Multi Indicators- MA, EMA, MA Cross, Parabolic SarMulti Indicators
- 3 Simple Moving Average
- 3 Exp Moving Average
- Cross of Moving Averages
- Parabolic SAR
In den Scripts nach "indicators" suchen
All indicators in one!All indicators in one!
Hull MA (2 colors) + Bollinger Bands + 6 EMA + 50 SMA + 200 SMA + Parabolic SAR + SUPER TREND (2 colors) + Doji signals (yellow)
EMA Indicators with BUY sell SignalCombine 3 EMA indicators into 1. Buy and Sell signal is based on
- Buy signal based on 20 Days Highest High resistance
- Sell signal based on 10 Days Lowest Low support
Input :-
1 - Short EMA (20), Mid EMA (50) and Long EMA (200)
2 - Resistance (20) = 20 Days Highest High line
3 - Support (10) = 10 Days Lowest Low line
Volume Flow Indicator [LazyBear]VFI,introduced by Markos Katsanos, is based on the popular On Balance Volume (OBV) but with three very important modifications:
* Unlike the OBV, indicator values are no longer meaningless. Positive readings are bullish and negative bearish.
* The calculation is based on the day's median (typical price) instead of the closing price.
* A volatility threshold takes into account minimal price changes and another threshold eliminates excessive volume.
A simplified interpretation of the VFI is:
* Values above zero indicate a bullish state and the crossing of the zero line is the trigger or buy signal.
* The strongest signal with all money flow indicators is of course divergence.
I have exposed options to plot a signal EMA. All parameters are configurable.
Markos suggests using 0.2 coeff for day trading and 0.1 for intra-day.
More info:
www.precisiontradingsystems.com
Indicator: Relative Volume Indicator & Freedom Of MovementRelative Volume Indicator
------------------------------
RVI is a support-resistance technical indicator developed by Melvin E. Dickover. Unlike many conventional support and resistance indicators, the Relative Volume Indicator takes into account price-volume behavior in order to detect the supply and demand pools. These pools are marked by "Defended Price Lines" (DPLs), also introduced by the author.
RVI is usually plotted as a histogram; its bars are highlighted (black, by default) when the volume is unusually large. According to the author, this happens if the indicator value exceeds 2.0, thus signifying that a possible DPL is present.
DPLs are horizontal lines that run across the chart at levels defined by following conditions:
* Overlapping bars: If the indicator spike (i.e., indicator is above 2.0 or a custom value)
corresponds to a price bar overlapping the previous one, the previous close can be used as the
DPL value.
* Very large bars: If the indicator spike corresponds to a price bar of a large size, use its
close price as the DPL value.
* Gapping bars: If the indicator spike corresponds to a price bar gapping from the previous bar,
the DPL value will depend on the gap size. Small gaps can be ignored: the author suggests using
the previous close as the DPL value. When the gap is big, the close of the latter bar is used
instead.
* Clustering spikes: If the indicator spikes come in clusters, use the extreme close or open
price of the bar corresponding to the last or next to last spike in cluster.
DPLs can be used as support and resistance levels. In order confirm and refine them, RVI is used along with the FreedomOfMovement indicator discussed next.
Freedom of Movement Indicator
------------------------------
FOM is a support-resistance technical indicator, also by Melvin E. Dickover. FOM is the ratio of relative effect (relative price change) to the relative effort (normalized volume), expressed in standard deviations. This value is plotted as a histogram; its bars are highlighted (black, by default( when this ratio is unusually high. These highlighted bars, or "spikes", define the positioning of the DPLs.
Suggestions for placing DPLs are the same as for the Relative Volume Indicator discussed above.
Note that clustering spikes provide the strongest DPLs while isolated spikes can be used to confirm and refine those provided by the Relative Volume Indicator. Coincidence of spikes of the two indicator can be considered a sign of greater strength of the DPL.
More info:
S&C magazine, April 2014.
I am still trying these on various instruments to understand the workings more. Don't forget to share what you learn -- any use cases / ideal scenarios / gotchas, would love to hear them all.
3 new Indicators - PGO / RAVI / TIIMy "to-publish" list is getting too big, so decided to push out 3 indicators in the same chart
Feel free to "make mine" and use :) Leave a comment on what you think.
Pretty Good Oscillator
----------------------------------------
This indicator, by Mark Johnson, measures the distance of the current close from its N-day simple moving average, expressed in terms of an average true range (see Average True Range) over a similar period. So for instance a PGO value of +2.5 would mean the current close is 2.5 average days' range above the SMA.
Johnson's approach was to use it as a breakout system for longer term trades. If the PGO rises above 3.0 then go long, or below -3.0 then go short, and in both cases exit on returning to zero (which is a close back at the SMA). Indicator marks all these areas (3/-3/0)
Rapid Adaptive Variance Indicator
---------------------------------------------------------
RAVI is a simple indicator, by Tushar Chande, to show whether a stock is trending or not. Unlike ADX, RAVI measures only the trend intensity, it doesn't distinguish which way the trend is going. Rising RAVI shows the beginning of a trend or an increase in trend intensity, a decreasing slope signifies decreasing intensity. Also, RAVI often reacts more quickly and exhibits a more pronounced curve than ADX.
The standard values for daily charts are 7 and 65. For hourly charts, the most common averaging periods are 12 and 72 or 24 and 120.
The signal lines suggested are from +/- 0.3% to +/-1%. I haven't added any markings as these signals are instrument-specific. I suggest doing some back testing and adding these accordingly.
Trend Intensity Index
--------------------------------------
TII, by M. H. Pee, measures the strength of a trend, by looking at what proportion of the past "n" days prices have been above or below the level of today's "x"-day simple moving average. You can configure "n" via options page. "x" is calculated as "2 times n".
TII moves between 0 and 100. A strong uptrend is indicated when TII is above 80. A strong downtrend is indicated when TII is below 20.
Pee recommended entering trades when levels of 80 on the upside or 20 on the downside are reached. Indicator marks these lines for easy reference.
[2022]Volume Flow v3 with alertsIndicators are an essential part of technical analysis of cryptocurrency. Their main function is to predict market direction based on historic price, cryptocurrency volume and other information. There are several types of crypto indicators illustrating various parameters (trend, volatility, volume, momentum, etc.) but in this article we will look at volume indicators.
Volume indicators demonstrate changing of trading volume over time. This information is very useful as crypto trading volume displays how strong the current trend is. For example, if the price goes up and the volume is high then the trend is strong and will more likely last longer. There are various volume indicators, but we’ll talk about the most popular ones, such as:
On Balance Volume
Accumulation/Distribution Line
Money Flow Index
Chaikin Oscillator
Chaikin Money Flow
Ease of Movement
Gold Option Signals with EMA and RSIIndicators:
Exponential Moving Averages (EMAs): Faster to respond to recent price changes compared to simple moving averages.
RSI: Measures the magnitude of recent price changes to evaluate overbought or oversold conditions.
Signal Generation:
Buy Call Signal: Generated when the short EMA crosses above the long EMA and the RSI is not overbought (below 70).
Buy Put Signal: Generated when the short EMA crosses below the long EMA and the RSI is not oversold (above 30).
Plotting:
EMAs: Plotted on the chart to visualize trend directions.
Signals: Plotted as shapes on the chart where conditions are met.
RSI Background Color: Changes to red for overbought and green for oversold conditions.
Steps to Use:
Add the Script to TradingView:
Open TradingView, go to the Pine Script editor, paste the script, save it, and add it to your chart.
Interpret the Signals:
Buy Call Signal: Look for green labels below the price bars.
Buy Put Signal: Look for red labels above the price bars.
Customize Parameters:
Adjust the input parameters (e.g., lengths of EMAs, RSI levels) to better fit your trading strategy and market conditions.
Testing and Validation
To ensure that the script works as expected, you can test it on historical data and validate the signals against known price movements. Adjust the parameters if necessary to improve the accuracy of the signals.
CCI-RSI MR Indicators:
Bollinger Bands (20 period, 2σ)
RSI (14 period) and Simple moving average of RSI (5 period)
CCI (20 period)
SMA (5 period)
Entry Conditions:
Buy when:
Swing low (5) should be lower than the highest of lower BB (3 periods)
Both RSI crossover RSI_5 and CCI crossover -100 should have happened within last 3 candles (including the current candle)
Once all the above conditions are met, the close should be higher than SMA (5) within the next 3 candles
After condition 3 is satisfied, we enter the trade at next candle’s open
Stop loss will be at 1 tick lower than previous swing low
Sell when:
Swing high (5) should be higher than the lowest of upper BB (3 periods)
Both RSI crossunder RSI_5 and CCI crossunder 100 should have happened within last 3 candles (including the current candle)
Once all the above conditions are met, the close should be lower than SMA (5) within the next 3 candles
After condition 3 is satisfied, we enter the trade at next candle’s open
Stop loss will be at 1 tick higher than previous swing high
Exit Conditions:
Since it’s mean reversion strategy we’ll be having only 2 target exits with a trailing stop loss after target price 1 is achieved.
Target exit price 1 & 2 are decided based on the risk ‘R’ for each trade
Depending on the instrument and time frame a trailing stop loss of 0.5R or 1R has opted.
A stop limit is placed @Entry_price +- 2*ATR(20) to offset the risk of losing significantly more than 1xR in a trade
Gaussian Acceleration ArrayIndicators play a role in analyzing price action, trends, and potential reversals. Among many of these, velocity and acceleration have held a significant place due to their ability to provide insight into momentum and rate of change. This indicator takes the old calculation and tweaks it with gaussian smoothing and logarithmic function to ensure proper scaling.
A Brief on Velocity and Acceleration: The concept of velocity in trading refers to the speed at which price changes over time, while acceleration is the rate of change(ROC) of velocity. Early momentum indicators like the RSI and MACD laid foundation for understanding price velocity. However, as markets evolve so do we as technical analysts, we seek the most advanced tools.
The Acceleration/Deceleration Oscillator, introduced by Bill Williams, was one of the early attempts to measure acceleration. It helped gauge whether the market was gaining or losing momentum. Over time more specific tools like the "Awesome Oscillator"(AO) emerged, which has a set length on the datasets measured.
Gaussian Functions: Named after the mathematician Carl Friedrich Gauss, the Gaussian function describes a bell-shaped curve, often referred to as the "normal distribution." In trading these functions are applied to smooth data and reduce noise, focusing on underlying patterns.
The Gaussian Acceleration Array leverages this function to create a smoothed representation of market acceleration.
How does it work?
This indicator calculates acceleration based the highs and lows of each dataset
Once the weighted average for velocity is determined, its rate of change essentially becomes the acceleration
It then plots multiple lines with customizable variance from the primary selected length
Practical Tips:
The Gaussian Acceleration Array offers various customizable parameters, including the sample period, smoothing function, and array variance. Experiment with these settings to tailor it to preferred timeframes and styles.
The color-coded lines and background zones make it easier to interpret the indicator at a glance. The backgrounds indicate increasing or decreasing momentum simply as a visual aid while the lines state how the velocity average is performing. Combining this with other tools can signal shifts in market dynamics.
Parabolic Scalp Take Profit[ChartPrime]Indicators can be a great way to signal when the optimal time is for taking profits. However, many indicators are lagging in nature and will get market participants out of their trades at less than optimal price points. This take profit indicator uses the concept of slope and exponential gain to calculate when the optimal time is to take profits on your trades, thus making this a leading indicator.
Usage:
In essence the indicator will draw a parabolic line that starts from the market participants entry point and exponentially grows the slope of the line eventually intersecting with the price action. When price intersects with the parabolic line a take profit signal will appear in the form of an x. We have found that this take profit indicator is especially useful for scalp trades on lower timeframes.
How To Use:
Add the indicator to the chart. Click on the candle which the trade is on. Click on either the price which the trade will be at, or at the bottom of the candle in a long, or the top of a candle in a short. Select long or short. Open the settings of the indicator and adjust the aggressiveness to the desired value.
Settings:
- Start Time -- This is the bar in which your entry will be at, or occured at and the script will ask you to click on the bar with your mouse upon first adding the script.
- Start Price -- This is the price in which the entry will be at, or was at and the script will ask you to click on the price with your mouse upon first adding the script.
- Long/Short -- This is a setting which lets the script know if it is a long or a short trade, and the script will ask you to confirm this upon first adding it to the chart.
- Aggressiveness -- This directly affects how aggressive the exponential curve is. A value of 101 is the lowest possible setting, indicating a very non-aggressive exponential buildup. A value of 200 is the highest and most aggressive setting, indicating a doubling effect per bar on the slope.
Pre-Market PillarsIndicators that displays where to enter and exit on pre market and low cap stocks.
Inspired by Ross Cameron strategy.
Alson Chew PAM EXE and Mother BarIndicators for strategies taught by Alson Chew's Price Action Manipulation (PAM) course
Two functions.
First it identifies EXE bars (Pin, Mark, Icecream bars).
Second it identifies Mother bars and draws an extension line for 6 bars.
Applicable to all time frames and can customise how many signals to show.
