FNGAdataHighHigh prices for FNGA ETF (Dec 2018–May 2025)
The High prices for FNGA ETF (December 2018 – May 2025) represent the maximum trading price reached during each regular U.S. market session over the entire trading lifespan of this leveraged exchange-traded note. Originally issued under the ticker FNGU, and later rebranded as FNGA in March 2025 before its redemption, the fund was designed to deliver 3x daily leveraged exposure to the MicroSectors FANG+™ Index. This index focused on a concentrated group of large-cap technology and technology-enabled companies such as Facebook (Meta), Amazon, Apple, Netflix, and Google (Alphabet), along with a few other growth leaders.
The High price data from December 2018 through May 2025 is crucial for understanding how FNGA behaved during intraday trading sessions. Because FNGA was a daily resetting 3x leveraged product, its intraday highs often displayed extreme sensitivity to movements in the underlying FANG+™ stocks, resulting in sharp upward spikes during bullish days and pronounced volatility during broader market rallies.
ค้นหาในสคริปต์สำหรับ "泰尔股份2025年6月5日之后的5个交易日+每天的涨跌幅"
Dskyz (DAFE) Quantum Sentiment Flux - Beginners Dskyz (DAFE) Quantum Sentiment Flux - Beginners:
Welcome to the Dskyz (DAFE) Quantum Sentiment Flux - Beginners , a strategy and concept that’s your ultimate wingman for trading futures like MNQ, NQ, MES, and ES. This gem combines lightning-fast momentum signals, market sentiment smarts, and bulletproof risk management into a system so intuitive, even newbies can trade like pros. With clean DAFE visuals, preset modes for every vibe, and a revamped dashboard that’s basically a market GPS, this strategy makes futures trading feel like a high-octane sci-fi mission.
Built on the Dskyz (DAFE) legacy of Aurora Divergence, the Quantum Sentiment Flux is designed to empower beginners while giving seasoned traders a lean, sentiment-driven edge. It uses fast/slow EMA crossovers for entries, filters trades with VIX, SPX trends, and sector breadth, and keeps your account safe with adaptive stops and cooldowns. Tuned for more action with faster signals and a slick bottom-left dashboard, this updated version is ready to light up your charts and outsmart institutional traps. Let’s dive into why this strat’s a must-have and break down its brilliance.
Why Traders Need This Strategy
Futures markets are a wild ride—fast moves, volatility spikes (like the April 28, 2025 NQ 1k-point drop), and institutional games that can wreck unprepared traders. Beginners often get lost in complex systems or burned by impulsive trades. The Quantum Sentiment Flux is the antidote, offering:
Dead-Simple Setup: Preset modes (Aggressive, Balanced, Conservative) auto-tune signals, risk, and sizing, so you can trade without a quant degree.
Sentiment Superpower: VIX filter, SPX trend, and sector breadth visuals keep you aligned with market health, dodging chop and riding trends.
Ironclad Safety: Tighter ATR-based stops, 2:1 take-profits, and preset cooldowns protect your capital, even in chaotic sessions.
Next-Level Visuals: Green/red entry triangles, vibrant EMAs, a sector breadth background, and a beefed-up dashboard make signals and context pop.
DAFE Swagger: The clean aesthetics, sleek dashboard—ties it to Dskyz’s elite brand, making your charts a work of art.
Traders need this because it’s a plug-and-play system that blends beginner-friendly simplicity with pro-level market awareness. Whether you’re just starting or scalping 5min MNQ, this strat’s your key to trading with confidence and style.
Strategy Components
1. Core Signal Logic (High-Speed Momentum)
The strategy’s engine is a momentum-based system using fast and slow Exponential Moving Averages (EMAs), now tuned for faster, more frequent trades.
How It Works:
Fast/Slow EMAs: Fast EMA (Aggressive: 5, Balanced: 7, Conservative: 9 bars) and slow EMA (12/14/18 bars) track short-term vs. longer-term momentum.
Crossover Signals:
Buy: Fast EMA crosses above slow EMA, and trend_dir = 1 (fast EMA > slow EMA + ATR * strength threshold).
Sell: Fast EMA crosses below slow EMA, and trend_dir = -1 (fast EMA < slow EMA - ATR * strength threshold).
Strength Filter: ma_strength = fast EMA - slow EMA must exceed an ATR-scaled threshold (Aggressive: 0.15, Balanced: 0.18, Conservative: 0.25) for robust signals.
Trend Direction: trend_dir confirms momentum, filtering out weak crossovers in choppy markets.
Evolution:
Faster EMAs (down from 7–10/21–50) catch short-term trends, perfect for active futures markets.
Lower strength thresholds (0.15–0.25 vs. 0.3–0.5) make signals more sensitive, boosting trade frequency without sacrificing quality.
Preset tuning ensures beginners get optimized settings, while pros can tweak via mode selection.
2. Market Sentiment Filters
The strategy leans hard into market sentiment with a VIX filter, SPX trend analysis, and sector breadth visuals, keeping trades aligned with the big picture.
VIX Filter:
Logic: Blocks long entries if VIX > threshold (default: 20, can_long = vix_close < vix_limit). Shorts are always allowed (can_short = true).
Impact: Prevents longs during high-fear markets (e.g., VIX spikes in crashes), while allowing shorts to capitalize on downturns.
SPX Trend Filter:
Logic: Compares S&P 500 (SPX) close to its SMA (Aggressive: 5, Balanced: 8, Conservative: 12 bars). spx_trend = 1 (UP) if close > SMA, -1 (DOWN) if < SMA, 0 (FLAT) if neutral.
Impact: Provides dashboard context, encouraging trades that align with market direction (e.g., longs in UP trend).
Sector Breadth (Visual):
Logic: Tracks 10 sector ETFs (XLK, XLF, XLE, etc.) vs. their SMAs (same lengths as SPX). Each sector scores +1 (bullish), -1 (bearish), or 0 (neutral), summed as breadth (-10 to +10).
Display: Green background if breadth > 4, red if breadth < -4, else neutral. Dashboard shows sector trends (↑/↓/-).
Impact: Faster SMA lengths make breadth more responsive, reflecting sector rotations (e.g., tech surging, energy lagging).
Why It’s Brilliant:
- VIX filter adds pro-level volatility awareness, saving beginners from panic-driven losses.
- SPX and sector breadth give a 360° view of market health, boosting signal confidence (e.g., green BG + buy signal = high-probability trade).
- Shorter SMAs make sentiment visuals react faster, perfect for 5min charts.
3. Risk Management
The risk controls are a fortress, now tighter and more dynamic to support frequent trading while keeping accounts safe.
Preset-Based Risk:
Aggressive: Fast EMAs (5/12), tight stops (1.1x ATR), 1-bar cooldown. High trade frequency, higher risk.
Balanced: EMAs (7/14), 1.2x ATR stops, 1-bar cooldown. Versatile for most traders.
Conservative: EMAs (9/18), 1.3x ATR stops, 2-bar cooldown. Safer, fewer trades.
Impact: Auto-scales risk to match style, making it foolproof for beginners.
Adaptive Stops and Take-Profits:
Logic: Stops = entry ± ATR * atr_mult (1.1–1.3x, down from 1.2–2.0x). Take-profits = entry ± ATR * take_mult (2x stop distance, 2:1 reward/risk). Longs: stop below entry, TP above; shorts: vice versa.
Impact: Tighter stops increase trade turnover while maintaining solid risk/reward, adapting to volatility.
Trade Cooldown:
Logic: Preset-driven (Aggressive/Balanced: 1 bar, Conservative: 2 bars vs. old user-input 2). Ensures bar_index - last_trade_bar >= cooldown.
Impact: Faster cooldowns (especially Aggressive/Balanced) allow more trades, balanced by VIX and strength filters.
Contract Sizing:
Logic: User sets contracts (default: 1, max: 10), no preset cap (unlike old 7/5/3 suggestion).
Impact: Flexible but risks over-leverage; beginners should stick to low contracts.
Built To Be Reliable and Consistent:
- Tighter stops and faster cooldowns make it a high-octane system without blowing up accounts.
- Preset-driven risk removes guesswork, letting newbies trade confidently.
- 2:1 TPs ensure profitable trades outweigh losses, even in volatile sessions like April 27, 2025 ES slippage.
4. Trade Entry and Exit Logic
The entry/exit rules are simple yet razor-sharp, now with VIX filtering and faster signals:
Entry Conditions:
Long Entry: buy_signal (fast EMA crosses above slow EMA, trend_dir = 1), no position (strategy.position_size = 0), cooldown passed (can_trade), and VIX < 20 (can_long). Enters with user-defined contracts.
Short Entry: sell_signal (fast EMA crosses below slow EMA, trend_dir = -1), no position, cooldown passed, can_short (always true).
Logic: Tracks last_entry_bar for visuals, last_trade_bar for cooldowns.
Exit Conditions:
Stop-Loss/Take-Profit: ATR-based stops (1.1–1.3x) and TPs (2x stop distance). Longs exit if price hits stop (below) or TP (above); shorts vice versa.
No Other Exits: Keeps it straightforward, relying on stops/TPs.
5. DAFE Visuals
The visuals are pure DAFE magic, blending clean function with informative metrics utilized by professionals, now enhanced by faster signals and a responsive breadth background:
EMA Plots:
Display: Fast EMA (blue, 2px), slow EMA (orange, 2px), using faster lengths (5–9/12–18).
Purpose: Highlights momentum shifts, with crossovers signaling entries.
Sector Breadth Background:
Display: Green (90% transparent) if breadth > 4, red (90%) if breadth < -4, else neutral.
Purpose: Faster breadth_sma_len (5–12 vs. 10–50) reflects sector shifts in real-time, reinforcing signal strength.
- Visuals are intuitive, turning complex signals into clear buy/sell cues.
- Faster breadth background reacts to market rotations (e.g., tech vs. energy), giving a pro-level edge.
6. Sector Breadth Dashboard
The new bottom-left dashboard is a game-changer, a 3x16 table (black/gray theme) that’s your market command center:
Metrics:
VIX: Current VIX (red if > 20, gray if not).
SPX: Trend as “UP” (green), “DOWN” (red), or “FLAT” (gray).
Trade Longs: “OK” (green) if VIX < 20, “BLOCK” (red) if not.
Sector Breadth: 10 sectors (Tech, Financial, etc.) with trend arrows (↑ green, ↓ red, - gray).
Placeholder Row: Empty for future metrics (e.g., ATR, breadth score).
Purpose: Consolidates regime, volatility, market trend, and sector data, making decisions a breeze.
- VIX and SPX metrics add context, helping beginners avoid bad trades (e.g., no longs if “BLOCK”).
Sector arrows show market health at a glance, like a cheat code for sentiment.
Key Features
Beginner-Ready: Preset modes and clear visuals make futures trading a breeze.
Sentiment-Driven: VIX filter, SPX trend, and sector breadth keep you in sync with the market.
High-Frequency: Faster EMAs, tighter stops, and short cooldowns boost trade volume.
Safe and Smart: Adaptive stops/TPs and cooldowns protect capital while maximizing wins.
Visual Mastery: DAFE’s clean flair, EMAs, dashboard—makes trading fun and clear.
Backtestable: Lean code and fixed qty ensure accurate historical testing.
How to Use
Add to Chart: Load on a 5min MNQ/ES chart in TradingView.
Pick Preset: Aggressive (scalping), Balanced (versatile), or Conservative (safe). Balanced is default.
Set Contracts: Default 1, max 10. Stick low for safety.
Check Dashboard: Bottom-left shows preset, VIX, SPX, and sectors. “OK” + green breadth = strong buy.
Backtest: Run in strategy tester to compare modes.
Live Trade: Connect to Tradovate or similar. Watch for slippage (e.g., April 27, 2025 ES issues).
Replay Test: Try April 28, 2025 NQ drop to see VIX filter and stops in action.
Why It’s Brilliant
The Dskyz (DAFE) Quantum Sentiment Flux - Beginners is a masterpiece of simplicity and power. It takes pro-level tools—momentum, VIX, sector breadth—and wraps them in a system anyone can run. Faster signals and tighter stops make it a trading machine, while the VIX filter and dashboard keep you ahead of market chaos. The DAFE visuals and bottom-left command center turn your chart into a futuristic cockpit, guiding you through every trade. For beginners, it’s a safe entry to futures; for pros, it’s a scalping beast with sentiment smarts. This strat doesn’t just trade—it transforms how you see the market.
Final Notes
This is more than a strategy—it’s your launchpad to mastering futures with Dskyz (DAFE) flair. The Quantum Sentiment Flux blends accessibility, speed, and market savvy to help you outsmart the game. Load it, watch those triangles glow, and let’s make the markets your canvas!
Official Statement from Pine Script Team
(see TradingView help docs and forums):
"This warning may appear when you call functions such as ta.sma inside a request.security in a loop. There is no runtime impact. If you need to loop through a dynamic list of tickers, this cannot be avoided in the present version... Values will still be correct. Ignore this warning in such contexts."
(This publishing will most likely be taken down do to some miscellaneous rule about properly displaying charting symbols, or whatever. Once I've identified what part of the publishing they want to pick on, I'll adjust and repost.)
Use it with discipline. Use it with clarity. Trade smarter.
**I will continue to release incredible strategies and indicators until I turn this into a brand or until someone offers me a contract.
Created by Dskyz, powered by DAFE Trading Systems. Trade fast, trade bold.
Williams R Zone Scalper v1.0[BullByte]Originality & Usefulness
Unlike standard Williams R cross-over scripts, this strategy layers five dynamic filters—moving-average trend, Supertrend, Choppiness Index, Bollinger Band Width, and volume validation —and presents a real-time dashboard with equity, PnL, filter status, and key indicator values. No other public Pine script combines these elements with toggleable filters and a custom dashboard. In backtests (BTC/USD (Binance), 5 min, 24 Mar 2025 → 28 Apr 2025), adding these filters turned a –2.09 % standalone Williams R into a +5.05 % net winner while cutting maximum drawdown in half.
---
What This Script Does
- Monitors Williams R (length 14) for overbought/oversold reversals.
- Applies up to five dynamic filters to confirm trend strength and volatility direction:
- Moving average (SMA/EMA/WMA/HMA)
- Supertrend line
- Choppiness Index (CI)
- Bollinger Band Width (BBW)
- Volume vs. its 50-period MA
- Plots blue arrows for Long entries (R crosses above –80 + all filters green) and red arrows for Short entries (R crosses below –20 + all filters green).
- Optionally sets dynamic ATR-based stop-loss (1.5×ATR) and take-profit (2×ATR).
- Shows a dashboard box with current position, equity, PnL, filter status, and real-time Williams R / MA/volume values.
---
Backtest Summary (BTC/USD(Binance), 5 min, 24 Mar 2025 → 28 Apr 2025)
• Total P&L : +50.70 USD (+5.05 %)
• Max Drawdown : 31.93 USD (3.11 %)
• Total Trades : 198
• Win Rate : 55.05 % (109/89)
• Profit Factor : 1.288
• Commission : 0.01 % per trade
• Slippage : 0 ticks
Even in choppy March–April, this multi-filter approach nets +5 % with a robust risk profile, compared to –2.09 % and higher drawdown for Williams R alone.
---
Williams R Alone vs. Multi-Filter Version
• Total P&L :
– Williams R alone → –20.83 USD (–2.09 %)
– Multi-Filter → +50.70 USD (+5.05 %)
• Max Drawdown :
– Williams R alone → 62.13 USD (6.00 %)
– Multi-Filter → 31.93 USD (3.11 %)
• Total Trades : 543 vs. 198
• Win Rate : 60.22 % vs. 55.05 %
• Profit Factor : 0.943 vs. 1.288
---
Inputs & What They Control
- wrLen (14): Williams R look-back
- maType (EMA): Trend filter type (SMA, EMA, WMA, HMA)
- maLen (20): Moving-average period
- useChop (true): Toggle Choppiness Index filter
- ciLen (12): CI look-back length
- chopThr (38.2): CI threshold (below = trending)
- useVol (true): Toggle volume-above-average filter
- volMaLen (50): Volume MA period
- useBBW (false): Toggle Bollinger Band Width filter
- bbwMaLen (50): BBW MA period
- useST (false): Toggle Supertrend filter
- stAtrLen (10): Supertrend ATR length
- stFactor (3.0): Supertrend multiplier
- useSL (false): Toggle ATR-based SL/TP
- atrLen (14): ATR period for SL/TP
- slMult (1.5): SL = slMult × ATR
- tpMult (2.0): TP = tpMult × ATR
---
How to Read the Chart
- Blue arrow (Long): Williams R crosses above –80 + all enabled filters green
- Red arrow (Short) : Williams R crosses below –20 + all filters green
- Dashboard box:
- Top : position and equity
- Next : cumulative PnL in USD & %
- Middle : green/white dots for each filter (green=passing, white=disabled)
- Bottom : Williams R, MA, and volume current values
---
Usage Tips
- Add the script : Indicators → My Scripts → Williams R Zone Scalper v1.0 → Add to BTC/USD chart on 5 min.
- Defaults : Optimized for BTC/USD.
- Forex majors : Raise `chopThr` to ~42.
- Stocks/high-beta : Enable `useBBW`.
- Enable SL/TP : Toggle `useSL`; stop-loss = 1.5×ATR, take-profit = 2×ATR apply automatically.
---
Common Questions
- * Why not trade every Williams R reversal?*
Raw Williams R whipsaws in sideways markets. Choppiness and volume filters reduce false entries.
- *Can I use on 1 min or 15 min?*
Yes—adjust ATR length or thresholds accordingly. Defaults target 5 min scalping.
- *What if all filters are on?*
Fewer arrows, higher-quality signals. Expect ~10 % boost in average win size.
---
Disclaimer & License
Trading carries risk of loss. Use this script “as is” under the Mozilla Public License 2.0 (mozilla.org). Always backtest, paper-trade, and adjust risk settings to your own profile.
---
Credits & References
- Pine Script v6, using TradingView’s built-in `ta.supertrend()`.
- TradingView House Rules: www.tradingview.com
Goodluck!
BullByte
US Construction Spending & Manufacturing Employment YoY % ChangeUsage Notes: Timeframe: Use a monthly chart, as TTLCONS and MANEMP are monthly data. Other timeframes result in interpolation.
Data Availability: As of October 2025, TTLCONS is available until July 2025 and MANEMP until August 2025 (automatically via TradingView).
The Unsung Heroes: Why C&M Are the True Indicators
Imagine the economy is a highly sensitive vehicle. Quarterly reported GDP is like a quarterly glance at the odometer—it's slow, often delayed, and clearly refers to the past. Anyone who wants to predict future developments needs something much faster.
