing them. Then whenever ATR's yellow line exceeds DV's purple line with both curves rapidly breaking through the threshold of 0.2, sharp rises or falls are imminent.
However, it is important to note that relying solely on the height and direction of these two lines is not enough to determine the direction of sharp rises or falls! Because they only judge the trend of volatility and cannot determine bull or bear markets! But it's okay, I have already considered this issue early on and added a magical gradient color band. When the color band gradually turns warm, it indicates a sharp rise; conversely, when the color band tends towards cool colors, it indicates a sharp fall! Of course, you won't see the color band in sideways consolidation areas, which avoids your involvement in unnecessary trades that would only waste your funds! This indicator is really practical and with it you can better assess market risks and opportunities!
Black-Scholes option price model & delta hedge strategyBlack-Scholes Option Pricing Model Strategy
The strategy is based on the Black-Scholes option pricing model and allows the calculation of option prices, various option metrics (the Greeks), and the creation of synthetic positions through delta hedging.
ATTENTION!
Trading derivative financial instruments involves high risks. The author of the strategy is not responsible for your financial results! The strategy is not self-sufficient for generating profit! It is created exclusively for constructing a synthetic derivative financial instrument. Also, there might be errors in the script, so use it at your own risk! I would appreciate it if you point out any mistakes in the comments! I would be even more grateful if you send the corrected code!
Application Scope
This strategy can be used for delta hedging short positions in sold options. For example, suppose you sold a call option on Bitcoin on the Deribit exchange with a strike price of $60,000 and an expiration date of September 27, 2024. Using this script, you can create a delta hedge to protect against the risk of loss in the option position if the price of Bitcoin rises.
Another example: Suppose you use staking of altcoins in your strategies, for which options are not available. By using this strategy, you can hedge the risk of a price drop (Put option). In this case, you won't lose money if the underlying asset price increases, unlike with a short futures position.
Another example: You received an airdrop, but your tokens will not be fully unlocked soon. Using this script, you can fully hedge your position and preserve their dollar value by the time the tokens are fully unlocked. And you won't fear the underlying asset price increasing, as the loss in the event of a price rise is limited to the option premium you will pay if you rebalance the portfolio.
Of course, this script can also be used for simple directional trading of momentum and mean reversion strategies!
Key Features and Input Parameters
1. Option settings:
- Style of option: "European vanilla", "Binary", "Asian geometric".
- Type of option: "Call" (bet on the rise) or "Put" (bet on the fall).
- Strike price: the option contract price.
- Expiration: the expiry date and time of the option contract.
2. Market statistic settings:
- Type of price source: open, high, low, close, hl2, hlc3, ohlc4, hlcc4 (using hl2, hlc3, ohlc4, hlcc4 allows smoothing the price in more volatile series).
- Risk-free return symbol: the risk-free rate for the market where the underlying asset is traded. For the cryptocurrency market, the return on the funding rate arbitrage strategy is accepted (a special function is written for its calculation based on the Premium Price).
- Volatility calculation model: realized (standard deviation over a moving period), implied (e.g., DVOL or VIX), or custom (you can specify a specific number in the field below). For the cryptocurrency market, the calculation of implied volatility is implemented based on the product of the realized volatility ratio of the considered asset and Bitcoin to the Bitcoin implied volatility index.
- User implied volatility: fixed implied volatility (used if "Custom" is selected in the "Volatility Calculation Method").
3. Display settings:
- Choose metric: what to display on the indicator scale – the price of the underlying asset, the option price, volatility, or Greeks (all are available).
- Measure: bps (basis points), percent. This parameter allows choosing the unit of measurement for the displayed metric (for all except the Greeks).
4. Trading settings:
- Hedge model: None (do not trade, default), Simple (just open a position for the full volume when the strike price is crossed), Synthetic option (creating a synthetic option based on the Black-Scholes model).
- Position side: Long, Short.
- Position size: the number of units of the underlying asset needed to create the option.
- Strategy start time: the moment in time after which the strategy will start working to create a synthetic option.