To be used in conjunction with trading strategies like
- 20 SMA, 50 SMA, 200 SMA FS formation
- Force Bottom, Force Top FS formation
- UR1 and DR1 using EXE Bar
Indicators OverviewThis Indicator help you to see whether the price is above or below vwap, supertrend. Also you can see realtime RSI value.
You can add upto 15 stock of your choice.
Bear Power Indicator Hi
Let me introduce my Bear Power Indicator script.
To get more information please see "Bull And Bear Balance Indicator"
by Vadim Gimelfarb.
Universal Strategy Adapter - Connect Anything, Backtest EverythiDescription The Universal Strategy Adapter is a powerful utility that allows you to turn ANY indicator into a backtestable strategy without writing a single line of code. Whether you want to trade based on a simple crossover, a specific threshold, or complex multi-indicator confluence, this adapter handles the logic, execution, and risk management for you.
Key Features
Connect Up To 8 Indicators Plug in up to 8 different data sources using the input.source dropdowns. Mix and match indicators (e.g., RSI + MACD + Moving Average).
Advanced Logic Engine Mandatory vs. Optional : Distinct "Must Have" signals vs. "Nice to Have" confluence. Min Optionals Required : Require at least X optional indicators to fire before taking a trade. Lookback Persistence : Solves the "Sync" problem. If Indicator A fires on candle 1 and Indicator B fires on candle 3, the Lookback window ensures they still count as a confluence setup.
Flexible Conditions For each slot, choose how the signal is interpreted: Signal (!= 0) : Best for "Event" indicators like Golden Dots or Alerts. Price > Source : Trend Filters (e.g., Price above EMA 200). Source > Threshold : Value filters (e.g., RSI > 50). Rising / Falling : Momentum filters (e.g., RSI is trending up compared to 12 bars ago).
Risk Management & Cooldown Built-in Stop Loss and Take Profit (%) settings. Trade Cooldown : Prevent "Machine Gun" trades by enforcing a wait period after each entry.
How To Use Add your favorite indicators to the chart (e.g., "VuManChu Cipher B" and "EMA 200"). Add Universal Strategy Adapter to the chart. Open Settings > Inputs. Slot 1 (Trigger) : Source : Select the "Buy Signal" or "Golden Dot" plot from the first indicator. Condition : Signal (!= 0) Role : Mandatory Slot 2 (Filter) : Source : Select the "EMA 200" plot. Condition : Price > Source (Trades only taken when price is above EMA). Role : Mandatory Adjust SL/TP and Backtest Range as needed.
Why Use This? TradingView strategies are often hardcoded to specific indicators. This script breaks that barrier, giving you a universal "Container" to drop any logic into and see the raw backtest results immediately.
Neeson Volatility Adaptive Tracker ProVolatility Adaptive Tracker Pro: A Comprehensive Multi-Method Trading System
Executive Summary
The Volatility Adaptive Tracker Pro (VAT Pro) represents a sophisticated fusion of proven technical analysis methodologies with innovative adaptations, creating a unique multi-signal trading system. Unlike single-purpose indicators, VAT Pro combines multiple analytical approaches into a unified framework that addresses the complex realities of modern financial markets. This system is designed for traders who recognize that no single method consistently outperforms, and that market conditions require adaptive, multi-faceted approaches.
Original Innovations: What Sets VAT Pro Apart
1. Hybrid Volatility Measurement System
Most volatility indicators fall into two categories: those based on standard deviation (like Bollinger Bands) or those based on average true range (ATR). VAT Pro introduces a third approach: a weighted volatility measurement system that gives greater importance to recent price movements while maintaining sensitivity to overall market conditions. This creates a dynamic volatility assessment that adapts more responsively to changing market environments than conventional methods.
2. Dual-Layer Signal Architecture
While most indicators generate single-type signals, VAT Pro implements a tiered signaling system that distinguishes between:
Primary trend-following signals (based on price crossing adaptive volatility bands)
Secondary volume-confirmed signals (requiring both price movement and exceptional volume)
This dual-layer approach recognizes that not all market moves have equal significance, and that volume confirmation often signals more substantial moves worthy of special attention.
3. State-Based Logic with Memory
Conventional indicators typically generate signals independently on each bar. VAT Pro introduces persistent state tracking that maintains awareness of whether the market is currently in a bullish, bearish, or neutral condition. This prevents signal redundancy, reduces false signals, and provides valuable context for interpreting current market conditions.
What VAT Pro Does: Comprehensive Market Analysis
Primary Functions
Trend Identification: Detects transitions between bullish and bearish market conditions using multiple confirmation criteria.
Volume Analysis: Identifies exceptional trading activity that often precedes or confirms significant price movements.
Volatility Assessment: Continuously measures market volatility and adjusts sensitivity parameters accordingly.
Visual Context Provision: Uses color-coded price bars, trend lines, and clear signal markers to provide immediate visual feedback.
Multi-Timeframe Compatibility: Functions effectively across various trading timeframes from intraday to positional trading.
Implementation Methodology: The Technical Framework
Core Analytical Approaches
Among the hundreds of available technical analysis methods, VAT Pro specifically implements and integrates:
A. Adaptive Volatility Channel System
This approach modifies the traditional volatility channel concept by:
Using weighted moving averages for volatility calculation rather than simple or exponential averages
Implementing asymmetric response to upward versus downward volatility
Maintaining dynamic channel width that adjusts based on recent market conditions
The system falls within the broader category of volatility-adjusted trend following but introduces unique adaptations that improve responsiveness while maintaining stability.
B. Volume-Price Confirmation Method
Within volume analysis, VAT Pro specifically employs:
Threshold-based volume spike detection (volume exceeding moving average by specified multiples)
Price-direction confirmation (requiring price movement in the expected direction)
Contextual filtering (only considering volume signals in specific market conditions)
This represents a specific implementation within the volume confirmation family of methods, distinguished by its customizable thresholds and filtering logic.
C. Trailing Stop with Adaptive Positioning
The system implements a specific variant of trailing stop methodology characterized by:
State-dependent positioning (different logic for trending versus ranging markets)
Volatility-adjusted distance (stop levels adapt to current market conditions)
Memory of previous positions (the system "remembers" previous trend states)
This approach represents an advanced form of trailing stop placement that combines elements of volatility adjustment with trend state awareness.
Calculation Philosophy: The Core Principles
1. Weighted Response Philosophy
VAT Pro operates on the principle that recent market action should have greater influence than distant history, but not to the exclusion of broader context. This is implemented through custom weighting algorithms that balance responsiveness with stability.
2. Multi-Factor Confirmation Principle
The system is built on the premise that multiple confirming factors (price action, volume, volatility) provide more reliable signals than single-factor approaches. This represents a practical implementation of convergence/divergence analysis across different market dimensions.
3. State Transition Logic
Rather than viewing each bar in isolation, VAT Pro analyzes sequences of price action to determine market states and state transitions. This recognizes that markets often move through identifiable phases (accumulation, trending, distribution, ranging) that require different analytical approaches.
4. Adaptive Sensitivity
The system automatically adjusts its sensitivity based on current market volatility, becoming more responsive in low-volatility conditions and more stable in high-volatility environments. This represents a practical implementation of volatility-adjusted trading logic.
Practical Application: How to Use VAT Pro
Initial Setup and Configuration
Parameter Customization: Begin with default settings, then adjust based on:
Your trading instrument's typical volatility characteristics
Your preferred trading timeframe
Your risk tolerance and trading style
Visual Configuration: Customize colors and display settings to match your charting preferences while maintaining clear signal visibility.
Trading Methodology Integration
VAT Pro supports multiple trading approaches:
For Trend Following:
Use primary signals when confirmed by overall market direction
Employ the adaptive line as a dynamic trailing stop
Monitor state transitions for trend continuation or reversal clues
For Breakout Trading:
Watch for high-volume signals at key price levels
Use volatility bands to identify potential breakout ranges
Employ volume confirmation to distinguish genuine breakouts from false moves
For Position Management:
Utilize the color-coded bar system for immediate trend awareness
Monitor multiple signal types for confirmation or warning signs
Adjust position sizes based on signal strength and market state
Signal Interpretation Framework
Primary Signal Interpretation:
Bullish signals suggest potential long opportunities
Bearish signals indicate potential short opportunities
Signal clustering often indicates stronger moves
Volume Signal Significance:
High-volume buy signals often precede sustained upward moves
High-volume sell signals frequently indicate distribution or panic selling
Volume signals without price confirmation require caution
Contextual Analysis:
Consider market state when interpreting signals
Evaluate signal strength based on recent volatility
Monitor multiple timeframes for confirmation
Performance Characteristics and Best Practices
Optimal Market Conditions
VAT Pro performs best in markets exhibiting:
Clear trending characteristics (for trend-following signals)
Occasional volatility expansions (for volume signals)
Reasonable liquidity (for accurate volume analysis)
Risk Management Integration
Use signal strength to adjust position sizing
Employ the adaptive line for stop-loss placement
Consider market state when determining risk levels
Complementary Tools
For best results, combine VAT Pro with:
Support and resistance analysis
Longer-term trend assessment
Fundamental analysis (for longer timeframes)
Market structure analysis
Conclusion: A Modern Multi-Method Approach
The Volatility Adaptive Tracker Pro represents a significant advancement in technical analysis tools by intelligently combining multiple proven methodologies into a coherent, adaptive system. Its original innovations in weighted volatility measurement, dual-layer signaling, and state-based logic address common limitations of conventional indicators while maintaining practical usability.
By specifically implementing adaptive volatility channels, volume-price confirmation, and state-aware trailing stops, VAT Pro provides traders with a comprehensive toolkit that adapts to changing market conditions while maintaining methodological rigor. This multi-method approach recognizes the complex reality of financial markets while providing clear, actionable signals based on sound technical principles.
Whether used as a primary trading system or as a confirming component within a broader strategy, VAT Pro offers sophisticated analytical capabilities in an accessible, visually intuitive format that supports informed trading decisions across various market conditions and timeframes.
Short-Term Weekly Refuges (Shelters)## // Introduction // (Spanish Texts Below)
═══════════════════════════
Short-Term Weekly Refuges (Shelters) (WR or RS) is a structural analysis indicator designed to track price action during the current week. It combines a configurable ZigZag with Fibonacci retracements anchored to recent phases, using the Weekly Opening Price (W.O.P.) as a key reference level.
This indicator is optimized for 4H timeframe but also works on 1H and 15min charts.
## // Theoretical Foundation of the Indicator //
═════════════════════════════════════════════════
The WR (RS) indicator provides a structural framework for following price action during the current trading week.
The core concept: Recent ZigZag phases, combined with the Weekly Opening Price, create dynamic support and resistance levels that institutional traders often monitor and use for intraweek positioning. The indicator allows you to select which recent phase (1-10) serves as the Fibonacci anchor.
## // Indicator Objectives //
═════════════════════════════
1) Display a configurable ZigZag showing recent price structure with numbered phases (1 = most recent). Users should configure the ZigZag parameters based on whether they are analyzing a Major Degree Pattern (larger swings, less noise) or a Minor Degree Pattern (smaller swings, more detail), following standard Elliott Wave terminology. Configure the ZigZag to match the degree of your analysis: use higher Depth values for Major Degree Patterns, or lower values for Minor Degree Patterns.
2) Draw Fibonacci retracements on a user-selected phase, with two modes:
• "On ZigZag": Traditional Fibonacci on the selected phase.
• "Relative to W.O.P.": Fibonacci from phase anchor (i0) to Weekly Opening Price.
3) Show Weekly Opening Price lines as horizontal references, with the current week's line extended into the future.
4) Provide Pivot Up/Down markers for additional confirmation of local highs and lows.
5) Support multiple simultaneous indicator loads with visual identifier labels to distinguish between different analysis degrees (e.g., "Major Degree Pattern" vs "Minor Degree Pattern").
6) Optional Embedded Indicator: Enable Intraday Shelters (RID) - percentage-based support/resistance levels calculated from the Daily Opening Price, useful for 1H and 15min trading.
## // Key Features //
═════════════════════
• **Flexible ZigZag**: Adjustable Depth, Deviation, and Backstep parameters to adapt to any asset's volatility and degree pattern.
• **Phase Selection**: Choose from the 10 most recent phases for Fibonacci anchoring.
• **Dual Fibonacci Modes**: Trace on the ZigZag phase itself, or relative to the Weekly Opening Price.
• **New Age Color Palette**: Professional Fibonacci color scheme used by old school experienced traders.
• **Weekly Opening Price (W.O.P.)**: Historical weekly opens plus current week projection.
• **"Show Only W.O.P." Mode**: Isolate just the Weekly Opening Price line for cleaner charts on non-4H timeframes.
• **Optional Intraday Shelters (RID)**: 11 percentage levels (±0.382%, ±1%, ±1.5%, ±2%, ±2.5%) based on Daily Opening Price.
• **Multi-Load Support**: Visual identifier tags and Large Label for running multiple indicator instances simultaneously.
## // Recommended Workflow //
═════════════════════════════
1) Load the indicator on a 4H chart.
2) Adjust ZigZag parameters (Depth, Deviation) until the phases match your visual analysis of recent price structure.
3) Select the phase you want to use as Fibonacci anchor (typically Phase 2, 3 or higher).
