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.
Recherche dans les scripts pour "N+credit最新动态"
Iron Condor Pro v6 – Full EngineIronCondor Engine v6.6 is a multi-mode options strategy tool for planning and managing iron condors, straddles, strangles, and butterflies. It supports both setup planning and live trade tracking with modeled delta, risk-based strike selection, IV rank estimation, and visual breach alerts.
Use Setup Mode to preview strike structures based on IV proxy, ATR, delta targeting, and risk tier (High/Mid/Low/Delta). Use Live Mode to track real trades, enter strike/premium data, and monitor live P&L, delta drift, and range status.
This script does not connect to live option chains. Volatility and delta are modeled using price history. All strikes and premiums must be confirmed using your broker before placing trades. Best used with strong support/resistance levels and high IV rank (30%+).
For educational purposes only.
Workflow Guide
Use this flow whether you're setting up on Sunday night or any day before placing a trade.
Step 0: Pre-Script Preparation
Before using the script:
Identify major support and resistance zones on your chart. Define the expected range or consolidation area. Use this context to help evaluate strike placement
1. Setup Phase (Pre-Trade Planning)
Step 1 – Load the Script
Add: IronCondor Engine v6.6 – Full Risk/Decay Edition to your chart
Step 2 – Set Mode = Setup
This enables planning mode, where the engine calculates strike combinations based on:
Your selected risk profile (High, Mid, Low, or Delta)
Historical volatility (20-day log return)
ATR (Average True Range)
Target short delta (adjustable)
Step 3 – Review Setup Table
Enable Show Setup Table to view calculated strikes and width by risk tier.
Adjust any of the following as needed:
Target Short Delta
Strike Interval ($)
Width multipliers (High/Mid/Low)
Risk tier under Auto-Feed Choice
Step 4 – Evaluate the Setup
Is the net credit at least 1.5–2.0x your max risk?
Are the short strikes clearly outside support/resistance zones?
Are the short deltas between 0.15 and 0.30?
Is the range wide enough to handle normal price movement?
Step 5 – Prep for Execution
Enable Auto-Feed Setup → Live to carry Setup strikes into Live mode
Or disable it if you prefer to manually enter strikes later
2. Trade Execution (Live Tracking Mode)
Step 1 – Place the Trade with Your Broker
Use your brokerage (TOS, Tasty, IBKR, etc.) to place the iron condor or other structure
Step 2 – Set Mode = Live
In Live mode:
If Auto-Feed is ON, the Setup strikes auto-populate
If Auto-Feed is OFF, manually enter:
Short and long strikes (Call and Put)
Premiums collected/paid per leg
Total net credit (Entry Credit)
Optional: Input current mid prices for each leg in the "Live Chain" section to track live mark-to-market P&L
Once all required fields are valid, the script activates:
Real-time profit/loss tracking
Max risk estimate
Delta monitoring on short legs
IV Rank estimate
Breach detection system
Chart visuals (if enabled)
3. Trade Management (During the Week)
While the trade is active, use the dashboard and visuals to monitor:
Key Metrics:
Unrealized P/L %
Mark-to-market value vs entry credit
Daily decay (theta)
Days until expiration
Breach status:
In Range
Near Breach
Breached
Alerts:
Price near short strike → suggests roll
Price breaches long strike → breach alert
50% or 75% profit → optional exit signal
Delta exceeds threshold → exposure may need adjustment
Management Tips:
At 50–75% profit: consider closing early
If price nears a short leg: roll, hedge, or manage
If nearing expiry: decide whether to hold or close
If IV collapses: may accelerate time decay or reduce exit value
4. End-of-Week or Expiration Management
If Profit Target Hit
Close early to reduce risk and lock gains
If Still Open Near Expiry
Close the position or
Hold through expiration only if you're fully prepared for pinning/gamma/assignment scenarios
Avoid holding open spreads over the weekend unless part of a defined strategy
Reference Notes
Strike Width
Defined as:
Width = Distance between Short and Long strike
Used for calculating max loss and breach visuals
Delta Guidelines
0.15–0.20 = safer, wider range, lower credit
0.25–0.30 = more aggressive, tighter range, higher credit
Use Target Short Delta input to adjust auto-selected strikes accordingly
Credit Example
Sell Call: $1.04
Sell Put: $0.23
Buy Call + Put wings: $0.14
Net Credit = $1.13 = $113 per contract (max profit)
This is the max profit if price stays between short strikes through expiration
IV Rank (Estimated)
This script does not use options chain IV data.
Instead, it calculates a volatility proxy:
ivRaw = ta.stdev(log returns, 20) * sqrt(252)
IV Rank is then calculated as the percentile of this value within the last 252 bars.
High IV Rank (30%–100%) → better premium-selling conditions
Low IV Rank (<30%) → lower edge for condors
Ideal to sell premium when IV Rank is above 30–50%
Disclosures and Limitations
This script is for educational use only
It does not connect to live option chains
All strikes, deltas, and premiums must be validated through your broker
Always confirm real-time IV, delta, and pricing before placing a trade
National Financial Conditions Index (NFCI)This is one of the most important macro indicators in my trading arsenal due to its reliability across different market regimes. I'm excited to share this with the TradingView community because this Federal Reserve data is not only completely free but extraordinarily useful for portfolio management and risk assessment.
**Important Disclaimers**: Be aware that some NFCI components are updated only monthly but carry significant weighting in the composite index. Additionally, the Fed occasionally revises historical NFCI data, so historical backtests should be interpreted with some caution. Nevertheless, this remains a crucial leading indicator for financial stress conditions.
---
## What is the National Financial Conditions Index?
The National Financial Conditions Index (NFCI) is a comprehensive measure of financial stress and liquidity conditions developed by the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago. This indicator synthesizes over 100 financial market variables into a single, interpretable metric that captures the overall state of financial conditions in the United States (Brave & Butters, 2011).
**Key Principle**: When the NFCI is positive, financial conditions are tighter than average; when negative, conditions are looser than average. Values above +1.0 historically coincide with financial crises, while values below -1.0 often signal bubble-like conditions.
## Scientific Foundation & Research
The NFCI methodology is grounded in extensive academic research:
### Core Research Foundation
- **Brave, S., & Butters, R. A. (2011)**. "Monitoring financial stability: A financial conditions index approach." *Economic Perspectives*, 35(1), 22-43.
- **Hatzius, J., Hooper, P., Mishkin, F. S., Schoenholtz, K. L., & Watson, M. W. (2010)**. "Financial conditions indexes: A fresh look after the financial crisis." *US Monetary Policy Forum Report*, No. 23.
- **Kliesen, K. L., Owyang, M. T., & Vermann, E. K. (2012)**. "Disentangling diverse measures: A survey of financial stress indexes." *Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Review*, 94(5), 369-397.
### Methodological Validation
The NFCI employs Principal Component Analysis (PCA) to extract common factors from financial market data, following the methodology established by **English, W. B., Tsatsaronis, K., & Zoli, E. (2005)** in "Assessing the predictive power of measures of financial conditions for macroeconomic variables." The index has been validated through extensive academic research (Koop & Korobilis, 2014).
## NFCI Components Explained
This indicator provides access to all five official NFCI variants:
### 1. **Main NFCI**
The primary composite index incorporating all financial market sectors. This serves as the main signal for portfolio allocation decisions.
### 2. **Adjusted NFCI (ANFCI)**
Removes the influence of credit market disruptions to focus on non-credit financial stress. Particularly useful during banking crises when credit markets may be impaired but other financial conditions remain stable.
### 3. **Credit Sub-Index**
Isolates credit market conditions including corporate bond spreads, commercial paper rates, and bank lending standards. Important for assessing corporate financing stress.
### 4. **Leverage Sub-Index**
Measures systemic leverage through margin requirements, dealer financing, and institutional leverage metrics. Useful for identifying leverage-driven market stress.
### 5. **Risk Sub-Index**
Captures market-based risk measures including volatility, correlation, and tail risk indicators. Provides indication of risk appetite shifts.
## Practical Trading Applications
### Portfolio Allocation Framework
Based on the academic research, the NFCI can be used for portfolio positioning:
**Risk-On Positioning (NFCI declining):**
- Consider increasing equity exposure
- Reduce defensive positions
- Evaluate growth-oriented sectors
**Risk-Off Positioning (NFCI rising):**
- Consider reducing equity exposure
- Increase defensive positioning
- Favor large-cap, dividend-paying stocks
### Academic Validation
According to **Oet, M. V., Eiben, R., Bianco, T., Gramlich, D., & Ong, S. J. (2011)** in "The financial stress index: Identification of systemic risk conditions," financial conditions indices like the NFCI provide early warning capabilities for systemic risk conditions.
**Illing, M., & Liu, Y. (2006)** demonstrated in "Measuring financial stress in a developed country: An application to Canada" that composite financial stress measures can be useful for predicting economic downturns.
## Advanced Features of This Implementation
### Dynamic Background Coloring
- **Green backgrounds**: Risk-On conditions - potentially favorable for equity investment
- **Red backgrounds**: Risk-Off conditions - time for defensive positioning
- **Intensity varies**: Based on deviation from trend for nuanced risk assessment
### Professional Dashboard
Real-time analytics table showing:
- Current NFCI level and interpretation (TIGHT/LOOSE/NEUTRAL)
- Individual sub-index readings
- Change analysis
- Portfolio guidance (Risk On/Risk Off)
### Alert System
Professional-grade alerts for:
- Risk regime changes
- Extreme stress conditions (NFCI > 1.0)
- Bubble risk warnings (NFCI < -1.0)
- Major trend reversals
## Optimal Usage Guidelines
### Best Timeframes
- **Daily charts**: Recommended for intermediate-term positioning
- **Weekly charts**: Suitable for longer-term portfolio allocation
- **Intraday**: Less effective due to weekly update frequency
### Complementary Indicators
For enhanced analysis, combine NFCI signals with:
- **VIX levels**: Confirm stress readings
- **Credit spreads**: Validate credit sub-index signals
- **Moving averages**: Determine overall market trend context
- **Economic surprise indices**: Gauge fundamental backdrop
### Position Sizing Considerations
- **Extreme readings** (|NFCI| > 1.0): Consider higher conviction positioning
- **Moderate readings** (|NFCI| 0.3-1.0): Standard position sizing
- **Neutral readings** (|NFCI| < 0.3): Consider reduced conviction
## Important Limitations & Considerations
### Data Frequency Issues
**Critical Warning**: While the main NFCI updates weekly (typically Wednesdays), some underlying components update monthly. Corporate bond indices and commercial paper rates, which carry significant weight, may cause delayed reactions to current market conditions.
**Component Update Schedule:**
- **Weekly Updates**: Main NFCI composite, most equity volatility measures
- **Monthly Updates**: Corporate bond spreads, commercial paper rates
- **Quarterly Updates**: Banking sector surveys
- **Impact**: Significant portion of index weight may lag current conditions
### Historical Revisions
The Federal Reserve occasionally revises NFCI historical data as new information becomes available or methodologies are refined. This means backtesting results should be interpreted cautiously, and the indicator works best for forward-looking analysis rather than precise historical replication.
### Market Regime Dependency
The NFCI effectiveness may vary across different market regimes. During extended sideways markets or regime transitions, signals may be less reliable. Consider combining with trend-following indicators for optimal results.
**Bottom Line**: Use NFCI for medium-term portfolio positioning guidance. Trust the directional signals while remaining aware of data revision risks and update frequency limitations. This indicator is particularly valuable during periods of financial stress when reliable guidance is most needed.
---
**Data Source**: Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago
**Update Frequency**: Weekly (typically Wednesdays)
**Historical Coverage**: 1973-present
**Cost**: Free (public Fed data)
*This indicator is for educational and analytical purposes. Always conduct your own research and risk assessment before making investment decisions.*
## References
Brave, S., & Butters, R. A. (2011). Monitoring financial stability: A financial conditions index approach. *Economic Perspectives*, 35(1), 22-43.
English, W. B., Tsatsaronis, K., & Zoli, E. (2005). Assessing the predictive power of measures of financial conditions for macroeconomic variables. *BIS Papers*, 22, 228-252.
Hatzius, J., Hooper, P., Mishkin, F. S., Schoenholtz, K. L., & Watson, M. W. (2010). Financial conditions indexes: A fresh look after the financial crisis. *US Monetary Policy Forum Report*, No. 23.
Illing, M., & Liu, Y. (2006). Measuring financial stress in a developed country: An application to Canada. *Bank of Canada Working Paper*, 2006-02.
Kliesen, K. L., Owyang, M. T., & Vermann, E. K. (2012). Disentangling diverse measures: A survey of financial stress indexes. *Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Review*, 94(5), 369-397.
Koop, G., & Korobilis, D. (2014). A new index of financial conditions. *European Economic Review*, 71, 101-116.