This is where construction and manufacturing come into play. These two sectors are the machine builders of the economy and provide us with real-time feedback. They form the backbone of economic forecasting for several important reasons:
1. Monetary policy indicators: Both sectors are highly sensitive to monetary policy developments, such as interest rate changes. If developers are unable to finance large residential or commercial projects and manufacturers postpone capital-intensive factory expansions, for example, declines in construction demand would quickly affect other sectors.
2. The backbone of the secondary sector: These industries constitute the secondary sector of the economy, meaning they are concerned with the actual transformation and production of goods, not just the extraction of raw materials or the provision of intangible services. One could argue that while they only account for about 15% of GDP in the US, their impact is massive and cyclical.
3. The timeliness advantage: Forget quarterly lags. Both construction output and manufacturing employment data are released monthly. This timely, frequent data allows analysts to assess economic momentum much more quickly than if they had to wait for delayed GDP reports.
In the US, some analysts have even titled their articles with the bold claim: "Housing construction is the business cycle." Fluctuations in housing construction are frequent and large, and a decline in activity is almost always accompanied by a subsequent decline in GDP.
FNGAdataLow“Low prices for FNGA ETF (Dec 2018–May 2025)
The Low prices for FNGA ETF (December 2018 – May 2025) capture the lowest trading price reached during each regular U.S. market session over the entire lifespan of this leveraged exchange-traded note. Initially launched under the ticker FNGU, and later rebranded as FNGA in March 2025 before its eventual redemption, the fund was structured to deliver 3x daily leveraged exposure to the MicroSectors FANG+™ Index. This index concentrated on a small basket of leading technology and tech-enabled growth companies such as Meta (Facebook), Amazon, Apple, Netflix, and Alphabet (Google), along with a few other innovators.
The Low price is particularly important in the study of FNGA because it highlights the intraday downside extremes of a highly volatile, leveraged product. Since FNGA was designed to reset leverage daily, its lows often reflected moments of amplified market stress, when declines in the underlying FANG+™ stocks were multiplied through the 3x leverage structure.
FNGAdataOpenOpen prices for FNGA ETF (Dec 2018–May 2025)
The FNGA ETF (originally launched under the FNGU ticker before being renamed in March 2025) tracked the MicroSectors FANG+™ Index with 3x daily leverage and was designed to give traders magnified exposure to a concentrated basket of large-cap technology and tech-enabled companies. The fund’s price history contains multiple phases due to ticker changes, corporate actions, and its eventual redemption in mid-2025.
When looking specifically at Open prices from December 2018 through May 2025, this dataset provides the daily opening values for FNGA across its entire lifecycle. The opening price is the first traded price at the start of each regular U.S. market session (9:30 a.m. Eastern Time). It is an important measure for traders and analysts because it reflects overnight sentiment, pre-market positioning, and often sets the tone for intraday volatility.
TASC 2025.09 The Continuation Index
█ OVERVIEW
This script implements the "Continuation Index" as described by John F. Ehlers in the September 2025 edition of TASC's Trader's Tips . The Continuation Index uses Laguerre filters (featured in the July 2025 edition) to provide an early indication of trend direction, continuation, and exhaustion.
█ CONCEPTS
The idea for the Continuation Index was formed from an observation about Laguerre filters. In his article, Ehlers notes that when price is in trend, it tends to stay to one side of the filter. When considering smoothing, the UltimateSmoother was an obvious choice to reduce lag. With that in mind, The Continuation Index normalizes the difference between UltimateSmoother and the Laguerre filter to produce a two-state oscillator.
To minimize lag, the UltimateSmoother length in this indicator is fixed to half the length of the Laguerre filter.
█ USAGE
The Continuation Index consists of two primary states.
+1 suggests that the trader should position on the long side.
-1 suggests that the user should position on the short side.
Other readings can imply other opportunities, such as:
High Value Fluctuation could be used as a "buy the dip" opportunity.
Low Value Fluctuation could be used as a "sell the pop" opportunity.
█ INPUTS
By understanding the inputs and adjusting them as needed, each trader can benefit more from this indicator:
Gamma : Controls the Laguerre filter's response. This can be set anywhere between 0 and 1. If set to 0, the filter’s value will be the same as the UltimateSmoother.
Order : Controls the lag of the Laguerre filter, which is important when considering the timing of the system for spotting reversals. This can be set from 1 to 10, with lower values typically producing faster timing.
Length : Affects the smoothing of the display. Ehlers recommends starting with this value set to the intended amount of time you plan to hold a position. Consider your chart timeframe when setting this input. For example, on a daily chart, if you intend to hold a position for one month, set a value of 20.
Floating Bands of the Argentine Peso (Sebastian.Waisgold)
The BCRA ( Central Bank of the Argentine Republic ) announced that as of Monday, April 15, 2025, the Argentine Peso (USDARS) will float within a system of divergent exchange rate bands.
The upper band was set at ARS 1400 per USD on 15/04/2025, with a +1% monthly adjustment distributed daily, rising by a fraction each day.
The lower band was set at ARS 1000 per USD on 15/04/2025, with a –1% monthly adjustment distributed daily, falling by a fraction each day.
This indicator is crucial for anyone trading USDARS, since the BCRA will only intervene in these situations:
- Selling : if the Peso depreciates against the USD above the upper band .
- Buying : if the Peso appreciates against the USD below the lower band .
Therefore, this indicator can be used as follows:
- If USDARS is above the upper band , it is “expensive” and you may sell .
- If USDARS is below the lower band , it is “cheap” and you may buy .
It can also be applied to other assets such as:
- USDTARS
- Dollar Cable / CCL (Contado con Liquidación) , derived from the BCBA:YPFD / NYSE:YPF ratio.
A mid band —exactly halfway between the upper and lower bands—has also been added.
Once added, the indicator should look like this:
In the following image you can see:
- Upper Floating Band
- Lower Floating Band
- Mid Floating Band
User Configuration
By double-clicking any line you can adjust:
- Start day (Dia de incio), month (Mes de inicio), and year (Año de inicio)
- Initial upper band value (Valor inicial banda superior)
- Initial lower band value (Valor inicial banda inferior)
- Monthly rate Tasa mensual %)
It is recommended not to modify these settings for the Argentine Peso, as they reflect the BCRA’s official framework. However, you may customize them—and the line colors—for other assets or currencies implementing a similar band scheme.
MSTY-WNTR Rebalancing SignalMSTY-WNTR Rebalancing Signal
## Overview
The **MSTY-WNTR Rebalancing Signal** is a custom TradingView indicator designed to help investors dynamically allocate between two YieldMax ETFs: **MSTY** (YieldMax MSTR Option Income Strategy ETF) and **WNTR** (YieldMax Short MSTR Option Income Strategy ETF). These ETFs are tied to MicroStrategy (MSTR) stock, which is heavily influenced by Bitcoin's price due to MSTR's significant Bitcoin holdings.
MSTY benefits from upward movements in MSTR (and thus Bitcoin) through a covered call strategy that generates income but caps upside potential. WNTR, on the other hand, provides inverse exposure, profiting from MSTR declines but losing in rallies. This indicator uses Bitcoin's momentum and MSTR's relative strength to signal when to hold MSTY (bullish phases), WNTR (bearish phases), or stay neutral, aiming to optimize returns by switching allocations at key turning points.
Inspired by strategies discussed in crypto communities (e.g., X posts analyzing MSTR-linked ETFs), this indicator promotes an active rebalancing approach over a "set and forget" buy-and-hold strategy. In simulated backtests over the past 12 months (as of August 4, 2025), the optimized version has shown potential to outperform holding 100% MSTY or 100% WNTR alone, with an illustrative APY of ~125% vs. ~6% for MSTY and ~-15% for WNTR in one scenario.
**Important Disclaimer**: This is not financial advice. Past performance does not guarantee future results. Always consult a financial advisor. Trading involves risk, and you could lose money. The indicator is for educational and informational purposes only.
## Key Features
- **Momentum-Based Signals**: Uses a Simple Moving Average (SMA) on Bitcoin's price to detect bullish (price > SMA) or bearish (price < SMA) trends.
- **RSI Confirmation**: Incorporates MSTR's Relative Strength Index (RSI) to filter signals, avoiding overbought conditions for MSTY and oversold for WNTR.
- **Visual Cues**:
- Green upward triangle for "Hold MSTY".
- Red downward triangle for "Hold WNTR".
- Yellow cross for "Switch" signals.
- Background color: Green for MSTY, red for WNTR.
- **Information Panel**: A table in the top-right corner displays real-time data: BTC Price, SMA value, MSTR RSI, and current Allocation (MSTY, WNTR, or Neutral).
- **Alerts**: Configurable alerts for holding MSTY, holding WNTR, or switching.
- **Optimized Parameters**: Defaults are tuned (SMA: 10 days, RSI: 15 periods, Overbought: 80, Oversold: 20) based on simulations to reduce whipsaws and capture trends effectively.
## How It Works
The indicator's logic is straightforward yet effective for volatile assets like Bitcoin and MSTR:
1. **Primary Trigger (Bitcoin Momentum)**:
- Calculate the SMA of Bitcoin's closing price (default: 10-day).
- Bullish: Current BTC price > SMA → Potential MSTY hold.
- Bearish: Current BTC price < SMA → Potential WNTR hold.
2. **Secondary Filter (MSTR RSI Confirmation)**:
- Compute RSI on MSTR stock (default: 15-period).
- For bullish signals: If RSI > Overbought (80), signal Neutral (avoid overextended rallies).
- For bearish signals: If RSI < Oversold (20), signal Neutral (avoid capitulation bottoms).
3. **Allocation Rules**:
- Hold 100% MSTY if bullish and not overbought.
- Hold 100% WNTR if bearish and not oversold.
- Neutral otherwise (e.g., during choppy or extreme markets) – consider holding cash or avoiding trades.
4. **Rebalancing**:
- Switch signals trigger when the hold changes (e.g., from MSTY to WNTR).
- Recommended frequency: Weekly reviews or on 5% BTC moves to minimize trading costs (aim for 4-6 trades/year).
This approach leverages Bitcoin's influence on MSTR while mitigating the risks of MSTY's covered call drag during downtrends and WNTR's losses in uptrends.
## Setup and Usage
1. **Chart Requirements**:
- Apply this indicator to a Bitcoin chart (e.g., BTCUSD on Binance or Coinbase, daily timeframe recommended).
- Ensure MSTR stock data is accessible (TradingView supports it natively).
2. **Adding to TradingView**:
- Open the Pine Editor.
- Paste the script code.
- Save and add to your chart.
- Customize inputs if needed (e.g., adjust SMA/RSI lengths for different timeframes).
3. **Interpretation**:
- **Green Background/Triangle**: Allocate 100% to MSTY – Bitcoin is in an uptrend, MSTR not overbought.
- **Red Background/Triangle**: Allocate 100% to WNTR – Bitcoin in downtrend, MSTR not oversold.
- **Yellow Switch Cross**: Rebalance your portfolio immediately.
- **Neutral (No Signal)**: Panel shows "Neutral" – Hold cash or previous position; reassess weekly.
- Monitor the panel for key metrics to validate signals manually.
4. **Backtesting and Strategy Integration**:
- Convert to a strategy script by changing `indicator()` to `strategy()` and adding entry/exit logic for automated testing.
- In simulations (e.g., using Python or TradingView's backtester), it has outperformed buy-and-hold in volatile markets by ~100-200% relative APY, but results vary.
- Factor in fees: ETF expense ratios (~0.99%), trading commissions (~$0.40/trade), and slippage.
5. **Risk Management**:
- Use with a diversified portfolio; never allocate more than you can afford to lose.
- Add stop-losses (e.g., 10% trailing) to protect against extreme moves.
- Rebalance sparingly to avoid over-trading in sideways markets.
- Dividends: Reinvest MSTY/WNTR payouts into the current hold for compounding.
## Performance Insights (Simulated as of August 4, 2025)
Based on synthetic backtests modeling the last 12 months:
- **Optimized Strategy APY**: ~125% (by timing switches effectively).
- **Hold 100% MSTY APY**: ~6% (gains from BTC rallies offset by downtrends).
- **Hold 100% WNTR APY**: ~-15% (losses in bull phases outweigh bear gains).
In one scenario with stronger volatility, the strategy achieved ~4533% APY vs. 10% for MSTY and -34% for WNTR, highlighting its potential in dynamic markets. However, these are illustrative; real results depend on actual BTC/MSTR movements. Test thoroughly on historical data.
## Limitations and Considerations
- **Data Dependency**: Relies on accurate BTC and MSTR data; delays or gaps can affect signals.
- **Market Risks**: Bitcoin's volatility can lead to false signals (whipsaws); the RSI filter helps but isn't perfect.
- **No Guarantees**: This indicator doesn't predict the future. MSTR's correlation to BTC may change (e.g., due to regulatory events).
- **Not for All Users**: Best for intermediate/advanced traders familiar with ETFs and crypto. Beginners should paper trade first.
- **Updates**: As of August 4, 2025, this is version 1.0. Future updates may include volume filters or EMA options.
If you find this indicator useful, consider leaving a like or comment on TradingView. Feedback welcome for improvements!
z-score-calkusi-v1.143z-scores incorporate the moment of N look-back bars to allow future price projection.
z-score = (X - mean)/std.deviation ; X = close
z-scores update with each new close print and with each new bar. Each new bar augments the mean and std.deviation for the N bars considered. The old Nth bar falls away from consideration with each new historical bar.
The indicator allows two other options for X: RSI or Moving Average.
NOTE: While trading use the "price" option only.
The other two options are provided for visualisation of RSI and Moving Average as z-score curves.
Use z-scores to identify tops and bottoms in the future as well as intermediate intersections through which a z-score will pass through with each new close and each new bar.
Draw lines from peaks and troughs in the past through intermediate peaks and troughs to identify projected intersections in the future. The most likely intersections are those that are formed from a line that comes from a peak in the past and another line that comes from a trough in the past. Try getting at least two lines from historical peaks and two lines from historical troughs to pass through a future intersection.
Compute the target intersection price in the future by clicking on the z-score indicator header to see a drag-able horizontal line to drag over the intersection. The target price is the last value displayed in the indicator's status bar after the closing price.
When the indicator header is clicked, a white horizontal drag-able line will appear to allow dragging the line over an intersection that has been drawn on the indicator for a future z-score projection and the associated future closing price.
With each new bar that appears, it is necessary to repeat the procedure of clicking the z-score indicator header to be able to drag the drag-able horizontal line to see the new target price for the selected intersection. The projected price will be different from the current close price providing a price arbitrage in time.
New intermediate peaks and troughs that appear require new lines be drawn from the past through the new intermediate peak to find a new intersection in the future and a new projected price. Since z-score curves are sort of cyclical in nature, it is possible to see where one has to locate a future intersection by drawing lines from past peaks and troughs.
Do not get fixated on any one projected price as the market decides which projected price will be realised. All prospective targets should be manually updated with each new bar.
When the z-score plot moves outside a channel comprised of lines that are drawn from the past, be ready to adjust to new market conditions.
z-score plots that move above the zero line indicate price action that is either rising or ranging. Similarly, z-score plots that move below the zero line indicate price action that is either falling or ranging. Be ready to adjust to new market conditions when z-scores move back and forth across the zero line.
A bar with highest absolute z-score for a cycle screams "reversal approaching" and is followed by a bar with a lower absolute z-score where close price tops and bottoms are realised. This can occur either on the next bar or a few bars later.
The indicator also displays the required N for a Normal(0,1) distribution that can be set for finer granularity for the z-score curve.This works with the Confidence Interval (CI) z-score setting. The default z-score is 1.96 for 95% CI.
Common Confidence Interval z-scores to find N for Normal(0,1) with a Margin of Error (MOE) of 1:
70% 1.036
75% 1.150
80% 1.282
85% 1.440
90% 1.645
95% 1.960
98% 2.326
99% 2.576
99.5% 2.807
99.9% 3.291
99.99% 3.891
99.999% 4.417
9-Jun-2025
Added a feature to display price projection labels at z-score levels 3, 2, 1, 0, -1, -2, 3.
This provides a range for prices available at the current time to help decide whether it is worth entering a trade. If the range of prices from say z=|2| to z=|1| is too narrow, then a trade at the current time may not be worth the risk.
Added plot for z-score moving average.
28-Jun-2025
Added Settings option for # of Std.Deviation level Price Labels to display. The default is 3. Min is 2. Max is 6.
This feature allows likelihood assessment for Fibonacci price projections from higher time frames at lower time frames. A Fibonacci price projection that falls outside |3.x| Std.Deviations is not likely.
Added Settings option for Chart Bar Count and Target Label Offset to allow placement of price labels for the standard z-score levels to the right of the window so that these are still visible in the window.
Target Label Offset allows adjustment of placement of Target Price Label in cases when the Target Price Label is either obscured by the price labels for the standard z-score levels or is too far right to be visible in the window.
9-Jul-2025
z-score 1.142 updates:
Displays in the status line before the close price the range for the selected Std. Deviation levels specified in Settings and |z-zMa|.
When |z-zMa| > |avg(z-zMa)| and zMa rising, |z-zMa| and zMa displays in aqua.
When |z-zMa| > |avg(z-zMa)| and zMa falling, |z-zMa| and zMa displays in red.
When |z-zMa| <= |avg(z-zMa)|, z and zMa display in gray.
z usually crosses over zMa when zMa is gray but not always. So if cross-over occurs when zMa is not gray, it implies a strong move in progress.
Practice makes perfect.
Use this indicator at your own risk
Tuga SupertrendDescription
This strategy uses the Supertrend indicator enhanced with commission and slippage filters to capture trends on the daily chart. It’s designed to work on any asset but is especially effective in markets with consistent movements.
Use the date inputs to set the backtest period (default: from January 1, 2018, through today, June 30, 2025).
The default input values are optimized for the daily chart. For other timeframes, adjust the parameters to suit the asset you’re testing.
Release Notes
June 30, 2025
• Updated default backtest period to end on June 30, 2025.
• Default commission adjusted to 0.1 %.
• Slippage set to 3 ticks.
• Default slippage set to 3 ticks.
• Simplified the strategy name to “Tuga Supertrend”.
Default Parameters
Parameter Default Value
Supertrend Period 10
Multiplier (Factor) 3
Commission 0.1 %
Slippage 3 ticks
Start Date January 1, 2018
End Date June 30, 2025
SPX Weekly Expected Moves# SPX Weekly Expected Moves Indicator
A professional Pine Script indicator for TradingView that displays weekly expected move levels for SPX based on real options data, with integrated Fibonacci retracement analysis and intelligent alerting system.
## Overview
This indicator helps options and equity traders visualize weekly expected move ranges for the S&P 500 Index (SPX) by plotting historical and current week expected move boundaries derived from weekly options pricing. Unlike theoretical volatility calculations, this indicator uses actual market-based expected move data that you provide from options platforms.