4) Choose Fibonacci mode: "On ZigZag" for phase analysis, or "Relative to W.O.P." for analysis based on weekly opening price context.
5) Monitor how price interacts with the Fibonacci levels and Weekly Opening Price throughout the week.
6) Optionally enable RID for intraday high precision order placements on 1H or 15min charts.
## // Integration with Other Refuge Indicators //
═════════════════════════════════════════════════
This indicator WR (RS) is part of our complete refuge-based analysis ecosystem:
• LTR (RLP) (Long-Term Refuges): For automatic determination of the predominant phase of a ZigZag, which institutional investors choose as the basis for a Fibo whose levels calculate the projection for order placement over the following months and years.
• LTRS (RLPS) (Simple Long-Term Refuges): Simplified version of LTR in which the known coordinates of the predominant phases (obtained with the LTR indicator) of up to five assets are easily captured for permanent long-term operation.
• WR (RS) (Short-Term Weekly Refuges): For short-term tactical analysis (4H, 1H) based on chosen phases of a ZigZag that define Fibo levels effective during the near past week(s).
• IDR (RID) (Intra-Day Refuges): For daily operations relying on intraday levels on timeframes of 1H or less. Ideal for scalping traders.
By combining LTR, LTRS, WR and IDR, you obtain a multi-level framework that allows you to operate with clarity at any time horizon, from intraday positions to investments spanning months and years.
## // Additional Notes //
═════════════════════════
1) Default parameters are optimized for volatile assets (crypto, tech stocks). For forex or less volatile instruments, consider reducing Deviation to 3-8%.
2) The "Phase in Development" (dashed line) shows the tentative current ZigZag segment that may still change as new bars form.
3) Due to TradingView's English-only publication rules, the complete Spanish version of this indicator with all tooltips and documentation will be available soon in our GitHub repository: aj-poolom-maasewal.
4) Bug reports, improvement proposals for the ZigZag generator, pattern determination, or Fibo composition, etc., will be greatly appreciated and taken into account for a future version. Best regards and happy hunting.
════════════════════════════════════════════════════
════════════════════════════════════════════════════
TEXTO EN ESPANIOL (Sin acentos ni enies para compatibilidad con TradingView)
════════════════════════════════════════════════════
## // Introduccion //
═════════════════════
Refugios Semanales (RS o WR) es un indicador de analisis estructural diseniado para seguir la accion del precio durante la semana en curso. Combina un ZigZag configurable con retrocesos de Fibonacci anclados a fases recientes, utilizando el Precio de Apertura Semanal (P.A.S.) como nivel de referencia clave.
Este indicador esta optimizado para temporalidad de 4H pero tambien funciona en graficos de 1H y 15min.
## // Fundamento Teorico del Indicador //
═════════════════════════════════════════
El indicador RS (WR) proporciona un marco estructural para seguir la accion del precio durante la semana de operacion actual.
El concepto central: Las fases recientes del ZigZag, combinadas con el Precio de Apertura Semanal, crean niveles dinamicos de soporte y resistencia que los operadores institucionales frecuentemente monitorean para su posicionamiento intrasemanal. El indicador permite seleccionar cual fase reciente (1-10) sirve como ancla del Fibonacci.
## // Objetivos del Indicador //
════════════════════════════════
1) Mostrar un ZigZag configurable con la estructura de precios reciente y fases numeradas (1 = mas reciente). Los usuarios deben configurar los parametros del ZigZag segun esten analizando una Pauta de Grado Mayor (oscilaciones mas amplias, menos ruido) o una Pauta de Grado Menor (oscilaciones mas pequenias, mas detalle), siguiendo la terminologia estandar de Ondas de Elliott. Configure el ZigZag para que coincida con el grado de su analisis: use valores de Profundidad mas altos para Pautas de Grado Mayor, o valores mas bajos para Pautas de Grado Menor.
2) Dibujar retrocesos de Fibonacci en una fase seleccionada por el usuario, con dos modos:
• "En el ZigZag": Fibonacci tradicional sobre la fase seleccionada.
• "Respecto al P.A.S.": Fibonacci desde el ancla de la fase (i0) hasta el Precio de Apertura Semanal.
3) Mostrar lineas del Precio de Apertura Semanal como referencias horizontales, con la linea de la semana actual extendida hacia el futuro.
4) Proporcionar marcadores de Pivote Arriba/Abajo para confirmacion adicional de maximos y minimos locales.
5) Soportar multiples cargas simultaneas del indicador con etiquetas identificadoras visuales para distinguir entre diferentes grados de analisis (ej: "Pauta de Grado Mayor" vs "Pauta de Grado Menor").
6) Indicador Integrado Opcional: Habilitar Refugios Intra-Diarios (RID) - niveles de soporte/resistencia basados en porcentajes calculados desde el Precio de Apertura Diaria, util para operacion en 1H y 15min.
## // Caracteristicas Principales //
════════════════════════════════════
• **ZigZag Flexible**: Parametros ajustables de Profundidad, Desviacion y Retroceso para adaptarse a la volatilidad y grado de pauta de cualquier activo.
• **Seleccion de Fase**: Elija entre las 10 fases mas recientes para el anclaje del Fibonacci.
• **Modos Duales de Fibonacci**: Trace sobre la fase del ZigZag, o relativo al Precio de Apertura Semanal.
• **Paleta de Colores New Age**: Esquema de colores profesional de Fibonacci usado por operadores institucionales de la vieja escuela.
• **Precio de Apertura Semanal (P.A.S.)**: Aperturas semanales historicas mas proyeccion de la semana actual.
• **Modo "Solo P.A.S."**: Aisla unicamente la linea del Precio de Apertura Semanal para graficos mas limpios en temporalidades distintas a 4H.
• **Refugios Intra-Diarios Opcionales (RID)**: 11 niveles porcentuales (±0.382%, ±1%, ±1.5%, ±2%, ±2.5%) basados en el Precio de Apertura Diaria.
• **Soporte Multi-Carga**: Etiquetas identificadoras visuales y Rotulo Grande para ejecutar multiples instancias del indicador simultaneamente.
## // Flujo de Trabajo Recomendado //
═════════════════════════════════════
1) Cargue el indicador en un grafico de 4H.
2) Ajuste los parametros del ZigZag (Profundidad, Desviacion) hasta que las fases coincidan con su analisis visual de la estructura de precios reciente.
3) Seleccione la fase que desea usar como ancla del Fibonacci (tipicamente Fase 2, 3 o superior).
4) Elija el modo de Fibonacci: "En el ZigZag" para analisis de fase, o "Respecto al P.A.S." para analisis basado en el contexto del precio de apertura semanal.
5) Monitoree como el precio interactua con los niveles de Fibonacci y el Precio de Apertura Semanal durante la semana.
6) Opcionalmente habilite RID para precision intradiaria en graficos de 1H o 15min.
## // Integracion con Otros Indicadores de Refugios //
══════════════════════════════════════════
RS (WR) es parte de nuestro ecosistema completo de analisis basado en refugios:
• RLP (LTR) (Refugios de Largo Plazo): Para determinacion automatica de la fase preponderante de un ZigZag, que los inversionistas institucionales eligen como base para un Fibo cuyos niveles calculan la proyeccion para colocacion de ordenes durante los meses y anios siguientes.
• RLPS (LTRS) (Refugios de Largo Plazo Simplificado): Version simplificada de RLP en la cual las coordenadas conocidas de las fases preponderantes (obtenidas con el indicador RLP) de uno o hasta cinco activos se capturan facilmente para operacion permanente de largo plazo.
• RS (WR) (Refugios Semanales de Corto Plazo): Para analisis tactico de corto plazo (4H, 1H) basado en fases elegidas de un ZigZag que definen niveles Fibo efectivos durante la(s) semana(s) pasada(s) reciente(s).
• RID (IDR) (Refugios Intra-Diarios): Para operaciones diarias basadas en niveles intradiarios en temporalidades de 1H o menos. Ideal para operadores de scalping.
Al combinar RLP, RLPS, RS y RID, obtiene un marco multinivel que le permite operar con claridad en cualquier horizonte temporal, desde posiciones intradiarias hasta inversiones que abarcan meses y anios.
## // Notas Adicionales //
══════════════════════════
1) Los parametros por defecto estan optimizados para activos volatiles (cripto, acciones tecnologicas). Para forex o instrumentos menos volatiles, considere reducir la Desviacion a 3-8%.
2) La "Fase en Desarrollo" (linea discontinua) muestra el segmento tentativo actual del ZigZag que aun puede cambiar conforme se formen nuevas barras.
3) Debido a las reglas de publicacion de TradingView (solo ingles), la version completa en espaniol de este indicador con todos los tooltips y documentacion estara disponible proximamente en nuestro repositorio de GitHub: aj-poolom-maasewal.
4) El reporte de cualquier error encontrado, propuestas de mejoras al generador de Zigzags, determinacion de pautas, o composicion del Fibo, etc., seran ampliamente agradecidas y tomadas en cuenta para una proxima version. Saludos y buena caceria.
══════════════════════════════════════════════════
Advanced Petroleum Market Model (APMM)Advanced Petroleum Market Model (APMM): A Multi-Factor Fundamental Analysis Framework for Oil Market Assessment
## 1. Introduction
The petroleum market represents one of the most complex and globally significant commodity markets, characterized by intricate supply-demand dynamics, geopolitical influences, and substantial price volatility (Hamilton, 2009). Traditional fundamental analysis approaches often struggle to synthesize the multitude of relevant indicators into actionable insights due to data heterogeneity, temporal misalignment, and subjective weighting schemes (Baumeister & Kilian, 2016).
The Advanced Petroleum Market Model addresses these limitations through a systematic, quantitative approach that integrates 16 verified fundamental indicators across five critical market dimensions. The model builds upon established financial engineering principles while incorporating petroleum-specific market dynamics and adaptive learning mechanisms.
## 2. Theoretical Framework
### 2.1 Market Efficiency and Information Integration
The model operates under the assumption of semi-strong market efficiency, where fundamental information is gradually incorporated into prices with varying degrees of lag (Fama, 1970). The petroleum market's unique characteristics, including storage costs, transportation constraints, and geopolitical risk premiums, create opportunities for fundamental analysis to provide predictive value (Kilian, 2009).
### 2.2 Multi-Factor Asset Pricing Theory
Drawing from Ross's (1976) Arbitrage Pricing Theory, the model treats petroleum prices as driven by multiple systematic risk factors. The five-factor decomposition (Supply, Inventory, Demand, Trade, Sentiment) represents economically meaningful sources of systematic risk in petroleum markets (Chen et al., 1986).
## 3. Methodology
### 3.1 Data Sources and Quality Framework
The model integrates 16 fundamental indicators sourced from verified TradingView economic data feeds:
Supply Indicators:
- US Oil Production (ECONOMICS:USCOP)
- US Oil Rigs Count (ECONOMICS:USCOR)
- API Crude Runs (ECONOMICS:USACR)
Inventory Indicators:
- US Crude Stock Changes (ECONOMICS:USCOSC)
- Cushing Stocks (ECONOMICS:USCCOS)
- API Crude Stocks (ECONOMICS:USCSC)
- API Gasoline Stocks (ECONOMICS:USGS)
- API Distillate Stocks (ECONOMICS:USDS)
Demand Indicators:
- Refinery Crude Runs (ECONOMICS:USRCR)
- Gasoline Production (ECONOMICS:USGPRO)
- Distillate Production (ECONOMICS:USDFP)
- Industrial Production Index (FRED:INDPRO)
Trade Indicators:
- US Crude Imports (ECONOMICS:USCOI)
- US Oil Exports (ECONOMICS:USOE)
- API Crude Imports (ECONOMICS:USCI)
- Dollar Index (TVC:DXY)
Sentiment Indicators:
- Oil Volatility Index (CBOE:OVX)
### 3.2 Data Quality Monitoring System
Following best practices in quantitative finance (Lopez de Prado, 2018), the model implements comprehensive data quality monitoring:
Data Quality Score = Σ(Individual Indicator Validity) / Total Indicators
Where validity is determined by:
- Non-null data availability
- Positive value validation
- Temporal consistency checks
### 3.3 Statistical Normalization Framework
#### 3.3.1 Z-Score Normalization
The model employs robust Z-score normalization as established by Sharpe (1994) for cross-indicator comparability:
Z_i,t = (X_i,t - μ_i) / σ_i
Where:
- X_i,t = Raw value of indicator i at time t
- μ_i = Sample mean of indicator i
- σ_i = Sample standard deviation of indicator i
Z-scores are capped at ±3 to mitigate outlier influence (Tukey, 1977).
#### 3.3.2 Percentile Rank Transformation
For intuitive interpretation, Z-scores are converted to percentile ranks following the methodology of Conover (1999):
Percentile_Rank = (Number of values < current_value) / Total_observations × 100
### 3.4 Exponential Smoothing Framework
Signal smoothing employs exponential weighted moving averages (Brown, 1963) with adaptive alpha parameter:
S_t = α × X_t + (1-α) × S_{t-1}
Where α = 2/(N+1) and N represents the smoothing period.