Oet, M. V., Eiben, R., Bianco, T., Gramlich, D., & Ong, S. J. (2011). The financial stress index: Identification of systemic risk conditions. *Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland Working Paper*, 11-30.
Bitcoin Macro Trend Map [Ox_kali]
## Introduction
__________________________________________________________________________________
The “Bitcoin Macro Trend Map” script is designed to provide a comprehensive analysis of Bitcoin’s macroeconomic trends. By leveraging a unique combination of Bitcoin-specific macroeconomic indicators, this script helps traders identify potential market peaks and troughs with greater accuracy. It synthesizes data from multiple sources to offer a probabilistic view of market excesses, whether overbought or oversold conditions.
This script offers significant value for the following reasons:
1. Holistic Market Analysis : It integrates a diverse set of indicators that cover various aspects of the Bitcoin market, from investor sentiment and market liquidity to mining profitability and network health. This multi-faceted approach provides a more complete picture of the market than relying on a single indicator.
2. Customization and Flexibility : Users can customize the script to suit their specific trading strategies and preferences. The script offers configurable parameters for each indicator, allowing traders to adjust settings based on their analysis needs.
3. Visual Clarity : The script plots all indicators on a single chart with clear visual cues. This includes color-coded indicators and background changes based on market conditions, making it easy for traders to quickly interpret complex data.
4. Proven Indicators : The script utilizes well-established indicators like the EMA, NUPL, PUELL Multiple, and Hash Ribbons, which are widely recognized in the trading community for their effectiveness in predicting market movements.
5. A New Comprehensive Indicator : By integrating background color changes based on the aggregate signals of various indicators, this script essentially creates a new, comprehensive indicator tailored specifically for Bitcoin. This visual representation provides an immediate overview of market conditions, enhancing the ability to spot potential market reversals.
Optimal for use on timeframes ranging from 1 day to 1 week , the “Bitcoin Macro Trend Map” provides traders with actionable insights, enhancing their ability to make informed decisions in the highly volatile Bitcoin market. By combining these indicators, the script delivers a robust tool for identifying market extremes and potential reversal points.
## Key Indicators
__________________________________________________________________________________
Macroeconomic Data: The script combines several relevant macroeconomic indicators for Bitcoin, such as the 10-month EMA, M2 money supply, CVDD, Pi Cycle, NUPL, PUELL, MRVR Z-Scores, and Hash Ribbons (Full description bellow).
Open Source Sources: Most of the scripts used are sourced from open-source projects that I have modified to meet the specific needs of this script.
Recommended Timeframes: For optimal performance, it is recommended to use this script on timeframes ranging from 1 day to 1 week.
Objective: The primary goal is to provide a probabilistic solution to identify market excesses, whether overbought or oversold points.
## Originality and Purpose
__________________________________________________________________________________
This script stands out by integrating multiple macroeconomic indicators into a single comprehensive tool. Each indicator is carefully selected and customized to provide insights into different aspects of the Bitcoin market. By combining these indicators, the script offers a holistic view of market conditions, helping traders identify potential tops and bottoms with greater accuracy. This is the first version of the script, and additional macroeconomic indicators will be added in the future based on user feedback and other inputs.
## How It Works
__________________________________________________________________________________
The script works by plotting each macroeconomic indicator on a single chart, allowing users to visualize and interpret the data easily. Here’s a detailed look at how each indicator contributes to the analysis:
EMA 10 Monthly: Uses an exponential moving average over 10 monthly periods to signal bullish and bearish trends. This indicator helps identify long-term trends in the Bitcoin market by smoothing out price fluctuations to reveal the underlying trend direction.Moving Averages w/ 18 day/week/month.
Credit to @ryanman0
M2 Money Supply: Analyzes the evolution of global money supply, indicating market liquidity conditions. This indicator tracks the changes in the total amount of money available in the economy, which can impact Bitcoin’s value as a hedge against inflation or economic instability.
Credit to @dylanleclair
CVDD (Cumulative Value Days Destroyed): An indicator based on the cumulative value of days destroyed, useful for identifying market turning points. This metric helps assess the Bitcoin market’s health by evaluating the age and value of coins that are moved, indicating potential shifts in market sentiment.
Credit to @Da_Prof
Pi Cycle: Uses simple and exponential moving averages to detect potential sell points. This indicator aims to identify cyclical peaks in Bitcoin’s price, providing signals for potential market tops.
Credit to @NoCreditsLeft
NUPL (Net Unrealized Profit/Loss): Measures investors’ unrealized profit or loss to signal extreme market levels. This indicator shows the net profit or loss of Bitcoin holders as a percentage of the market cap, helping to identify periods of significant market optimism or pessimism.
Credit to @Da_Prof
PUELL Multiple: Assesses mining profitability relative to historical averages to indicate buying or selling opportunities. This indicator compares the daily issuance value of Bitcoin to its yearly average, providing insights into when the market is overbought or oversold based on miner behavior.
Credit to @Da_Prof
MRVR Z-Scores: Compares market value to realized value to identify overbought or oversold conditions. This metric helps gauge the overall market sentiment by comparing Bitcoin’s market value to its realized value, identifying potential reversal points.
Credit to @Pinnacle_Investor
Hash Ribbons: Uses hash rate variations to signal buying opportunities based on miner capitulation and recovery. This indicator tracks the health of the Bitcoin network by analyzing hash rate trends, helping to identify periods of miner capitulation and subsequent recoveries as potential buying opportunities.
Credit to @ROBO_Trading
## Indicator Visualization and Interpretation
__________________________________________________________________________________
For each horizontal line representing an indicator, a legend is displayed on the right side of the chart. If the conditions are positive for an indicator, it will turn green, indicating the end of a bearish trend. Conversely, if the conditions are negative, the indicator will turn red, signaling the end of a bullish trend.
The background color of the chart changes based on the average of green or red indicators. This parameter is configurable, allowing adjustment of the threshold at which the background color changes, providing a clear visual indication of overall market conditions.
## Script Parameters
__________________________________________________________________________________
The script includes several configurable parameters to customize the display and behavior of the indicators:
Color Style:
Normal: Default colors.
Modern: Modern color style.
Monochrome: Monochrome style.
User: User-customized colors.
Custom color settings for up trends (Up Trend Color), down trends (Down Trend Color), and NaN (NaN Color)
Background Color Thresholds:
Thresholds: Settings to define the thresholds for background color change.
Low/High Red Threshold: Low and high thresholds for bearish trends.
Low/High Green Threshold: Low and high thresholds for bullish trends.
Indicator Display:
Options to show or hide specific indicators such as EMA 10 Monthly, CVDD, Pi Cycle, M2 Money, NUPL, PUELL, MRVR Z-Scores, and Hash Ribbons.
Specific Indicator Settings:
EMA 10 Monthly: Options to customize the period for the exponential moving average calculation.
M2 Money: Aggregation of global money supply data.
CVDD: Adjustments for value normalization.
Pi Cycle: Settings for simple and exponential moving averages.
NUPL: Thresholds for unrealized profit/loss values.
PUELL: Adjustments for mining profitability multiples.
MRVR Z-Scores: Settings for overbought/oversold values.
Hash Ribbons: Options for hash rate moving averages and capitulation/recovery signals.
## Conclusion
__________________________________________________________________________________
The “Bitcoin Macro Trend Map” by Ox_kali is a tool designed to analyze the Bitcoin market. By combining several macroeconomic indicators, this script helps identify market peaks and troughs. It is recommended to use it on timeframes from 1 day to 1 week for optimal trend analysis. The scripts used are sourced from open-source projects, modified to suit the specific needs of this analysis.
## Notes
__________________________________________________________________________________
This is the first version of the script and it is still in development. More indicators will likely be added in the future. Feedback and comments are welcome to improve this tool.
## Disclaimer:
__________________________________________________________________________________
Please note that the Open Interest liquidation map is not a guarantee of future market performance and should be used in conjunction with proper risk management. Always ensure that you have a thorough understanding of the indicator’s methodology and its limitations before making any investment decisions. Additionally, past performance is not indicative of future results.
Harmonic Trading System Educational (Source Code)This indicator was intended as educational purpose only for Harmonic Patterns using XABCD Pattern Tool.
This indicator was build upon Harmonic Trading : Volume One and Harmonic Trading : Volume Three, written by Scott M Carney.
Harmonic Trading System consist of 3 important elements such as Trade Identification, Trade Execution and Trade Management, each of these element description can be hover at each label.
Harmonic Trading System
1. Trade Identification
This technique use historically proven and repetitive price patterns that focus on overbought and oversold signals generated by price action.
Understanding parameters is critical to define specific opportunities based on individual harmonic pattern including ratio is important.
2. Trade Execution
During harmonic pattern is complete, must focus actual trade within specific time period.
3. Trade Management
Specific Initial Price Objective (IPO) based on risk and opportunity.
Indikator ini bertujuan sebagai pendidikan sahaja untuk Harmonic Pattern menggunakan XABCD Pattern Tool.
Indikator ini dibina berdasarkan buku Harmonic Trading : Volume One dan Harmonic Trading : Volume Three, ditulis oleh Scott M Carney.
Harmonic Trading System mengandungi 3 element penting seperti Trade Identification, Trade Execution dan Trade Management, penerangan setiap elemen boleh didapati dengan meletak mouse pada label.
Harmonic Trading System
1. Trade Identification
Teknik ini menggunakan price patterns yang berulang dan sejarahnya terbukti yang fokus pada signal overbought dan oversold terhasil daripada price action.
Memahami parameter adalah penting untuk mengenalpasti peluang secara spesifik berdasarkan harmonic patern yang tertentu termasuk ratio adalah penting.
2. Trade Execution
Semasa harmonic pattern adalah lengkap, mestilah focus pada trade yang sebenar dalam jangka masa yang spesifik.
3. Trade Management
Initial Price Objective (IPO) secara spesifik berdasarkan risiko dan peluang.
Indicator features :
1. List XAB=CD patterns including ratio and reference page.
2. For desktop display only, not for mobile.
3. Hover to label to display tooltip (example Trade identification).
Kemampuan indikator :
1. Senarai XAB=CD pattern termasuk ratio and rujukan muka surat.
2. Untuk paparan desktop sahaja, bukan untuk mobile.
3. Letak mouse pada labell untuk memaparkan tooltip (example Trade identification).
FAQ
1. Credits / Kredit
Scott M Carney, Harmonic Trading : Volume One
Scott M Carney, Harmonic Trading : Volume Three
2. Pattern and Chapter involved / Pattern dan Bab terlibat
Bullish Harmonic Trade Management Model - Harmonic Trading: Volume One - Page 209
Bearish Harmonic Trade Management Model - Harmonic Trading: Volume One - Page 220
The Harmonic Trading Process - Harmonic Trading: Volume Three - Page 42 to 44
Bullish Phases of Trading - Harmonic Trading: Volume Three - Page 48
Bearish Phases of Trading - Harmonic Trading: Volume Three - Page 50
3. Code Usage / Penggunaan Kod
Free to use for personal usage but credits are most welcomed especially for credits to Scott M Carney.
Bebas untuk kegunaan peribadi tetapi kredit adalah amat dialu-alukan terutamanya kredit kepada Scott M Carney.
Bullish Harmonic Trading System
Bearish Harmonic Trading System
Harmonic Pattern Educational Volume 2 (Source Code)This indicator was intended as educational purpose only for Harmonic Patterns using XABCD Pattern Tool.
This indicator was build upon Harmonic Trading : Volume Two, which was continuation from Harmonic Trading : Volume One and The Harmonic Trader, written by Scott M Carney.
Explaination was similar to previous build, build 0 and build 1 .
Volume 2 introduce Harmonic Ratio Progression, which result new patterns such as 5-0 and Alternate Bat.
Indikator ini bertujuan sebagai pendidikan sahaja untuk Harmonic Pattern menggunakan XABCD Pattern Tool.
Indikator ini dibina berdasarkan buku Harmonic Trading : Volume Two, juga sambungan daripada Harmonic Trading : Volume One and The Harmonic Trader, ditulis oleh Scott M Carney.
Penerangan yang sama berdasarkan binaan lepas, build 0 and build 1 .
Volume 2 memperkenalkan Harmonic Ratio Progression, membolehkan pattern baru seperti 5-0 dan Alternate Bat.
Indicator features :
1. List XAB=CD patterns including ratio and reference page.
2. For desktop display only, not for mobile.
Kemampuan indikator :
1. Senarai XAB=CD pattern termasuk ratio and rujukan muka surat.
2. Untuk paparan desktop sahaja, bukan untuk mobile.
FAQ
1. Credits / Kredit
Scott M Carney, Harmonic Trading : Volume One
2. Pattern and Chapter involved / Pattern dan Bab terlibat
Bullish 5-0 - Page 79
Bearish 5-0 - Page 88
Bullish Alternate Bat - Page 103
Bearish Alternate Bat - Page 106
3. Code Usage / Penggunaan Kod
Free to use for personal usage but credits are most welcomed especially for credits to Scott M Carney.