## Key Features
### 📈 **Expected Move Visualization**
- **Historical Lines**: Display past weeks' expected moves with configurable history (10, 26, or 52 weeks)
- **Current Week Focus**: Highlighted current week with extended lines to present time
- **Friday Close Reference**: Orange baseline showing the previous Friday's close price
- **Timeframe Independent**: Works consistently across all chart timeframes (1m to 1D)
### 🎯 **Fibonacci Integration**
- **Five Fibonacci Levels**: 23.6%, 38.2%, 50%, 61.8%, 76.4% between Friday close and expected move boundaries
- **Color-Coded Levels**:
- Red: 23.6% & 76.4% (outer levels)
- Blue: 38.2% & 61.8% (golden ratio levels)
- Black: 50% (midpoint - most critical level)
- **Current Week Only**: Fibonacci levels shown only for active trading week to reduce clutter
### 📊 **Real-Time Information Table**
- **Current SPX Price**: Live market price
- **Expected Move**: ±EM value for current week
- **Previous Close**: Friday close price (baseline for calculations)
- **100% EM Levels**: Exact upper and lower boundary prices
- **Current Location**: Real-time position within the EM structure (e.g., "Above 38.2% Fib (upper zone)")
### 🚨 **Intelligent Alert System**
- **Zone-Aware Alerts**: Separate alerts for upper and lower zones
- **Key Level Breaches**: Alerts for 23.6% and 76.4% Fibonacci level crossings
- **Bar Close Based**: Alerts trigger on confirmed bar closes, not tick-by-tick
- **Customizable**: Enable/disable alerts through settings
## How It Works
### Data Input Method
The indicator uses a **manual data entry approach** where you input actual expected move values obtained from options platforms:
```pinescript
// Add entries using the options expiration Friday date
map.put(expected_moves, 20250613, 91.244) // Week ending June 13, 2025
map.put(expected_moves, 20250620, 95.150) // Week ending June 20, 2025
```
### Weekly Structure
- **Monday 9:30 AM ET**: Week begins
- **Friday 4:00 PM ET**: Week ends
- **Lines Extend**: From Monday open to Friday close (historical) or current time + 5 bars (current week)
- **Timezone Handling**: Uses "America/New_York" for proper DST handling
### Calculation Logic
1. **Base Price**: Previous Friday's SPX close price
2. **Expected Move**: Market-derived ±EM value from weekly options
3. **Upper Boundary**: Friday Close + Expected Move
4. **Lower Boundary**: Friday Close - Expected Move
5. **Fibonacci Levels**: Proportional levels between Friday close and EM boundaries
## Setup Instructions
### 1. Data Collection
Obtain weekly expected move values from options platforms such as:
- **ThinkOrSwim**: Use thinkBack feature to look up weekly expected moves
- **Tastyworks**: Check weekly options expected move data
- **CBOE**: Reference SPX weekly options data
- **Manual Calculation**: (ATM Call Premium + ATM Put Premium) × 0.85
### 2. Data Entry
After each Friday close, update the indicator with the next week's expected move:
```pinescript
// Example: On Friday June 7, 2025, add data for week ending June 13
map.put(expected_moves, 20250613, 91.244) // Actual EM value from your platform
```
### 3. Configuration
Customize the indicator through the settings panel:
#### Visual Settings
- **Show Current Week EM**: Toggle current week display
- **Show Past Weeks**: Toggle historical weeks display
- **Max Weeks History**: Choose 10, 26, or 52 weeks of history
- **Show Fibonacci Levels**: Toggle Fibonacci retracement levels
- **Label Controls**: Customize which labels to display
#### Colors
- **Current Week EM**: Default yellow for active week
- **Past Weeks EM**: Default gray for historical weeks
- **Friday Close**: Default orange for baseline
- **Fibonacci Levels**: Customizable colors for each level type
#### Alerts
- **Enable EM Breach Alerts**: Master toggle for all alerts
- **Specific Alerts**: Four alert types for Fibonacci level breaches
## Trading Applications
### Options Trading
- **Straddle/Strangle Positioning**: Visualize breakeven levels for neutral strategies
- **Directional Plays**: Assess probability of reaching target levels
- **Earnings Plays**: Compare actual vs. expected move outcomes
### Equity Trading
- **Support/Resistance**: Use EM boundaries and Fibonacci levels as key levels
- **Breakout Trading**: Monitor for moves beyond expected ranges
- **Mean Reversion**: Look for reversals at extreme Fibonacci levels
### Risk Management
- **Position Sizing**: Gauge likely price ranges for the week
- **Stop Placement**: Use Fibonacci levels for logical stop locations
- **Profit Targets**: Set targets based on EM structure probabilities
## Technical Implementation
### Performance Features
- **Memory Managed**: Configurable history limits prevent memory issues
- **Timeframe Independent**: Uses timestamp-based calculations for consistency
- **Object Management**: Automatic cleanup of drawing objects prevents duplicates
- **Error Handling**: Robust bounds checking and NA value handling
### Pine Script Best Practices
- **v6 Compliance**: Uses latest Pine Script version features
- **User Defined Types**: Structured data management with WeeklyEM type
- **Efficient Drawing**: Smart line/label creation and deletion
- **Professional Standards**: Clean code organization and comprehensive documentation
## Customization Guide
### Adding New Weeks
```pinescript
// Add after market close each Friday
map.put(expected_moves, YYYYMMDD, EM_VALUE)
```
### Color Schemes
Customize colors for different trading styles:
- **Dark Theme**: Use bright colors for visibility
- **Light Theme**: Use contrasting dark colors
- **Minimalist**: Use single color with transparency
### Label Management
Control label density:
- **Show Current Week Labels Only**: Reduce clutter for active trading
- **Show All Labels**: Full information for analysis
- **Selective Display**: Choose specific label types
## Troubleshooting
### Common Issues
1. **No Lines Appearing**: Check that expected move data is entered for current/recent weeks
2. **Wrong Time Display**: Ensure "America/New_York" timezone is properly handled
3. **Duplicate Lines**: Restart indicator if drawing objects appear duplicated
4. **Missing Fibonacci Levels**: Verify "Show Fibonacci Levels" is enabled
### Data Validation
- **Expected Move Format**: Use positive numbers (e.g., 91.244, not ±91.244)
- **Date Format**: Use YYYYMMDD format (e.g., 20250613)
- **Reasonable Values**: Verify EM values are realistic (typically 50-200 for SPX)
## Version History
### Current Version
- **Pine Script v6**: Latest version compatibility
- **Fibonacci Integration**: Five-level retracement analysis
- **Zone-Aware Alerts**: Upper/lower zone differentiation
- **Dynamic Line Management**: Smart current week extension
- **Professional UI**: Comprehensive information table
### Future Enhancements
- **Multiple Symbols**: Extend beyond SPX to other indices
- **Automated Data**: Integration with options data APIs
- **Statistical Analysis**: Success rate tracking for EM predictions
- **Additional Levels**: Custom percentage levels beyond Fibonacci
## License & Usage
This indicator is designed for educational and trading purposes. Users are responsible for:
- **Data Accuracy**: Ensuring correct expected move values
- **Risk Management**: Proper position sizing and risk controls
- **Market Understanding**: Comprehending options-based expected move concepts
## Support
For questions, issues, or feature requests related to this indicator, please refer to the code comments and documentation within the Pine Script file.
---
**Disclaimer**: This indicator is for informational purposes only. Trading involves substantial risk of loss and is not suitable for all investors. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Liquid Pulse Liquid Pulse by Dskyz (DAFE) Trading Systems
Liquid Pulse is a trading algo built by Dskyz (DAFE) Trading Systems for futures markets like NQ1!, designed to snag high-probability trades with tight risk control. it fuses a confluence system—VWAP, MACD, ADX, volume, and liquidity sweeps—with a trade scoring setup, daily limits, and VIX pauses to dodge wild volatility. visuals include simple signals, VWAP bands, and a dashboard with stats.
Core Components for Liquid Pulse
Volume Sensitivity (volumeSensitivity) controls how much volume spikes matter for entries. options: 'Low', 'Medium', 'High' default: 'High' (catches small spikes, good for active markets) tweak it: 'Low' for calm markets, 'High' for chaos.
MACD Speed (macdSpeed) sets the MACD’s pace for momentum. options: 'Fast', 'Medium', 'Slow' default: 'Medium' (solid balance) tweak it: 'Fast' for scalping, 'Slow' for swings.
Daily Trade Limit (dailyTradeLimit) caps trades per day to keep risk in check. range: 1 to 30 default: 20 tweak it: 5-10 for safety, 20-30 for action.
Number of Contracts (numContracts) sets position size. range: 1 to 20 default: 4 tweak it: up for big accounts, down for small.
VIX Pause Level (vixPauseLevel) stops trading if VIX gets too hot. range: 10 to 80 default: 39.0 tweak it: 30 to avoid volatility, 50 to ride it.
Min Confluence Conditions (minConditions) sets how many signals must align. range: 1 to 5 default: 2 tweak it: 3-4 for strict, 1-2 for more trades.
Min Trade Score (Longs/Shorts) (minTradeScoreLongs/minTradeScoreShorts) filters trade quality. longs range: 0 to 100 default: 73 shorts range: 0 to 100 default: 75 tweak it: 80-90 for quality, 60-70 for volume.
Liquidity Sweep Strength (sweepStrength) gauges breakouts. range: 0.1 to 1.0 default: 0.5 tweak it: 0.7-1.0 for strong moves, 0.3-0.5 for small.
ADX Trend Threshold (adxTrendThreshold) confirms trends. range: 10 to 100 default: 41 tweak it: 40-50 for trends, 30-35 for weak ones.
ADX Chop Threshold (adxChopThreshold) avoids chop. range: 5 to 50 default: 20 tweak it: 15-20 to dodge chop, 25-30 to loosen.
VWAP Timeframe (vwapTimeframe) sets VWAP period. options: '15', '30', '60', '240', 'D' default: '60' (1-hour) tweak it: 60 for day, 240 for swing, D for long.
Take Profit Ticks (Longs/Shorts) (takeProfitTicksLongs/takeProfitTicksShorts) sets profit targets. longs range: 5 to 100 default: 25.0 shorts range: 5 to 100 default: 20.0 tweak it: 30-50 for trends, 10-20 for chop.
Max Profit Ticks (maxProfitTicks) caps max gain. range: 10 to 200 default: 60.0 tweak it: 80-100 for big moves, 40-60 for tight.
Min Profit Ticks to Trail (minProfitTicksTrail) triggers trailing. range: 1 to 50 default: 7.0 tweak it: 10-15 for big gains, 5-7 for quick locks.
Trailing Stop Ticks (trailTicks) sets trail distance. range: 1 to 50 default: 5.0 tweak it: 8-10 for room, 3-5 for fast locks.
Trailing Offset Ticks (trailOffsetTicks) sets trail offset. range: 1 to 20 default: 2.0 tweak it: 1-2 for tight, 5-10 for loose.
ATR Period (atrPeriod) measures volatility. range: 5 to 50 default: 9 tweak it: 14-20 for smooth, 5-9 for reactive.
Hardcoded Settings volLookback: 30 ('Low'), 20 ('Medium'), 11 ('High') volThreshold: 1.5 ('Low'), 1.8 ('Medium'), 2 ('High') swingLen: 5
Execution Logic Overview trades trigger when confluence conditions align, entering long or short with set position sizes. exits use dynamic take-profits, trailing stops after a profit threshold, hard stops via ATR, and a time stop after 100 bars.
Features Multi-Signal Confluence: needs VWAP, MACD, volume, sweeps, and ADX to line up.
Risk Control: ATR-based stops (capped 15 ticks), take-profits (scaled by volatility), and trails.
Market Filters: VIX pause, ADX trend/chop checks, volatility gates. Dashboard: shows scores, VIX, ADX, P/L, win %, streak.
Visuals Simple signals (green up triangles for longs, red down for shorts) and VWAP bands with glow. info table (bottom right) with MACD momentum. dashboard (top right) with stats.
Chart and Backtest:
NQ1! futures, 5-minute chart. works best in trending, volatile conditions. tweak inputs for other markets—test thoroughly.
Backtesting: NQ1! Frame: Jan 19, 2025, 09:00 — May 02, 2025, 16:00 Slippage: 3 Commission: $4.60
Fee Typical Range (per side, per contract)
CME Exchange $1.14 – $1.20
Clearing $0.10 – $0.30
NFA Regulatory $0.02
Firm/Broker Commis. $0.25 – $0.80 (retail prop)
TOTAL $1.60 – $2.30 per side
Round Turn: (enter+exit) = $3.20 – $4.60 per contract
Disclaimer this is for education only. past results don’t predict future wins. trading’s risky—only use money you can lose. backtest and validate before going live. (expect moderators to nitpick some random chart symbol rule—i’ll fix and repost if they pull it.)
About the Author Dskyz (DAFE) Trading Systems crafts killer trading algos. Liquid Pulse is pure research and grit, built for smart, bold trading. Use it with discipline. Use it with clarity. Trade smarter. I’ll keep dropping badass strategies ‘til i build a brand or someone signs me up.
2025 Created by Dskyz, powered by DAFE Trading Systems. Trade smart, trade bold.
Bitcoin Polynomial Regression ModelThis is the main version of the script. Click here for the Oscillator part of the script.
💡Why this model was created:
One of the key issues with most existing models, including our own Bitcoin Log Growth Curve Model , is that they often fail to realistically account for diminishing returns. As a result, they may present overly optimistic bull cycle targets (hence, we introduced alternative settings in our previous Bitcoin Log Growth Curve Model).
This new model however, has been built from the ground up with a primary focus on incorporating the principle of diminishing returns. It directly responds to this concept, which has been briefly explored here .
📉The theory of diminishing returns:
This theory suggests that as each four-year market cycle unfolds, volatility gradually decreases, leading to more tempered price movements. It also implies that the price increase from one cycle peak to the next will decrease over time as the asset matures. The same pattern applies to cycle lows and the relationship between tops and bottoms. In essence, these price movements are interconnected and should generally follow a consistent pattern. We believe this model provides a more realistic outlook on bull and bear market cycles.
To better understand this theory, the relationships between cycle tops and bottoms are outlined below:https://www.tradingview.com/x/7Hldzsf2/
🔧Creation of the model:
For those interested in how this model was created, the process is explained here. Otherwise, feel free to skip this section.
This model is based on two separate cubic polynomial regression lines. One for the top price trend and another for the bottom. Both follow the general cubic polynomial function:
ax^3 +bx^2 + cx + d.
In this equation, x represents the weekly bar index minus an offset, while a, b, c, and d are determined through polynomial regression analysis. The input (x, y) values used for the polynomial regression analysis are as follows:
Top regression line (x, y) values:
113, 18.6
240, 1004
451, 19128
655, 65502
Bottom regression line (x, y) values:
103, 2.5
267, 211
471, 3193
676, 16255
The values above correspond to historical Bitcoin cycle tops and bottoms, where x is the weekly bar index and y is the weekly closing price of Bitcoin. The best fit is determined using metrics such as R-squared values, residual error analysis, and visual inspection. While the exact details of this evaluation are beyond the scope of this post, the following optimal parameters were found:
Top regression line parameter values:
a: 0.000202798
b: 0.0872922
c: -30.88805
d: 1827.14113
Bottom regression line parameter values:
a: 0.000138314
b: -0.0768236
c: 13.90555
d: -765.8892
📊Polynomial Regression Oscillator:
This publication also includes the oscillator version of the this model which is displayed at the bottom of the screen. The oscillator applies a logarithmic transformation to the price and the regression lines using the formula log10(x) .
The log-transformed price is then normalized using min-max normalization relative to the log-transformed top and bottom regression line with the formula:
normalized price = log(close) - log(bottom regression line) / log(top regression line) - log(bottom regression line)
This transformation results in a price value between 0 and 1 between both the regression lines. The Oscillator version can be found here.
🔍Interpretation of the Model:
In general, the red area represents a caution zone, as historically, the price has often been near its cycle market top within this range. On the other hand, the green area is considered an area of opportunity, as historically, it has corresponded to the market bottom.
The top regression line serves as a signal for the absolute market cycle peak, while the bottom regression line indicates the absolute market cycle bottom.
Additionally, this model provides a predicted range for Bitcoin's future price movements, which can be used to make extrapolated predictions. We will explore this further below.
🔮Future Predictions:
Finally, let's discuss what this model actually predicts for the potential upcoming market cycle top and the corresponding market cycle bottom. In our previous post here , a cycle interval analysis was performed to predict a likely time window for the next cycle top and bottom:
In the image, it is predicted that the next top-to-top cycle interval will be 208 weeks, which translates to November 3rd, 2025. It is also predicted that the bottom-to-top cycle interval will be 152 weeks, which corresponds to October 13th, 2025. On the macro level, these two dates align quite well. For our prediction, we take the average of these two dates: October 24th 2025. This will be our target date for the bull cycle top.
Now, let's do the same for the upcoming cycle bottom. The bottom-to-bottom cycle interval is predicted to be 205 weeks, which translates to October 19th, 2026, and the top-to-bottom cycle interval is predicted to be 259 weeks, which corresponds to October 26th, 2026. We then take the average of these two dates, predicting a bear cycle bottom date target of October 19th, 2026.
Now that we have our predicted top and bottom cycle date targets, we can simply reference these two dates to our model, giving us the Bitcoin top price prediction in the range of 152,000 in Q4 2025 and a subsequent bottom price prediction in the range of 46,500 in Q4 2026.
For those interested in understanding what this specifically means for the predicted diminishing return top and bottom cycle values, the image below displays these predicted values. The new values are highlighted in yellow:
And of course, keep in mind that these targets are just rough estimates. While we've done our best to estimate these targets through a data-driven approach, markets will always remain unpredictable in nature. What are your targets? Feel free to share them in the comment section below.
Bitcoin Polynomial Regression OscillatorThis is the oscillator version of the script. Click here for the other part of the script.
💡Why this model was created:
One of the key issues with most existing models, including our own Bitcoin Log Growth Curve Model , is that they often fail to realistically account for diminishing returns. As a result, they may present overly optimistic bull cycle targets (hence, we introduced alternative settings in our previous Bitcoin Log Growth Curve Model).
This new model however, has been built from the ground up with a primary focus on incorporating the principle of diminishing returns. It directly responds to this concept, which has been briefly explored here .
📉The theory of diminishing returns:
This theory suggests that as each four-year market cycle unfolds, volatility gradually decreases, leading to more tempered price movements. It also implies that the price increase from one cycle peak to the next will decrease over time as the asset matures. The same pattern applies to cycle lows and the relationship between tops and bottoms. In essence, these price movements are interconnected and should generally follow a consistent pattern. We believe this model provides a more realistic outlook on bull and bear market cycles.
To better understand this theory, the relationships between cycle tops and bottoms are outlined below:https://www.tradingview.com/x/7Hldzsf2/
🔧Creation of the model:
For those interested in how this model was created, the process is explained here. Otherwise, feel free to skip this section.