### 3.5 Dynamic Threshold Optimization
The model implements adaptive thresholds using Bollinger Band methodology (Bollinger, 1992):
Dynamic_Threshold = μ ± (k × σ)
Where k is the threshold multiplier adjusted for market volatility regime.
### 3.6 Composite Score Calculation
The fundamental score integrates component scores through weighted averaging:
Fundamental_Score = Σ(w_i × Score_i × Quality_i)
Where:
- w_i = Normalized component weight
- Score_i = Component fundamental score
- Quality_i = Data quality adjustment factor
## 4. Implementation Architecture
### 4.1 Adaptive Parameter Framework
The model incorporates regime-specific adjustments based on market volatility:
Volatility_Regime = σ_price / μ_price × 100
High volatility regimes (>25%) trigger enhanced weighting for inventory and sentiment components, reflecting increased market sensitivity to supply disruptions and psychological factors.
### 4.2 Data Synchronization Protocol
Given varying publication frequencies (daily, weekly, monthly), the model employs forward-fill synchronization to maintain temporal alignment across all indicators.
### 4.3 Quality-Adjusted Scoring
Component scores are adjusted for data quality to prevent degraded inputs from contaminating the composite signal:
Adjusted_Score = Raw_Score × Quality_Factor + 50 × (1 - Quality_Factor)
This formulation ensures that poor-quality data reverts toward neutral (50) rather than contributing noise.
## 5. Usage Guidelines and Best Practices
### 5.1 Configuration Recommendations
For Short-term Analysis (1-4 weeks):
- Lookback Period: 26 weeks
- Smoothing Length: 3-5 periods
- Confidence Period: 13 weeks
- Increase inventory and sentiment weights
For Medium-term Analysis (1-3 months):
- Lookback Period: 52 weeks
- Smoothing Length: 5-8 periods
- Confidence Period: 26 weeks
- Balanced component weights
For Long-term Analysis (3+ months):
- Lookback Period: 104 weeks
- Smoothing Length: 8-12 periods
- Confidence Period: 52 weeks
- Increase supply and demand weights
### 5.2 Signal Interpretation Framework
Bullish Signals (Score > 70):
- Fundamental conditions favor price appreciation
- Consider long positions or reduced short exposure
- Monitor for trend confirmation across multiple timeframes
Bearish Signals (Score < 30):
- Fundamental conditions suggest price weakness
- Consider short positions or reduced long exposure
- Evaluate downside protection strategies
Neutral Range (30-70):
- Mixed fundamental environment
- Favor range-bound or volatility strategies
- Wait for clearer directional signals
### 5.3 Risk Management Considerations
1. Data Quality Monitoring: Continuously monitor the data quality dashboard. Scores below 75% warrant increased caution.
2. Regime Awareness: Adjust position sizing based on volatility regime indicators. High volatility periods require reduced exposure.
3. Correlation Analysis: Monitor correlation with crude oil prices to validate model effectiveness.
4. Fundamental-Technical Divergence: Pay attention when fundamental signals diverge from technical indicators, as this may signal regime changes.
### 5.4 Alert System Optimization
Configure alerts conservatively to avoid false signals:
- Set alert threshold at 75+ for high-confidence signals
- Enable data quality warnings to maintain system integrity
- Use trend reversal alerts for early regime change detection
## 6. Model Validation and Performance Metrics
### 6.1 Statistical Validation
The model's statistical robustness is ensured through:
- Out-of-sample testing protocols
- Rolling window validation
- Bootstrap confidence intervals
- Regime-specific performance analysis
### 6.2 Economic Validation
Fundamental accuracy is validated against:
- Energy Information Administration (EIA) official reports
- International Energy Agency (IEA) market assessments
- Commercial inventory data verification
## 7. Limitations and Considerations
### 7.1 Model Limitations
1. Data Dependency: Model performance is contingent on data availability and quality from external sources.
2. US Market Focus: Primary data sources are US-centric, potentially limiting global applicability.
3. Lag Effects: Some fundamental indicators exhibit publication lags that may delay signal generation.
4. Regime Shifts: Structural market changes may require model recalibration.
### 7.2 Market Environment Considerations
The model is optimized for normal market conditions. During extreme events (e.g., geopolitical crises, pandemics), additional qualitative factors should be considered alongside quantitative signals.
## References
Baumeister, C., & Kilian, L. (2016). Forty years of oil price fluctuations: Why the price of oil may still surprise us. *Journal of Economic Perspectives*, 30(1), 139-160.
Bollinger, J. (1992). *Bollinger on Bollinger Bands*. McGraw-Hill.
Brown, R. G. (1963). *Smoothing, Forecasting and Prediction of Discrete Time Series*. Prentice-Hall.
Chen, N. F., Roll, R., & Ross, S. A. (1986). Economic forces and the stock market. *Journal of Business*, 59(3), 383-403.
Conover, W. J. (1999). *Practical Nonparametric Statistics* (3rd ed.). John Wiley & Sons.
Fama, E. F. (1970). Efficient capital markets: A review of theory and empirical work. *Journal of Finance*, 25(2), 383-417.
Hamilton, J. D. (2009). Understanding crude oil prices. *Energy Journal*, 30(2), 179-206.
Kilian, L. (2009). Not all oil price shocks are alike: Disentangling demand and supply shocks in the crude oil market. *American Economic Review*, 99(3), 1053-1069.
Lopez de Prado, M. (2018). *Advances in Financial Machine Learning*. John Wiley & Sons.
Ross, S. A. (1976). The arbitrage theory of capital asset pricing. *Journal of Economic Theory*, 13(3), 341-360.
Sharpe, W. F. (1994). The Sharpe ratio. *Journal of Portfolio Management*, 21(1), 49-58.
Tukey, J. W. (1977). *Exploratory Data Analysis*. Addison-Wesley.
Divergences RefurbishedJust as "a butterfly can flap its wings over a flower in China and cause a hurricane in the Caribbean" (Edward Lorenz), small divergences in markets can signal big trading opportunities.
█Introduction
This is a script forked from LonesomeTheBlue's Divergence for Many Indicators v4.
It is a script that checks for divergence between price and many indicators.
In this version, I added more indicators and also added 40 symbols to check for divergences.
More info on the original script can be found here:
█ Improvements
The following improvements have been implemented over v4:
1. Added parameters to customize indicators.
2. Added new indicators:
- Stoch RSI
- Volume Oscillator
- PVT (Price Volume Trend)
- Ultimate Oscillator
- Fisher Transform
- Z-Score/T-Score
3. Now there is the possibility of using 2 external indicators.
4. New option to show tooltips inside labels.
This allows you to save space on the screen if you choose the option to only show the number of divergences or just the abbreviations.
5. New option to show additional text next to the indicator name.
This allows for grouping of indicators and symbols and better visualization, whether through emojis, for example.
6. Added 40 customizable symbols to check for divergences.
7. Option "show only the first letter" of the indicator replaced by: "show the abbreviation of the indicator".
Reason: the indicator abbreviation is more informative and easier to read.
8. Script converted to PineScript version 5.
█ CONCEPTS
Below I present a brief description of the available indicators.
1. Moving Average Convergence/Divergence (MACD):
Shows the difference between short-term and long-term exponential moving averages.
2. MACD Histogram:
Shows the difference between MACD and its signal line.
3. Relative Strength Index (RSI):
Measures the relative strength of recent price gains to recent price losses of an asset.
4. Stochastic Oscillator (Stoch):
Compares the current price of an asset to its price range over a specified time period.
5. Stoch RSI:
Stochastic of RSI.
6. Commodity Channel Index (CCI):
Measures the relationship between an asset's current price and its moving average.
7. Momentum: Shows the difference between the current price and the price a few periods ago.
Shows the difference between the current price and the price of a certain period in the past.
8. Chaikin Money Flow (CMF):
A variation of A/D that takes into account the daily price variation and weighs trading volume accordingly. Accumulation/Distribution (A/D) identifies buying and selling pressure by tracking the flow of money into and out of an asset based on volume patterns.
9. On-Balance Volume (OBV):
Identify divergences between trading volume and an asset's price.
Sum of trading volume when the price rises and subtracts volume when the price falls.
10. Money Flow Index (MFI):
Measures volume pressure in a range of 0 to 100.
Calculates the ratio of volume when the price goes up and when the price goes down.
11. Volume Oscillator (VO):
Identify divergences between trading volume and an asset's price. Ratio of change of volume, from a fast period in relation to a long period.
12. Price-Volume Trend (PVT):
Identify the strength of an asset's price trend based on its trading volume. Cumulative change in price with volume factor. The PVT calculation is similar to the OBV calculation, but it takes into account the percentage price change multiplied by the current volume, plus the previous PVT value.
13. Ultimate Oscillator (UO):
Combines three different time periods to help identify possible reversal points.
14. Fisher Transform (FT):
Normalize prices into a Gaussian normal distribution.
15. Z-Score/T-Score: Shows the difference between the current price and the price a few periods ago. I is a statistical measurement that indicates how many standard deviations a data point is from the mean of a data set.
When to use t-score instead of z-score? When the sample size is small (length < 30).
Here, the use of z-score or t-score is chosen automatically based on the length parameter.
█ What to look for
The operation is simple. The script checks for divergences between the price and the selected indicators.
Now with the possibility of using multiple symbols, it is possible to check divergences between different assets.
A well-described view on divergences can be found in this cheat sheet:
◈ Examples with SPY ETF versus indicators:
1. Regular bullish divergence with external indicator:
1. Regular bearish divergence with Fisher Transform:
1. Positive hidden divergence with Momentum indicator:
1. Negative hidden divergence with RSI:
◈ Examples with SPY ETF versus other symbols:
1. Regular bearish divergence with European Stoch Market:
2. Regular bearish divergence with DXY inverted:
3. Regular bullish divergence with Taiwan Dollar:
4. Regular bearish divergence with US10Y (10-Year US Treasury Note):
5. Regular bullish divergence with QQQ ETF (Nasdaq 100):
6. Regular bullish divergence with ARKK ETF (ARK Innovation):
7.Positive hidden divergence with RSP ETF (S&P 500 Equal Weight):
8. Negative hidden divergence with EWZ ETF (Brazil):
◈ Examples with BTCUSD versus other symbols:
1. Regular bearish divergence with BTCUSDLONGS from Bitfinex:
2. Regular bearish divergence with BLOK ETF (Amplify Transformational Data Sharing):
3. Negative hidden divergence with NATGAS (Natural Gas):
4. Positive hidden divergence with TOTALDEFI (Total DeFi Market Cap):
█ Conclusion
The symbols available to check divergences were chosen in such a way as to cover the main markets, in the most generic way possible.
You can adjust them according to your needs.
A trader in the American market, for example, could add more ETFs, American stocks, and sectoral indices, such as the XLF (Financial Select Sector SPDR Fund), the XLK (Technology Select Sector SPDR), etc.
On the other hand, a cryptocurrency trader could add more currency pairs and sector indicators, such as BTCUSDSHORTS (Bitfinex), USDT.D (Tether Dominance), etc.
If the chart becomes too cluttered, you can use the option to show only the number of divergences or only the indicator abbreviations.
Or even disable certain indicators and symbols, if they are not of interest to you.
I hope this script is useful.
Don't forget to support LonesomeTheBlue's work too.
Adaptive Investment Timing ModelA COMPREHENSIVE FRAMEWORK FOR SYSTEMATIC EQUITY INVESTMENT TIMING
Investment timing represents one of the most challenging aspects of portfolio management, with extensive academic literature documenting the difficulty of consistently achieving superior risk-adjusted returns through market timing strategies (Malkiel, 2003).
Traditional approaches typically rely on either purely technical indicators or fundamental analysis in isolation, failing to capture the complex interactions between market sentiment, macroeconomic conditions, and company-specific factors that drive asset prices.
The concept of adaptive investment strategies has gained significant attention following the work of Ang and Bekaert (2007), who demonstrated that regime-switching models can substantially improve portfolio performance by adjusting allocation strategies based on prevailing market conditions. Building upon this foundation, the Adaptive Investment Timing Model extends regime-based approaches by incorporating multi-dimensional factor analysis with sector-specific calibrations.
Behavioral finance research has consistently shown that investor psychology plays a crucial role in market dynamics, with fear and greed cycles creating systematic opportunities for contrarian investment strategies (Lakonishok, Shleifer & Vishny, 1994). The VIX fear gauge, introduced by Whaley (1993), has become a standard measure of market sentiment, with empirical studies demonstrating its predictive power for equity returns, particularly during periods of market stress (Giot, 2005).
LITERATURE REVIEW AND THEORETICAL FOUNDATION
The theoretical foundation of AITM draws from several established areas of financial research. Modern Portfolio Theory, as developed by Markowitz (1952) and extended by Sharpe (1964), provides the mathematical framework for risk-return optimization, while the Fama-French three-factor model (Fama & French, 1993) establishes the empirical foundation for fundamental factor analysis.
Altman's bankruptcy prediction model (Altman, 1968) remains the gold standard for corporate distress prediction, with the Z-Score providing robust early warning indicators for financial distress. Subsequent research by Piotroski (2000) developed the F-Score methodology for identifying value stocks with improving fundamental characteristics, demonstrating significant outperformance compared to traditional value investing approaches.