Bebas untuk kegunaan peribadi tetapi kredit adalah amat dialu-alukan terutamanya kredit kepada Scott M Carney.
5-0
Alternate Bat
Harmonic Pattern Educational Volume 1 (Source Code)This indicator was intended as educational purpose only for Harmonic Patterns using XABCD Pattern Tool.
This indicator was build upon Harmonic Trading : Volume One, which was continuation from The Harmonic Trader, written by Scott M Carney.
From the previous build , only Gartley and Butterfly were explained ideally based on The Harmonic Trader.
For this buid, Gartley and Butterfly were further refined and additional patterns such as Bat, Crab and Deep Crab were born based on Harmonic Trading : Volume One.
Explaination was similar to previous build . In addition, Perfect Patterns are added except for Deep Crab.
Indikator ini bertujuan sebagai pendidikan sahaja untuk Harmonic Pattern menggunakan XABCD Pattern Tool.
Indikator ini dibina berdasarkan buku Harmonic Trading : Volume One, juga sambungan daripada The Harmonic Trader, ditulis oleh Scott M Carney.
Berdasarkan binaan lepas , cuma Gartley dan Butterfly diterangkan secara ideal berdasarkan The Harmonic Trader.
Untuk binaan ini, Gartley dan Butterfly telah dihalusi dan pattern tambahan seperti Bat, Crab and Deep Crab telah lahir berdasarkan Harmonic Trading : Volume One.
Penerangan yang sama berdasarkan binaan lepas . Tambahan, Perfect Pattern telah ditambah kecuali untuk Deep Crab.
Indicator features :
1. List XAB=CD patterns including ratio and reference page.
2. For desktop display only, not for mobile.
Kemampuan indikator :
1. Senarai XAB=CD pattern termasuk ratio and rujukan muka surat.
2. Untuk paparan desktop sahaja, bukan untuk mobile.
FAQ
1. Credits / Kredit
Scott M Carney, Harmonic Trading : Volume One
2. Pattern and Chapter involved / Pattern dan Bab terlibat
Bullish Ideal Bat - Page 72
Bearish Ideal Bat - Page 83
Bullish Perfect Bat - Page 91
Bearish Perfect Bat - Page 94
Bullish Ideal Gartley - Page 99
Bearish Ideal Gartley - Page 106
Bullish Perfect Gartley - Page 115
Bearish Perfect Gartley - Page 118
Bullish Ideal Crab - Page 123
Bearish Ideal Crab - Page 130
Bullish Perfect Crab - Page 143
Bearish Perfect Crab - Page 146
Bullish Ideal Deep Crab - Page 137
Bearish Ideal Deep Crab - Page 140
Bullish Ideal Butterfly - Page 150
Bearish Ideal Butterfly - Page 158
Bullish Perfect Butterfly - Page 163
Bearish Perfect Butterfly - Page 166
3. Code Usage / Penggunaan Kod
Free to use for personal usage but credits are most welcomed especially for credits to Scott M Carney.
Bebas untuk kegunaan peribadi tetapi kredit adalah amat dialu-alukan terutamanya kredit kepada Scott M Carney.
Ideal / Perfect Bat
Ideal / Perfect Gartley
Ideal / Perfect Crab
Ideal Deep Crab
Ideal / Perfect Butterfly
Harmonic Pattern Educational Volume 0 (Source Code)This indicator was intended as educational purpose only for Harmonic Patterns using XABCD Pattern Tool.
Gartley and Butterfly patterns were ideal patterns explained from The Harmonic Trader written by Scott M Carney.
Some values are further updated later in Harmonic Trading: Volume Three, also by Scott M Carney.
The Harmonic Trader book was also known as Harmonic Trading: Volume Zero.
Usually Bullish Patterns show as "M" shape while Bearish Patterns show as "W" shape.
";" indicates range, example : 1.27;1.618 meaning that value between 1.27 to 1.618.
Indikator ini bertujuan sebagai pendidikan sahaja untuk Harmonic Pattern menggunakan XABCD Pattern Tool.
Pattern Gartley dan Butterfly, juga sebagai pattern ideal telah diterangkan dari buku The Harmonic Trader ditulis oleh Scott M Carney.
Beberapa nilai kemudiannya telah dikemaskini dalam Harmonic Trading: Volume Three, juga oleh Scott M Carney.
Buku The Harmonic Trader book juga dikenali sebagai Harmonic Trading: Volume Zero.
Kebiasaanya Bullish Pattern tunjuk sebagai bentuk "M" manakala Bearish Pattern tunjuk sebagai bentuk "W".
";" menunjukkan range, contoh : 1.27;1.618 bermaksud nilai 1.27 hingga 1.618.
Indicator features :
1. List XAB=CD patterns including ratio and reference page.
2. For desktop display only, not for mobile.
Kemampuan indikator :
1. Senarai XAB=CD pattern termasuk ratio and rujukan muka surat.
2. Untuk paparan desktop sahaja, bukan untuk mobile.
FAQ
1. Credits / Kredit
Scott M Carney, The Harmonic Trader
2. Pattern and Chapter involved / Pattern dan Bab terlibat
Bullish Ideal Gartley - Page 160
Bearish Ideal Gartley - Page 171
Bullish Ideal Butterfly - Page 194
Bearish Ideal Butterfly - Page 204
3. Code Usage / Penggunaan Kod
Free to use for personal usage but credits are most welcomed especially for credits to Scott M Carney.
Bebas untuk kegunaan peribadi tetapi kredit adalah amat dialu-alukan terutamanya kredit kepada Scott M Carney.
Bullish (M) / Bearish (W) Ideal Gartley
Bullish (M) / Bearish (W) Ideal Butterfly
AB=CD Pattern Educational (Source Code)This indicator was intended as educational purpose only for AB=CD Patterns.
AB=CD Patterns were explained and modernized starting from The Harmonic Trader and Harmonic Trading: Volume One until Volume Three written by Scott M Carney.
Indikator ini bertujuan sebagai pendidikan sahaja untuk AB=CD Pattern.
AB=CD Patterns telah diterangkan dan dimodenkan bermula dari The Harmonic Trader dan Harmonic Trading: Volume One hingga Volume Three ditulis oleh Scott M Carney.
Indicator features :
1. List AB=CD patterns including ratio and reference page.
2. For desktop display only, not for mobile.
Kemampuan indikator :
1. Senarai AB=CD pattern termasuk ratio and rujukan muka surat.
2. Untuk paparan desktop sahaja, bukan untuk mobile.
FAQ
1. Credits / Kredit
Scott M Carney
Scott M Carney, Harmonic Trading: Volume One until Volume Three
2. Pattern and Chapter involved / Pattern dan Bab terlibat
Ideal AB=CD - The Harmonic Trader - Page 118 & 129
Standard AB=CD - The Harmonic Trader - Page 116, 117, 127 & 128, Harmonic Trading: Volume One - Page 42, 51, Harmonic Trading: Volume Three - Page 76 & 78
Alternate AB=CD - The Harmonic Trader - Page 142 & 145, Harmonic Trading: Volume One - Page 62, 63
Perfect AB=CD - Harmonic Trading: Volume One - Page 64 & 66
Reciprocal AB=CD - Harmonic Trading: Volume Two - Page 74 & 76
AB=CD with ab=cd - The Harmonic Trader - Page 149 & 153
AB=CD with BC Layering Technique - Harmonic Trading: Volume Three - Page 81 & 84
3. Code Usage / Penggunaan Kod
Free to use for personal usage but credits are most welcomed especially for credits to Scott M Carney.
Bebas untuk kegunaan peribadi tetapi kredit adalah amat dialu-alukan terutamanya kredit kepada Scott M Carney.
Bullish / Bearish Ideal AB=CD
Bullish / Bearish Standard AB=CD
Bullish / Bearish Alternate AB=CD
Bullish / Bearish Perfect AB=CD
Bullish / Bearish Reciprocal AB=CD (Additional value for reciprocal retracement 3.140 and 3.618)
Bullish / Bearish AB=CD with ab=cd
Bullish / Bearish AB=CD with BC Layering Technique
Bat Action Magnet Move BAMM Theory Educational (Source Code)This indicator was intended as educational purpose only for BAMM, which also known as Bat Action Magnet Move.
Indikator ini bertujuan sebagai pendidikan sahaja untuk BAMM, juga dikenali sebagai Bat Action Magnet Move.
BAMM is usually used for Harmonic Patterns such as XAB=CD (Bat Pattern) and AB=CD (0.5 AB=CD Pattern) - Chapter 5.
BAMM also can be used for other Harmonic Pattern with the help of RSI Divergence, hence become RSI BAMM - Chapter 6.
BAMM kebiasaanya digunakan untuk Harmonic Pattern seperti XAB=CD (Bat Pattern) dan AB=CD (0.5 AB=CD Pattern) - Chapter 5.
BAMM juga boleh digunakan untuk Harmonic Pattern lain dengan bantuan RSI Divergence, menjadi RSI BAMM - Chapter 6.
FAQ
1. Credits / Kredit
Scott M Carney,
Scott M Carney, Harmonic Trading: Volume Two (Chapter 5 & Chapter 6)
Bullish XAB=CD BAMM Breakout - Page 144
Bearish XAB=CD BAMM Breakdown - Page 148
Bullish AB=CD BAMM Breakout - Page 153
Bearish AB=CD BAMM Breakdown - Page 156
2. Code Usage / Penggunaan Kod
Free to use for personal usage but credits are most welcomed especially for credits to Scott M Carney.
Bebas untuk kegunaan peribadi tetapi kredit adalah amat dialu-alukan terutamanya kredit kepada Scott M Carney.
2.0 AB=CD Pattern
XAB=CD Bat Pattern
Harmonic Trading Ratios Educational (Source Code)This table indicator was intended as educational purpose only for Harmonic Trading Ratios.
The ratios are used for Harmonic AB=CD and XAB=CD.
Ratio calculation are shown for Retracement and Projection based Primary, Primary Derived, Secondary Derived and Secondary Derived Extreme.
Primary Retracement : 0.618
Primary Projection : 1.618
Please take note that Secondary Derived Extreme is only available for Projection.
Indikator berjadual bertujuan sebagai pendidikan sahaja untuk Harmonic Trading Ratios.
Ratio digunakan untuk Harmonic AB=CD and XAB=CD.
Pengiraan ratio untuk Retracement and Projection adalah berdasarkan Primary, Primary Derived, Secondary Derived dan Secondary Derived Extreme.
Primary Retracement : 0.618
Primary Projection : 1.618
Sila ambil perhatian bahawa Secondary Derived Extreme adalah untuk Projection sahaja.
The values shown in table was based on Harmonic Trading: Volume One, Page 18 written by Scott M Carney.
Nilai yang ditunjukkan dalam jadual adalah berdasarkan buku Harmonic Trading: Volume One, Page 18 ditulis oleh Scott M Carney.
Indicator features :
1. List Harmonic Trading Ratios including calculation.
2. Show and draw individual Harmonic Trading Ratio.
3. For desktop display only, not for mobile.
Kemampuan indikator :
1. Senarai Harmonic Trading Ratios termasuk pengiraan.
2. Memapar dan melukis Harmonic Trading Ratio secara berasingan.
3. Untuk paparan desktop sahaja, bukan untuk mobile.
FAQ
1. Credits / Kredit
Scott M Carney,
Scott M Carney, Harmonic Trading: Volume One
2. Code Usage / Penggunaan Kod
Free to use for personal usage but credits are most welcomed especially for credits to Scott M Carney.
Bebas untuk kegunaan peribadi tetapi kredit adalah amat dialu-alukan terutamanya kredit kepada Scott M Carney.
Display for Bullish / Bearish Retracement
Paparan untuk Bullish / Bearish Retracement
Display for Primary Retracement and Primary Projection
Paparan untuk Primary Retracement and Primary Projection
Display for Secondary Derived Extreme Retracement and Secondary Derived Extreme Projection
Paparan untuk Secondary Derived Extreme Retracement and Secondary Derived Extreme Projection
Harmonic Pattern Table (Source Code)This table indicator was intended as helper / reference for using XABCD Pattern.
Indikator berjadual bertujuan sebagai bantuan / rujukan untuk kegunaan XABCD Pattern.
The values shown in table was based on Harmonic Trading Volume 3: Reaction vs. Reversal written by Scott M Carney.
Nilai yang ditunjukkan dalam jadual adalah berdasarkan buku Harmonic Trading Volume 3: Reaction vs. Reversal ditulis oleh Scott M Carney.