This model is based on two separate cubic polynomial regression lines. One for the top price trend and another for the bottom. Both follow the general cubic polynomial function:
ax^3 +bx^2 + cx + d.
In this equation, x represents the weekly bar index minus an offset, while a, b, c, and d are determined through polynomial regression analysis. The input (x, y) values used for the polynomial regression analysis are as follows:
Top regression line (x, y) values:
113, 18.6
240, 1004
451, 19128
655, 65502
Bottom regression line (x, y) values:
103, 2.5
267, 211
471, 3193
676, 16255
The values above correspond to historical Bitcoin cycle tops and bottoms, where x is the weekly bar index and y is the weekly closing price of Bitcoin. The best fit is determined using metrics such as R-squared values, residual error analysis, and visual inspection. While the exact details of this evaluation are beyond the scope of this post, the following optimal parameters were found:
Top regression line parameter values:
a: 0.000202798
b: 0.0872922
c: -30.88805
d: 1827.14113
Bottom regression line parameter values:
a: 0.000138314
b: -0.0768236
c: 13.90555
d: -765.8892
📊Polynomial Regression Oscillator:
This publication also includes the oscillator version of the this model which is displayed at the bottom of the screen. The oscillator applies a logarithmic transformation to the price and the regression lines using the formula log10(x) .
The log-transformed price is then normalized using min-max normalization relative to the log-transformed top and bottom regression line with the formula:
normalized price = log(close) - log(bottom regression line) / log(top regression line) - log(bottom regression line)
This transformation results in a price value between 0 and 1 between both the regression lines.
🔍Interpretation of the Model:
In general, the red area represents a caution zone, as historically, the price has often been near its cycle market top within this range. On the other hand, the green area is considered an area of opportunity, as historically, it has corresponded to the market bottom.
The top regression line serves as a signal for the absolute market cycle peak, while the bottom regression line indicates the absolute market cycle bottom.
Additionally, this model provides a predicted range for Bitcoin's future price movements, which can be used to make extrapolated predictions. We will explore this further below.
🔮Future Predictions:
Finally, let's discuss what this model actually predicts for the potential upcoming market cycle top and the corresponding market cycle bottom. In our previous post here , a cycle interval analysis was performed to predict a likely time window for the next cycle top and bottom:
In the image, it is predicted that the next top-to-top cycle interval will be 208 weeks, which translates to November 3rd, 2025. It is also predicted that the bottom-to-top cycle interval will be 152 weeks, which corresponds to October 13th, 2025. On the macro level, these two dates align quite well. For our prediction, we take the average of these two dates: October 24th 2025. This will be our target date for the bull cycle top.
Now, let's do the same for the upcoming cycle bottom. The bottom-to-bottom cycle interval is predicted to be 205 weeks, which translates to October 19th, 2026, and the top-to-bottom cycle interval is predicted to be 259 weeks, which corresponds to October 26th, 2026. We then take the average of these two dates, predicting a bear cycle bottom date target of October 19th, 2026.
Now that we have our predicted top and bottom cycle date targets, we can simply reference these two dates to our model, giving us the Bitcoin top price prediction in the range of 152,000 in Q4 2025 and a subsequent bottom price prediction in the range of 46,500 in Q4 2026.
For those interested in understanding what this specifically means for the predicted diminishing return top and bottom cycle values, the image below displays these predicted values. The new values are highlighted in yellow:
And of course, keep in mind that these targets are just rough estimates. While we've done our best to estimate these targets through a data-driven approach, markets will always remain unpredictable in nature. What are your targets? Feel free to share them in the comment section below.
J.P. Morgan Efficiente 5 IndexJ.P. MORGAN EFFICIENTE 5 INDEX REPLICATION
Walk into any retail trading forum and you'll find the same scene playing out thousands of times a day: traders huddled over their screens, drawing trendlines on candlestick charts, hunting for the perfect entry signal, convinced that the next RSI crossover will unlock the path to financial freedom. Meanwhile, in the towers of lower Manhattan and the City of London, portfolio managers are doing something entirely different. They're not drawing lines. They're not hunting patterns. They're building fortresses of diversification, wielding mathematical frameworks that have survived decades of market chaos, and most importantly, they're thinking in portfolios while retail thinks in positions.
This divide is not just philosophical. It's structural, mathematical, and ultimately, profitable. The uncomfortable truth that retail traders must confront is this: while you're obsessing over whether the 50-day moving average will cross the 200-day, institutional investors are solving quadratic optimization problems across thirteen asset classes, rebalancing monthly according to Markowitz's Nobel Prize-winning framework, and targeting precise volatility levels that allow them to sleep at night regardless of what the VIX does tomorrow. The game you're playing and the game they're playing share the same field, but the rules are entirely different.
The question, then, is not whether retail traders can access institutional strategies. The question is whether they're willing to fundamentally change how they think about markets. Are you ready to stop painting lines and start building portfolios?
THE INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK: HOW THE PROFESSIONALS ACTUALLY THINK
When Harry Markowitz published "Portfolio Selection" in The Journal of Finance in 1952, he fundamentally altered how sophisticated investors approach markets. His insight was deceptively simple: returns alone mean nothing. Risk-adjusted returns mean everything. For this revelation, he would eventually receive the Nobel Prize in Economics in 1990, and his framework would become the foundation upon which trillions of dollars are managed today (Markowitz, 1952).
Modern Portfolio Theory, as it came to be known, introduced a revolutionary concept: through diversification across imperfectly correlated assets, an investor could reduce portfolio risk without sacrificing expected returns. This wasn't about finding the single best asset. It was about constructing the optimal combination of assets. The mathematics are elegant in their logic: if two assets don't move in perfect lockstep, combining them creates a portfolio whose volatility is lower than the weighted average of the individual volatilities. This "free lunch" of diversification became the bedrock of institutional investment management (Elton et al., 2014).
But here's where retail traders miss the point entirely: this isn't about having ten different stocks instead of one. It's about systematic, mathematically rigorous allocation across asset classes with fundamentally different risk drivers. When equity markets crash, high-quality government bonds often rally. When inflation surges, commodities may provide protection even as stocks and bonds both suffer. When emerging markets are in vogue, developed markets may lag. The professional investor doesn't predict which scenario will unfold. Instead, they position for all of them simultaneously, with weights determined not by gut feeling but by quantitative optimization.
This is what J.P. Morgan Asset Management embedded into their Efficiente Index series. These are not actively managed funds where a portfolio manager makes discretionary calls. They are rules-based, systematic strategies that execute the Markowitz framework in real-time, rebalancing monthly to maintain optimal risk-adjusted positioning across global equities, fixed income, commodities, and defensive assets (J.P. Morgan Asset Management, 2016).
THE EFFICIENTE 5 STRATEGY: DECONSTRUCTING INSTITUTIONAL METHODOLOGY
The Efficiente 5 Index, specifically, targets a 5% annualized volatility. Let that sink in for a moment. While retail traders routinely accept 20%, 30%, or even 50% annual volatility in pursuit of returns, institutional allocators have determined that 5% volatility provides an optimal balance between growth potential and capital preservation. This isn't timidity. It's mathematics. At higher volatility levels, the compounding drag from large drawdowns becomes mathematically punishing. A 50% loss requires a 100% gain just to break even. The institutional solution: constrain volatility at the portfolio level, allowing the power of compounding to work unimpeded (Damodaran, 2008).
The strategy operates across thirteen exchange-traded funds spanning five distinct asset classes: developed equity markets (SPY, IWM, EFA), fixed income across the risk spectrum (TLT, LQD, HYG), emerging markets (EEM, EMB), alternatives (IYR, GSG, GLD), and defensive positioning (TIP, BIL). These aren't arbitrary choices. Each ETF represents a distinct factor exposure, and together they provide access to the primary drivers of global asset returns (Fama and French, 1993).
The methodology, as detailed in replication research by Jungle Rock (2025), follows a precise monthly cadence. At the end of each month, the strategy recalculates expected returns and volatilities for all thirteen assets using a 126-day rolling window. This six-month lookback balances responsiveness to changing market conditions against the noise of short-term fluctuations. The optimization engine then solves for the portfolio weights that maximize expected return subject to the 5% volatility target, with additional constraints to prevent excessive concentration.
These constraints are critical and reveal institutional wisdom that retail traders typically ignore. No single ETF can exceed 20% of the portfolio, except for TIP and BIL which can reach 50% given their defensive nature. At the asset class level, developed equities are capped at 50%, bonds at 50%, emerging markets at 25%, and alternatives at 25%. These aren't arbitrary limits. They're guardrails preventing the optimization from becoming too aggressive during periods when recent performance might suggest concentrating heavily in a single area that's been hot (Jorion, 1992).
After optimization, there's one final step that appears almost trivial but carries profound implications: weights are rounded to the nearest 5%. In a world of fractional shares and algorithmic execution, why round to 5%? The answer reveals institutional practicality over mathematical purity. A portfolio weight of 13.7% and 15.0% are functionally similar in their risk contribution, but the latter is vastly easier to communicate, to monitor, and to execute at scale. When you're managing billions, parsimony matters.
WHY THIS MATTERS FOR RETAIL: THE GAP BETWEEN APPROACH AND EXECUTION
Here's the uncomfortable reality: most retail traders are playing a different game entirely, and they don't even realize it. When a retail trader says "I'm bullish on tech," they buy QQQ and that's their entire technology exposure. When they say "I need some diversification," they buy ten different stocks, often in correlated sectors. This isn't diversification in the Markowitzian sense. It's concentration with extra steps.
The institutional approach represented by the Efficiente 5 is fundamentally different in several ways. First, it's systematic. Emotions don't drive the allocation. The mathematics do. When equities have rallied hard and now represent 55% of the portfolio despite a 50% cap, the system sells equities and buys bonds or alternatives, regardless of how bullish the headlines feel. This forced contrarianism is what retail traders know they should do but rarely execute (Kahneman and Tversky, 1979).
Second, it's forward-looking in its inputs but backward-looking in its process. The strategy doesn't try to predict the next crisis or the next boom. It simply measures what volatility and returns have been recently, assumes the immediate future resembles the immediate past more than it resembles some forecast, and positions accordingly. This humility regarding prediction is perhaps the most institutional characteristic of all.
Third, and most critically, it treats the portfolio as a single organism. Retail traders typically view their holdings as separate positions, each requiring individual management. The institutional approach recognizes that what matters is not whether Position A made money, but whether the portfolio as a whole achieved its risk-adjusted return target. A position can lose money and still be a valuable contributor if it reduced portfolio volatility or provided diversification during stress periods.
THE MATHEMATICAL FOUNDATION: MEAN-VARIANCE OPTIMIZATION IN PRACTICE
At its core, the Efficiente 5 strategy solves a constrained optimization problem each month. In technical terms, this is a quadratic programming problem: maximize expected portfolio return subject to a volatility constraint and position limits. The objective function is straightforward: maximize the weighted sum of expected returns. The constraint is that the weighted sum of variances and covariances must not exceed the volatility target squared (Markowitz, 1959).
The challenge, and this is crucial for understanding the Pine Script implementation, is that solving this problem properly requires calculating a covariance matrix. This 13x13 matrix captures not just the volatility of each asset but the correlation between every pair of assets. Two assets might each have 15% volatility, but if they're negatively correlated, combining them reduces portfolio risk. If they're positively correlated, it doesn't. The covariance matrix encodes these relationships.
True mean-variance optimization requires matrix algebra and quadratic programming solvers. Pine Script, by design, lacks these capabilities. The language doesn't support matrix operations, and certainly doesn't include a QP solver. This creates a fundamental challenge: how do you implement an institutional strategy in a language not designed for institutional mathematics?
The solution implemented here uses a pragmatic approximation. Instead of solving the full covariance problem, the indicator calculates a Sharpe-like ratio for each asset (return divided by volatility) and uses these ratios to determine initial weights. It then applies the individual and asset-class constraints, renormalizes, and produces the final portfolio. This isn't mathematically equivalent to true mean-variance optimization, but it captures the essential spirit: weight assets according to their risk-adjusted return potential, subject to diversification constraints.
For retail implementation, this approximation is likely sufficient. The difference between a theoretically optimal portfolio and a very good approximation is typically modest, and the discipline of systematic rebalancing across asset classes matters far more than the precise weights. Perfect is the enemy of good, and a good approximation executed consistently will outperform a perfect solution that never gets implemented (Arnott et al., 2013).
RETURNS, RISKS, AND THE POWER OF COMPOUNDING
The Efficiente 5 Index has, historically, delivered on its promise of 5% volatility with respectable returns. While past performance never guarantees future results, the framework reveals why low-volatility strategies can be surprisingly powerful. Consider two portfolios: Portfolio A averages 12% returns with 20% volatility, while Portfolio B averages 8% returns with 5% volatility. Which performs better over time?
The arithmetic return favors Portfolio A, but compound returns tell a different story. Portfolio A will experience occasional 20-30% drawdowns. Portfolio B rarely draws down more than 10%. Over a twenty-year horizon, the geometric return (what you actually experience) for Portfolio B may match or exceed Portfolio A, simply because it never gives back massive gains. This is the power of volatility management that retail traders chronically underestimate (Bernstein, 1996).
Moreover, low volatility enables behavioral advantages. When your portfolio draws down 35%, as it might with a high-volatility approach, the psychological pressure to sell at the worst possible time becomes overwhelming. When your maximum drawdown is 12%, as might occur with the Efficiente 5 approach, staying the course is far easier. Behavioral finance research has consistently shown that investor returns lag fund returns primarily due to poor timing decisions driven by emotional responses to volatility (Dalbar, 2020).
The indicator displays not just target and actual portfolio weights, but also tracks total return, portfolio value, and realized volatility. This isn't just data. It's feedback. Retail traders can see, in real-time, whether their actual portfolio volatility matches their target, whether their risk-adjusted returns are improving, and whether their allocation discipline is holding. This transparency transforms abstract concepts into concrete metrics.
WHAT RETAIL TRADERS MUST LEARN: THE MINDSET SHIFT
The path from retail to institutional thinking requires three fundamental shifts. First, stop thinking in positions and start thinking in portfolios. Your question should never be "Should I buy this stock?" but rather "How does this position change my portfolio's expected return and volatility?" If you can't answer that question quantitatively, you're not ready to make the trade.
Second, embrace systematic rebalancing even when it feels wrong. Perhaps especially when it feels wrong. The Efficiente 5 strategy rebalances monthly regardless of market conditions. If equities have surged and now exceed their target weight, the strategy sells equities and buys bonds or alternatives. Every retail trader knows this is what you "should" do, but almost none actually do it. The institutional edge isn't in having better information. It's in having better discipline (Swensen, 2009).
Third, accept that volatility is not your friend. The retail mythology that "higher risk equals higher returns" is true on average across assets, but it's not true for implementation. A 15% return with 30% volatility will compound more slowly than a 12% return with 10% volatility due to the mathematics of return distributions. Institutions figured this out decades ago. Retail is still learning.
The Efficiente 5 replication indicator provides a bridge. It won't solve the problem of prediction no indicator can. But it solves the problem of allocation, which is arguably more important. By implementing institutional methodology in an accessible format, it allows retail traders to see what professional portfolio construction actually looks like, not in theory but in executable code. The the colorful lines that retail traders love to draw, don't disappear. They simply become less central to the process. The portfolio becomes central instead.
IMPLEMENTATION CONSIDERATIONS AND PRACTICAL REALITY
Running this indicator on TradingView provides a dynamic view of how institutional allocation would evolve over time. The labels on each asset class line show current weights, updated continuously as prices change and rebalancing occurs. The dashboard displays the full allocation across all thirteen ETFs, showing both target weights (what the optimization suggests) and actual weights (what the portfolio currently holds after price movements).
Several key insights emerge from watching this process unfold. First, the strategy is not static. Weights change monthly as the optimization recalibrates to recent volatility and returns. What worked last month may not be optimal this month. Second, the strategy is not market-timing. It doesn't try to predict whether stocks will rise or fall. It simply measures recent behavior and positions accordingly. If volatility has risen, the strategy shifts toward defensive assets. If correlations have changed, the diversification benefits adjust.
Third, and perhaps most importantly for retail traders, the strategy demonstrates that sophistication and complexity are not synonyms. The Efficiente 5 methodology is sophisticated in its framework but simple in its execution. There are no exotic derivatives, no complex market-timing rules, no predictions of future scenarios. Just systematic optimization, monthly rebalancing, and discipline. This simplicity is a feature, not a bug.
The indicator also highlights limitations that retail traders must understand. The Pine Script implementation uses an approximation of true mean-variance optimization, as discussed earlier. Transaction costs are not modeled. Slippage is ignored. Tax implications are not considered. These simplifications mean the indicator is educational and analytical, not a fully operational trading system. For actual implementation, traders would need to account for these real-world factors.
Moreover, the strategy requires access to all thirteen ETFs and sufficient capital to hold meaningful positions in each. With 5% as the rounding increment, practical implementation probably requires at least $10,000 to avoid having positions that are too small to matter. The strategy is also explicitly designed for a 5% volatility target, which may be too conservative for younger investors with long time horizons or too aggressive for retirees living off their portfolio. The framework is adaptable, but adaptation requires understanding the trade-offs.
CAN RETAIL TRULY COMPETE WITH INSTITUTIONS?
The honest answer is nuanced. Retail traders will never have the same resources as institutions. They won't have Bloomberg terminals, proprietary research, or armies of analysts. But in portfolio construction, the resource gap matters less than the mindset gap. The mathematics of Markowitz are available to everyone. ETFs provide liquid, low-cost access to institutional-quality building blocks. Computing power is essentially free. The barriers are not technological or financial. They're conceptual.
If a retail trader understands why portfolios matter more than positions, why systematic discipline beats discretionary emotion, and why volatility management enables compounding, they can build portfolios that rival institutional allocation in their elegance and effectiveness. Not in their scale, not in their execution costs, but in their conceptual soundness. The Efficiente 5 framework proves this is possible.
What retail traders must recognize is that competing with institutions doesn't mean day-trading better than their algorithms. It means portfolio-building better than their average client. And that's achievable because most institutional clients, despite having access to the best managers, still make emotional decisions, chase performance, and abandon strategies at the worst possible times. The retail edge isn't in outsmarting professionals. It's in out-disciplining amateurs who happen to have more money.
The J.P. Morgan Efficiente 5 Index Replication indicator serves as both a tool and a teacher. As a tool, it provides a systematic framework for multi-asset allocation based on proven institutional methodology. As a teacher, it demonstrates daily what portfolio thinking actually looks like in practice. The colorful lines remain on the chart, but they're no longer the focus. The portfolio is the focus. The risk-adjusted return is the focus. The systematic discipline is the focus.
Stop painting lines. Start building portfolios. The institutions have been doing it for seventy years. It's time retail caught up.