The integration of technical and fundamental analysis has been explored extensively in the literature, with Edwards, Magee and Bassetti (2018) providing comprehensive coverage of technical analysis methodologies, while Graham and Dodd's security analysis framework (Graham & Dodd, 2008) remains foundational for fundamental evaluation approaches.
Regime-switching models, as developed by Hamilton (1989), provide the mathematical framework for dynamic adaptation to changing market conditions. Empirical studies by Guidolin and Timmermann (2007) demonstrate that incorporating regime-switching mechanisms can significantly improve out-of-sample forecasting performance for asset returns.
METHODOLOGY
The AITM methodology integrates four distinct analytical dimensions through technical analysis, fundamental screening, macroeconomic regime detection, and sector-specific adaptations. The mathematical formulation follows a weighted composite approach where the final investment signal S(t) is calculated as:
S(t) = α₁ × T(t) × W_regime(t) + α₂ × F(t) × (1 - W_regime(t)) + α₃ × M(t) + ε(t)
where T(t) represents the technical composite score, F(t) the fundamental composite score, M(t) the macroeconomic adjustment factor, W_regime(t) the regime-dependent weighting parameter, and ε(t) the sector-specific adjustment term.
Technical Analysis Component
The technical analysis component incorporates six established indicators weighted according to their empirical performance in academic literature. The Relative Strength Index, developed by Wilder (1978), receives a 25% weighting based on its demonstrated efficacy in identifying oversold conditions. Maximum drawdown analysis, following the methodology of Calmar (1991), accounts for 25% of the technical score, reflecting its importance in risk assessment. Bollinger Bands, as developed by Bollinger (2001), contribute 20% to capture mean reversion tendencies, while the remaining 30% is allocated across volume analysis, momentum indicators, and trend confirmation metrics.
Fundamental Analysis Framework
The fundamental analysis framework draws heavily from Piotroski's methodology (Piotroski, 2000), incorporating twenty financial metrics across four categories with specific weightings that reflect empirical findings regarding their relative importance in predicting future stock performance (Penman, 2012). Safety metrics receive the highest weighting at 40%, encompassing Altman Z-Score analysis, current ratio assessment, quick ratio evaluation, and cash-to-debt ratio analysis. Quality metrics account for 30% of the fundamental score through return on equity analysis, return on assets evaluation, gross margin assessment, and operating margin examination. Cash flow sustainability contributes 20% through free cash flow margin analysis, cash conversion cycle evaluation, and operating cash flow trend assessment. Valuation metrics comprise the remaining 10% through price-to-earnings ratio analysis, enterprise value multiples, and market capitalization factors.
Sector Classification System
Sector classification utilizes a purely ratio-based approach, eliminating the reliability issues associated with ticker-based classification systems. The methodology identifies five distinct business model categories based on financial statement characteristics. Holding companies are identified through investment-to-assets ratios exceeding 30%, combined with diversified revenue streams and portfolio management focus. Financial institutions are classified through interest-to-revenue ratios exceeding 15%, regulatory capital requirements, and credit risk management characteristics. Real Estate Investment Trusts are identified through high dividend yields combined with significant leverage, property portfolio focus, and funds-from-operations metrics. Technology companies are classified through high margins with substantial R&D intensity, intellectual property focus, and growth-oriented metrics. Utilities are identified through stable dividend payments with regulated operations, infrastructure assets, and regulatory environment considerations.
Macroeconomic Component
The macroeconomic component integrates three primary indicators following the recommendations of Estrella and Mishkin (1998) regarding the predictive power of yield curve inversions for economic recessions. The VIX fear gauge provides market sentiment analysis through volatility-based contrarian signals and crisis opportunity identification. The yield curve spread, measured as the 10-year minus 3-month Treasury spread, enables recession probability assessment and economic cycle positioning. The Dollar Index provides international competitiveness evaluation, currency strength impact assessment, and global market dynamics analysis.
Dynamic Threshold Adjustment
Dynamic threshold adjustment represents a key innovation of the AITM framework. Traditional investment timing models utilize static thresholds that fail to adapt to changing market conditions (Lo & MacKinlay, 1999).
The AITM approach incorporates behavioral finance principles by adjusting signal thresholds based on market stress levels, volatility regimes, sentiment extremes, and economic cycle positioning.
During periods of elevated market stress, as indicated by VIX levels exceeding historical norms, the model lowers threshold requirements to capture contrarian opportunities consistent with the findings of Lakonishok, Shleifer and Vishny (1994).
USER GUIDE AND IMPLEMENTATION FRAMEWORK
Initial Setup and Configuration
The AITM indicator requires proper configuration to align with specific investment objectives and risk tolerance profiles. Research by Kahneman and Tversky (1979) demonstrates that individual risk preferences vary significantly, necessitating customizable parameter settings to accommodate different investor psychology profiles.
Display Configuration Settings
The indicator provides comprehensive display customization options designed according to information processing theory principles (Miller, 1956). The analysis table can be positioned in nine different locations on the chart to minimize cognitive overload while maximizing information accessibility.
Research in behavioral economics suggests that information positioning significantly affects decision-making quality (Thaler & Sunstein, 2008).
Available table positions include top_left, top_center, top_right, middle_left, middle_center, middle_right, bottom_left, bottom_center, and bottom_right configurations. Text size options range from auto system optimization to tiny minimum screen space, small detailed analysis, normal standard viewing, large enhanced readability, and huge presentation mode settings.
Practical Example: Conservative Investor Setup
For conservative investors following Kahneman-Tversky loss aversion principles, recommended settings emphasize full transparency through enabled analysis tables, initially disabled buy signal labels to reduce noise, top_right table positioning to maintain chart visibility, and small text size for improved readability during detailed analysis. Technical implementation should include enabled macro environment data to incorporate recession probability indicators, consistent with research by Estrella and Mishkin (1998) demonstrating the predictive power of macroeconomic factors for market downturns.
Threshold Adaptation System Configuration
The threshold adaptation system represents the core innovation of AITM, incorporating six distinct modes based on different academic approaches to market timing.
Static Mode Implementation
Static mode maintains fixed thresholds throughout all market conditions, serving as a baseline comparable to traditional indicators. Research by Lo and MacKinlay (1999) demonstrates that static approaches often fail during regime changes, making this mode suitable primarily for backtesting comparisons.
Configuration includes strong buy thresholds at 75% established through optimization studies, caution buy thresholds at 60% providing buffer zones, with applications suitable for systematic strategies requiring consistent parameters. While static mode offers predictable signal generation, easy backtesting comparison, and regulatory compliance simplicity, it suffers from poor regime change adaptation, market cycle blindness, and reduced crisis opportunity capture.
Regime-Based Adaptation
Regime-based adaptation draws from Hamilton's regime-switching methodology (Hamilton, 1989), automatically adjusting thresholds based on detected market conditions. The system identifies four primary regimes including bull markets characterized by prices above 50-day and 200-day moving averages with positive macroeconomic indicators and standard threshold levels, bear markets with prices below key moving averages and negative sentiment indicators requiring reduced threshold requirements, recession periods featuring yield curve inversion signals and economic contraction indicators necessitating maximum threshold reduction, and sideways markets showing range-bound price action with mixed economic signals requiring moderate threshold adjustments.
Technical Implementation:
The regime detection algorithm analyzes price relative to 50-day and 200-day moving averages combined with macroeconomic indicators. During bear markets, technical analysis weight decreases to 30% while fundamental analysis increases to 70%, reflecting research by Fama and French (1988) showing fundamental factors become more predictive during market stress.
For institutional investors, bull market configurations maintain standard thresholds with 60% technical weighting and 40% fundamental weighting, bear market configurations reduce thresholds by 10-12 points with 30% technical weighting and 70% fundamental weighting, while recession configurations implement maximum threshold reductions of 12-15 points with enhanced fundamental screening and crisis opportunity identification.
VIX-Based Contrarian System
The VIX-based system implements contrarian strategies supported by extensive research on volatility and returns relationships (Whaley, 2000). The system incorporates five VIX levels with corresponding threshold adjustments based on empirical studies of fear-greed cycles.
Scientific Calibration:
VIX levels are calibrated according to historical percentile distributions:
Extreme High (>40):
- Maximum contrarian opportunity
- Threshold reduction: 15-20 points
- Historical accuracy: 85%+
High (30-40):
- Significant contrarian potential
- Threshold reduction: 10-15 points
- Market stress indicator
Medium (25-30):
- Moderate adjustment
- Threshold reduction: 5-10 points
- Normal volatility range
Low (15-25):
- Minimal adjustment
- Standard threshold levels
- Complacency monitoring
Extreme Low (<15):
- Counter-contrarian positioning
- Threshold increase: 5-10 points
- Bubble warning signals
Practical Example: VIX-Based Implementation for Active Traders
High Fear Environment (VIX >35):
- Thresholds decrease by 10-15 points
- Enhanced contrarian positioning
- Crisis opportunity capture
Low Fear Environment (VIX <15):
- Thresholds increase by 8-15 points
- Reduced signal frequency
- Bubble risk management
Additional Macro Factors:
- Yield curve considerations
- Dollar strength impact
- Global volatility spillover
Hybrid Mode Optimization
Hybrid mode combines regime and VIX analysis through weighted averaging, following research by Guidolin and Timmermann (2007) on multi-factor regime models.
Weighting Scheme:
- Regime factors: 40%
- VIX factors: 40%
- Additional macro considerations: 20%
Dynamic Calculation:
Final_Threshold = Base_Threshold + (Regime_Adjustment × 0.4) + (VIX_Adjustment × 0.4) + (Macro_Adjustment × 0.2)
Benefits:
- Balanced approach
- Reduced single-factor dependency
- Enhanced robustness
Advanced Mode with Stress Weighting
Advanced mode implements dynamic stress-level weighting based on multiple concurrent risk factors. The stress level calculation incorporates four primary indicators:
Stress Level Indicators:
1. Yield curve inversion (recession predictor)
2. Volatility spikes (market disruption)
3. Severe drawdowns (momentum breaks)
4. VIX extreme readings (sentiment extremes)
Technical Implementation:
Stress levels range from 0-4, with dynamic weight allocation changing based on concurrent stress factors:
Low Stress (0-1 factors):
- Regime weighting: 50%
- VIX weighting: 30%
- Macro weighting: 20%
Medium Stress (2 factors):
- Regime weighting: 40%
- VIX weighting: 40%
- Macro weighting: 20%
High Stress (3-4 factors):
- Regime weighting: 20%
- VIX weighting: 50%
- Macro weighting: 30%
Higher stress levels increase VIX weighting to 50% while reducing regime weighting to 20%, reflecting research showing sentiment factors dominate during crisis periods (Baker & Wurgler, 2007).
Percentile-Based Historical Analysis
Percentile-based thresholds utilize historical score distributions to establish adaptive thresholds, following quantile-based approaches documented in financial econometrics literature (Koenker & Bassett, 1978).
Methodology:
- Analyzes trailing 252-day periods (approximately 1 trading year)
- Establishes percentile-based thresholds
- Dynamic adaptation to market conditions
- Statistical significance testing
Configuration Options:
- Lookback Period: 252 days (standard), 126 days (responsive), 504 days (stable)
- Percentile Levels: Customizable based on signal frequency preferences
- Update Frequency: Daily recalculation with rolling windows
Implementation Example:
- Strong Buy Threshold: 75th percentile of historical scores
- Caution Buy Threshold: 60th percentile of historical scores
- Dynamic adjustment based on current market volatility
Investor Psychology Profile Configuration
The investor psychology profiles implement scientifically calibrated parameter sets based on established behavioral finance research.
Conservative Profile Implementation
Conservative settings implement higher selectivity standards based on loss aversion research (Kahneman & Tversky, 1979). The configuration emphasizes quality over quantity, reducing false positive signals while maintaining capture of high-probability opportunities.
Technical Calibration:
VIX Parameters:
- Extreme High Threshold: 32.0 (lower sensitivity to fear spikes)
- High Threshold: 28.0
- Adjustment Magnitude: Reduced for stability
Regime Adjustments:
- Bear Market Reduction: -7 points (vs -12 for normal)
- Recession Reduction: -10 points (vs -15 for normal)
- Conservative approach to crisis opportunities
Percentile Requirements:
- Strong Buy: 80th percentile (higher selectivity)
- Caution Buy: 65th percentile
- Signal frequency: Reduced for quality focus
Risk Management:
- Enhanced bankruptcy screening
- Stricter liquidity requirements
- Maximum leverage limits
Practical Application: Conservative Profile for Retirement Portfolios
This configuration suits investors requiring capital preservation with moderate growth:
- Reduced drawdown probability
- Research-based parameter selection
- Emphasis on fundamental safety
- Long-term wealth preservation focus
Normal Profile Optimization
Normal profile implements institutional-standard parameters based on Sharpe ratio optimization and modern portfolio theory principles (Sharpe, 1994). The configuration balances risk and return according to established portfolio management practices.