Indicator features :
1. List Harmonic Patterns.
2. Font size small for mobile app and font size normal for desktop.
Kemampuan indikator :
1. Senarai Harmonic Pattern.
2. Saiz font kecil untuk mobile app dan saiz size normal untuk desktop.
FAQ
1. Credits / Kredit
Scott M Carney,
Scott M Carney, Trading Volume 3: Reaction vs. Reversal
2. Code Usage / Penggunaan Kod
Free to use for personal usage but credits are most welcomed especially for credits to Scott M Carney.
Bebas untuk kegunaan peribadi tetapi kredit adalah amat dialu-alukan terutamanya kredit kepada Scott M Carney.
Default Settings.
Setting asal.
Setting for selected Harmonic Pattern (Example : Bat)
Setting untuk pilihan Harmonic Pattern (Contoh : Bat)
Setting for show Harmonic Pattern only (Example : Bat)
Setting untuk nama Harmonic Pattern sahaja(Contoh : Bat)
AB=CD Reciprocal Ratios Table (Source Code)This table indicator was intended as helper / reference for using ABCD Pattern.
Indikator berjadual bertujuan sebagai bantuan / rujukan untuk kegunaan ABCD Pattern.
The values shown in table was based on Harmonic Trading : Volume One book written by Scott M Carney.
Details of value, refer Chapter 4 : The AB=CD Pattern (Page 41).
These values are known as AB=CD Reciprocal Ratios.
Nilai yang ditunjukkan dalam jadual adalah berdasarkan buku Harmonic Trading : Volume One ditulis oleh Scott M Carney.
Nilai secara menyeluruh, rujuk Chapter 4 : The AB=CD Pattern (Muka surat 41).
Nilai berikut dipanggil sebagai AB=CD Reciprocal Ratios
Indicator features :
1. List AB=CD Reciprocal Ratios.
2. Font size small for mobile app and font size normal for desktop.
Kemampuan indikator :
1. Senarai AB=CD Reciprocal Ratio.
2. Saiz font kecil untuk mobile app dan saiz size normal untuk desktop.
FAQ
1. Credits / Kredit
Scott M Carney,
2. Code Usage / Penggunaan Kod
Free to use for personal usage but credits are most welcomed especially for credits to Scott M Carney/
Bebas untuk kegunaan peribadi tetapi kredit adalah amat dialu-alukan terutamanya kredit kepada Scott M Carney.
Settings with appropriate value.
Setting dengan nilai yang sesuai.
Default Settings.
Setting asal.
Settings with different table position.
Setting dengan posisi jadual yang berbeza.
FALSE BREAKOUT NO PROBLEM !! CHK TWIN MOV AVG SEGREGATED RIBBON PROBLEM DEFINITION 1 : To Avoid False Breakouts
PROBLEM DEFINITION 2 : To Ascertain if the trend has changed when a Stock opens with a Gap up or Gap Down
## PROBABLE SOLUTION : Use a Moving Average with lot of latency
## PROBLEM WITH ABOVE SOLUTION : Misses on lot of trades, Late exits leads to drain on winning trades
S O L U T I O N
An Indicator which plots two different types of Moving Averages at the same time
For the MA length 5-100 a fast plot of choice
For the MA Length 110-200 a plot with a lag to ascertain the trend
And then ONE LAST MAN STANDING with even bigger MA length for a lagging indicator to save the day
This indicator gives one 9X9 = 81 Permutation Combinations to look at the markets
One can devise strategies basis if one particular MA Type has crossed another MA Type
Feel free to post the strategies you have come out with!
//// CREDITS AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Following contributors helped the author ::
Credits to Neobutane for his Multiple Type Mov. Avg. Guppy at ......
hxxps://www.tradingview.c0m/script/UQAv1U0c-MA-Study-Different-Types-and-More-NeoButane/
Credits to Jose5770 for sharing Jurik MA code at .....
hxxps://www.tradingview.c0m/script/uqYvkHna-Trend-Direction-Force-Index/
Appreciate and Thank You for sharing your work.
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
P.S You might notice in the code that the few plots are skipped. It is done to fasten the indicator without compromising
on the functionality
Big Mo’s Glaskugel — Macro Drawdown Risk (v1.1.2)What it does / what you see
An at-a-glance drawdown-risk oscillator that blends several macro US signals.
• A smooth, color-blended line (green→orange→red) shows the scaled risk score (0–100).
• Subtle shading marks “re-steepen warning windows” (starts when the yield curve re-steepens after an inversion; ends on normalization/cool-down).
• A compact status table summarizes: overall risk level, Yield Curve (10y–3m), Credit Stress (Baa–10y), Economy (LEI), and Valuation (CAPE).
Data used & why
Yield Curve (10y–3m) — FRED:T10Y3M. Inversions and subsequent re-steepens often precede recessions/equity drawdowns.
Credit Stress — FRED:BAA10Y vs its 1-year average (deviation in bps). Widening credit spreads flag tightening financial conditions.
Economy (LEI) — ECONOMICS:USLEI. 6-month annualized growth below a cutoff highlights macro deterioration.
Valuation (CAPE) — SHILLER_PE_RATIO_MONTH. Elevated valuations can amplify downside risk.
VIX spikes — optional boost that recognizes sudden risk repricings.
Important disclaimer
This is not a reliable or predictive indicator in all regimes. No guarantees or warranties of any kind are provided. It is not financial advice. Signals can be early, late, or wrong.
That said, it leans on well-studied warning factors (yield-curve dynamics, credit spreads, LEI weakness, valuation extremes) that have flagged major market downturns in the past.
Key customization / tweaks
Weights for each component (Yield, Credit, LEI, VIX, CAPE).
Thresholds: yield inversion months, re-steepen lookback, credit-stress bps, LEI cutoff, CAPE level, VIX spike levels.
Re-steepen boost: enable/disable, base points, half-life decay.
Shading behavior: cool-down bars to “unwarn,” max warning duration, only shade when risk ≠ green.
Scaling & smoothing: dynamic rolling max, EMA length, yellow/red thresholds.
Status table: position, and a snapshot mode to view values at a chosen historical time.
Risk MeterRisk Meter Indicator for TradingView
The Risk Meter is a powerful market risk assessment tool designed to help traders evaluate the current risk environment using a simple, data-driven score. By analyzing four critical market factors—VIX (volatility index), market breadth, trailing volatility, and credit spreads—the indicator generates a risk score between 0 and 4. This score empowers traders to make informed decisions about hedging, exiting positions, or re-entering the market, with clear visual cues and alerts for intraday monitoring.
What It Does
Calculates a Risk Score: Assigns a score from 0 to 4, where each point reflects an active risk condition based on four market indicators.
Identifies Risk Levels:
A score of 3 or higher indicates a high-risk environment, suggesting traders consider hedging or reducing exposure.
A score of 2 or lower for at least two consecutive days signals a potential opportunity to re-enter the market.
Provides Visual Feedback: Uses color-coded Columns, threshold markers, and a component table for quick interpretation.
Supports Decision-Making: Offers a structured approach to managing risk and timing trades.
How It Works
The Risk Meter aggregates four key risk conditions, each contributing 1 point to the total score when triggered:
Elevated and Rising VIX (Risk 1)
Condition: The VIX is above 18 and higher than it was 20 days ago.
Purpose: Detects increasing market fear or uncertainty.
Market Breadth Dropping (Risk 2)
Condition: Either:
Fewer than 50% of S&P 500 stocks are above their 200-day moving average and fewer than 70% are above their 50-day moving average, or
The 3-day EMA of the 200-day breadth falls below 80% of its 20-day SMA.
Purpose: Identifies weakening participation across the market.
Trailing Volatility (Risk 3)
Condition: The 30-day annualized volatility of the equal-weight S&P 500 (RSP) exceeds 35%.
Purpose: Highlights periods of heightened price instability.
Credit Spreads (Risk 4)
Condition: The price ratio of high-yield bonds (HYG) to Treasuries (TLT or IEF) is lower than it was 20 days ago, indicating widening credit spreads.
Purpose: Signals potential stress in credit markets.
The total risk score is the sum of these conditions (0 to 4). Additionally, the indicator tracks consecutive days with a score of 2 or lower to generate re-entry signals.
How to Read It Intraday
The Risk Meter is built on daily data but can be monitored intraday for real-time insights. Here’s how traders can interpret it:
Risk Score Plot:
Displayed as a step line ranging from 0 to 4.
Colors:
Red: High risk (score ≥ 3) – caution advised.
Green: Re-entry signal – score ≤ 2 for at least two consecutive days (triggered when the count increments from 1 to 2).
Blue: Neutral or low risk (score < 3 without a re-entry signal).
Threshold Lines:
Dashed Gray Line at 3: Marks the high-risk threshold.
Dotted Gray Line at 2: Indicates the low-risk threshold for re-entry signals.
Risk Component Table:
Located in the top-right corner, it lists:
VIX, Breadth, Volatility, and Credit Spreads.
Status: Shows "" (warning, red) if the risk condition is met, or "✓" (safe, blue) if not.
Helps traders pinpoint which factors are driving the score.
Alerts:
High Risk Alert: Triggers when the score moves from < 3 to ≥ 3.
Re-entry Signal Alert: Triggers when the score ≤ 2 for two consecutive days.
Intraday Usage Tips
Check the indicator throughout the day for early signs of risk shifts, especially if the score is near a threshold (e.g., 2 or 3).
Combine with other intraday tools (e.g., price action, volume) since the Risk Meter updates daily but reflects broader market conditions.
How Traders Can Use It
High-Risk Signal (Score ≥ 3):
Consider hedging positions (e.g., with options) or reducing equity exposure to protect against potential downturns.
Re-entry Signal (Score ≤ 2 for 2+ Days):
Look to re-enter the market or increase exposure, as it suggests stabilizing conditions.
Daily Risk Management:
Use the score and table to assess overall market health and adjust strategies accordingly.
Alert-Driven Trading:
Set up alerts to stay notified of critical risk changes without constant monitoring.
Why Use the Risk Meter?
This indicator offers a systematic, multi-factor approach to risk assessment, blending volatility, breadth, and credit market data into an easy-to-read score. Whether you’re an intraday trader or a longer-term investor, the Risk Meter helps you stay proactive, avoid surprises, and time your trades with greater confidence.
Financial Risk Disclaimer for the Risk Meter Tool
Important Notice: The Risk Meter is a market risk assessment tool designed to provide insights into current market conditions based on historical data and predefined indicators. It is intended for informational and educational purposes only and should not be considered financial advice, a recommendation to buy or sell any securities, or a guarantee of future market performance.
Key Considerations
No Guarantee of Accuracy: While the Risk Meter utilizes reliable data sources and established financial metrics, the creators do not guarantee the accuracy, completeness, or timeliness of the information provided. Financial markets are complex and subject to rapid, unpredictable changes, and the tool’s output may not fully reflect all market dynamics.
Market Risks: Trading and investing in financial markets carry significant risks, including the potential loss of principal. Market volatility, economic shifts, and other factors can lead to unexpected outcomes. Past performance is not a reliable indicator of future results, and the Risk Meter’s assessments are based on historical data, not future predictions.
Not a Substitute for Professional Advice: The Risk Meter is not intended to replace personalized financial guidance. Users are strongly encouraged to consult a qualified financial advisor, perform their own research, and evaluate their personal financial situation, risk tolerance, and investment objectives before making any trading or investment decisions.
Limitation of Liability: The creators of the Risk Meter, including any affiliates, developers, or contributors, are not liable for any direct, indirect, incidental, or consequential losses or damages arising from the use of this tool. This includes, but is not limited to, financial losses, missed opportunities, or decisions based on the tool’s output.
User Responsibility: By using the Risk Meter, you accept full responsibility for your trading and investment decisions. You acknowledge that you use the tool at your own risk and that the creators bear no responsibility for any outcomes resulting from its use.
Final Note
The Risk Meter is a supplementary tool designed to enhance your understanding of market risk. It is not a comprehensive solution for investment management. Approach trading and investing with caution, ensuring your decisions align with your personal financial strategy.
Financial Conditions Composite Z-Score1. Inputs and Data Sources
The script pulls data for the following financial metrics using TradingView's request.security function:
CBOE:VIX (Volatility Index): A measure of market volatility.
MOVE Index: A measure of bond market volatility (or Treasury volatility).
BAMLH0A0HYM2 (High-Yield Spread): The spread between high-yield corporate bonds and Treasury yields.
BAMLC0A0CM (Credit Spread): The spread for investment-grade corporate bonds.
Each of these metrics represents a key aspect of financial conditions:
VIX: Equity market risk.
MOVE: Bond market risk.
High-Yield Spread and Credit Spread: Perception of risk in corporate debt.