REFERENCES
Arnott, R. D., Hsu, J., & Moore, P. (2013). Fundamental Indexation. Financial Analysts Journal, 61(2), 83-99.
Bernstein, W. J. (1996). The Intelligent Asset Allocator. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Dalbar, Inc. (2020). Quantitative Analysis of Investor Behavior. Boston: Dalbar.
Damodaran, A. (2008). Strategic Risk Taking: A Framework for Risk Management. Upper Saddle River: Pearson Education.
Elton, E. J., Gruber, M. J., Brown, S. J., & Goetzmann, W. N. (2014). Modern Portfolio Theory and Investment Analysis (9th ed.). Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.
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.
Jorion, P. (1992). Portfolio optimization in practice. Financial Analysts Journal, 48(1), 68-74.
J.P. Morgan Asset Management. (2016). Guide to the Markets. New York: J.P. Morgan.
Jungle Rock. (2025). Institutional Asset Allocation meets the Efficient Frontier: Replicating the JPMorgan Efficiente 5 Strategy. Working Paper.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263-291.
Markowitz, H. (1952). Portfolio Selection. The Journal of Finance, 7(1), 77-91.
Markowitz, H. (1959). Portfolio Selection: Efficient Diversification of Investments. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Swensen, D. F. (2009). Pioneering Portfolio Management: An Unconventional Approach to Institutional Investment. New York: Free Press.
Buy And Hold Performance Screener - [JTCAPITAL]Buy And Hold Performance Screener – is a script designed to track and display multi-asset “buy and hold” performance curves and performance statistics over defined timeframes for selected symbols. It doesn’t attempt to time entries or exits; rather, it shows what would happen if one simply bought the asset at the defined start date and held it.
The indicator works by calculating in the following steps:
Start Date Definition
The script begins by reading an input for the start date. This defines the bar from which the equity curves begin.
Symbol Definitions & Close Price Retrieval
The script allows the user to specify up to ten tickers. For each ticker it uses request.security() on the “1D” timeframe to retrieve the daily close price of that symbol.
Plot Enable Inputs
For each ticker there is an input boolean controlling whether the equity curve for that ticker should be plotted.
Asset Name Cleaning
The helper function clean_name(string asset) => … takes the asset string (e.g., “CRYPTO:SOLUSD”) and manipulates it (via string splitting and replacements) to derive a cleaned short name (e.g., “SOL”). This name is used for visuals (labels, table headers).
Equity Curve Calculation (“HODL”)
The helper function f_HODL(closez) defines a variable equity that assumes a starting equity of 1 unit at the start date and then multiplies by the ratio of each bar’s close to the prior bar’s close: i.e. daily compounding of returns.
Performance Metrics Calculation
The helper function f_performance(closez) calculates, for each symbol’s close series, the percentage change of the current close relative to its close 30 days ago, 90 days ago, 180 days ago, 1 year ago (365 days), 2 years ago (730 days) and 3 years ago (1095 days).
Equity Curve Plots
For each ticker, if the corresponding plot input is true, the script assigns a plotted variable equal to the equity curve value. Its then drawing each selected equity curve on the chart, each in a distinct color.
Table Construction
If the plottable input is true, the script constructs a table and populates it with rows and column corresponding to the assigned tickers and the set 6 timeframes used for display.
Buy and Sell Conditions:
Since this is strictly a “buy-and-hold” performance screener, there are no explicit buy or sell signals generated or plotted. The script assumes: buy at the defined start_date, hold continuously to present. There are no filters, no exit logic, no take-profit or stop-loss. The benefit of this approach is to provide a clean benchmark of how selected assets would have performed if one simply adopted a passive “buy & hold” approach from a given start date.
Features and Parameters:
start_date (input.time) : Defines the date from which performance and equity curves begin.
ticker1 … ticker10 (input.symbol) : User-selectable asset symbols to include in the screener.
plot1 … plot10 (input.bool) : Boolean flags to enable/disable plotting of each asset’s equity curve.
plottable (input.bool) : Flag to enable/disable drawing the performance table.
Colored plotting + Labels for identifying each asset curve on the chart.
Specifications:
Here is a detailed breakdown of every calculation/variable/function used in the script and what each part means:
start_date
This is defined via input.time(timestamp("1 Jan 2025"), title = "Start Date"). It allows the user to pick a specific calendar date from which the equity curves and performance calculations will start.
ticker1 … ticker10
These inputs allow the user to select up to ten different assets (symbols) to monitor. The script uses each of these to fetch daily close prices.
plot1 … plot10
Boolean inputs controlling which of the ten asset equity curves are plotted. If plotX is true, the equity curve for ticker X will be visible; otherwise it will be not plotted. This gives the user flexibility to include or exclude specific assets on the chart.
Returns the cleaned asset short name.
This provides friendly text labels like “BTC”, “ETH”, “SOL”, etc., instead of full symbol codes.
The choice of distinct colours for each asset helps differentiate curves visually when multiple assets are overlaid.
Colour definitions
Variables color1…color10 are explicitly defined via color.rgb(r,g,b) to give each asset a unique colour (e.g., red, orange, yellow, green, cyan, blue, purple, pink, etc.).
What are the benefits of combining these calculations?
By computing equity curves for multiple assets from the same start date and overlaying them, you can visualise comparative performance of different assets under a uniform “buy & hold” assumption.
The performance table adds multi-horizon returns (30 D, 90 D, 180 D, 1 Y, 2 Y, 3 Y) which helps the user see both short-term and longer-term performance without having to manually compute returns.
The use of daily close data via request.security(..., "1D") removes dependency on the chart’s timeframe, thereby standardising the comparison across assets.
The equity curve and table together provide both visual (curve) and numerical (table) summaries of performance, making it easier to spot trends, divergences, and cross-asset comparisons at a glance.
Because it uses compounding (equity := equity * (closez / closez )), the curves reflect the real growth of a 1-unit investment held over time, rather than only simple returns.
The labelling of curves and the color-coding make the multi-asset overlay easier to interpret.
Using a clean start date ensures that all curves begin at the same point (1 unit at start_date), making relative performance intuitive.
Because of this, the script is useful as a benchmarking tool: rather than trying to pick entries or exit points, you can simply compare “what if I had held these assets since Jan 1 2025” (or your chosen date), and see which assets out-/under-performed in that period. It helps an investor or trader evaluate the long-term benefits of passive vs. active management, or of allocation decisions.
Please note:
The script assumes continuous daily data and does not account for dividends, fees, slippage, or tax implications.
It does not attempt to optimise timing or provide trading signals.
Returns prior to the start date are ignored (equity only begins once time >= start_date).
For newly listed assets with fewer than 365 or 730 or 1095 days of history, the longer-horizon returns may return na or misleading values.
Because it uses request.security() without specifying lookahead, and on “1D” timeframe, it complies with standard usage but you should verify there is no look-ahead bias in your particular setup.
ENJOY!
COT IndexTHE HIDDEN INTELLIGENCE IN FUTURES MARKETS
What if you could see what the smartest players in the futures markets are doing before the crowd catches on? While retail traders chase momentum indicators and moving averages, obsess over Japanese candlestick patterns, and debate whether the RSI should be set to fourteen or twenty-one periods, institutional players leave footprints in the sand through their mandatory reporting to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. These footprints, published weekly in the Commitment of Traders reports, have been hiding in plain sight for decades, available to anyone with an internet connection, yet remarkably few traders understand how to interpret them correctly. The COT Index indicator transforms this raw institutional positioning data into actionable trading signals, bringing Wall Street intelligence to your trading screen without requiring expensive Bloomberg terminals or insider connections.
The uncomfortable truth is this: Most retail traders operate in a binary world. Long or short. Buy or sell. They apply technical analysis to individual positions, constrained by limited capital that forces them to concentrate risk in single directional bets. Meanwhile, institutional traders operate in an entirely different dimension. They manage portfolios dynamically weighted across multiple markets, adjusting exposure based on evolving market conditions, correlation shifts, and risk assessments that retail traders never see. A hedge fund might be simultaneously long gold, short oil, neutral on copper, and overweight agricultural commodities, with position sizes calibrated to volatility and portfolio Greeks. When they increase gold exposure from five percent to eight percent of portfolio allocation, this rebalancing decision reflects sophisticated analysis of opportunity cost, risk parity, and cross-market dynamics that no individual chart pattern can capture.
This portfolio reweighting activity, multiplied across hundreds of institutional participants, manifests in the aggregate positioning data published weekly by the CFTC. The Commitment of Traders report does not show individual trades or strategies. It shows the collective footprint of how actual commercial hedgers and large speculators have allocated their capital across different markets. When mining companies collectively increase forward gold sales to hedge thirty percent more production than last quarter, they are not reacting to a moving average crossover. They are making strategic allocation decisions based on production forecasts, cost structures, and price expectations derived from operational realities invisible to outside observers. This is portfolio management in action, revealed through positioning data rather than price charts.
If you want to understand how institutional capital actually flows, how sophisticated traders genuinely position themselves across market cycles, the COT report provides a rare window into that hidden world. But understand what you are getting into. This is not a tool for scalpers seeking confirmation of the next five-minute move. This is not an oscillator that flashes oversold at market bottoms with convenient precision. COT analysis operates on a timescale measured in weeks and months, revealing positioning shifts that precede major market turns but offer no precision timing. The data arrives three days stale, published only once per week, capturing strategic positioning rather than tactical entries.
If you need instant gratification, if you trade intraday moves, if you demand mechanical signals with ninety percent accuracy, close this document now. COT analysis rewards patience, position sizing discipline, and tolerance for being early. It punishes impatience, overleveraging, and the expectation that any single indicator can substitute for market understanding.
The premise is deceptively simple. Every Tuesday, large traders in futures markets must report their positions to the CFTC. By Friday afternoon, this data becomes public. Academic research spanning three decades has consistently shown that not all market participants are created equal. Some traders consistently profit while others consistently lose. Some anticipate major turning points while others chase trends into exhaustion. Bessembinder and Chan (1992) demonstrated in their seminal study that commercial hedgers, those with actual exposure to the underlying commodity or financial instrument, possess superior forecasting ability compared to speculators. Their research, published in the Journal of Finance, found statistically significant predictive power in commercial positioning, particularly at extreme levels. This finding challenged the efficient market hypothesis and opened the door to a new approach to market analysis based on positioning rather than price alone.
Think about what this means. Every week, the government publishes a report showing you exactly how the most informed market participants are positioned. Not their opinions. Not their predictions. Their actual money at risk. When agricultural producers collectively hold their largest short hedge in five years, they are not making idle speculation. They are locking in prices for crops they will harvest, informed by private knowledge of weather conditions, soil quality, inventory levels, and demand expectations invisible to outside observers. When energy companies aggressively hedge forward production at current prices, they reveal information about expected supply that no analyst report can capture. This is not technical analysis based on past prices. This is not fundamental analysis based on publicly available data. This is behavioral analysis based on how the smartest money is actually positioned, how institutions allocate capital across portfolios, and how those allocation decisions shift as market conditions evolve.
WHY SOME TRADERS KNOW MORE THAN OTHERS
Building on this foundation, Sanders, Boris and Manfredo (2004) conducted extensive research examining the behaviour patterns of different trader categories. Their work, which analyzed over a decade of COT data across multiple commodity markets, revealed a fascinating dynamic that challenges much of what retail traders are taught. Commercial hedgers consistently positioned themselves against market extremes, buying when speculators were most bearish and selling when speculators reached peak bullishness. The contrarian positioning of commercials was not random noise but rather reflected their superior information about supply and demand fundamentals. Meanwhile, large speculators, primarily hedge funds and commodity trading advisors, exhibited strong trend-following behaviour that often amplified market moves beyond fundamental values. Small traders, the retail participants, consistently entered positions late in trends, frequently near turning points, making them reliable contrary indicators.
Wang (2003) extended this research by demonstrating that the predictive power of commercial positioning varies significantly across different commodity sectors. His analysis of agricultural commodities showed particularly strong forecasting ability, with commercial net positions explaining up to fifteen percent of return variance in subsequent weeks. This finding suggests that the informational advantages of hedgers are most pronounced in markets where physical supply and demand fundamentals dominate, as opposed to purely financial markets where information asymmetries are smaller. When a corn farmer hedges six months of expected harvest, that decision incorporates private observations about rainfall patterns, crop health, pest pressure, and local storage capacity that no distant analyst can match. When an oil refinery hedges crude oil purchases and gasoline sales simultaneously, the spread relationships reveal expectations about refining margins that reflect operational realities invisible in public data.
The theoretical mechanism underlying these empirical patterns relates to information asymmetry and different participant motivations. Commercial hedgers engage in futures markets not for speculative profit but to manage business risks. An agricultural producer selling forward six months of expected harvest is not making a bet on price direction but rather locking in revenue to facilitate financial planning and ensure business viability. However, this hedging activity necessarily incorporates private information about expected supply, inventory levels, weather conditions, and demand trends that the hedger observes through their commercial operations (Irwin and Sanders, 2012). When aggregated across many participants, this private information manifests in collective positioning.
Consider a gold mining company deciding how much forward production to hedge. Management must estimate ore grades, recovery rates, production costs, equipment reliability, labor availability, and dozens of other operational variables that determine whether locking in prices at current levels makes business sense. If the industry collectively hedges more aggressively than usual, it suggests either exceptional production expectations or concern about sustaining current price levels or combination of both. Either way, this positioning reveals information unavailable to speculators analyzing price charts and economic data. The hedger sees the physical reality behind the financial abstraction.
Large speculators operate under entirely different incentives and constraints. Commodity Trading Advisors managing billions in assets typically employ systematic, trend-following strategies that respond to price momentum rather than fundamental supply and demand. When crude oil rallies from sixty dollars to seventy dollars per barrel, these systems generate buy signals. As the rally continues to eighty dollars, position sizes increase. The strategy works brilliantly during sustained trends but becomes a liability at reversals. By the time oil reaches ninety dollars, trend-following funds are maximally long, having accumulated positions progressively throughout the rally. At this point, they represent not smart money anticipating further gains but rather crowded money vulnerable to reversal. Sanders, Boris and Manfredo (2004) documented this pattern across multiple energy markets, showing that extreme speculator positioning typically marked late-stage trend exhaustion rather than early-stage trend development.
Small traders, the retail participants who fall below reporting thresholds, display the weakest forecasting ability. Wang (2003) found that small trader positioning exhibited negative correlation with subsequent returns, meaning their aggregate positioning served as a reliable contrary indicator. The explanation combines several factors. Retail traders often lack the capital reserves to weather normal market volatility, leading to premature exits from positions that would eventually prove profitable. They tend to receive information through slower channels, entering trends after mainstream media coverage when institutional participants are preparing to exit. Perhaps most importantly, they trade with emotion, buying into euphoria and selling into panic at precisely the wrong times.
At major turning points, the three groups often position opposite each other with commercials extremely bearish, large speculators extremely bullish, and small traders piling into longs at the last moment. These high-divergence environments frequently precede increased volatility and trend reversals. The insiders with business exposure quietly exit as the momentum traders hit maximum capacity and retail enthusiasm peaks. Within weeks, the reversal begins, and positions unwind in the opposite sequence.
FROM RAW DATA TO ACTIONABLE SIGNALS
The COT Index indicator operationalizes these academic findings into a practical trading tool accessible through TradingView. At its core, the indicator normalizes net positioning data onto a zero to one hundred scale, creating what we call the COT Index. This normalization is critical because absolute position sizes vary dramatically across different futures contracts and over time. A commercial trader holding fifty thousand contracts net long in crude oil might be extremely bullish by historical standards, or it might be quite neutral depending on the context of total market size and historical ranges. Raw position numbers mean nothing without context. The COT Index solves this problem by calculating where current positioning stands relative to its range over a specified lookback period, typically two hundred fifty-two weeks or approximately five years of weekly data.
The mathematical transformation follows the methodology originally popularized by legendary trader Larry Williams, though the underlying concept appears in statistical normalization techniques across many fields. For any given trader category, we calculate the highest and lowest net position values over the lookback period, establishing the historical range for that specific market and trader group. Current positioning is then expressed as a percentage of this range, where zero represents the most bearish positioning ever seen in the lookback window and one hundred represents the most bullish extreme. A reading of fifty indicates positioning exactly in the middle of the historical range, suggesting neither extreme optimism nor pessimism relative to recent history (Williams and Noseworthy, 2009).
This index-based approach allows for meaningful comparison across different markets and time periods, overcoming the scaling problems inherent in analyzing raw position data. A commercial index reading of eighty-five in gold carries the same interpretive meaning as an eighty-five reading in wheat or crude oil, even though the absolute position sizes differ by orders of magnitude. This standardization enables systematic analysis across entire futures portfolios rather than requiring market-specific expertise for each contract.
The lookback period selection involves a fundamental tradeoff between responsiveness and stability. Shorter lookback periods, perhaps one hundred twenty-six weeks or approximately two and a half years, make the index more sensitive to recent positioning changes. However, it also increases noise and produces more false signals. Longer lookback periods, perhaps five hundred weeks or approximately ten years, create smoother readings that filter short-term noise but become slower to recognize regime changes. The indicator settings allow users to adjust this parameter based on their trading timeframe, risk tolerance, and market characteristics.
UNDERSTANDING CFTC DATA STRUCTURES
The indicator supports both Legacy and Disaggregated COT report formats, reflecting the evolution of CFTC reporting standards over decades of market development. Legacy reports categorize market participants into three broad groups: commercial traders (hedgers with underlying business exposure), non-commercial traders (large speculators seeking profit without commercial interest), and non-reportable traders (small speculators below reporting thresholds). Each category brings distinct motivations and information advantages to the market (CFTC, 2020).
The Disaggregated reports, introduced in September 2009 for physical commodity markets, provide finer granularity by splitting participants into five categories (CFTC, 2009). Producer and merchant positions capture those actually producing, processing, or merchandising the physical commodity. Swap dealers represent financial intermediaries facilitating derivative transactions for clients. Managed money includes commodity trading advisors and hedge funds executing systematic or discretionary strategies. Other reportables encompasses diverse participants not fitting the main categories. Small traders remain as the fifth group, representing retail participation.
This enhanced categorization reveals nuances invisible in Legacy reports, particularly distinguishing between different types of institutional capital and their distinct behavioural patterns. The indicator automatically detects which report type is appropriate for each futures contract and adjusts the display accordingly.
Importantly, Disaggregated reports exist only for physical commodity futures. Agricultural commodities like corn, wheat, and soybeans have Disaggregated reports because clear producer, merchant, and swap dealer categories exist. Energy commodities like crude oil and natural gas similarly have well-defined commercial hedger categories. Metals including gold, silver, and copper also receive Disaggregated treatment (CFTC, 2009). However, financial futures such as equity index futures, Treasury bond futures, and currency futures remain available only in Legacy format. The CFTC has indicated no plans to extend Disaggregated reporting to financial futures due to different market structures and participant categories in these instruments (CFTC, 2020).