- Delta hedge interval: the interval in minutes for rebalancing the portfolio. For example, a value of 5 corresponds to rebalancing the portfolio every 5 minutes.
Post scriptum
My strategy based on the SegaRKO model. Many thanks to the author! Unfortunately, I don't have enough reputation points to include a link to the author in the description. You can find the original model via the link in the code, as well as through the search indicators on the charts by entering the name: "Black-Scholes Option Pricing Model". I have significantly improved the model: the calculation of volatility, risk-free rate and time value of the option have been reworked. The code performance has also been significantly optimized. And the most significant change is the execution, with which you can now trade using this script.
Prometheus Black-Scholes Option PricesThe Black-Scholes Model is an option pricing model developed my Fischer Black and Myron Scholes in 1973 at MIT. This is regarded as the most accurate pricing model and is still used today all over the world. This script is a simulated Black-Scholes model pricing model, I will get into why I say simulated.
What is an option?
An option is the right, but not the obligation, to buy or sell 100 shares of a certain stock, for calls or puts respective, at a certain price, on a certain date (assuming European style options, American options can be exercised early). The reason these agreements, these contracts exist is to provide traders with leverage. Buying 1 contract to represent 100 shares of the underlying, more often than not, at a cheaper price. That is why the price of the option, the premium , is a small number. If an option costs $1.00 we pay $100.00 for it because 100 shares * 1 dollar per share = 100 dollars for all the shares. When a trader purchases a call on stock XYZ with a strike of $105 while XYZ stock is trading at $100, if XYZ stock moves up to $110 dollars before expiration the option has $5 of intrinsic value. You have the right to buy something at $105 when it is trading at $110. That agreement is way more valuable now, as a result the options premium would increase. That is a quick overview about how options are traded, let's get into calculating them.
Inputs for the Black-Scholes model
To calculate the price of an option we need to know 5 things:
Current Price of the asset
Strike Price of the option
Time Till Expiration
Risk-Free Interest rate
Volatility
The price of a European call option 𝐶 is given by:
𝐶 = 𝑆0 * Φ(𝑑1) − 𝐾 * 𝑒^(−𝑟 * 𝑇) * Φ(𝑑2)
where:
𝑆0 is the current price of the underlying asset.
𝐾 is the strike price of the option.
𝑟 is the risk-free interest rate.
𝑇 is the time to expiration.
Φ is the cumulative distribution function of the standard normal distribution.
𝑑1 and 𝑑2 are calculated as:
𝑑1 = (ln(𝑆0 / 𝐾) + (𝑟 + (𝜎^2 / 2)) * 𝑇) / (𝜎 * sqrt(𝑇))
𝑑2= 𝑑1 - (𝜎 * sqrt(𝑇))
𝜎 is the volatility of the underlying asset.
The price of a European put option 𝑃 is given by:
𝑃 = 𝐾 * 𝑒^(−𝑟 * 𝑇) * Φ(−𝑑2) − 𝑆0 * Φ(−𝑑1)
where 𝑑1 and 𝑑2 are as defined above.
Key Assumptions of the Black-Scholes Model
The price of the underlying asset follows a lognormal distribution.
There are no transaction costs or taxes.
The risk-free interest rate and volatility of the underlying asset are constant.
The underlying asset does not pay dividends during the life of the option.
The markets are efficient, meaning that all known information is already reflected in the prices.
Options can only be exercised at expiration (European-style options).