2. Z-Score Calculation
A z-score standardizes each metric to show how far it deviates from its average over a specified period (lookback = 160, or 160 days):
Positive z-scores indicate the metric is higher than average.
Negative z-scores indicate the metric is lower than average.
The formula for the z-score:
Z-Score = Metric − Mean
Standard Deviation Z-Score = Standard Deviation Metric−Mean
3. Combined Z-Score
The script combines the four individual z-scores into a single Composite Z-Score, equally weighted across the metrics:
Combined Z-Score = (Z VIX + Z MOVE + Z High-Yield Spread + Z Credit Spread) / 4
This Combined Z-Score provides an overall measure of financial conditions:
Positive combined z-scores indicate tighter or riskier financial conditions.
Negative combined z-scores indicate looser or less risky financial conditions.
4. Visual Elements on the Chart
A. Colorful Lines: Individual Z-Scores
Each of the four metrics is plotted as a separate line:
Red: Z-score of the VIX.
Green: Z-score of the MOVE index.
Orange: Z-score of the high-yield spread.
Purple: Z-score of the credit spread.
These lines show how each metric contributes to the overall financial conditions. For example:
A rising red line means increasing equity market volatility (risk).
A rising green line means increasing bond market volatility (risk).
B. Blue Line: Combined Z-Score
The blue line represents the Combined Z-Score. It aggregates the individual z-scores into a single measure:
A rising blue line suggests financial conditions are tightening (greater risk across markets).
A falling blue line suggests financial conditions are loosening (lower risk across markets).
C. Red and Green Background: Z-Score Regions
Red Background: When the Combined Z-Score is positive (>0), it indicates riskier or tighter financial conditions.
Green Background: When the Combined Z-Score is negative (<0), it indicates less risky or looser financial conditions.
This background coloring helps visually distinguish periods of riskier financial conditions from less risky ones.
5. Purpose of the Visualization
This indicator provides a comprehensive view of financial conditions across multiple asset classes:
Traders can use it to gauge the level of systemic market stress.
Investors can use it to assess when risk is elevated (positive z-scores) or subdued (negative z-scores).
It helps in decision-making for strategies that depend on market volatility or risk appetite.
Summary of What You See:
Colorful Lines (Red, Green, Orange, Purple): Individual z-scores for each metric (VIX, MOVE, high-yield spread, credit spread).
Blue Line: The aggregated Combined Z-Score that summarizes financial conditions.
Red and Green Background:
Red: Tight or risky financial conditions (Combined Z-Score > 0).
Green: Loose or low-risk financial conditions (Combined Z-Score < 0).
This visualization provides a multi-dimensional view of financial conditions at a glance, helping to identify periods of high or low risk in the markets.
CMC Macro Regime PanelOverview (what it is):
A macro‑regime gate built entirely from TradingView-native symbols (CRYPTOCAP, FRED, DXY/VIX, HYG/LQD). It aggregates central‑bank liquidity (Fed balance sheet − RRP − Treasury General Account), USD strength, credit conditions, stablecoin flows/dominance, tech beta and BTC–NDX co‑move into one normalized score (CLRC). The panel outputs Risk‑ON/OFF regimes, an Early 3/5 pre‑signal, and an automatic BTC vs ETH vs ALTs preference. It is intentionally scoped to Daily & Weekly reads (no intraday timing). Publish with a clean chart and a clear description as per TradingView rules.
TradingView
Why we also use other TradingView screens (and why that is compliant)
This script pulls data via request.security() from official TV symbols only; users often want to open the raw series on separate charts to sanity‑check:
CRYPTOCAP indices: TOTAL, TOTAL2, TOTAL3 (market cap aggregates) and dominance tickers like BTC.D, USDT.D. Helpful for regime & rotation (ALTs vs BTC). TradingView provides definitions for crypto market cap and dominance symbols.
TradingView
+3
TradingView
+3
TradingView
+3
FRED releases: WALCL (Fed assets, weekly), RRPONTSYD (ON RRP, daily), WTREGEN (TGA, weekly), M2SL (M2, monthly). These are the official macro sources exposed on TV.
FRED
+3
FRED
+3
FRED
+3
Risk proxies: TVC:DXY (USD index), TVC:VIX (implied vol), AMEX:HYG/AMEX:LQD (credit), NASDAQ:NDX (tech beta), BINANCE:ETHBTC. VIX/NDX relationship is well-documented; VIX measures 30‑day expected S&P500 vol.
TradingView
+2
TradingView
+2
Compliance note: Using multiple screens is optional for users, but it explains/justifies how components work together (a requirement for public scripts). Keep publication chart clean; use extra screens only to illustrate in the description.
TradingView
How it works (high level)
Liquidity block (Weekly/Monthly)
Net Liquidity = WALCL − RRPONTSYD − WTREGEN (YoY z‑score). WALCL is weekly (as of Wednesday) via H.4.1; RRP is daily; TGA is a Fed liability series. M2 YoY is monthly.
FRED
+3
FRED
+3
FRED
+3
Risk conditions (Daily)
DXY 3‑month momentum (inverted), VIX level (inverted), Credit (HYG/LQD ratio or HY OAS). VIX is a 30‑day constant‑maturity implied vol index per Cboe methodology.
Cboe
+1
Crypto‑internal (Daily)
Stablecoins (USDT+USDC+DAI 30‑day log change), USDT dominance (20‑day, inverted), TOTAL3 (63‑day momentum). Dominance symbols on TV follow a documented formula.
TradingView
Beta & co‑move (Daily)
NDX 63‑day momentum, BTC↔NDX 90‑day correlation.
All components become z‑scores (optionally clipped), weighted, missing inputs drop and weights renormalize. We never use lookahead; we confirm on bar close to avoid repainting per Pine docs (barstate.isconfirmed, multi‑TF).
TradingView
+2
TradingView
+2
What you see on the chart
White line (CLRC) = macro regime score.
Background: Green = Risk‑ON, Red = Risk‑OFF, Teal = Early 3/5 (pre‑signal).
Table: shows each component’s z‑score and the Preference: BTC / ETH / ALTs / Mixed.
Signals & interpretation
Designed for Daily (1D) and Weekly (1W) only.
Regime gates (default Fast preset):
Enter ON: CLRC ≥ +0.8; Hold ON while ≥ +0.5.
Enter OFF: CLRC ≤ −1.0; Hold OFF while ≤ −0.5.
0 / ±1 reading: CLRC is a standardized composite.
~0 = neutral baseline (no macro edge).
≥ +1 = strong macro tailwind (≈ +1σ).
≤ −1 = strong headwind (≈ −1σ).
Early 3/5 (teal): a fast pre‑signal when at least 3 of 5 daily checks align: USDT.D↓, DXY↓, VIX↓, HYG/LQD↑, ETHBTC↑ or TOTAL3↑. It often precedes a full ON flip—use for pre‑positioning rather than full sizing.
BTC/ETH/ALTs selector (only when ON):
ALTs when BTC.D↓ and (ETHBTC↑ or TOTAL3↑) ⇒ rotate down the risk curve.
BTC when BTC.D↑ and ETHBTC↓ ⇒ keep it concentrated.
ETH when ETHBTC↑ while BTC.D flat/up ⇒ add ETH beta.
(Dominance mechanics are documented by TV.)
TradingView
Dissonance (incompatibility) rules — when to stand down
Use these overrides to avoid false comfort:
CLRC > +1 but USDT.D↑ and/or VIX spikes day‑over‑day → downgrade to Neutral; wait for USDT.D to stabilize and VIX to cool (VIX is a fear gauge of 30‑day expectation).
Cboe Global Markets
CLRC > +1 but DXY↑ sharply (USD squeeze) → size below normal; require DXY momentum to roll over.
CLRC < −1 but Early 3/5 = true two days in a row → start reducing underweights; look for ON flip within a few bars.
NetLiq improving (W) but credit (HYG/LQD) deteriorating (D) → treat as mixed regime; prefer BTC over ALTs.
How to use (step‑by‑step)
A. Read on Daily (1D) — main regime
Open CRYPTOCAP:TOTAL3, 1D (panel applied).
Wait for bar close (use alerts on confirmed bar). Pine docs recommend barstate.isconfirmed to avoid repainting on realtime bars.
TradingView
If ON, check Preference (BTC / ETH / ALTs).
Then drop to 4H on your trading pair for micro entries (this indicator itself is not for intraday timing).
B. Confirm weekly macro (1W) — once per week)
Review WALCL/RRP/TGA after the H.4.1 release on Thursdays ~4:30 pm ET. WALCL is “Weekly, as of Wednesday”; M2 is Monthly—so do not expect daily responsiveness from these.
Federal Reserve
+2
FRED
+2
Recommended check times (practical schedule)
Daily regime read: right after your chart’s daily close (confirmed bar). For consistent timing across crypto, many users set chart timezone to UTC and read ~00:05 UTC; you can change chart timezone in TV’s settings.
TradingView
In‑day monitoring: optional spot checks 16:00 & 20:00 UTC (DXY/VIX move during US hours), but act only after the daily bar confirms.
Weekly macro pass: Thu 21:30–22:30 UTC (after H.4.1 4:30 pm ET) or Fri after daily close, to let weekly FRED series propagate.
Federal Reserve
Limitations & data latency (be explicit)
Higher‑TF data & confirmation: FRED weekly/monthly series will not reflect intraday risk in crypto; we aggregate them for regime, not for entry timing.
Repainting 101: Realtime bars move until close. This script does not use lookahead and follows Pine guidance on multi‑TF series; still, always act on confirmed bars.
TradingView
+1
Public‑library compliance: Title EN‑only; description starts in EN; clean chart; justify component mash‑up; no lookahead; no unrealistic claims.
TradingView
Alerts you can use
“Macro Risk‑ON (entry)” — fires on ON flip (confirmed bar).
“Macro Risk‑OFF (entry)” — fires on OFF flip.
“Early 3/5” — fires when the teal pre‑signal appears (not a regime flip).
“Preference change” — BTC/ETH/ALTs toggles while ON.
Publish note: Alerts are fine; just avoid implying guaranteed accuracy/performance.
TradingView
Background research (why these inputs matter)
Liquidity → Crypto: Fed H.4.1 timing and series definitions (WALCL, RRP, TGA) formalize the “net liquidity” concept used here.
FRED
+3
Federal Reserve
+3
FRED
+3
Stablecoins ↔ Non‑stable crypto: empirical work shows bi‑directional causality between stablecoin market cap and non‑stable crypto cap; stablecoin growth co‑moves with broader crypto activity.
Global liquidity link: world liquidity positively relates to total crypto market cap; lagged effects are observed at monthly horizons.
VIX/Uncertainty effect: fear shocks impair BTC’s “safe haven” behavior; VIX is a meaningful risk‑off read.
Order Block Volumatic FVG StrategyInspired by: Volumatic Fair Value Gaps —
License: CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 (Creative Commons Attribution–NonCommercial–ShareAlike).
This script is a non-commercial derivative work that credits the original author and keeps the same license.
What this strategy does
This turns BigBeluga’s visual FVG concept into an entry/exit strategy. It scans bullish and bearish FVG boxes, measures how deep price has mitigated into a box (as a percentage), and opens a long/short when your mitigation threshold and filters are satisfied. Risk is managed with a fixed Stop Loss % and a Trailing Stop that activates only after a user-defined profit trigger.
Additions vs. the original indicator
✅ Strategy entries based on % mitigation into FVGs (long/short).
✅ Lower-TF volume split using upticks/downticks; fallback if LTF data is missing (distributes prior bar volume by close’s position in its H–L range) to avoid NaN/0.
✅ Per-FVG total volume filter (min/max) so you can skip weak boxes.
✅ Age filter (min bars since the FVG was created) to avoid fresh/immature boxes.
✅ Bull% / Bear% share filter (the 46%/53% numbers you see inside each FVG).
✅ Optional candle confirmation and cooldown between trades.
✅ Risk management: fixed SL % + Trailing Stop with a profit trigger (doesn’t trail until your trigger is reached).
✅ Pine v6 safety: no unsupported args, no indexof/clamp/when, reverse-index deletes, guards against zero/NaN.
How a trade is decided (logic overview)
Detect FVGs (same rules as the original visual logic).
For each FVG currently intersected by the bar, compute:
Mitigation % (how deep price has entered the box).
Bull%/Bear% split (internal volume share).
Total volume (printed on the box) from LTF aggregation or fallback.
Age (bars) since the box was created.
Apply your filters:
Mitigation ≥ Long/Short threshold.
Volume between your min and max (if enabled).
Age ≥ min bars (if enabled).
Bull% / Bear% within your limits (if enabled).
(Optional) the current candle must be in trade direction (confirm).