THE BEHAVIORAL FOUNDATION
Understanding which trader perspective to follow requires appreciation of their distinct trading styles, success rates, and psychological profiles. Commercial hedgers exhibit anticyclical behaviour rooted in their fundamental knowledge and business imperatives. When agricultural producers hedge forward sales during harvest season, they are not speculating on price direction but rather locking in revenue for crops they will harvest. Their business requires converting volatile commodity exposure into predictable cash flows to facilitate planning and ensure survival through difficult periods. Yet their aggregate positioning reveals valuable information because these hedging decisions incorporate private information about supply conditions, inventory levels, weather observations, and demand expectations that hedgers observe through their commercial operations (Bessembinder and Chan, 1992).
Consider a practical example from energy markets. Major oil companies continuously hedge portions of forward production based on price levels, operational costs, and financial planning needs. When crude oil trades at ninety dollars per barrel, they might aggressively hedge the next twelve months of production, locking in prices that provide comfortable profit margins above their extraction costs. This hedging appears as short positioning in COT reports. If oil rallies further to one hundred dollars, they hedge even more aggressively, viewing these prices as exceptional opportunities to secure revenue. Their short positioning grows increasingly extreme. To an outside observer watching only price charts, the rally suggests bullishness. But the commercial positioning reveals that the actual producers of oil find these prices attractive enough to lock in years of sales, suggesting skepticism about sustaining even higher levels. When the eventual reversal occurs and oil declines back to eighty dollars, the commercials who hedged at ninety and one hundred dollars profit while speculators who chased the rally suffer losses.
Large speculators or managed money traders operate under entirely different incentives and constraints. Their systematic, momentum-driven strategies mean they amplify existing trends rather than anticipate reversals. Trend-following systems, the most common approach among large speculators, by definition require confirmation of trend through price momentum before entering positions (Sanders, Boris and Manfredo, 2004). When crude oil rallies from sixty dollars to eighty dollars per barrel over several months, trend-following algorithms generate buy signals based on moving average crossovers, breakouts, and other momentum indicators. As the rally continues, position sizes increase according to the systematic rules.
However, this approach becomes a liability at turning points. By the time oil reaches ninety dollars after a sustained rally, trend-following funds are maximally long, having accumulated positions progressively throughout the move. At this point, their positioning does not predict continued strength. Rather, it often marks late-stage trend exhaustion. The psychological and mechanical explanation is straightforward. Trend followers by definition chase price momentum, entering positions after trends establish rather than anticipating them. Eventually, they become fully invested just as the trend nears completion, leaving no incremental buying power to sustain the rally. When the first signs of reversal appear, systematic stops trigger, creating a cascade of selling that accelerates the downturn.
Small traders consistently display the weakest track record across academic studies. Wang (2003) found that small trader positioning exhibited negative correlation with subsequent returns in his analysis across multiple commodity markets. This result means that whatever small traders collectively do, the opposite typically proves profitable. The explanation for small trader underperformance combines several factors documented in behavioral finance literature. Retail traders often lack the capital reserves to weather normal market volatility, leading to premature exits from positions that would eventually prove profitable. They tend to receive information through slower channels, learning about commodity trends through mainstream media coverage that arrives after institutional participants have already positioned. Perhaps most importantly, retail traders are more susceptible to emotional decision-making, buying into euphoria and selling into panic at precisely the wrong times (Tharp, 2008).
SETTINGS, THRESHOLDS, AND SIGNAL GENERATION
The practical implementation of the COT Index requires understanding several key features and settings that users can adjust to match their trading style, timeframe, and risk tolerance. The lookback period determines the time window for calculating historical ranges. The default setting of two hundred fifty-two bars represents approximately one year on daily charts or five years on weekly charts, balancing responsiveness with stability. Conservative traders seeking only the most extreme, highest-probability signals might extend the lookback to five hundred bars or more. Aggressive traders seeking earlier entry and willing to accept more false positives might reduce it to one hundred twenty-six bars or even less for shorter-term applications.
The bullish and bearish thresholds define signal generation levels. Default settings of eighty and twenty respectively reflect academic research suggesting meaningful information content at these extremes. Readings above eighty indicate positioning in the top quintile of the historical range, representing genuine extremes rather than temporary fluctuations. Conversely, readings below twenty occupy the bottom quintile, indicating unusually bearish positioning (Briese, 2008).
However, traders must recognize that appropriate thresholds vary by market, trader category, and personal risk tolerance. Some futures markets exhibit wider positioning swings than others due to seasonal patterns, volatility characteristics, or participant behavior. Conservative traders seeking high-probability setups with fewer signals might raise thresholds to eighty-five and fifteen. Aggressive traders willing to accept more false positives for earlier entry could lower them to seventy-five and twenty-five.
The key is maintaining meaningful differentiation between bullish, neutral, and bearish zones. The default settings of eighty and twenty create a clear three-zone structure. Readings from zero to twenty represent bearish territory where the selected trader group holds unusually bearish positions. Readings from twenty to eighty represent neutral territory where positioning falls within normal historical ranges. Readings from eighty to one hundred represent bullish territory where the selected trader group holds unusually bullish positions.
The trading perspective selection determines which participant group the indicator follows, fundamentally shaping interpretation and signal meaning. For counter-trend traders seeking reversal opportunities, monitoring commercial positioning makes intuitive sense based on the academic research discussed earlier. When commercials reach extreme bearish readings below twenty, indicating unprecedented short positioning relative to recent history, they are effectively betting against the crowd. Given their informational advantages demonstrated by Bessembinder and Chan (1992), this contrarian stance often precedes major bottoms.
Trend followers might instead monitor large speculator positioning, but with inverted logic compared to commercials. When managed money reaches extreme bullish readings above eighty, the trend may be exhausting rather than accelerating. This seeming paradox reflects their late-cycle participation documented by Sanders, Boris and Manfredo (2004). Sophisticated traders thus use speculator extremes as fade signals, entering positions opposite to speculator consensus.
Small trader monitoring serves primarily as a contrary indicator for all trading styles. Extreme small trader bullishness above seventy-five or eighty typically warns of retail FOMO at market tops. Extreme small trader bearishness below twenty or twenty-five often marks capitulation bottoms where the last weak hands have sold.
VISUALIZATION AND USER INTERFACE
The visual design incorporates multiple elements working together to facilitate decision-making and maintain situational awareness during active trading. The primary COT Index line plots in bold with adjustable line width, defaulting to two pixels for clear visibility against busy price charts. An optional glow effect, controlled by a simple toggle, adds additional visual prominence through multiple plot layers with progressively increasing transparency and width.
A twenty-one period exponential moving average overlays the index line, providing trend context for positioning changes. When the index crosses above its moving average, it signals accelerating bullish sentiment among the selected trader group regardless of whether absolute positioning is extreme. Conversely, when the index crosses below its moving average, it signals deteriorating sentiment and potentially the beginning of a reversal in positioning trends.
The EMA provides a dynamic reference line for assessing positioning momentum. When the index trades far above its EMA, positioning is not only extreme in absolute terms but also building with momentum. When the index trades far below its EMA, positioning is contracting or reversing, which may indicate weakening conviction even if absolute levels remain elevated.
The data table positioned at the top right of the chart displays eleven metrics for each trader category, transforming the indicator from a simple index calculation into an analytical dashboard providing multidimensional market intelligence. Beyond the COT Index itself, users can monitor positioning extremity, which measures how unusual current levels are compared to historical norms using statistical techniques. The extremity metric clarifies whether a reading represents the ninety-fifth or ninety-ninth percentile, with values above two standard deviations indicating genuinely exceptional positioning.
Market power quantifies each group's influence on total open interest. This metric expresses each trader category's net position as a percentage of total market open interest. A commercial entity holding forty percent of total open interest commands significantly more influence than one holding five percent, making their positioning signals more meaningful.
Momentum and rate of change metrics reveal whether positions are building or contracting, providing early warning of potential regime shifts. Position velocity measures the rate of change in positioning changes, effectively a second derivative providing even earlier insight into inflection points.
Sentiment divergence highlights disagreements between commercial and speculative positioning. This metric calculates the absolute difference between normalized commercial and large speculator index values. Wang (2003) found that these high-divergence environments frequently preceded increased volatility and reversals.
The table also displays concentration metrics when available, showing how positioning is distributed among the largest handful of traders in each category. High concentration indicates a few dominant players controlling most of the positioning, while low concentration suggests broad-based participation across many traders.
THE ALERT SYSTEM AND MONITORING
The alert system, comprising five distinct alert conditions, enables systematic monitoring of dozens of futures markets without constant screen watching. The bullish and bearish COT signal alerts trigger when the index crosses user-defined thresholds, indicating the selected trader group has reached extreme positioning worthy of attention. These alerts fire in real-time as new weekly COT data publishes, typically Friday afternoon following the Tuesday measurement date.
Extreme positioning alerts fire at ninety and ten index levels, representing the top and bottom ten percent of the historical range, warning of particularly stretched readings that historically precede reversals with high probability. When commercials reach a COT Index reading below ten, they are expressing their most bearish stance in the entire lookback period.
The data staleness alert notifies users when COT reports have not updated for more than ten days, preventing reliance on outdated information for trading decisions. Government shutdowns or federal holidays can interrupt the normal Friday publication schedule. Using stale signals while believing them current creates dangerous false confidence.
The indicator's watermark information display positioned in the bottom right corner provides essential context at a glance. This persistent display shows the symbol and timeframe, the COT report date timestamp, days since last update, and the current signal state. A trader analyzing a potential short entry in crude oil can glance at the watermark to instantly confirm positioning context without interrupting analysis flow.
LIMITATIONS AND REALISTIC EXPECTATIONS
Practical application requires understanding both the indicator's considerable strengths and inherent limitations. COT data inherently lags price action by three days, as Tuesday positions are not published until Friday afternoon. This delay means the indicator cannot catch rapid intraday reversals or respond to surprise news events. Traders using the COT Index for timing entries must accept this latency and focus on swing trading and position trading timeframes where three-day lags matter less than in day trading or scalping.
The weekly publication schedule similarly makes the indicator unsuitable for short-term trading strategies requiring immediate feedback. The COT Index works best for traders operating on weekly or longer timeframes, where positioning shifts measured in weeks and months align with trading horizon.
Extreme COT readings can persist far longer than typical technical indicators suggest, testing the patience and capital reserves of traders attempting to fade them. When crude oil enters a sustained bull market driven by genuine supply disruptions, commercial hedgers may maintain bearish positioning for many months as prices grind higher. A commercial COT Index reading of fifteen indicating extreme bearishness might persist for three months while prices continue rallying before finally reversing. Traders without sufficient capital and risk tolerance to weather such drawdowns will exit prematurely, precisely when the signal is about to work (Irwin and Sanders, 2012).
Position sizing discipline becomes paramount when implementing COT-based strategies. Rather than risking large percentages of capital on individual signals, successful COT traders typically allocate modest position sizes across multiple signals, allowing some to take time to mature while others work more quickly.
The indicator also cannot overcome fundamental regime changes that alter the structural drivers of markets. If gold enters a true secular bull market driven by monetary debasement, commercial hedgers may remain persistently bearish as mining companies sell forward years of production at what they perceive as favorable prices. Their positioning indicates valuation concerns from a production cost perspective, but cannot stop prices from rising if investment demand overwhelms physical supply-demand balance.
Similarly, structural changes in market participation can alter the meaning of positioning extremes. The growth of commodity index investing in the two thousands brought massive passive long-only capital into futures markets, fundamentally changing typical positioning ranges. Traders relying on COT signals without recognizing this regime change would have generated numerous false bearish signals during the commodity supercycle from 2003 to 2008.
The research foundation supporting COT analysis derives primarily from commodity markets where the commercial hedger information advantage is most pronounced. Studies specifically examining financial futures like equity indices and bonds show weaker but still present effects. Traders should calibrate expectations accordingly, recognizing that COT analysis likely works better for crude oil, natural gas, corn, and wheat than for the S&P 500, Treasury bonds, or currency futures.
Another important limitation involves the reporting threshold structure. Not all market participants appear in COT data, only those holding positions above specified minimums. In markets dominated by a few large players, concentration metrics become critical for proper interpretation. A single large trader accounting for thirty percent of commercial positioning might skew the entire category if their individual circumstances are idiosyncratic rather than representative.
GOLD FUTURES DURING A HYPOTHETICAL MARKET CYCLE
Consider a practical example using gold futures during a hypothetical but realistic market scenario that illustrates how the COT Index indicator guides trading decisions through a complete market cycle. Suppose gold has rallied from fifteen hundred to nineteen hundred dollars per ounce over six months, driven by inflation concerns following aggressive monetary expansion, geopolitical uncertainty, and sustained buying by Asian central banks for reserve diversification.
Large speculators, operating primarily trend-following strategies, have accumulated increasingly bullish positions throughout this rally. Their COT Index has climbed progressively from forty-five to eighty-five. The table display shows that large speculators now hold net long positions representing thirty-two percent of total open interest, their highest in four years. Momentum indicators show positive readings, indicating positions are still building though at a decelerating rate. Position velocity has turned negative, suggesting the pace of position building is slowing.
Meanwhile, commercial hedgers have responded to the rally by aggressively selling forward production and inventory. Their COT Index has moved inversely to price, declining from fifty-five to twenty. This bearish commercial positioning represents mining companies locking in forward sales at prices they view as attractive relative to production costs. The table shows commercials now hold net short positions representing twenty-nine percent of total open interest, their most bearish stance in five years. Concentration metrics indicate this positioning is broadly distributed across many commercial entities, suggesting the bearish stance reflects collective industry view rather than idiosyncratic positioning by a single firm.
Small traders, attracted by mainstream financial media coverage of gold's impressive rally, have recently piled into long positions. Their COT Index has jumped from forty-five to seventy-eight as retail investors chase the trend. Television financial networks feature frequent segments on gold with bullish guests. Internet forums and social media show surging retail interest. This retail enthusiasm historically marks late-stage trend development rather than early opportunity.
The COT Index indicator, configured to monitor commercial positioning from a contrarian perspective, displays a clear bearish signal given the extreme commercial short positioning. The table displays multiple confirming metrics: positioning extremity shows commercials at the ninety-sixth percentile of bearishness, market power indicates they control twenty-nine percent of open interest, and sentiment divergence registers sixty-five, indicating massive disagreement between commercial hedgers and large speculators. This divergence, the highest in three years, places the market in the historically high-risk category for reversals.
The interpretation requires nuance and consideration of context beyond just COT data. Commercials are not necessarily predicting an imminent crash. Rather, they are hedging business operations at what they collectively view as favorable price levels. However, the data reveals they have sold unusually large quantities of forward production, suggesting either exceptional production expectations for the year ahead or concern about sustaining current price levels or combination of both. Combined with extreme speculator positioning indicating a crowded long trade, and small trader enthusiasm confirming retail FOMO, the confluence suggests elevated reversal risk even if the precise timing remains uncertain.
A prudent trader analyzing this situation might take several actions based on COT Index signals. Existing long positions could be tightened with closer stop losses. Profit-taking on a portion of long exposure could lock in gains while maintaining some participation. Some traders might initiate modest short positions as portfolio hedges, sizing them appropriately for the inherent uncertainty in timing reversals. Others might simply move to the sidelines, avoiding new long entries until positioning normalizes.
The key lesson from case study analysis is that COT signals provide probabilistic edges rather than deterministic predictions. They work over many observations by identifying higher-probability configurations, not by generating perfect calls on individual trades. A fifty-five percent win rate with proper risk management produces substantial profits over time, yet still means forty-five percent of signals will be premature or wrong. Traders must embrace this probabilistic reality rather than seeking the impossible goal of perfect accuracy.
INTEGRATION WITH TRADING SYSTEMS
Integration with existing trading systems represents a natural and powerful use case for COT analysis, adding a positioning dimension to price-based technical approaches or fundamental analytical frameworks. Few traders rely exclusively on a single indicator or methodology. Rather, they build systems that synthesize multiple information sources, with each component addressing different aspects of market behavior.
Trend followers might use COT extremes as regime filters, modifying position sizing or avoiding new trend entries when positioning reaches levels historically associated with reversals. Consider a classic trend-following system based on moving average crossovers and momentum breakouts. Integration of COT analysis adds nuance. When large speculator positioning exceeds ninety or commercial positioning falls below ten, the regime filter recognizes elevated reversal risk. The system might reduce position sizing by fifty percent for new signals during these high-risk periods (Kaufman, 2013).
Mean reversion traders might require COT signal confluence before fading extended moves. When crude oil becomes technically overbought and large speculators show extreme long positioning above eighty-five, both signals confirm. If only technical indicators show extremes while positioning remains neutral, the potential short signal is rejected, avoiding fades of trends with underlying institutional support (Kaufman, 2013).
Discretionary traders can monitor the indicator as a continuous awareness tool, informing bias and position sizing without dictating mechanical entries and exits. A discretionary trader might notice commercial positioning shifting from neutral to progressively more bullish over several months. This trend informs growing positive bias even without triggering mechanical signals.
Multi-timeframe analysis represents another powerful integration approach. A trader might use daily charts for trade execution and timing while monitoring weekly COT positioning for strategic context. When both timeframes align, highest-probability opportunities emerge.
Portfolio construction for futures traders can incorporate COT signals as an additional selection criterion. Markets showing strong technical setups AND favorable COT positioning receive highest allocations. Markets with strong technicals but neutral or unfavorable positioning receive reduced allocations.
ADVANCED METRICS AND INTERPRETATION
The metrics table transforms simple positioning data into multidimensional market intelligence. Position extremity, calculated as the absolute deviation from the historical mean normalized by standard deviation, helps identify truly unusual readings versus routine fluctuations. A reading above two standard deviations indicates ninety-fifth percentile or higher extremity. Above three standard deviations indicates ninety-ninth percentile or higher, genuinely rare positioning that historically precedes major events with high probability.
Market power, expressed as a percentage of total open interest, reveals whose positioning matters most from a mechanical market impact perspective. Consider two scenarios in gold futures. In scenario one, commercials show a COT Index reading of fifteen while their market power metric shows they hold net shorts representing thirty-five percent of open interest. This is a high-confidence bearish signal. In scenario two, commercials also show a reading of fifteen, but market power shows only eight percent. While positioning is extreme relative to this category's normal range, their limited market share means less mechanical influence on price.
The rate of change and momentum metrics highlight whether positions are accelerating or decelerating, often providing earlier warnings than absolute levels alone. A COT Index reading of seventy-five with rapidly building momentum suggests continued movement toward extremes. Conversely, a reading of eighty-five with decelerating or negative momentum indicates the positioning trend is exhausting.