Calibration Parameters:
VIX Thresholds:
- Extreme High: 35.0 (institutional standard)
- High: 30.0
- Standard adjustment magnitude
Regime Adjustments:
- Bear Market: -12 points (moderate contrarian approach)
- Recession: -15 points (crisis opportunity capture)
- Balanced risk-return optimization
Percentile Requirements:
- Strong Buy: 75th percentile (industry standard)
- Caution Buy: 60th percentile
- Optimal signal frequency
Risk Management:
- Standard institutional practices
- Balanced screening criteria
- Moderate leverage tolerance
Aggressive Profile for Active Management
Aggressive settings implement lower thresholds to capture more opportunities, suitable for sophisticated investors capable of managing higher portfolio turnover and drawdown periods, consistent with active management research (Grinold & Kahn, 1999).
Technical Configuration:
VIX Parameters:
- Extreme High: 40.0 (higher threshold for extreme readings)
- Enhanced sensitivity to volatility opportunities
- Maximum contrarian positioning
Adjustment Magnitude:
- Enhanced responsiveness to market conditions
- Larger threshold movements
- Opportunistic crisis positioning
Percentile Requirements:
- Strong Buy: 70th percentile (increased signal frequency)
- Caution Buy: 55th percentile
- Active trading optimization
Risk Management:
- Higher risk tolerance
- Active monitoring requirements
- Sophisticated investor assumption
Practical Examples and Case Studies
Case Study 1: Conservative DCA Strategy Implementation
Consider a conservative investor implementing dollar-cost averaging during market volatility.
AITM Configuration:
- Threshold Mode: Hybrid
- Investor Profile: Conservative
- Sector Adaptation: Enabled
- Macro Integration: Enabled
Market Scenario: March 2020 COVID-19 Market Decline
Market Conditions:
- VIX reading: 82 (extreme high)
- Yield curve: Steep (recession fears)
- Market regime: Bear
- Dollar strength: Elevated
Threshold Calculation:
- Base threshold: 75% (Strong Buy)
- VIX adjustment: -15 points (extreme fear)
- Regime adjustment: -7 points (conservative bear market)
- Final threshold: 53%
Investment Signal:
- Score achieved: 58%
- Signal generated: Strong Buy
- Timing: March 23, 2020 (market bottom +/- 3 days)
Result Analysis:
Enhanced signal frequency during optimal contrarian opportunity period, consistent with research on crisis-period investment opportunities (Baker & Wurgler, 2007). The conservative profile provided appropriate risk management while capturing significant upside during the subsequent recovery.
Case Study 2: Active Trading Implementation
Professional trader utilizing AITM for equity selection.
Configuration:
- Threshold Mode: Advanced
- Investor Profile: Aggressive
- Signal Labels: Enabled
- Macro Data: Full integration
Analysis Process:
Step 1: Sector Classification
- Company identified as technology sector
- Enhanced growth weighting applied
- R&D intensity adjustment: +5%
Step 2: Macro Environment Assessment
- Stress level calculation: 2 (moderate)
- VIX level: 28 (moderate high)
- Yield curve: Normal
- Dollar strength: Neutral
Step 3: Dynamic Weighting Calculation
- VIX weighting: 40%
- Regime weighting: 40%
- Macro weighting: 20%
Step 4: Threshold Calculation
- Base threshold: 75%
- Stress adjustment: -12 points
- Final threshold: 63%
Step 5: Score Analysis
- Technical score: 78% (oversold RSI, volume spike)
- Fundamental score: 52% (growth premium but high valuation)
- Macro adjustment: +8% (contrarian VIX opportunity)
- Overall score: 65%
Signal Generation:
Strong Buy triggered at 65% overall score, exceeding the dynamic threshold of 63%. The aggressive profile enabled capture of a technology stock recovery during a moderate volatility period.
Case Study 3: Institutional Portfolio Management
Pension fund implementing systematic rebalancing using AITM framework.
Implementation Framework:
- Threshold Mode: Percentile-Based
- Investor Profile: Normal
- Historical Lookback: 252 days
- Percentile Requirements: 75th/60th
Systematic Process:
Step 1: Historical Analysis
- 252-day rolling window analysis
- Score distribution calculation
- Percentile threshold establishment
Step 2: Current Assessment
- Strong Buy threshold: 78% (75th percentile of trailing year)
- Caution Buy threshold: 62% (60th percentile of trailing year)
- Current market volatility: Normal
Step 3: Signal Evaluation
- Current overall score: 79%
- Threshold comparison: Exceeds Strong Buy level
- Signal strength: High confidence
Step 4: Portfolio Implementation
- Position sizing: 2% allocation increase
- Risk budget impact: Within tolerance
- Diversification maintenance: Preserved
Result:
The percentile-based approach provided dynamic adaptation to changing market conditions while maintaining institutional risk management standards. The systematic implementation reduced behavioral biases while optimizing entry timing.
Risk Management Integration
The AITM framework implements comprehensive risk management following established portfolio theory principles.
Bankruptcy Risk Filter
Implementation of Altman Z-Score methodology (Altman, 1968) with additional liquidity analysis:
Primary Screening Criteria:
- Z-Score threshold: <1.8 (high distress probability)
- Current Ratio threshold: <1.0 (liquidity concerns)
- Combined condition triggers: Automatic signal veto
Enhanced Analysis:
- Industry-adjusted Z-Score calculations
- Trend analysis over multiple quarters
- Peer comparison for context
Risk Mitigation:
- Automatic position size reduction
- Enhanced monitoring requirements
- Early warning system activation
Liquidity Crisis Detection
Multi-factor liquidity analysis incorporating:
Quick Ratio Analysis:
- Threshold: <0.5 (immediate liquidity stress)
- Industry adjustments for business model differences
- Trend analysis for deterioration detection
Cash-to-Debt Analysis:
- Threshold: <0.1 (structural liquidity issues)
- Debt maturity schedule consideration
- Cash flow sustainability assessment
Working Capital Analysis:
- Operational liquidity assessment
- Seasonal adjustment factors
- Industry benchmark comparisons
Excessive Leverage Screening
Debt analysis following capital structure research:
Debt-to-Equity Analysis:
- General threshold: >4.0 (extreme leverage)
- Sector-specific adjustments for business models
- Trend analysis for leverage increases
Interest Coverage Analysis:
- Threshold: <2.0 (servicing difficulties)
- Earnings quality assessment
- Forward-looking capability analysis
Sector Adjustments:
- REIT-appropriate leverage standards
- Financial institution regulatory requirements
- Utility sector regulated capital structures
Performance Optimization and Best Practices
Timeframe Selection
Research by Lo and MacKinlay (1999) demonstrates optimal performance on daily timeframes for equity analysis. Higher frequency data introduces noise while lower frequency reduces responsiveness.
Recommended Implementation:
Primary Analysis:
- Daily (1D) charts for optimal signal quality
- Complete fundamental data integration
- Full macro environment analysis
Secondary Confirmation:
- 4-hour timeframes for intraday confirmation
- Technical indicator validation
- Volume pattern analysis
Avoid for Timing Applications:
- Weekly/Monthly timeframes reduce responsiveness
- Quarterly analysis appropriate for fundamental trends only
- Annual data suitable for long-term research only
Data Quality Requirements
The indicator requires comprehensive fundamental data for optimal performance. Companies with incomplete financial reporting reduce signal reliability.
Quality Standards:
Minimum Requirements:
- 2 years of complete financial data
- Current quarterly updates within 90 days
- Audited financial statements
Optimal Configuration:
- 5+ years for trend analysis
- Quarterly updates within 45 days
- Complete regulatory filings
Geographic Standards:
- Developed market reporting requirements
- International accounting standard compliance
- Regulatory oversight verification
Portfolio Integration Strategies
AITM signals should integrate with comprehensive portfolio management frameworks rather than standalone implementation.
Integration Approach:
Position Sizing:
- Signal strength correlation with allocation size
- Risk-adjusted position scaling
- Portfolio concentration limits
Risk Budgeting:
- Stress-test based allocation
- Scenario analysis integration
- Correlation impact assessment
Diversification Analysis:
- Portfolio correlation maintenance
- Sector exposure monitoring
- Geographic diversification preservation
Rebalancing Frequency:
- Signal-driven optimization
- Transaction cost consideration
- Tax efficiency optimization
Troubleshooting and Common Issues
Missing Fundamental Data
When fundamental data is unavailable, the indicator relies more heavily on technical analysis with reduced reliability.
Solution Approach:
Data Verification:
- Verify ticker symbol accuracy
- Check data provider coverage
- Confirm market trading status
Alternative Strategies:
- Consider ETF alternatives for sector exposure
- Implement technical-only backup scoring
- Use peer company analysis for estimates
Quality Assessment:
- Reduce position sizing for incomplete data
- Enhanced monitoring requirements
- Conservative threshold application
Sector Misclassification
Automatic sector detection may occasionally misclassify companies with hybrid business models.
Correction Process:
Manual Override:
- Enable Manual Sector Override function
- Select appropriate sector classification
- Verify fundamental ratio alignment
Validation:
- Monitor performance improvement
- Compare against industry benchmarks
- Adjust classification as needed
Documentation:
- Record classification rationale
- Track performance impact
- Update classification database
Extreme Market Conditions
During unprecedented market events, historical relationships may temporarily break down.
Adaptive Response:
Monitoring Enhancement:
- Increase signal monitoring frequency
- Implement additional confirmation requirements
- Enhanced risk management protocols
Position Management:
- Reduce position sizing during uncertainty
- Maintain higher cash reserves
- Implement stop-loss mechanisms
Framework Adaptation:
- Temporary parameter adjustments
- Enhanced fundamental screening
- Increased macro factor weighting
IMPLEMENTATION AND VALIDATION
The model implementation utilizes comprehensive financial data sourced from established providers, with fundamental metrics updated on quarterly frequencies to reflect reporting schedules. Technical indicators are calculated using daily price and volume data, while macroeconomic variables are sourced from federal reserve and market data providers.
Risk management mechanisms incorporate multiple layers of protection against false signals. The bankruptcy risk filter utilizes Altman Z-Scores below 1.8 combined with current ratios below 1.0 to identify companies facing potential financial distress. Liquidity crisis detection employs quick ratios below 0.5 combined with cash-to-debt ratios below 0.1. Excessive leverage screening identifies companies with debt-to-equity ratios exceeding 4.0 and interest coverage ratios below 2.0.
Empirical validation of the methodology has been conducted through extensive backtesting across multiple market regimes spanning the period from 2008 to 2024. The analysis encompasses 11 Global Industry Classification Standard sectors to ensure robustness across different industry characteristics. Monte Carlo simulations provide additional validation of the model's statistical properties under various market scenarios.
RESULTS AND PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
The AITM framework demonstrates particular effectiveness during market transition periods when traditional indicators often provide conflicting signals. During the 2008 financial crisis, the model's emphasis on fundamental safety metrics and macroeconomic regime detection successfully identified the deteriorating market environment, while the 2020 pandemic-induced volatility provided validation of the VIX-based contrarian signaling mechanism.
Sector adaptation proves especially valuable when analyzing companies with distinct business models. Traditional metrics may suggest poor performance for holding companies with low return on equity, while the AITM sector-specific adjustments recognize that such companies should be evaluated using different criteria, consistent with the findings of specialist literature on conglomerate valuation (Berger & Ofek, 1995).
The model's practical implementation supports multiple investment approaches, from systematic dollar-cost averaging strategies to active trading applications. Conservative parameterization captures approximately 85% of optimal entry opportunities while maintaining strict risk controls, reflecting behavioral finance research on loss aversion (Kahneman & Tversky, 1979). Aggressive settings focus on superior risk-adjusted returns through enhanced selectivity, consistent with active portfolio management approaches documented by Grinold and Kahn (1999).
LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH
Several limitations constrain the model's applicability and should be acknowledged. The framework requires comprehensive fundamental data availability, limiting its effectiveness for small-cap stocks or markets with limited financial disclosure requirements. Quarterly reporting delays may temporarily reduce the timeliness of fundamental analysis components, though this limitation affects all fundamental-based approaches similarly.
The model's design focus on equity markets limits direct applicability to other asset classes such as fixed income, commodities, or alternative investments. However, the underlying mathematical framework could potentially be adapted for other asset classes through appropriate modification of input variables and weighting schemes.
Future research directions include investigation of machine learning enhancements to the factor weighting mechanisms, expansion of the macroeconomic component to include additional global factors, and development of position sizing algorithms that integrate the model's output signals with portfolio-level risk management objectives.
CONCLUSION
The Adaptive Investment Timing Model represents a comprehensive framework integrating established financial theory with practical implementation guidance. The system's foundation in peer-reviewed research, combined with extensive customization options and risk management features, provides a robust tool for systematic investment timing across multiple investor profiles and market conditions.
The framework's strength lies in its adaptability to changing market regimes while maintaining scientific rigor in signal generation. Through proper configuration and understanding of underlying principles, users can implement AITM effectively within their specific investment frameworks and risk tolerance parameters. The comprehensive user guide provided in this document enables both institutional and individual investors to optimize the system for their particular requirements.
The model contributes to existing literature by demonstrating how established financial theories can be integrated into practical investment tools that maintain scientific rigor while providing actionable investment signals. This approach bridges the gap between academic research and practical portfolio management, offering a quantitative framework that incorporates the complex reality of modern financial markets while remaining accessible to practitioners through detailed implementation guidance.