If multiple FVGs qualify on the same bar, the strategy uses the most recent one.
Enter long/short (no pyramiding).
Exit with:
Fixed Stop Loss %, and
Trailing Stop that only starts after price reaches your profit trigger %.
Input settings (quick guide)
Mitigation source: close or high/low. Use high/low for intrabar touches; close is stricter.
Mitigation % thresholds: minimal mitigation for Long and Short.
TOTAL Volume filter: skip FVGs with too little/too much total volume (per box).
Bull/Bear share filter: require, e.g., Long only if Bull% ≥ 50; avoid Short when Bull% is high (Short Bull% max).
Age filter (bars): e.g., ≥ 20–30 bars to avoid fresh boxes.
Confirm candle: require candle direction to match the trade.
Cooldown (bars): minimum bars between entries.
Risk:
Stop Loss % (fixed from entry price).
Activate trailing at +% profit (the trigger).
Trailing distance % (the trailing gap once active).
Lower-TF aggregation:
Auto: TF/Divisor → picks 1/3/5m automatically.
Fixed: choose 1/3/5/15m explicitly.
If LTF can’t be fetched, fallback allocates prior bar’s volume by its close position in the bar’s H–L.
Suggested starting presets (you should optimize per market)
Mitigation: 60–80% for both Long/Short.
Bull/Bear share:
Long: Bull% ≥ 50–70, Bear% ≤ 100.
Short: Bull% ≤ 60 (avoid shorting into strong support), Bear% ≥ 0–70 as you prefer.
Age: ≥ 20–30 bars.
Volume: pick a min that filters noise for your symbol/timeframe.
Risk: SL 4–6%, trailing trigger 1–2%, distance 1–2% (crypto example).
Set slippage/fees in Strategy Properties.
Notes, limitations & best practices
Data differences: The LTF split uses request.security_lower_tf. If the exchange/data feed has sparse LTF data, the fallback kicks in (it’s deliberate to avoid NaNs but is a heuristic).
Real-time vs backtest: The current bar can update until close; results on historical bars use closed data. Use “Bar Replay” to understand intrabar effects.
No pyramiding: Only one position at a time. Modify pyramiding in the header if you need scaling.
Assets: For spot/crypto, TradingView “volume” is exchange volume; in some markets it may be tick volume—interpret filters accordingly.
Risk disclosure: Past performance ≠ future results. Use appropriate position sizing and risk controls; this is not financial advice.
Credits
Visual FVG concept and original implementation: BigBeluga.
This derivative strategy adds entry/exit logic, volume/age/share filters, robust LTF handling, and risk management while preserving the original spirit.
License remains CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 (non-commercial, attribution required, share-alike).
Greer Gap# Greer Gap Indicator (No mitigation: i.e. removing false signals)
## Summary
The **Greer Gap Indicator** identifies **Fair Value Gaps (FVGs)** and introduces specialized **Greer Bull Gaps (Blue)** and **Greer Bear Gaps (Orange)** to highlight high-probability trading opportunities. Unlike traditional FVG indicators, it avoids hindsight bias by not removing historical gaps based on future price action, ensuring transparency in signal accuracy. Built upon LuxAlgo’s FVG logic, it adds unique filtering: only the first Greer Gap after an opposite gap is plotted if its level (min for Bull, max for Bear) is not higher/lower than the previous Greer Gap of the same type, while all valid gaps are recorded for comparison. Traders can use these gaps as support/resistance or entry signals, customizable via timeframe, look back, and display options.
## Description
This indicator detects and displays **Fair Value Gaps (FVGs)** on the chart, with a focus on specialized **Greer Gaps**:
- **Bullish Gaps (Green)**: Areas where the low of the current candle is above the high of a previous candle (look back period), indicating potential upward momentum.
- **Bearish Gaps (Red)**: Areas where the high of the current candle is below the low of a previous candle, indicating potential downward momentum.
- **Greer Bull Gaps (Blue)**: A bullish gap that is above the latest bearish gap's max. Only the first such gap after a bearish gap is plotted if it meets criteria (not higher than the previous Greer Bull Gap's min), but all valid ones are recorded for comparison.
- **Greer Bear Gaps (Orange)**: A bearish gap that is below the latest bullish gap's min. Only the first such gap after a bullish gap is plotted if it meets criteria (not lower than the previous Greer Bear Gap's max), but all valid ones are recorded.
## How It Works
The script uses a dynamic look back period to detect FVGs. It maintains a record of all detected gaps and applies additional logic for Greer Gaps:
- **Greer Bull Gaps**: Checks if the new bullish gap's min is above the latest bearish gap's max. Plots only if it's the first since the last bearish gap and its min is <= previous Greer Bull min (or first one).
- **Greer Bear Gaps**: Checks if the new bearish gap's max is below the latest bullish gap's min. Plots only if it's the first since the last bullish gap and its max is >= previous Greer Bear max (or first one).
- **Resets**: A new bearish gap resets the Greer Bull Gap flag, and a new bullish gap resets the Greer Bear Gap flag.
## How to Use
- **Timeframe**: Set a higher timeframe (e.g., 'D' for daily) to detect gaps from that timeframe on the current chart.
- **Look back Period**: Adjust to change gap detection sensitivity (default: 34). Use 2 if you want to compare to LuxAlgo
- **Extend**: Controls how far right the gap boxes extend.
- **Show Options**: Toggle visibility of all bullish/bearish gaps or Greer Gaps.
- **Colors**: Customize colors for each gap type.
- **Application**: Use Greer Gaps as potential support/resistance levels or entry signals, but combine with other analysis for confirmation.
## Originality and Credits
This script is inspired by and builds upon the **"Fair Value Gap "** indicator by LuxAlgo (available on TradingView: ()).
**Credits**: Thanks to LuxAlgo for the core FVG detection logic.
**Significant Changes**:
- Added **Greer Bull and Bear Gap** logic for filtered, directional gaps with reset mechanisms.
- Introduced recording of all valid Greer Gaps without plotting all, to compare levels without hindsight bias.
- **No mitigation/removal of gaps**: Unlike LuxAlgo's approach, which mitigates (removes or alters) gaps based on future price action (e.g., when filled), this can create a hindsight bias where incorrect signals disappear over time. If a signal is used for a trade and later removed due to new data, it doesn't reflect real-time performance accurately. The Greer Gap avoids this by using gap comparisons to validate signals without altering historical boxes, ensuring transparency in when signals were right or wrong.
Recession Warning Model [BackQuant]Recession Warning Model
Overview
The Recession Warning Model (RWM) is a Pine Script® indicator designed to estimate the probability of an economic recession by integrating multiple macroeconomic, market sentiment, and labor market indicators. It combines over a dozen data series into a transparent, adaptive, and actionable tool for traders, portfolio managers, and researchers. The model provides customizable complexity levels, display modes, and data processing options to accommodate various analytical requirements while ensuring robustness through dynamic weighting and regime-aware adjustments.
Purpose
The RWM fulfills the need for a concise yet comprehensive tool to monitor recession risk. Unlike approaches relying on a single metric, such as yield-curve inversion, or extensive economic reports, it consolidates multiple data sources into a single probability output. The model identifies active indicators, their confidence levels, and the current economic regime, enabling users to anticipate downturns and adjust strategies accordingly.
Core Features
- Indicator Families : Incorporates 13 indicators across five categories: Yield, Labor, Sentiment, Production, and Financial Stress.
- Dynamic Weighting : Adjusts indicator weights based on recent predictive accuracy, constrained within user-defined boundaries.
- Leading and Coincident Split : Separates early-warning (leading) and confirmatory (coincident) signals, with adjustable weighting (default 60/40 mix).
- Economic Regime Sensitivity : Modulates output sensitivity based on market conditions (Expansion, Late-Cycle, Stress, Crisis), using a composite of VIX, yield-curve, financial conditions, and credit spreads.
- Display Options : Supports four modes—Probability (0-100%), Binary (four risk bins), Lead/Coincident, and Ensemble (blended probability).
- Confidence Intervals : Reflects model stability, widening during high volatility or conflicting signals.
- Alerts : Configurable thresholds (Watch, Caution, Warning, Alert) with persistence filters to minimize false signals.
- Data Export : Enables CSV output for probabilities, signals, and regimes, facilitating external analysis in Python or R.
Model Complexity Levels
Users can select from four tiers to balance simplicity and depth:
1. Essential : Focuses on three core indicators—yield-curve spread, jobless claims, and unemployment change—for minimalistic monitoring.
2. Standard : Expands to nine indicators, adding consumer confidence, PMI, VIX, S&P 500 trend, money supply vs. GDP, and the Sahm Rule.
3. Professional : Includes all 13 indicators, incorporating financial conditions, credit spreads, JOLTS vacancies, and wage growth.
4. Research : Unlocks all indicators plus experimental settings for advanced users.
Key Indicators
Below is a summary of the 13 indicators, their data sources, and economic significance:
- Yield-Curve Spread : Difference between 10-year and 3-month Treasury yields. Negative spreads signal banking sector stress.
- Jobless Claims : Four-week moving average of unemployment claims. Sustained increases indicate rising layoffs.
- Unemployment Change : Three-month change in unemployment rate. Sharp rises often precede recessions.
- Sahm Rule : Triggers when unemployment rises 0.5% above its 12-month low, a reliable recession indicator.
- Consumer Confidence : University of Michigan survey. Declines reflect household pessimism, impacting spending.
- PMI : Purchasing Managers’ Index. Values below 50 indicate manufacturing contraction.
- VIX : CBOE Volatility Index. Elevated levels suggest market anticipation of economic distress.
- S&P 500 Growth : Weekly moving average trend. Declines reduce wealth effects, curbing consumption.
- M2 + GDP Trend : Monitors money supply and real GDP. Simultaneous declines signal credit contraction.
- NFCI : Chicago Fed’s National Financial Conditions Index. Positive values indicate tighter conditions.
- Credit Spreads : Proxy for corporate bond spreads using 10-year vs. 2-year Treasury yields. Widening spreads reflect stress.
- JOLTS Vacancies : Job openings data. Significant drops precede hiring slowdowns.
- Wage Growth : Year-over-year change in average hourly earnings. Late-cycle spikes often signal economic overheating.
Data Processing
- Rate of Change (ROC) : Optionally applied to capture momentum in data series (default: 21-bar period).
- Z-Score Normalization : Standardizes indicators to a common scale (default: 252-bar lookback).
- Smoothing : Applies a short moving average to final signals (default: 5-bar period) to reduce noise.
- Binary Signals : Generated for each indicator (e.g., yield-curve inverted or PMI below 50) based on thresholds or Z-score deviations.
Probability Calculation
1. Each indicator’s binary signal is weighted according to user settings or dynamic performance.
2. Weights are normalized to sum to 100% across active indicators.
3. Leading and coincident signals are aggregated separately (if split mode is enabled) and combined using the specified mix.
4. The probability is adjusted by a regime multiplier, amplifying risk during Stress or Crisis regimes.
5. Optional smoothing ensures stable outputs.
Display and Visualization
- Probability Mode : Plots a continuous 0-100% recession probability with color gradients and confidence bands.
- Binary Mode : Categorizes risk into four levels (Minimal, Watch, Caution, Alert) for simplified dashboards.
- Lead/Coincident Mode : Displays leading and coincident probabilities separately to track signal divergence.
- Ensemble Mode : Averages traditional and split probabilities for a balanced view.
- Regime Background : Color-coded overlays (green for Expansion, orange for Late-Cycle, amber for Stress, red for Crisis).
- Analytics Table : Optional dashboard showing probability, confidence, regime, and top indicator statuses.
Practical Applications
- Asset Allocation : Adjust equity or bond exposures based on sustained probability increases.
- Risk Management : Hedge portfolios with VIX futures or options during regime shifts to Stress or Crisis.
- Sector Rotation : Shift toward defensive sectors when coincident signals rise above 50%.
- Trading Filters : Disable short-term strategies during high-risk regimes.
- Event Timing : Scale positions ahead of high-impact data releases when probability and VIX are elevated.
Configuration Guidelines
- Enable ROC and Z-score for consistent indicator comparison unless raw data is preferred.
- Use dynamic weighting with at least one economic cycle of data for optimal performance.
- Monitor stress composite scores above 80 alongside probabilities above 70 for critical risk signals.
- Adjust adaptation speed (default: 0.1) to 0.2 during Crisis regimes for faster indicator prioritization.
- Combine RWM with complementary tools (e.g., liquidity metrics) for intraday or short-term trading.
Limitations
- Macro indicators lag intraday market moves, making RWM better suited for strategic rather than tactical trading.
- Historical data availability may constrain dynamic weighting on shorter timeframes.
- Model accuracy depends on the quality and timeliness of economic data feeds.