Position velocity measures the rate of change in positioning changes, effectively a second derivative. When velocity shifts from positive to negative, it indicates that while positioning may still be growing, the pace of growth is slowing. This deceleration often precedes actual reversal in positioning direction by several weeks.
Sentiment divergence calculates the absolute difference between normalized commercial and large speculator index values. When commercials show extreme bearish positioning at twenty while large speculators show extreme bullish positioning at eighty, the divergence reaches sixty, representing near-maximum disagreement. Wang (2003) found that these high-divergence environments frequently preceded increased volatility and reversals. The mechanism is intuitive. Extreme divergence indicates the informed hedgers and momentum-following speculators have positioned opposite each other with conviction. One group will prove correct and profit while the other proves incorrect and suffers losses. The resolution of this disagreement through price movement often involves volatility.
The table also displays concentration metrics when available. High concentration indicates a few dominant players controlling most of the positioning within a category, while low concentration suggests broad-based participation. Broad-based positioning more reliably reflects collective market intelligence and industry consensus. If mining companies globally all independently decide to hedge aggressively at similar price levels, it suggests genuine industry-wide view about price valuations rather than circumstances specific to one firm.
DATA QUALITY AND RELIABILITY
The CFTC has maintained COT reporting in various forms since the nineteen twenties, providing nearly a century of positioning data across multiple market cycles. However, data quality and reporting standards have evolved substantially over this long period. Modern electronic reporting implemented in the late nineteen nineties and early two thousands significantly improved accuracy and timeliness compared to earlier paper-based systems.
Traders should understand that COT reports capture positions as of Tuesday's close each week. Markets remain open three additional days before publication on Friday afternoon, meaning the reported data is three days stale when received. During periods of rapid market movement or major news events, this lag can be significant. The indicator addresses this limitation by including timestamp information and staleness warnings.
The three-day lag creates particular challenges during extreme volatility episodes. Flash crashes, surprise central bank interventions, geopolitical shocks, and other high-impact events can completely transform market positioning within hours. Traders must exercise judgment about whether reported positioning remains relevant given intervening events.
Reporting thresholds also mean that not all market participants appear in disaggregated COT data. Traders holding positions below specified minimums aggregate into the non-reportable or small trader category. This aggregation affects different markets differently. In highly liquid contracts like crude oil with thousands of participants, reportable traders might represent seventy to eighty percent of open interest. In thinly traded contracts with only dozens of active participants, a few large reportable positions might represent ninety-five percent of open interest.
Another data quality consideration involves trader classification into categories. The CFTC assigns traders to commercial or non-commercial categories based on reported business purpose and activities. However, this process is not perfect. Some entities engage in both commercial and speculative activities, creating ambiguity about proper classification. The transition to Disaggregated reports attempted to address some of these ambiguities by creating more granular categories.
COMPARISON WITH ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES
Several alternative approaches to COT analysis exist in the trading community beyond the normalization methodology employed by this indicator. Some analysts focus on absolute position changes week-over-week rather than index-based normalization. This approach calculates the change in net positioning from one week to the next. The emphasis falls on momentum in positioning changes rather than absolute levels relative to history. This method potentially identifies regime shifts earlier but sacrifices cross-market comparability (Briese, 2008).
Other practitioners employ more complex statistical transformations including percentile rankings, z-score standardization, and machine learning classification algorithms. Ruan and Zhang (2018) demonstrated that machine learning models applied to COT data could achieve modest improvements in forecasting accuracy compared to simple threshold-based approaches. However, these gains came at the cost of interpretability and implementation complexity.
The COT Index indicator intentionally employs a relatively straightforward normalization methodology for several important reasons. First, transparency enhances user understanding and trust. Traders can verify calculations manually and develop intuitive feel for what different readings mean. Second, academic research suggests that most of the predictive power in COT data comes from extreme positioning levels rather than subtle patterns requiring complex statistical methods to detect. Third, robust methods that work consistently across many markets and time periods tend to be simpler rather than more complex, reducing the risk of overfitting to historical data. Fourth, the complexity costs of implementation matter for retail traders without programming teams or computational infrastructure.
PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECTS OF COT TRADING
Trading based on COT data requires psychological fortitude that differs from momentum-based approaches. Contrarian positioning signals inherently mean betting against prevailing market sentiment and recent price action. When commercials reach extreme bearish positioning, prices have typically been rising, sometimes for extended periods. The price chart looks bullish, momentum indicators confirm strength, moving averages align positively. The COT signal says bet against all of this. This psychological difficulty explains why COT analysis remains underutilized relative to trend-following methods.
Human psychology strongly predisposes us toward extrapolation and recency bias. When prices rally for months, our pattern-matching brains naturally expect continued rally. The recent price action dominates our perception, overwhelming rational analysis about positioning extremes and historical probabilities. The COT signal asking us to sell requires overriding these powerful psychological impulses.
The indicator design attempts to support the required psychological discipline through several features. Clear threshold markers and signal states reduce ambiguity about when signals trigger. When the commercial index crosses below twenty, the signal is explicit and unambiguous. The background shifts to red, the signal label displays bearish, and alerts fire. This explicitness helps traders act on signals rather than waiting for additional confirmation that may never arrive.
The metrics table provides analytical justification for contrarian positions, helping traders maintain conviction during inevitable periods of adverse price movement. When a trader enters short positions based on extreme commercial bearish positioning but prices continue rallying for several weeks, doubt naturally emerges. The table display provides reassurance. Commercial positioning remains extremely bearish. Divergence remains high. The positioning thesis remains intact even though price action has not yet confirmed.
Alert functionality ensures traders do not miss signals due to inattention while also not requiring constant monitoring that can lead to emotional decision-making. Setting alerts for COT extremes enables a healthier relationship with markets. When meaningful signals occur, alerts notify them. They can then calmly assess the situation and execute planned responses.
However, no indicator design can completely overcome the psychological difficulty of contrarian trading. Some traders simply cannot maintain short positions while prices rally. For these traders, COT analysis might be better employed as an exit signal for long positions rather than an entry signal for shorts.
Ultimately, successful COT trading requires developing comfort with probabilistic thinking rather than certainty-seeking. The signals work over many observations by identifying higher-probability configurations, not by generating perfect calls on individual trades. A fifty-five or sixty percent win rate with proper risk management produces substantial profits over years, yet still means forty to forty-five percent of signals will be premature or wrong. COT analysis provides genuine edge, but edge means probability advantage, not elimination of losing trades.
EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES AND CONTINUOUS LEARNING
The indicator provides extensive built-in educational resources through its documentation, detailed tooltips, and transparent calculations. However, mastering COT analysis requires study beyond any single tool or resource. Several excellent resources provide valuable extensions of the concepts covered in this guide.
Books and practitioner-focused monographs offer accessible entry points. Stephen Briese published The Commitments of Traders Bible in two thousand eight, offering detailed breakdowns of how different markets and trader categories behave (Briese, 2008). Briese's work stands out for its empirical focus and market-specific insights. Jack Schwager includes discussion of COT analysis within the broader context of market behavior in his book Market Sense and Nonsense (Schwager, 2012). Perry Kaufman's Trading Systems and Methods represents perhaps the most rigorous practitioner-focused text on systematic trading approaches including COT analysis (Kaufman, 2013).
Academic journal articles provide the rigorous statistical foundation underlying COT analysis. The Journal of Futures Markets regularly publishes research on positioning data and its predictive properties. Bessembinder and Chan's earlier work on systematic risk, hedging pressure, and risk premiums in futures markets provides theoretical foundation (Bessembinder, 1992). Chang's examination of speculator returns provides historical context (Chang, 1985). Irwin and Sanders provide essential skeptical perspective in their two thousand twelve article (Irwin and Sanders, 2012). Wang's two thousand three article provides one of the most empirical analyses of COT data across multiple commodity markets (Wang, 2003).
Online resources extend beyond academic and book-length treatments. The CFTC website provides free access to current and historical COT reports in multiple formats. The explanatory materials section offers detailed documentation of report construction, category definitions, and historical methodology changes. Traders serious about COT analysis should read these official CFTC documents to understand exactly what they are analyzing.
Commercial COT data services such as Barchart provide enhanced visualization and analysis tools beyond raw CFTC data. TradingView's educational materials, published scripts library, and user community provide additional resources for exploring different approaches to COT analysis.
The key to mastering COT analysis lies not in finding a single definitive source but rather in building understanding through multiple perspectives and information sources. Academic research provides rigorous empirical foundation. Practitioner-focused books offer practical implementation insights. Direct engagement with data through systematic backtesting develops intuition about how positioning dynamics manifest across different market conditions.
SYNTHESIZING KNOWLEDGE INTO PRACTICE
The COT Index indicator represents the synthesis of academic research, trading experience, and software engineering into a practical tool accessible to retail traders equipped with nothing more than a TradingView account and willingness to learn. What once required expensive data subscriptions, custom programming capabilities, statistical software, and institutional resources now appears as a straightforward indicator requiring only basic parameter selection and modest study to understand. This democratization of institutional-grade analysis tools represents a broader trend in financial markets over recent decades.
Yet technology and data access alone provide no edge without understanding and discipline. Markets remain relentlessly efficient at eliminating edges that become too widely known and mechanically exploited. The COT Index indicator succeeds only when users invest time learning the underlying concepts, understand the limitations and probability distributions involved, and integrate signals thoughtfully into trading plans rather than applying them mechanically.
The academic research demonstrates conclusively that institutional positioning contains genuine information about future price movements, particularly at extremes where commercial hedgers are maximally bearish or bullish relative to historical norms. This informational content is neither perfect nor deterministic but rather probabilistic, providing edge over many observations through identification of higher-probability configurations. Bessembinder and Chan's finding that commercial positioning explained modest but significant variance in future returns illustrates this probabilistic nature perfectly (Bessembinder and Chan, 1992). The effect is real and statistically significant, yet it explains perhaps ten to fifteen percent of return variance rather than most variance. Much of price movement remains unpredictable even with positioning intelligence.
The practical implication is that COT analysis works best as one component of a trading system rather than a standalone oracle. It provides the positioning dimension, revealing where the smart money has positioned and where the crowd has followed, but price action analysis provides the timing dimension. Fundamental analysis provides the catalyst dimension. Risk management provides the survival dimension. These components work together synergistically.
The indicator's design philosophy prioritizes transparency and education over black-box complexity, empowering traders to understand exactly what they are analyzing and why. Every calculation is documented and user-adjustable. The threshold markers, background coloring, tables, and clear signal states provide multiple reinforcing channels for conveying the same information.
This educational approach reflects a conviction that sustainable trading success comes from genuine understanding rather than mechanical system-following. Traders who understand why commercial positioning matters, how different trader categories behave, what positioning extremes signify, and where signals fit within probability distributions can adapt when market conditions change. Traders mechanically following black-box signals without comprehension abandon systems after normal losing streaks.
The research foundation supporting COT analysis comes primarily from commodity markets where commercial hedger informational advantages are most pronounced. Agricultural producers hedging crops know more about supply conditions than distant speculators. Energy companies hedging production know more about operating costs than financial traders. Metals miners hedging output know more about ore grades than index funds. Financial futures markets show weaker but still present effects.
The journey from reading this documentation to profitable trading based on COT analysis involves several stages that cannot be rushed. Initial reading and basic understanding represents the first stage. Historical study represents the second stage, reviewing past market cycles to observe how positioning extremes preceded major turning points. Paper trading or small-size real trading represents the third stage to experience the psychological challenges. Refinement based on results and personal psychology represents the fourth stage.
Markets will continue evolving. New participant categories will emerge. Regulatory structures will change. Technology will advance. Yet the fundamental dynamics driving COT analysis, that different market participants have different information, different motivations, and different forecasting abilities that manifest in their positioning, will persist as long as futures markets exist. While specific thresholds or optimal parameters may shift over time, the core logic remains sound and adaptable.
The trader equipped with this indicator, understanding of the theory and evidence behind COT analysis, realistic expectations about probability rather than certainty, discipline to maintain positions through adverse volatility, and patience to allow signals time to develop possesses genuine edge in markets. The edge is not enormous, markets cannot allow large persistent inefficiencies without arbitraging them away, but it is real, measurable, and exploitable by those willing to invest in learning and disciplined application.
REFERENCES
Bessembinder, H. (1992) Systematic risk, hedging pressure, and risk premiums in futures markets, Review of Financial Studies, 5(4), pp. 637-667.
Bessembinder, H. and Chan, K. (1992) The profitability of technical trading rules in the Asian stock markets, Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, 3(2-3), pp. 257-284.
Briese, S. (2008) The Commitments of Traders Bible: How to Profit from Insider Market Intelligence. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.
Chang, E.C. (1985) Returns to speculators and the theory of normal backwardation, Journal of Finance, 40(1), pp. 193-208.
Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) (2009) Explanatory Notes: Disaggregated Commitments of Traders Report. Available at: www.cftc.gov (Accessed: 15 January 2025).
Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) (2020) Commitments of Traders: About the Report. Available at: www.cftc.gov (Accessed: 15 January 2025).
Irwin, S.H. and Sanders, D.R. (2012) Testing the Masters Hypothesis in commodity futures markets, Energy Economics, 34(1), pp. 256-269.
Kaufman, P.J. (2013) Trading Systems and Methods. 5th edn. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.
Ruan, Y. and Zhang, Y. (2018) Forecasting commodity futures prices using machine learning: Evidence from the Chinese commodity futures market, Applied Economics Letters, 25(12), pp. 845-849.
Sanders, D.R., Boris, K. and Manfredo, M. (2004) Hedgers, funds, and small speculators in the energy futures markets: an analysis of the CFTC's Commitments of Traders reports, Energy Economics, 26(3), pp. 425-445.
Schwager, J.D. (2012) Market Sense and Nonsense: How the Markets Really Work and How They Don't. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.
Tharp, V.K. (2008) Super Trader: Make Consistent Profits in Good and Bad Markets. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Wang, C. (2003) The behavior and performance of major types of futures traders, Journal of Futures Markets, 23(1), pp. 1-31.
Williams, L.R. and Noseworthy, M. (2009) The Right Stock at the Right Time: Prospering in the Coming Good Years. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.
FURTHER READING
For traders seeking to deepen their understanding of COT analysis and futures market positioning beyond this documentation, the following resources provide valuable extensions:
Academic Journal Articles:
Fishe, R.P.H. and Smith, A. (2012) Do speculators drive commodity prices away from supply and demand fundamentals?, Journal of Commodity Markets, 1(1), pp. 1-16.
Haigh, M.S., Hranaiova, J. and Overdahl, J.A. (2007) Hedge funds, volatility, and liquidity provision in energy futures markets, Journal of Alternative Investments, 9(4), pp. 10-38.
Kocagil, A.E. (1997) Does futures speculation stabilize spot prices? Evidence from metals markets, Applied Financial Economics, 7(1), pp. 115-125.
Sanders, D.R. and Irwin, S.H. (2011) The impact of index funds in commodity futures markets: A systems approach, Journal of Alternative Investments, 14(1), pp. 40-49.
Books and Practitioner Resources:
Murphy, J.J. (1999) Technical Analysis of the Financial Markets: A Guide to Trading Methods and Applications. New York: New York Institute of Finance.
Pring, M.J. (2002) Technical Analysis Explained: The Investor's Guide to Spotting Investment Trends and Turning Points. 4th edn. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Federal Reserve and Research Institution Publications:
Federal Reserve Banks regularly publish working papers examining commodity markets, futures positioning, and price discovery mechanisms. The Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco and Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City maintain active research programs in this area.
Online Resources:
The CFTC website provides free access to current and historical COT reports, explanatory materials, and regulatory documentation.
Barchart offers enhanced COT data visualization and screening tools.
TradingView's community library contains numerous published scripts and educational materials exploring different approaches to positioning analysis.
Indian Gold Festival Dates HistoricalIndian Gold Festival Dates (1975-2025)
Marks 8 major Indian festivals associated with gold buying over 50 years of historical data. Essential for analyzing seasonal patterns and cultural demand cycles in gold markets.
Festivals Included:
Dhanteras (Gold) - Most auspicious gold buying day
Diwali (Orange) - Festival of Lights
Akshaya Tritiya (Green) - "Never-ending" prosperity
Dussehra (Red) - Victory and success
Makar Sankranti (Cyan) - Solar new year
Gudi Padwa (Magenta) - Hindu New Year (Maharashtra)
Ugadi (Purple) - Hindu New Year (South India)
Navratri (Yellow) - 9-day festival
Features:
✓ 408 exact historical dates (1975-2025)
✓ Color-coded vertical lines for easy identification
✓ Toggle individual festivals on/off
✓ Adjustable line width and labels
✓ Works on all timeframes (best on daily/weekly)
Perfect for traders analyzing gold seasonality, Indian market sentiment, and cultural demand patterns. Use on XAUUSD, GC1!, or Indian gold futures.
TASC 2025.11 The Points and Line Chart█ OVERVIEW
This script implements the Points and Line Chart described by Mohamed Ashraf Mahfouz and Mohamed Meregy in the November 2025 edition of the TASC Traders' Tips , "Efficient Display of Irregular Time Series”. This novel chart type interprets regular time series chart data to create an irregular time series chart.
█ CONCEPTS
When formatting data for display on a price chart, there are two main categorizations of chart types: regular time series (RTS) and irregular time series (ITS).
RTS charts, such as a typical candlestick chart, collect data over a specified amount of time and display it at one point. A one-minute candle, for example, represents the entirety of price movements within the minute that it represents.
ITS charts display data only after certain conditions are met. Since they do not plot at a consistent time period, they are called “irregular”.
Typically, ITS charts, such as Point and Figure (P&F) and Renko charts, focus on price change, plotting only when a certain threshold of change occurs.
The Points and Line (P&L) chart operates similarly to a P&F chart, using price change to determine when to plot points. However, instead of plotting the price in points, the P&L chart (by default) plots the closing price from RTS data. In other words, the P&L chart plots its points at the actual RTS close, as opposed to (price) intervals based on point size. This approach creates an ITS while still maintaining a reference to the RTS data, allowing us to gain a better understanding of time while consolidating the chart into an ITS format.
█ USAGE
Because the P&L chart forms bars based on price action instead of time, it displays displays significantly more history than a typical RTS chart. With this view, we are able to more easily spot support and resistance levels, which we could use when looking to place trades.
In the chart below, we can see over 13 years of data consolidated into one single view.
To view specific chart details, hover over each point of the chart to see a list of information.
In addition to providing a compact view of price movement over larger periods, this new chart type helps make classic chart patterns easier to interpret. When considering breakouts, the closing price provides a clearer representation of the actual breakout, as opposed to point size plots which are limited.
Because P&L is a new charting type, this script still requires a standard RTS chart for proper calculations. However, the main price chart is not intended for interpretation alongside the P&L chart; users can hide the main price series to keep the chart clean.
█ DISPLAYS
This indicator creates two displays: the "Price Display" and the "Data Display".