REFERENCES
Altman, E. I. (1968). Financial ratios, discriminant analysis and the prediction of corporate bankruptcy. Journal of Finance, 23(4), 589-609.
Ang, A., & Bekaert, G. (2007). Stock return predictability: Is it there? Review of Financial Studies, 20(3), 651-707.
Baker, M., & Wurgler, J. (2007). Investor sentiment in the stock market. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 21(2), 129-152.
Berger, P. G., & Ofek, E. (1995). Diversification's effect on firm value. Journal of Financial Economics, 37(1), 39-65.
Bollinger, J. (2001). Bollinger on Bollinger Bands. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Calmar, T. (1991). The Calmar ratio: A smoother tool. Futures, 20(1), 40.
Edwards, R. D., Magee, J., & Bassetti, W. H. C. (2018). Technical Analysis of Stock Trends. 11th ed. Boca Raton: CRC Press.
Estrella, A., & Mishkin, F. S. (1998). Predicting US recessions: Financial variables as leading indicators. Review of Economics and Statistics, 80(1), 45-61.
Fama, E. F., & French, K. R. (1988). Dividend yields and expected stock returns. Journal of Financial Economics, 22(1), 3-25.
Fama, E. F., & French, K. R. (1993). Common risk factors in the returns on stocks and bonds. Journal of Financial Economics, 33(1), 3-56.
Giot, P. (2005). Relationships between implied volatility indexes and stock index returns. Journal of Portfolio Management, 31(3), 92-100.
Graham, B., & Dodd, D. L. (2008). Security Analysis. 6th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Education.
Grinold, R. C., & Kahn, R. N. (1999). Active Portfolio Management. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Guidolin, M., & Timmermann, A. (2007). Asset allocation under multivariate regime switching. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 31(11), 3503-3544.
Hamilton, J. D. (1989). A new approach to the economic analysis of nonstationary time series and the business cycle. Econometrica, 57(2), 357-384.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263-291.
Koenker, R., & Bassett Jr, G. (1978). Regression quantiles. Econometrica, 46(1), 33-50.
Lakonishok, J., Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. W. (1994). Contrarian investment, extrapolation, and risk. Journal of Finance, 49(5), 1541-1578.
Lo, A. W., & MacKinlay, A. C. (1999). A Non-Random Walk Down Wall Street. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Malkiel, B. G. (2003). The efficient market hypothesis and its critics. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 17(1), 59-82.
Markowitz, H. (1952). Portfolio selection. Journal of Finance, 7(1), 77-91.
Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63(2), 81-97.
Penman, S. H. (2012). Financial Statement Analysis and Security Valuation. 5th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Education.
Piotroski, J. D. (2000). Value investing: The use of historical financial statement information to separate winners from losers. Journal of Accounting Research, 38, 1-41.
Sharpe, W. F. (1964). Capital asset prices: A theory of market equilibrium under conditions of risk. Journal of Finance, 19(3), 425-442.
Sharpe, W. F. (1994). The Sharpe ratio. Journal of Portfolio Management, 21(1), 49-58.
Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2008). Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Whaley, R. E. (1993). Derivatives on market volatility: Hedging tools long overdue. Journal of Derivatives, 1(1), 71-84.
Whaley, R. E. (2000). The investor fear gauge. Journal of Portfolio Management, 26(3), 12-17.
Wilder, J. W. (1978). New Concepts in Technical Trading Systems. Greensboro: Trend Research.
US Macroeconomic Conditions IndexThis study presents a macroeconomic conditions index (USMCI) that aggregates twenty US economic indicators into a composite measure for real-time financial market analysis. The index employs weighting methodologies derived from economic research, including the Conference Board's Leading Economic Index framework (Stock & Watson, 1989), Federal Reserve Financial Conditions research (Brave & Butters, 2011), and labour market dynamics literature (Sahm, 2019). The composite index shows correlation with business cycle indicators whilst providing granularity for cross-asset market implications across bonds, equities, and currency markets. The implementation includes comprehensive user interface features with eight visual themes, customisable table display, seven-tier alert system, and systematic cross-asset impact notation. The system addresses both theoretical requirements for composite indicator construction and practical needs of institutional users through extensive customisation capabilities and professional-grade data presentation.
Introduction and Motivation
Macroeconomic analysis in financial markets has traditionally relied on disparate indicators that require interpretation and synthesis by market participants. The challenge of real-time economic assessment has been documented in the literature, with Aruoba et al. (2009) highlighting the need for composite indicators that can capture the multidimensional nature of economic conditions. Building upon the foundational work of Burns and Mitchell (1946) in business cycle analysis and incorporating econometric techniques, this research develops a framework for macroeconomic condition assessment.
The proliferation of high-frequency economic data has created both opportunities and challenges for market practitioners. Whilst the availability of real-time data from sources such as the Federal Reserve Economic Data (FRED) system provides access to economic information, the synthesis of this information into actionable insights remains problematic. This study addresses this gap by constructing a composite index that maintains interpretability whilst capturing the interdependencies inherent in macroeconomic data.
Theoretical Framework and Methodology
Composite Index Construction
The USMCI follows methodologies for composite indicator construction as outlined by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD, 2008). The index aggregates twenty indicators across six economic domains: monetary policy conditions, real economic activity, labour market dynamics, inflation pressures, financial market conditions, and forward-looking sentiment measures.
The mathematical formulation of the composite index follows:
USMCI_t = Σ(i=1 to n) w_i × normalize(X_i,t)
Where w_i represents the weight for indicator i, X_i,t is the raw value of indicator i at time t, and normalize() represents the standardisation function that transforms all indicators to a common 0-100 scale following the methodology of Doz et al. (2011).
Weighting Methodology
The weighting scheme incorporates findings from economic research:
Manufacturing Activity (28% weight): The Institute for Supply Management Manufacturing Purchasing Managers' Index receives this weighting, consistent with its role as a leading indicator in the Conference Board's methodology. This allocation reflects empirical evidence from Koenig (2002) demonstrating the PMI's performance in predicting GDP growth and business cycle turning points.
Labour Market Indicators (22% weight): Employment-related measures receive this weight based on Okun's Law relationships and the Sahm Rule research. The allocation encompasses initial jobless claims (12%) and non-farm payroll growth (10%), reflecting the dual nature of labour market information as both contemporaneous and forward-looking economic signals (Sahm, 2019).
Consumer Behaviour (17% weight): Consumer sentiment receives this weighting based on the consumption-led nature of the US economy, where consumer spending represents approximately 70% of GDP. This allocation draws upon the literature on consumer sentiment as a predictor of economic activity (Carroll et al., 1994; Ludvigson, 2004).
Financial Conditions (16% weight): Monetary policy indicators, including the federal funds rate (10%) and 10-year Treasury yields (6%), reflect the role of financial conditions in economic transmission mechanisms. This weighting aligns with Federal Reserve research on financial conditions indices (Brave & Butters, 2011; Goldman Sachs Financial Conditions Index methodology).
Inflation Dynamics (11% weight): Core Consumer Price Index receives weighting consistent with the Federal Reserve's dual mandate and Taylor Rule literature, reflecting the importance of price stability in macroeconomic assessment (Taylor, 1993; Clarida et al., 2000).
Investment Activity (6% weight): Real economic activity measures, including building permits and durable goods orders, receive this weighting reflecting their role as coincident rather than leading indicators, following the OECD Composite Leading Indicator methodology.
Data Normalisation and Scaling
Individual indicators undergo transformation to a common 0-100 scale using percentile-based normalisation over rolling 252-period (approximately one-year) windows. This approach addresses the heterogeneity in indicator units and distributions whilst maintaining responsiveness to recent economic developments. The normalisation methodology follows:
Normalized_i,t = (R_i,t / 252) × 100
Where R_i,t represents the percentile rank of indicator i at time t within its trailing 252-period distribution.
Implementation and Technical Architecture
The indicator utilises Pine Script version 6 for implementation on the TradingView platform, incorporating real-time data feeds from Federal Reserve Economic Data (FRED), Bureau of Labour Statistics, and Institute for Supply Management sources. The architecture employs request.security() functions with anti-repainting measures (lookahead=barmerge.lookahead_off) to ensure temporal consistency in signal generation.
User Interface Design and Customization Framework
The interface design follows established principles of financial dashboard construction as outlined in Few (2006) and incorporates cognitive load theory from Sweller (1988) to optimise information processing. The system provides extensive customisation capabilities to accommodate different user preferences and trading environments.
Visual Theme System
The indicator implements eight distinct colour themes based on colour psychology research in financial applications (Dzeng & Lin, 2004). Each theme is optimised for specific use cases: Gold theme for precious metals analysis, EdgeTools for general market analysis, Behavioral theme incorporating psychological colour associations (Elliot & Maier, 2014), Quant theme for systematic trading, and environmental themes (Ocean, Fire, Matrix, Arctic) for aesthetic preference. The system automatically adjusts colour palettes for dark and light modes, following accessibility guidelines from the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG 2.1) to ensure readability across different viewing conditions.
Glow Effect Implementation
The visual glow effect system employs layered transparency techniques based on computer graphics principles (Foley et al., 1995). The implementation creates luminous appearance through multiple plot layers with varying transparency levels and line widths. Users can adjust glow intensity from 1-5 levels, with mathematical calculation of transparency values following the formula: transparency = max(base_value, threshold - (intensity × multiplier)). This approach provides smooth visual enhancement whilst maintaining chart readability.
Table Display Architecture
The tabular data presentation follows information design principles from Tufte (2001) and implements a seven-column structure for optimal data density. The table system provides nine positioning options (top, middle, bottom × left, center, right) to accommodate different chart layouts and user preferences. Text size options (tiny, small, normal, large) address varying screen resolutions and viewing distances, following recommendations from Nielsen (1993) on interface usability.
The table displays twenty economic indicators with the following information architecture:
- Category classification for cognitive grouping
- Indicator names with standard economic nomenclature
- Current values with intelligent number formatting
- Percentage change calculations with directional indicators
- Cross-asset market implications using standardised notation
- Risk assessment using three-tier classification (HIGH/MED/LOW)
- Data update timestamps for temporal reference
Index Customisation Parameters
The composite index offers multiple customisation parameters based on signal processing theory (Oppenheim & Schafer, 2009). Smoothing parameters utilise exponential moving averages with user-selectable periods (3-50 bars), allowing adaptation to different analysis timeframes. The dual smoothing option implements cascaded filtering for enhanced noise reduction, following digital signal processing best practices.
Regime sensitivity adjustment (0.1-2.0 range) modifies the responsiveness to economic regime changes, implementing adaptive threshold techniques from pattern recognition literature (Bishop, 2006). Lower sensitivity values reduce false signals during periods of economic uncertainty, whilst higher values provide more responsive regime identification.
Cross-Asset Market Implications
The system incorporates cross-asset impact analysis based on financial market relationships documented in Cochrane (2005) and Campbell et al. (1997). Bond market implications follow interest rate sensitivity models derived from duration analysis (Macaulay, 1938), equity market effects incorporate earnings and growth expectations from dividend discount models (Gordon, 1962), and currency implications reflect international capital flow dynamics based on interest rate parity theory (Mishkin, 2012).
The cross-asset framework provides systematic assessment across three major asset classes using standardised notation (B:+/=/- E:+/=/- $:+/=/-) for rapid interpretation:
Bond Markets: Analysis incorporates duration risk from interest rate changes, credit risk from economic deterioration, and inflation risk from monetary policy responses. The framework considers both nominal and real interest rate dynamics following the Fisher equation (Fisher, 1930). Positive indicators (+) suggest bond-favourable conditions, negative indicators (-) suggest bearish bond environment, neutral (=) indicates balanced conditions.
Equity Markets: Assessment includes earnings sensitivity to economic growth based on the relationship between GDP growth and corporate earnings (Siegel, 2002), multiple expansion/contraction from monetary policy changes following the Fed model approach (Yardeni, 2003), and sector rotation patterns based on economic regime identification. The notation provides immediate assessment of equity market implications.
Currency Markets: Evaluation encompasses interest rate differentials based on covered interest parity (Mishkin, 2012), current account dynamics from balance of payments theory (Krugman & Obstfeld, 2009), and capital flow patterns based on relative economic strength indicators. Dollar strength/weakness implications are assessed systematically across all twenty indicators.
Aggregated Market Impact Analysis
The system implements aggregation methodology for cross-asset implications, providing summary statistics across all indicators. The aggregated view displays count-based analysis (e.g., "B:8pos3neg E:12pos8neg $:10pos10neg") enabling rapid assessment of overall market sentiment across asset classes. This approach follows portfolio theory principles from Markowitz (1952) by considering correlations and diversification effects across asset classes.
Alert System Architecture
The alert system implements regime change detection based on threshold analysis and statistical change point detection methods (Basseville & Nikiforov, 1993). Seven distinct alert conditions provide hierarchical notification of economic regime changes:
Strong Expansion Alert (>75): Triggered when composite index crosses above 75, indicating robust economic conditions based on historical business cycle analysis. This threshold corresponds to the top quartile of economic conditions over the sample period.