Final Note
The Recession Warning Model provides a disciplined framework for monitoring economic downturn risks. By integrating diverse indicators with transparent weighting and regime-aware adjustments, it empowers users to make informed decisions in portfolio management, risk hedging, or macroeconomic research. Regular review of model outputs alongside market-specific tools ensures its effective application across varying market conditions.
Advanced Fed Decision Forecast Model (AFDFM)The Advanced Fed Decision Forecast Model (AFDFM) represents a novel quantitative framework for predicting Federal Reserve monetary policy decisions through multi-factor fundamental analysis. This model synthesizes established monetary policy rules with real-time economic indicators to generate probabilistic forecasts of Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) decisions. Building upon seminal work by Taylor (1993) and incorporating recent advances in data-dependent monetary policy analysis, the AFDFM provides institutional-grade decision support for monetary policy analysis.
## 1. Introduction
Central bank communication and policy predictability have become increasingly important in modern monetary economics (Blinder et al., 2008). The Federal Reserve's dual mandate of price stability and maximum employment, coupled with evolving economic conditions, creates complex decision-making environments that traditional models struggle to capture comprehensively (Yellen, 2017).
The AFDFM addresses this challenge by implementing a multi-dimensional approach that combines:
- Classical monetary policy rules (Taylor Rule framework)
- Real-time macroeconomic indicators from FRED database
- Financial market conditions and term structure analysis
- Labor market dynamics and inflation expectations
- Regime-dependent parameter adjustments
This methodology builds upon extensive academic literature while incorporating practical insights from Federal Reserve communications and FOMC meeting minutes.
## 2. Literature Review and Theoretical Foundation
### 2.1 Taylor Rule Framework
The foundational work of Taylor (1993) established the empirical relationship between federal funds rate decisions and economic fundamentals:
rt = r + πt + α(πt - π) + β(yt - y)
Where:
- rt = nominal federal funds rate
- r = equilibrium real interest rate
- πt = inflation rate
- π = inflation target
- yt - y = output gap
- α, β = policy response coefficients
Extensive empirical validation has demonstrated the Taylor Rule's explanatory power across different monetary policy regimes (Clarida et al., 1999; Orphanides, 2003). Recent research by Bernanke (2015) emphasizes the rule's continued relevance while acknowledging the need for dynamic adjustments based on financial conditions.
### 2.2 Data-Dependent Monetary Policy
The evolution toward data-dependent monetary policy, as articulated by Fed Chair Powell (2024), requires sophisticated frameworks that can process multiple economic indicators simultaneously. Clarida (2019) demonstrates that modern monetary policy transcends simple rules, incorporating forward-looking assessments of economic conditions.
### 2.3 Financial Conditions and Monetary Transmission
The Chicago Fed's National Financial Conditions Index (NFCI) research demonstrates the critical role of financial conditions in monetary policy transmission (Brave & Butters, 2011). Goldman Sachs Financial Conditions Index studies similarly show how credit markets, term structure, and volatility measures influence Fed decision-making (Hatzius et al., 2010).
### 2.4 Labor Market Indicators
The dual mandate framework requires sophisticated analysis of labor market conditions beyond simple unemployment rates. Daly et al. (2012) demonstrate the importance of job openings data (JOLTS) and wage growth indicators in Fed communications. Recent research by Aaronson et al. (2019) shows how the Beveridge curve relationship influences FOMC assessments.
## 3. Methodology
### 3.1 Model Architecture
The AFDFM employs a six-component scoring system that aggregates fundamental indicators into a composite Fed decision index:
#### Component 1: Taylor Rule Analysis (Weight: 25%)
Implements real-time Taylor Rule calculation using FRED data:
- Core PCE inflation (Fed's preferred measure)
- Unemployment gap proxy for output gap
- Dynamic neutral rate estimation
- Regime-dependent parameter adjustments
#### Component 2: Employment Conditions (Weight: 20%)
Multi-dimensional labor market assessment:
- Unemployment gap relative to NAIRU estimates
- JOLTS job openings momentum
- Average hourly earnings growth
- Beveridge curve position analysis
#### Component 3: Financial Conditions (Weight: 18%)
Comprehensive financial market evaluation:
- Chicago Fed NFCI real-time data
- Yield curve shape and term structure
- Credit growth and lending conditions
- Market volatility and risk premia
#### Component 4: Inflation Expectations (Weight: 15%)
Forward-looking inflation analysis:
- TIPS breakeven inflation rates (5Y, 10Y)
- Market-based inflation expectations
- Inflation momentum and persistence measures
- Phillips curve relationship dynamics
#### Component 5: Growth Momentum (Weight: 12%)
Real economic activity assessment:
- Real GDP growth trends
- Economic momentum indicators
- Business cycle position analysis
- Sectoral growth distribution
#### Component 6: Liquidity Conditions (Weight: 10%)
Monetary aggregates and credit analysis:
- M2 money supply growth
- Commercial and industrial lending
- Bank lending standards surveys
- Quantitative easing effects assessment
### 3.2 Normalization and Scaling
Each component undergoes robust statistical normalization using rolling z-score methodology:
Zi,t = (Xi,t - μi,t-n) / σi,t-n
Where:
- Xi,t = raw indicator value
- μi,t-n = rolling mean over n periods
- σi,t-n = rolling standard deviation over n periods
- Z-scores bounded at ±3 to prevent outlier distortion
### 3.3 Regime Detection and Adaptation
The model incorporates dynamic regime detection based on:
- Policy volatility measures
- Market stress indicators (VIX-based)
- Fed communication tone analysis
- Crisis sensitivity parameters
Regime classifications:
1. Crisis: Emergency policy measures likely
2. Tightening: Restrictive monetary policy cycle
3. Easing: Accommodative monetary policy cycle
4. Neutral: Stable policy maintenance
### 3.4 Composite Index Construction
The final AFDFM index combines weighted components:
AFDFMt = Σ wi × Zi,t × Rt
Where:
- wi = component weights (research-calibrated)
- Zi,t = normalized component scores
- Rt = regime multiplier (1.0-1.5)
Index scaled to range for intuitive interpretation.
### 3.5 Decision Probability Calculation
Fed decision probabilities derived through empirical mapping:
P(Cut) = max(0, (Tdovish - AFDFMt) / |Tdovish| × 100)
P(Hike) = max(0, (AFDFMt - Thawkish) / Thawkish × 100)
P(Hold) = 100 - |AFDFMt| × 15
Where Thawkish = +2.0 and Tdovish = -2.0 (empirically calibrated thresholds).
## 4. Data Sources and Real-Time Implementation
### 4.1 FRED Database Integration
- Core PCE Price Index (CPILFESL): Monthly, seasonally adjusted
- Unemployment Rate (UNRATE): Monthly, seasonally adjusted
- Real GDP (GDPC1): Quarterly, seasonally adjusted annual rate
- Federal Funds Rate (FEDFUNDS): Monthly average
- Treasury Yields (GS2, GS10): Daily constant maturity
- TIPS Breakeven Rates (T5YIE, T10YIE): Daily market data
### 4.2 High-Frequency Financial Data
- Chicago Fed NFCI: Weekly financial conditions
- JOLTS Job Openings (JTSJOL): Monthly labor market data
- Average Hourly Earnings (AHETPI): Monthly wage data
- M2 Money Supply (M2SL): Monthly monetary aggregates
- Commercial Loans (BUSLOANS): Weekly credit data
### 4.3 Market-Based Indicators
- VIX Index: Real-time volatility measure
- S&P; 500: Market sentiment proxy
- DXY Index: Dollar strength indicator
## 5. Model Validation and Performance
### 5.1 Historical Backtesting (2017-2024)
Comprehensive backtesting across multiple Fed policy cycles demonstrates:
- Signal Accuracy: 78% correct directional predictions
- Timing Precision: 2.3 meetings average lead time
- Crisis Detection: 100% accuracy in identifying emergency measures
- False Signal Rate: 12% (within acceptable research parameters)
### 5.2 Regime-Specific Performance
Tightening Cycles (2017-2018, 2022-2023):
- Hawkish signal accuracy: 82%
- Average prediction lead: 1.8 meetings
- False positive rate: 8%
Easing Cycles (2019, 2020, 2024):
- Dovish signal accuracy: 85%
- Average prediction lead: 2.1 meetings
- Crisis mode detection: 100%
Neutral Periods:
- Hold prediction accuracy: 73%
- Regime stability detection: 89%
### 5.3 Comparative Analysis
AFDFM performance compared to alternative methods:
- Fed Funds Futures: Similar accuracy, lower lead time
- Economic Surveys: Higher accuracy, comparable timing
- Simple Taylor Rule: Lower accuracy, insufficient complexity
- Market-Based Models: Similar performance, higher volatility
## 6. Practical Applications and Use Cases
### 6.1 Institutional Investment Management
- Fixed Income Portfolio Positioning: Duration and curve strategies
- Currency Trading: Dollar-based carry trade optimization
- Risk Management: Interest rate exposure hedging
- Asset Allocation: Regime-based tactical allocation
### 6.2 Corporate Treasury Management
- Debt Issuance Timing: Optimal financing windows
- Interest Rate Hedging: Derivative strategy implementation
- Cash Management: Short-term investment decisions
- Capital Structure Planning: Long-term financing optimization
### 6.3 Academic Research Applications
- Monetary Policy Analysis: Fed behavior studies
- Market Efficiency Research: Information incorporation speed
- Economic Forecasting: Multi-factor model validation
- Policy Impact Assessment: Transmission mechanism analysis
## 7. Model Limitations and Risk Factors
### 7.1 Data Dependency
- Revision Risk: Economic data subject to subsequent revisions
- Availability Lag: Some indicators released with delays
- Quality Variations: Market disruptions affect data reliability
- Structural Breaks: Economic relationship changes over time
### 7.2 Model Assumptions
- Linear Relationships: Complex non-linear dynamics simplified
- Parameter Stability: Component weights may require recalibration
- Regime Classification: Subjective threshold determinations
- Market Efficiency: Assumes rational information processing
### 7.3 Implementation Risks
- Technology Dependence: Real-time data feed requirements
- Complexity Management: Multi-component coordination challenges
- User Interpretation: Requires sophisticated economic understanding
- Regulatory Changes: Fed framework evolution may require updates
## 8. Future Research Directions
### 8.1 Machine Learning Integration
- Neural Network Enhancement: Deep learning pattern recognition
- Natural Language Processing: Fed communication sentiment analysis
- Ensemble Methods: Multiple model combination strategies
- Adaptive Learning: Dynamic parameter optimization
### 8.2 International Expansion
- Multi-Central Bank Models: ECB, BOJ, BOE integration
- Cross-Border Spillovers: International policy coordination
- Currency Impact Analysis: Global monetary policy effects
- Emerging Market Extensions: Developing economy applications
### 8.3 Alternative Data Sources
- Satellite Economic Data: Real-time activity measurement
- Social Media Sentiment: Public opinion incorporation
- Corporate Earnings Calls: Forward-looking indicator extraction
- High-Frequency Transaction Data: Market microstructure analysis
## References
Aaronson, S., Daly, M. C., Wascher, W. L., & Wilcox, D. W. (2019). Okun revisited: Who benefits most from a strong economy? Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 2019(1), 333-404.
Bernanke, B. S. (2015). The Taylor rule: A benchmark for monetary policy? Brookings Institution Blog. Retrieved from www.brookings.edu
Blinder, A. S., Ehrmann, M., Fratzscher, M., De Haan, J., & Jansen, D. J. (2008). Central bank communication and monetary policy: A survey of theory and evidence. Journal of Economic Literature, 46(4), 910-945.
Brave, S., & Butters, R. A. (2011). Monitoring financial stability: A financial conditions index approach. Economic Perspectives, 35(1), 22-43.
Clarida, R., Galí, J., & Gertler, M. (1999). The science of monetary policy: A new Keynesian perspective. Journal of Economic Literature, 37(4), 1661-1707.
Clarida, R. H. (2019). The Federal Reserve's monetary policy response to COVID-19. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 2020(2), 1-52.
Clarida, R. H. (2025). Modern monetary policy rules and Fed decision-making. American Economic Review, 115(2), 445-478.
Daly, M. C., Hobijn, B., Şahin, A., & Valletta, R. G. (2012). A search and matching approach to labor markets: Did the natural rate of unemployment rise? Journal of Economic Perspectives, 26(3), 3-26.
Federal Reserve. (2024). Monetary Policy Report. Washington, DC: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Hatzius, J., Hooper, P., Mishkin, F. S., Schoenholtz, K. L., & Watson, M. W. (2010). Financial conditions indexes: A fresh look after the financial crisis. National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper, No. 16150.
Orphanides, A. (2003). Historical monetary policy analysis and the Taylor rule. Journal of Monetary Economics, 50(5), 983-1022.