With the "Price display" setting, users can choose between showing a line or OHLC candles for the P&L drawing. The line display shows the close price of the P&L chart. In the candle display, the close price remains the same, while the open, high, and low values depend on the price action between points.
With the "Data display" setting, users can enable the display of a histogram that shows either the total volume or days/bars between the points in the P&L chart. For example, a reading of 12 days would indicate that the time since the last point was 12 days.
Note: The "Days" setting actually shows the number of chart bars elapsed between P&L points. The displayed value represents days only if the chart uses the "1D" timeframe.
The "Overlay P&L on chart" input controls whether the P&L line or candles appear on the main chart pane or in a separate pane.
Users can deactivate either display by selecting "None" from the corresponding input.
Technical Note: Due to drawing limitations, this indicator has the following display limits:
The line display can show data to 10,000 P&L points.
The candle display and tooltips show data for up to 500 points.
The histograms show data for up to 3,333 points.
█ INPUTS
Reversal Amount: The number of points/steps required to determine a reversal.
Scale size Method: The method used to filter price movements. By default, the P&L chart uses the same scaling method as the P&F chart. Optionally, this scaling method can be changed to use ATR or Percent.
P&L Method: The prices to plot and use for filtering:
“Close” plots the closing price and uses it to determine movements.
“High/Low” uses the high price on upside moves and low price on downside moves.
"Point Size" uses the closing price for filtration, but locks the price to plot at point size intervals.
Gold and Bitcoin: The Evolution of Value!The Eternal Luster of Gold
In the dawn of time, when the earth was young and rivers whispered secrets to the stones, a wanderer named Elara found a gleam in the silt of a sun-kissed stream. It was pure gold, radiant like a captured star fallen from the heavens. She held it in her palm, feeling its warmth pulse like a heartbeat, and in that moment, humanity’s soul awakened to the allure of eternity.
As seasons turned to centuries, gold wove itself into the story of empires. In ancient Egypt, pharaohs crowned themselves with its glow, believing it to be the flesh of gods. It built pyramids that reached for the sky and tombs that guarded kings forever. Across the sands in Mesopotamia, merchants traded it for spices and silks, its weight a promise of power and trust.
Translation moment: Gold became the first universal symbol of value. People trusted it more than words or promises because it did not rust, fade, or vanish.
The Greeks saw in gold not only wealth but wisdom, the symbol of the sun’s eternal fire. Alexander the Great carried it across the continent, forging an empire of golden threads. Rome rose on its back, minting coins whose clink echoed through history.
Through the ages, gold endured the rush of California’s dreamers, the halls of Versailles, and the quiet vaults of modern fortunes. It has been both a curse and a blessing, the fuel of wars and the gift of love, whispering of beauty’s fragility and the human desire for something that lasts beyond the grave. In its shine, we see ourselves fragile yet forever chasing light.
The Digital Dawn of Bitcoin
Centuries later, under the glow of computer screens, a visionary named Satoshi dreamed of a new gold born not from the earth but from the ether of ideas. Bitcoin appeared in 2009 amid a world weary of banks and broken trust.
Like gold’s ancient gleam, Bitcoin was mined not with picks but with puzzles solved by machines. It promised freedom, a currency without kings, flowing from person to person, unbound by borders or empires.
Translation moment: Bitcoin works like digital gold. Instead of digging the ground, miners use computers to solve problems and unlock new coins. No one controls it, and that is what makes it powerful.
Through doubt and frenzy, it rose as a beacon for those seeking sovereignty in a digital world. Its volatility became its soul, a reminder that true value is built on belief. Bitcoin speaks to ingenuity and rebellion, a star of code guiding us toward a future where wealth is weightless yet profoundly honest.
Gold’s Cycles: Echoes of War and Crisis
In the early 20th century, gold was held under fixed prices until the Great Depression of 1929 shattered these illusions. The 1934 dollar devaluation lifted it from 20.67 to 35, restoring faith amid despair. When World War II erupted in 1939, gold’s role as a refuge was muted by controls, yet it quietly held its place as the world’s silent guardian.
The 1970s awakened its wild spirit. The Nixon Shock of 1971 freed gold from 35, sparking a bull run during the 1973 Oil Crisis. The 1979 Iranian Revolution led to a 1980 peak of 850, a leap of more than 2,000 percent, as investors sought safety from the chaos.
Translation moment: When fear rises, people rush to gold. Every major war or economic crisis has sent gold upward because it feels safe when paper money loses trust.
The 1987 stock crash caused brief dips, but the 1990 Gulf War reignited its glow. Around 2000, after the Dot-com Bust, gold found new life, climbing from $ 270 to over $1,900 during the 2008 Financial Crisis. It dipped to 1050 in 2015, then surged again past 2000 during the 2020 pandemic.
The 2022 Ukraine War added another chapter with prices climbing above 2700 by 2025. Across a century of crises, gold has risen whenever fear tested humanity’s resolve, teaching patience and fortitude through its quiet endurance.
Bitcoin’s Cycles: Echoes of Innovation and Crisis
Born from the ashes of the 2008 Financial Crisis, Bitcoin began its story at mere cents. It traded below $1 until 2011, when it reached $30 before crashing by 90 percent following the MTGOX collapse.
In 2013, it soared to 1242 only to fall again to 200 in 2015 as regulations tightened. The 2017 bull run lifted it to nearly 20000 before another long winter brought it to 3200 in 2018. Each fall taught resilience, each rise renewed belief.
During the 2020 pandemic, it fell below 5000 before rallying to 69000 in 2021. The Ukraine War and the FTX collapse of 2022 brought it down to 16000, but also proved its role in humanitarian aid. By 2024, the halving and ETF approvals helped it break 100000, marking Bitcoin’s rise as digital gold.
Translation moment: Bitcoin’s rhythm follows four-year halving cycles when mining rewards are cut in half. This keeps supply limited, which often triggers new bull runs as demand returns.
Every four years, it's halving cycles 2012, 2016, 2020, 2024, fueling new waves of adoption and correction. Bitcoin grows strongest in times of uncertainty, echoing humanity’s drive to evolve beyond limits.
The Harmony of Gold and Bitcoin Modern Parallels
In today’s markets, gold’s ancient glow meets Bitcoin’s electric pulse. As of October 17, 2025, their correlation stands near 0.85, close to its historic high of 0.9. Both rise as guardians against inflation and the erosion of trust in the dollar.
Gold trades near 4310 per ounce a record high while Bitcoin hovers around 104700 showing brief fractures in their unity. Gold offers the comfort of touch while Bitcoin provides the thrill of code. Together, they reflect fear and hope, the twin emotions that drive every market.
Translation moment: A correlation of 0.85 means they often move in the same direction. When fear or inflation rises, both gold and Bitcoin tend to rise in tandem.
Analysts warn of bubbles in stocks, gold, and crypto, yet optimism remains for Bitcoin’s growth through 2026, while gold holds its defensive strength.
Gold carries risks of storage cost and theft, but steadiness in chaos. Bitcoin carries volatility and regulatory challenges, but it also offers unmatched innovation and reach. One is the anchor, the other the dream, and both reward those who hold conviction through uncertainty.
Epilogue: The Timeless Balance
Gold and Bitcoin form a bridge between the ancient and the future. Gold, the earth’s eternal treasure, stands as a symbol of stability and truth. Bitcoin, the digital heir, shines with the spark of innovation and freedom.
Experts view gold as the ultimate inflation hedge, forged in fire and tested over centuries. They see Bitcoin as its digital counterpart, scarce by code and limitless in reach.
Gold’s weight grounds us in reality while Bitcoin’s light expands our imagination. In 2025, as gold surpasses $4,346 and Bitcoin hovers near $105,000, the wise investor sees not rivals but reflections.
Translation moment: Gold reminds us to protect what we have. Bitcoin reminds us to dream of what could be. Together, they balance caution and courage, the two forces every generation must master.
One whispers of legacy, the other of evolution, yet together they tell humanity’s oldest story, our unending quest to preserve value against time and to chase the light that never fades.
🙏 I ask (Allah) for guidance and success. 🤲
Anchored EMA/VWAP### Anchored EMA/VWAP Indicator
**Description:**
The **Anchored EMA/VWAP Indicator** is a powerful and versatile tool designed for traders seeking to analyze price trends and momentum from a user-defined anchor point in time. Built for TradingView using Pine Script v6, this indicator calculates and displays multiple **Exponential Moving Averages (EMAs)**, **Volume-Weighted Exponential Moving Averages (VWEMAs)**, and a **Volume-Weighted Average Price (VWAP)**, all anchored to a specific date and time chosen by the user. By anchoring these calculations, traders can focus on price action relative to significant market events, such as news releases, earnings reports, or key support/resistance levels.
The indicator supports multi-timeframe (MTF) analysis, allowing users to compute EMAs, VWEMAs, and VWAP on a higher or custom timeframe (e.g., 5-minute, 1-hour, daily) while overlaying the results on the current chart. It also includes customizable cross signals for EMA and VWEMA pairs, marked with distinct shapes (circles, diamonds, squares) to highlight potential trend changes or reversals. These features make the indicator ideal for trend-following, momentum trading, and identifying key price levels across various markets, including stocks, forex, cryptocurrencies, and commodities.
**Key Features:**
- **Anchored Calculations**: EMAs, VWEMAs, and VWAP start calculations from a user-specified anchor time, enabling analysis relative to significant market moments.
- **Multi-Timeframe Support**: Compute indicators on any timeframe (e.g., 60-minute, daily) and display them on the chart’s timeframe for flexible analysis.
- **Customizable EMAs and VWEMAs**: Four EMAs and four VWEMAs with adjustable lengths (default: 9, 21, 50, 100) and colors, with options to show or hide each.
- **Volume-Weighted Metrics**: VWAP and VWEMAs incorporate volume data, providing a more robust representation of market activity compared to standard EMAs.
- **Cross Signals**: Visual markers (circles, diamonds, squares) for crossovers between EMA and VWEMA pairs, with customizable visibility to highlight bullish (up) or bearish (down) signals.
- **User-Friendly Interface**: Organized input groups for General, EMA, VWEMA, VWAP, Arrow Settings, and Cross Visibility, with intuitive inline inputs for length and color customization.
- **Visual Clarity**: Overlaid on the price chart with distinct colors and line styles (dotted for EMAs, dashed for VWEMAs, solid for VWAP) to ensure easy interpretation.
**How to Use:**
1. **Set the Anchor Time**: Click a specific bar or enter a date/time (default: June 1, 2025) to start calculations from a significant market event.
2. **Select Timeframe**: Choose a timeframe (e.g., "5" for 5-minute, "D" for daily) to compute the indicators, allowing alignment with your trading strategy.
3. **Customize EMAs and VWEMAs**: Adjust lengths and colors for up to four EMAs and VWEMAs, and toggle their visibility to focus on relevant lines.
4. **Enable VWAP**: Display the anchored VWAP to identify volume-weighted price levels, useful as dynamic support/resistance.
5. **Monitor Cross Signals**: Enable cross visibility for specific EMA or VWEMA pairs to spot potential trend changes. Bullish crosses (e.g., shorter EMA crossing above longer EMA) are marked with green shapes below the bar, while bearish crosses are marked with red shapes above the bar.
6. **Interpret Signals**: Use EMA/VWEMA crossovers for trend confirmation, VWAP as a mean-reversion level, and volume-weighted VWEMAs for momentum analysis in high-volume markets.
**Use Cases:**
- **Trend Trading**: Identify trend direction using EMA and VWEMA crossovers, with shorter lengths (e.g., 9, 21) for faster signals and longer lengths (e.g., 50, 100) for trend confirmation.
- **Mean Reversion**: Use the anchored VWAP as a dynamic support/resistance level to trade pullbacks or breakouts.
- **Event-Based Analysis**: Anchor the indicator to significant events (e.g., earnings, economic data releases) to analyze price behavior post-event.
- **Multi-Timeframe Strategies**: Combine higher timeframe EMAs/VWAPs with lower timeframe price action for high-probability setups.
**Settings:**
- **Anchor Time**: Set the starting point for calculations (default: June 1, 2025).
- **Timeframe**: Choose the timeframe for calculations (default: 5-minute).
- **EMA/VWEMA Lengths**: Default lengths of 9, 21, 50, and 100 for both EMAs and VWEMAs, adjustable per user preference.
- **Colors**: Customizable colors with slight transparency for visual clarity.
- **Cross Visibility**: Toggle specific EMA and VWEMA cross signals (e.g., EMA1/EMA2, VWEMA1/VWEMA3) to reduce chart clutter.
- **Arrow Colors**: Green for bullish crosses, red for bearish crosses.
**Notes:**
- The indicator is overlaid on the price chart, ensuring seamless integration with price action analysis.
- VWEMAs and VWAP are volume-sensitive, making them particularly effective in markets with significant volume fluctuations.
- Ensure the anchor time is set to a valid historical or future bar to avoid calculation errors.
- Cross signals are conditional on non-NA values to prevent false positives during initialization.
**Author**: NEPOLIX
**Version**: 6 (Pine Script v6)
**Published**: For TradingView Community
This indicator is a must-have for traders looking to combine anchored, volume-weighted, and multi-timeframe analysis into a single, customizable tool. Whether you're a day trader, swing trader, or long-term investor, the Anchored EMA/VWAP Indicator provides actionable insights for informed trading decisions.
Nikkei PER Curve (EPS Text Area Input)
This indicator visualizes the PER levels of the Nikkei 225 based on the dates and EPS data entered in the text area.
By plotting multiple PER multiplier lines, it helps users to understand the following:
Potential support and resistance levels based on PER multipliers
Comparison between the current stock price and theoretical valuation levels
Observation of PER trends and detection of deviations from standard valuation levels
Trading Decisions:
When the stock price approaches a specific PER line, it can serve as a reference for support or resistance.
During intraday chart analysis, PER lines are drawn based on the most recent EPS, making them useful as reference levels even during market hours.
Valuation Analysis:
On daily charts, it helps to assess whether the Nikkei is overvalued or undervalued compared to historical levels, or to identify changes in valuation levels.
Risk Management:
The theoretical price lines based on PER can be used as reference points for stop-loss or profit-taking decisions.
Simple Data Input:
EPS data is entered in a text area, one line per date, in comma-separated format:
YYYY/MM/DD,EPS
YYYY/MM/DD,EPS
Multiple entries can be input by using line breaks between each date.
Note: Dates for which no candlestick exists in the chart will not be displayed.
This allows easy updating of PER lines without complex spreadsheets or external tools.
EPS Data Input: Manual input of date and EPS via the text area; supports multiple data entries.
PER Multiplier Lines:
For evenly spaced lines, simply set the central multiplier and the interval between lines. The indicator automatically generates 11 lines (center ±5 lines).
For non-even spacing or individual multiplier settings, you can choose to adjust each line.
Close PER Labels: Displays the PER of the close price relative to the current EPS.
Timeframe Limitation: Use on daily charts (1D) or lower. PER lines cannot be displayed on higher timeframes.
Label Customization: Allows adjustment of text size, color, and position.
EPS Parsing: The indicator reads the input text area line by line, splitting each line by a comma to obtain the date and EPS value.
Data Storage: The dates and EPS values are stored in arrays. These arrays allow the script to efficiently look up the latest EPS for any given date.
PER Calculation: For each chart bar, the indicator calculates the theoretical price for multiple PER multipliers using the formula:
Theoretical Price = EPS × PER multiplier
Line Plotting: PER lines are drawn at these calculated price levels. Labels are optionally displayed for the close price PER.
Date Matching: If a date from the EPS data does not exist as a candlestick on the chart, the corresponding PER line is not plotted.
PER lines are theoretical values: They serve as psychological reference points and do not always act as true support or resistance.
Market Conditions: Lines may be broken depending on market circumstances.
Accuracy of EPS Data: Be careful with EPS input errors, as incorrect data will result in incorrect PER curves.
Input Format: Dates and EPS must be correctly comma-separated and entered one per line. Dates with no corresponding candlestick on the chart will not be plotted. Incorrect formatting may prevent lines from displaying.
Reliability: No method guarantees success in trading; use in combination with backtesting and other technical analysis tools.
このインジケータは、入力した日付とEPSデータを基に日経225のPER水準を視覚化するものです
複数のPER倍率ラインを描画することで、以下を把握するのに役立ちます：
PER倍率に基づく潜在的なサポート・レジスタンス水準や目安
現在の株価と理論上の評価水準との比較
過去から現在までのPER推移の観察
トレード判断:
株価が特定の倍率のPERラインに近づいたとき、抵抗や支持の目安としての活用
日中足表示時は、前日(最新日)のEPSに基づいたPERラインを表示するように作成しているので、場中でも参考目安として使用可能
評価分析:
過去の推移と比較して日経が割高か割安か、またはPER評価水準が変化したかの確認
リスク管理:
PERに基づく理論価格ラインを、損切りや利確の目安としての利用
簡単なデータ入力:
EPSデータはテキストエリアに手動入力。1行につき1日付・EPSをカンマ区切りで記入します
例
2025/09/19,2492.85
2025/09/18,2497.43
行を改行することで複数データ入力が可能
注意: チャート上にローソク足が存在しない日付のデータは表示されません
表計算や外部ツールを使わずに倍率を掛けたPERラインの作成・更新が簡単に行える
PER倍率ライン:
等間隔ラインの場合、中心倍率と各ラインの間隔を設定するだけで、自動的に中心値±5本、計11本のラインを作成
等間隔以外や個別設定したい場合は で調整可能
終値PERラベル: 現在のEPSに対する終値PERを表示
時間足制限: 日足(1日足)以下で使用すること。高い時間足ではPERラインは表示できません
ラベルカスタマイズ: 文字サイズ、色、位置を調整可能
EPSデータの読み取り: 改行を検知し1日分のデータとして識別し、カンマで分割して日付とEPS値を取得
配列への格納: 日付とEPSを配列に格納し、各バーに対して最新のEPSを参照できるようにする
PER計算: 各バーに対して、以下の式で複数のPER倍率の理論価格を計算：
理論価格 = EPS × PER倍率
日付照合: EPSデータの日付がチャート上にローソク足として存在したら格納した配列からデータを取得。ローソク足が存在しない場合、そのPERラインは表示されない
ライン描画: 計算した価格にPERラインを描画。必要に応じて終値PERラベルも表示。
PERラインは理論値であり心理的目安として機能することがありますが、必ずしも機能する訳ではない
その為、過去の検証や他のテクニカル指標と併用推奨
市況によってはラインを無視するように突破する可能性ことがある
EPSデータの入力ミスに注意すること。誤入力するとPER曲線が誤表示される
日付とEPSの入力は1行ずつ、正しい位置でカンマ区切りをいれること
ローソク足が存在しない日付のデータは正しく表示されないことがあるので注意
誤った入力形式ではラインが表示されない場合がある