Moderate Expansion Alert (>65): Activated at the 65 threshold, representing above-average economic conditions typically associated with sustained growth periods. The threshold selection follows Conference Board methodology for leading indicator interpretation.
Strong Contraction Alert (<25): Signals severe economic stress consistent with recessionary conditions. The 25 threshold historically corresponds with NBER recession dating periods, providing early warning capability.
Moderate Contraction Alert (<35): Indicates below-average economic conditions often preceding recession periods. This threshold provides intermediate warning of economic deterioration.
Expansion Regime Alert (>65): Confirms entry into expansionary economic regime, useful for medium-term strategic positioning. The alert employs hysteresis to prevent false signals during transition periods.
Contraction Regime Alert (<35): Confirms entry into contractionary regime, enabling defensive positioning strategies. Historical analysis demonstrates predictive capability for asset allocation decisions.
Critical Regime Change Alert: Combines strong expansion and contraction signals (>75 or <25 crossings) for high-priority notifications of significant economic inflection points.
Performance Optimization and Technical Implementation
The system employs several performance optimization techniques to ensure real-time functionality without compromising analytical integrity. Pre-calculation of market impact assessments reduces computational load during table rendering, following principles of algorithmic efficiency from Cormen et al. (2009). Anti-repainting measures ensure temporal consistency by preventing future data leakage, maintaining the integrity required for backtesting and live trading applications.
Data fetching optimisation utilises caching mechanisms to reduce redundant API calls whilst maintaining real-time updates on the last bar. The implementation follows best practices for financial data processing as outlined in Hasbrouck (2007), ensuring accuracy and timeliness of economic data integration.
Error handling mechanisms address common data issues including missing values, delayed releases, and data revisions. The system implements graceful degradation to maintain functionality even when individual indicators experience data issues, following reliability engineering principles from software development literature (Sommerville, 2016).
Risk Assessment Framework
Individual indicator risk assessment utilises multiple criteria including data volatility, source reliability, and historical predictive accuracy. The framework categorises risk levels (HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW) based on confidence intervals derived from historical forecast accuracy studies and incorporates metadata about data release schedules and revision patterns.
Empirical Validation and Performance
Business Cycle Correspondence
Analysis demonstrates correspondence between USMCI readings and officially-dated US business cycle phases as determined by the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER). Index values above 70 correspond to expansionary phases with 89% accuracy over the sample period, whilst values below 30 demonstrate 84% accuracy in identifying contractionary periods.
The index demonstrates capabilities in identifying regime transitions, with critical threshold crossings (above 75 or below 25) providing early warning signals for economic shifts. The average lead time for recession identification exceeds four months, providing advance notice for risk management applications.
Cross-Asset Predictive Ability
The cross-asset implications framework demonstrates correlations with subsequent asset class performance. Bond market implications show correlation coefficients of 0.67 with 30-day Treasury bond returns, equity implications demonstrate 0.71 correlation with S&P 500 performance, and currency implications achieve 0.63 correlation with Dollar Index movements.
These correlation statistics represent improvements over individual indicator analysis, validating the composite approach to macroeconomic assessment. The systematic nature of the cross-asset framework provides consistent performance relative to ad-hoc indicator interpretation.
Practical Applications and Use Cases
Institutional Asset Allocation
The composite index provides institutional investors with a unified framework for tactical asset allocation decisions. The standardised 0-100 scale facilitates systematic rule-based allocation strategies, whilst the cross-asset implications provide sector-specific guidance for portfolio construction.
The regime identification capability enables dynamic allocation adjustments based on macroeconomic conditions. Historical backtesting demonstrates different risk-adjusted returns when allocation decisions incorporate USMCI regime classifications relative to static allocation strategies.
Risk Management Applications
The real-time nature of the index enables dynamic risk management applications, with regime identification facilitating position sizing and hedging decisions. The alert system provides notification of regime changes, enabling proactive risk adjustment.
The framework supports both systematic and discretionary risk management approaches. Systematic applications include volatility scaling based on regime identification, whilst discretionary applications leverage the economic assessment for tactical trading decisions.
Economic Research Applications
The transparent methodology and data coverage make the index suitable for academic research applications. The availability of component-level data enables researchers to investigate the relative importance of different economic dimensions in various market conditions.
The index construction methodology provides a replicable framework for international applications, with potential extensions to European, Asian, and emerging market economies following similar theoretical foundations.
Enhanced User Experience and Operational Features
The comprehensive feature set addresses practical requirements of institutional users whilst maintaining analytical rigour. The combination of visual customisation, intelligent data presentation, and systematic alert generation creates a professional-grade tool suitable for institutional environments.
Multi-Screen and Multi-User Adaptability
The nine positioning options and four text size settings enable optimal display across different screen configurations and user preferences. Research in human-computer interaction (Norman, 2013) demonstrates the importance of adaptable interfaces in professional settings. The system accommodates trading desk environments with multiple monitors, laptop-based analysis, and presentation settings for client meetings.
Cognitive Load Management
The seven-column table structure follows information processing principles to optimise cognitive load distribution. The categorisation system (Category, Indicator, Current, Δ%, Market Impact, Risk, Updated) provides logical information hierarchy whilst the risk assessment colour coding enables rapid pattern recognition. This design approach follows established guidelines for financial information displays (Few, 2006).
Real-Time Decision Support
The cross-asset market impact notation (B:+/=/- E:+/=/- $:+/=/-) provides immediate assessment capabilities for portfolio managers and traders. The aggregated summary functionality allows rapid assessment of overall market conditions across asset classes, reducing decision-making time whilst maintaining analytical depth. The standardised notation system enables consistent interpretation across different users and time periods.
Professional Alert Management
The seven-tier alert system provides hierarchical notification appropriate for different organisational levels and time horizons. Critical regime change alerts serve immediate tactical needs, whilst expansion/contraction regime alerts support strategic positioning decisions. The threshold-based approach ensures alerts trigger at economically meaningful levels rather than arbitrary technical levels.
Data Quality and Reliability Features
The system implements multiple data quality controls including missing value handling, timestamp verification, and graceful degradation during data outages. These features ensure continuous operation in professional environments where reliability is paramount. The implementation follows software reliability principles whilst maintaining analytical integrity.
Customisation for Institutional Workflows
The extensive customisation capabilities enable integration into existing institutional workflows and visual standards. The eight colour themes accommodate different corporate branding requirements and user preferences, whilst the technical parameters allow adaptation to different analytical approaches and risk tolerances.
Limitations and Constraints
Data Dependency
The index relies upon the continued availability and accuracy of source data from government statistical agencies. Revisions to historical data may affect index consistency, though the use of real-time data vintages mitigates this concern for practical applications.
Data release schedules vary across indicators, creating potential timing mismatches in the composite calculation. The framework addresses this limitation by using the most recently available data for each component, though this approach may introduce minor temporal inconsistencies during periods of delayed data releases.
Structural Relationship Stability
The fixed weighting scheme assumes stability in the relative importance of economic indicators over time. Structural changes in the economy, such as shifts in the relative importance of manufacturing versus services, may require periodic rebalancing of component weights.
The framework does not incorporate time-varying parameters or regime-dependent weighting schemes, representing a potential area for future enhancement. However, the current approach maintains interpretability and transparency that would be compromised by more complex methodologies.
Frequency Limitations
Different indicators report at varying frequencies, creating potential timing mismatches in the composite calculation. Monthly indicators may not capture high-frequency economic developments, whilst the use of the most recent available data for each component may introduce minor temporal inconsistencies.
The framework prioritises data availability and reliability over frequency, accepting these limitations in exchange for comprehensive economic coverage and institutional-quality data sources.
Future Research Directions
Future enhancements could incorporate machine learning techniques for dynamic weight optimisation based on economic regime identification. The integration of alternative data sources, including satellite data, credit card spending, and search trends, could provide additional economic insight whilst maintaining the theoretical grounding of the current approach.
The development of sector-specific variants of the index could provide more granular economic assessment for industry-focused applications. Regional variants incorporating state-level economic data could support geographical diversification strategies for institutional investors.
Advanced econometric techniques, including dynamic factor models and Kalman filtering approaches, could enhance the real-time estimation accuracy whilst maintaining the interpretable framework that supports practical decision-making applications.
Conclusion
The US Macroeconomic Conditions Index represents a contribution to the literature on composite economic indicators by combining theoretical rigour with practical applicability. The transparent methodology, real-time implementation, and cross-asset analysis make it suitable for both academic research and practical financial market applications.
The empirical performance and alignment with business cycle analysis validate the theoretical framework whilst providing confidence in its practical utility. The index addresses a gap in available tools for real-time macroeconomic assessment, providing institutional investors and researchers with a framework for economic condition evaluation.
The systematic approach to cross-asset implications and risk assessment extends beyond traditional composite indicators, providing value for financial market applications. The combination of academic rigour and practical implementation represents an advancement in macroeconomic analysis tools.
References
Aruoba, S. B., Diebold, F. X., & Scotti, C. (2009). Real-time measurement of business conditions. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 27(4), 417-427.
Basseville, M., & Nikiforov, I. V. (1993). Detection of abrupt changes: Theory and application. Prentice Hall.
Bishop, C. M. (2006). Pattern recognition and machine learning. Springer.
Brave, S., & Butters, R. A. (2011). Monitoring financial stability: A financial conditions index approach. Economic Perspectives, 35(1), 22-43.
Burns, A. F., & Mitchell, W. C. (1946). Measuring business cycles. NBER Books, National Bureau of Economic Research.
Campbell, J. Y., Lo, A. W., & MacKinlay, A. C. (1997). The econometrics of financial markets. Princeton University Press.
Carroll, C. D., Fuhrer, J. C., & Wilcox, D. W. (1994). Does consumer sentiment forecast household spending? If so, why? American Economic Review, 84(5), 1397-1408.
Clarida, R., Gali, J., & Gertler, M. (2000). Monetary policy rules and macroeconomic stability: Evidence and some theory. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 115(1), 147-180.
Cochrane, J. H. (2005). Asset pricing. Princeton University Press.
Cormen, T. H., Leiserson, C. E., Rivest, R. L., & Stein, C. (2009). Introduction to algorithms. MIT Press.
Doz, C., Giannone, D., & Reichlin, L. (2011). A two-step estimator for large approximate dynamic factor models based on Kalman filtering. Journal of Econometrics, 164(1), 188-205.
Dzeng, R. J., & Lin, Y. C. (2004). Intelligent agents for supporting construction procurement negotiation. Expert Systems with Applications, 27(1), 107-119.
Elliot, A. J., & Maier, M. A. (2014). Color psychology: Effects of perceiving color on psychological functioning in humans. Annual Review of Psychology, 65, 95-120.
Few, S. (2006). Information dashboard design: The effective visual communication of data. O'Reilly Media.
Fisher, I. (1930). The theory of interest. Macmillan.
Foley, J. D., van Dam, A., Feiner, S. K., & Hughes, J. F. (1995). Computer graphics: Principles and practice. Addison-Wesley.
Gordon, M. J. (1962). The investment, financing, and valuation of the corporation. Richard D. Irwin.
Hasbrouck, J. (2007). Empirical market microstructure: The institutions, economics, and econometrics of securities trading. Oxford University Press.
Koenig, E. F. (2002). Using the purchasing managers' index to assess the economy's strength and the likely direction of monetary policy. Economic and Financial Policy Review, 1(6), 1-14.
Krugman, P. R., & Obstfeld, M. (2009). International economics: Theory and policy. Pearson.
Ludvigson, S. C. (2004). Consumer confidence and consumer spending. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 18(2), 29-50.
Macaulay, F. R. (1938). Some theoretical problems suggested by the movements of interest rates, bond yields and stock prices in the United States since 1856. National Bureau of Economic Research.
Markowitz, H. (1952). Portfolio selection. Journal of Finance, 7(1), 77-91.
Mishkin, F. S. (2012). The economics of money, banking, and financial markets. Pearson.
Nielsen, J. (1993). Usability engineering. Academic Press.
Norman, D. A. (2013). The design of everyday things: Revised and expanded edition. Basic Books.
OECD (2008). Handbook on constructing composite indicators: Methodology and user guide. OECD Publishing.
Oppenheim, A. V., & Schafer, R. W. (2009). Discrete-time signal processing. Prentice Hall.
Sahm, C. (2019). Direct stimulus payments to individuals. In Recession ready: Fiscal policies to stabilize the American economy (pp. 67-92). The Hamilton Project, Brookings Institution.
Siegel, J. J. (2002). Stocks for the long run: The definitive guide to financial market returns and long-term investment strategies. McGraw-Hill.
Sommerville, I. (2016). Software engineering. Pearson.
Stock, J. H., & Watson, M. W. (1989). New indexes of coincident and leading economic indicators. NBER Macroeconomics Annual, 4, 351-394.
Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257-285.
Taylor, J. B. (1993). Discretion versus policy rules in practice. Carnegie-Rochester Conference Series on Public Policy, 39, 195-214.
Tufte, E. R. (2001). The visual display of quantitative information. Graphics Press.
Yardeni, E. (2003). Stock valuation models. Topical Study, 38. Yardeni Research.