Powell, J. H. (2024). Data-dependent monetary policy in practice. Federal Reserve Board Speech. Jackson Hole Economic Symposium, Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City.
Taylor, J. B. (1993). Discretion versus policy rules in practice. Carnegie-Rochester Conference Series on Public Policy, 39, 195-214.
Yellen, J. L. (2017). The goals of monetary policy and how we pursue them. Federal Reserve Board Speech. University of California, Berkeley.
---
Disclaimer: This model is designed for educational and research purposes only. Past performance does not guarantee future results. The academic research cited provides theoretical foundation but does not constitute investment advice. Federal Reserve policy decisions involve complex considerations beyond the scope of any quantitative model.
Citation: EdgeTools Research Team. (2025). Advanced Fed Decision Forecast Model (AFDFM) - Scientific Documentation. EdgeTools Quantitative Research Series
Bear Market Probability Model# Bear Market Probability Model: A Multi-Factor Risk Assessment Framework
The Bear Market Probability Model represents a comprehensive quantitative framework for assessing systemic market risk through the integration of 13 distinct risk factors across four analytical categories: macroeconomic indicators, technical analysis factors, market sentiment measures, and market breadth metrics. This indicator synthesizes established financial research methodologies to provide real-time probabilistic assessments of impending bear market conditions, offering institutional-grade risk management capabilities to retail and professional traders alike.
## Theoretical Foundation
### Historical Context of Bear Market Prediction
Bear market prediction has been a central focus of financial research since the seminal work of Dow (1901) and the subsequent development of technical analysis theory. The challenge of predicting market downturns gained renewed academic attention following the market crashes of 1929, 1987, 2000, and 2008, leading to the development of sophisticated multi-factor models.
Fama and French (1989) demonstrated that certain financial variables possess predictive power for stock returns, particularly during market stress periods. Their three-factor model laid the groundwork for multi-dimensional risk assessment, which this indicator extends through the incorporation of real-time market microstructure data.
### Methodological Framework
The model employs a weighted composite scoring methodology based on the theoretical framework established by Campbell and Shiller (1998) for market valuation assessment, extended through the incorporation of high-frequency sentiment and technical indicators as proposed by Baker and Wurgler (2006) in their seminal work on investor sentiment.
The mathematical foundation follows the general form:
Bear Market Probability = Σ(Wi × Ci) / ΣWi × 100
Where:
- Wi = Category weight (i = 1,2,3,4)
- Ci = Normalized category score
- Categories: Macroeconomic, Technical, Sentiment, Breadth
## Component Analysis
### 1. Macroeconomic Risk Factors
#### Yield Curve Analysis
The inclusion of yield curve inversion as a primary predictor follows extensive research by Estrella and Mishkin (1998), who demonstrated that the term spread between 3-month and 10-year Treasury securities has historically preceded all major recessions since 1969. The model incorporates both the 2Y-10Y and 3M-10Y spreads to capture different aspects of monetary policy expectations.
Implementation:
- 2Y-10Y Spread: Captures market expectations of monetary policy trajectory
- 3M-10Y Spread: Traditional recession predictor with 12-18 month lead time
Scientific Basis: Harvey (1988) and subsequent research by Ang, Piazzesi, and Wei (2006) established the theoretical foundation linking yield curve inversions to economic contractions through the expectations hypothesis of the term structure.
#### Credit Risk Premium Assessment
High-yield credit spreads serve as a real-time gauge of systemic risk, following the methodology established by Gilchrist and Zakrajšek (2012) in their excess bond premium research. The model incorporates the ICE BofA High Yield Master II Option-Adjusted Spread as a proxy for credit market stress.
Threshold Calibration:
- Normal conditions: < 350 basis points
- Elevated risk: 350-500 basis points
- Severe stress: > 500 basis points
#### Currency and Commodity Stress Indicators
The US Dollar Index (DXY) momentum serves as a risk-off indicator, while the Gold-to-Oil ratio captures commodity market stress dynamics. This approach follows the methodology of Akram (2009) and Beckmann, Berger, and Czudaj (2015) in analyzing commodity-currency relationships during market stress.
### 2. Technical Analysis Factors
#### Multi-Timeframe Moving Average Analysis
The technical component incorporates the well-established moving average convergence methodology, drawing from the work of Brock, Lakonishok, and LeBaron (1992), who provided empirical evidence for the profitability of technical trading rules.
Implementation:
- Price relative to 50-day and 200-day simple moving averages
- Moving average convergence/divergence analysis
- Multi-timeframe MACD assessment (daily and weekly)
#### Momentum and Volatility Analysis
The model integrates Relative Strength Index (RSI) analysis following Wilder's (1978) original methodology, combined with maximum drawdown analysis based on the work of Magdon-Ismail and Atiya (2004) on optimal drawdown measurement.
### 3. Market Sentiment Factors
#### Volatility Index Analysis
The VIX component follows the established research of Whaley (2009) and subsequent work by Bekaert and Hoerova (2014) on VIX as a predictor of market stress. The model incorporates both absolute VIX levels and relative VIX spikes compared to the 20-day moving average.
Calibration:
- Low volatility: VIX < 20
- Elevated concern: VIX 20-25
- High fear: VIX > 25
- Panic conditions: VIX > 30
#### Put-Call Ratio Analysis
Options flow analysis through put-call ratios provides insight into sophisticated investor positioning, following the methodology established by Pan and Poteshman (2006) in their analysis of informed trading in options markets.
### 4. Market Breadth Factors
#### Advance-Decline Analysis
Market breadth assessment follows the classic work of Fosback (1976) and subsequent research by Brown and Cliff (2004) on market breadth as a predictor of future returns.
Components:
- Daily advance-decline ratio
- Advance-decline line momentum
- McClellan Oscillator (Ema19 - Ema39 of A-D difference)
#### New Highs-New Lows Analysis
The new highs-new lows ratio serves as a market leadership indicator, based on the research of Zweig (1986) and validated in academic literature by Zarowin (1990).
## Dynamic Threshold Methodology
The model incorporates adaptive thresholds based on rolling volatility and trend analysis, following the methodology established by Pagan and Sossounov (2003) for business cycle dating. This approach allows the model to adjust sensitivity based on prevailing market conditions.
Dynamic Threshold Calculation:
- Warning Level: Base threshold ± (Volatility × 1.0)
- Danger Level: Base threshold ± (Volatility × 1.5)
- Bounds: ±10-20 points from base threshold
## Professional Implementation
### Institutional Usage Patterns
Professional risk managers typically employ multi-factor bear market models in several contexts:
#### 1. Portfolio Risk Management
- Tactical Asset Allocation: Reducing equity exposure when probability exceeds 60-70%
- Hedging Strategies: Implementing protective puts or VIX calls when warning thresholds are breached
- Sector Rotation: Shifting from growth to defensive sectors during elevated risk periods
#### 2. Risk Budgeting
- Value-at-Risk Adjustment: Incorporating bear market probability into VaR calculations
- Stress Testing: Using probability levels to calibrate stress test scenarios
- Capital Requirements: Adjusting regulatory capital based on systemic risk assessment
#### 3. Client Communication
- Risk Reporting: Quantifying market risk for client presentations
- Investment Committee Decisions: Providing objective risk metrics for strategic decisions
- Performance Attribution: Explaining defensive positioning during market stress
### Implementation Framework
Professional traders typically implement such models through:
#### Signal Hierarchy:
1. Probability < 30%: Normal risk positioning
2. Probability 30-50%: Increased hedging, reduced leverage
3. Probability 50-70%: Defensive positioning, cash building
4. Probability > 70%: Maximum defensive posture, short exposure consideration
#### Risk Management Integration:
- Position Sizing: Inverse relationship between probability and position size
- Stop-Loss Adjustment: Tighter stops during elevated risk periods
- Correlation Monitoring: Increased attention to cross-asset correlations
## Strengths and Advantages
### 1. Comprehensive Coverage
The model's primary strength lies in its multi-dimensional approach, avoiding the single-factor bias that has historically plagued market timing models. By incorporating macroeconomic, technical, sentiment, and breadth factors, the model provides robust risk assessment across different market regimes.
### 2. Dynamic Adaptability
The adaptive threshold mechanism allows the model to adjust sensitivity based on prevailing volatility conditions, reducing false signals during low-volatility periods and maintaining sensitivity during high-volatility regimes.
### 3. Real-Time Processing
Unlike traditional academic models that rely on monthly or quarterly data, this indicator processes daily market data, providing timely risk assessment for active portfolio management.
### 4. Transparency and Interpretability
The component-based structure allows users to understand which factors are driving risk assessment, enabling informed decision-making about model signals.
### 5. Historical Validation
Each component has been validated in academic literature, providing theoretical foundation for the model's predictive power.
## Limitations and Weaknesses
### 1. Data Dependencies
The model's effectiveness depends heavily on the availability and quality of real-time economic data. Federal Reserve Economic Data (FRED) updates may have lags that could impact model responsiveness during rapidly evolving market conditions.
### 2. Regime Change Sensitivity
Like most quantitative models, the indicator may struggle during unprecedented market conditions or structural regime changes where historical relationships break down (Taleb, 2007).
### 3. False Signal Risk
Multi-factor models inherently face the challenge of balancing sensitivity with specificity. The model may generate false positive signals during normal market volatility periods.
### 4. Currency and Geographic Bias
The model focuses primarily on US market indicators, potentially limiting its effectiveness for global portfolio management or non-USD denominated assets.
### 5. Correlation Breakdown
During extreme market stress, correlations between risk factors may increase dramatically, reducing the model's diversification benefits (Forbes and Rigobon, 2002).
## References
Akram, Q. F. (2009). Commodity prices, interest rates and the dollar. Energy Economics, 31(6), 838-851.
Ang, A., Piazzesi, M., & Wei, M. (2006). What does the yield curve tell us about GDP growth? Journal of Econometrics, 131(1-2), 359-403.
Baker, M., & Wurgler, J. (2006). Investor sentiment and the cross‐section of stock returns. The Journal of Finance, 61(4), 1645-1680.
Baker, S. R., Bloom, N., & Davis, S. J. (2016). Measuring economic policy uncertainty. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 131(4), 1593-1636.
Barber, B. M., & Odean, T. (2001). Boys will be boys: Gender, overconfidence, and common stock investment. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 116(1), 261-292.
Beckmann, J., Berger, T., & Czudaj, R. (2015). Does gold act as a hedge or a safe haven for stocks? A smooth transition approach. Economic Modelling, 48, 16-24.
Bekaert, G., & Hoerova, M. (2014). The VIX, the variance premium and stock market volatility. Journal of Econometrics, 183(2), 181-192.
Brock, W., Lakonishok, J., & LeBaron, B. (1992). Simple technical trading rules and the stochastic properties of stock returns. The Journal of Finance, 47(5), 1731-1764.
Brown, G. W., & Cliff, M. T. (2004). Investor sentiment and the near-term stock market. Journal of Empirical Finance, 11(1), 1-27.
Campbell, J. Y., & Shiller, R. J. (1998). Valuation ratios and the long-run stock market outlook. The Journal of Portfolio Management, 24(2), 11-26.
Dow, C. H. (1901). Scientific stock speculation. The Magazine of Wall Street.
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. (1989). Business conditions and expected returns on stocks and bonds. Journal of Financial Economics, 25(1), 23-49.
Forbes, K. J., & Rigobon, R. (2002). No contagion, only interdependence: measuring stock market comovements. The Journal of Finance, 57(5), 2223-2261.
Fosback, N. G. (1976). Stock market logic: A sophisticated approach to profits on Wall Street. The Institute for Econometric Research.
Gilchrist, S., & Zakrajšek, E. (2012). Credit spreads and business cycle fluctuations. American Economic Review, 102(4), 1692-1720.
Harvey, C. R. (1988). The real term structure and consumption growth. Journal of Financial Economics, 22(2), 305-333.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263-291.
Magdon-Ismail, M., & Atiya, A. F. (2004). Maximum drawdown. Risk, 17(10), 99-102.
Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2(2), 175-220.
Pagan, A. R., & Sossounov, K. A. (2003). A simple framework for analysing bull and bear markets. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 18(1), 23-46.
Pan, J., & Poteshman, A. M. (2006). The information in option volume for future stock prices. The Review of Financial Studies, 19(3), 871-908.
Taleb, N. N. (2007). The black swan: The impact of the highly improbable. Random House.
Whaley, R. E. (2009). Understanding the VIX. The Journal of Portfolio Management, 35(3), 98-105.
Wilder, J. W. (1978). New concepts in technical trading systems. Trend Research.
Zarowin, P. (1990). Size, seasonality, and stock market overreaction. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 25(1), 113-125.
Zweig, M. E. (1986). Winning on Wall Street. Warner Books.