Understanding the Script
Here I have arrows pointing to specific spots on the table. They point to Historical Volatility and Inputted DTE . Inputted DTE is a value the user may input to calculate premium for options that expire in that many days. Historical Volatility , is the value calculated by this code.
length = 252 // One year of trading days
hv = ta.stdev(math.log(close / close ), length) * math.sqrt(365)
And then made daily like the Black-Scholes model needs from this step in the code.
hv_daily = request.security(syminfo.tickerid, "1D", hv)
The user has the option to input their own volatility to the Script. I will get into why that may be advantageous in a moment. If the user chooses to do so the Script will change which value it is using as so.
hv_in_use = which_sig == false ? hv_daily : sig
There is a lot going on in this image but bare with me, it will all make sense by the end. The column to the far left of both the green and maroon colored columns represent the strike price of the contract, if the numbers are white that means the contract is out of the money, gray means in the money. If you remember from the calculation this represents the price to buy or sell shares at, for calls or puts respective. The column second from the left shows a value for Simulated Market Price . This is a necessary part of this script so we can show changes in implied volatility. See, when we go to our brokerages and look at options prices, sure the price was calculated by a pricing model, but that is rarely the true price of the model. Market participant sentiment affects this value as their estimates for future volatility, Implied Volatility changes.
For example, if a call option is supposed to be worth $1.00 from the pricing model, however everyone is bullish on the stock and wants to buy calls, the premium may go to $1.20 from $1.00 because participants juice up the Implied Volatility . Higher Implied Volatility generally means higher premium, given enough time to expiration. Buying an option at $0.80 when it should be worth $1.00 due to changes in sentiment is a big part of the Quant Trading industry.
Of course I don't have access to an actual exchange so get prices, so I modeled participant decisions by adding or subtracting a small random value on the "perfect premium" from the Black-Scholes model, and solving for implied volatility using the Newton-Raphson method.
It is like when we have speed = distance / time if we know speed and time , we can solve for distance .
This is what models the changing Implied Volatility in the table. The other column in the table, 3rd from the left, is the Black-Scholes model price without the changes of a random number. Finally, the 4th column from the left is that Implied Volatility value we calculated with the modified option price.
More on Implied Volatility
Implied Volatility represents the future expected volatility of an asset. As it is the value in the future it is not know like Historical Volatility, only projected. We provide the user with the option to enter their own Implied Volatility to start with for better modeling of options close to expiration. If you want to model options 1 day from expiration you will probably have to enter a higher Implied Volatility so that way the prices will be higher. Since the underlying is so close to expiration they are traded so much and traders manipulate their Implied Volatility , increasing their value. Be safe while trading these!
Thank you all for clicking on my indicator and reading this description! Happy coding, Happy trading, Be safe!
Good reference: www.investopedia.com
VOLQ Sigma TableThis indicator replaces the implied volatility of VOLQ with the daily volatility and reflects that value into the price on the NDX chart to create the VOLQ standard deviation table.
It will only be useful for stocks related to the Nasdaq Index.
For example, NDX, QQQ or so.
And we want to predict the range of weekly fluctuations by plotting those values as a line in the future.
It is expressed as High 2σ by adding the standard deviation 2 sigma value of the VOLQ value from last week's closing price.
It is expressed as High 1σ by adding the standard deviation 1 sigma value of the VOLQ value from last week's closing price.
It is expressed as Low 1σ by subtracting the standard deviation 1 sigma value of the VOLQ value from the closing price of the previous week.
It is expressed as Low 2σ by subtracting the standard deviation 2 sigma value of the VOLQ value from last week's closing price.
1day predicts daily fluctuations.
2day predicts 2-day fluctuations.
3day predicts 3-day fluctuations.
4day predicts 4-day fluctuations.
5day predicts 5-day fluctuations.
In the settings you can select the start date to display the VOLQ line via input.
-----------------------------
What motivated me to create this indicator?
From my point of view, the reason for classifying vix volq historical volatility (realized volatility) is that the most important point is that VIXX and VolQ are calculated from implied volatility. It can be standardized as one-month volatility. There are many strike prices, but exchanges use the implied volatility of options traded on their own exchanges.
Because historical volatility depends on how the period is set, to compare with VIXX, we compare it with a month, that is, 20 business days. One-month implied volatility means (actually different depending on the strike price), because option traders expect that the one-month volatility will be this much, and it is the volatility created by volatility trading.
So we see it as the volatility expected by derivatives traders, especially volatility traders.
I'm trying to infer what the market thinks will fluctuate this much from the numbers generated there.
