How You Can Trade Better Than The Big Boys

I had a good idea. It was going to make my company millions of dollars per year. It was different, but certainly doable.

“How much do you think it will bring in?” our finance executive asked me.

“If we just focus on emerging markets, I think it could be up to $10 million next year.”

“Not interested.”

His reply was flat and caught me off-guard. 

“It’s $10 million!” I insisted.

For him, it just wasn’t worth it. A million here and there made no difference to him or (more importantly) his boss; it’s a rounding error on the balance sheet. Such is the life at a multi-billion dollar firm.

I share this because it highlights one of the critical differences between large institutions and retail players: scale.

When people say retail can’t compete with the funds like Citadel, Renaissance Technologies, DE Shaw, and others – they’re right. You don’t try to play that game.

Instead you “go where they ain’t” and focus on making money in places that they aren’t interested in playing. 

Where are those places?

A matter of perspective

As the anecdote above highlighted – you can go to find markets that can’t scale to meet the needs of a larger fund. A retail trader may be thrilled if he can make a few thousand dollars or tens of thousands on some of their trades – for some people that’s anywhere from a nice bonus to paying the bills for a year. A wall street behemoth looks at that as the tab for lunch.

Think of it another way. My wife and I travel a lot and she always has friends in various countries who want us to bring something to them that they can’t buy in their home country. They’re often willing to pay a 50% markup for these items. Does this mean we ought to drop everything and get into an import/export business because we’re sitting on a 50% profit margin? No! This doesn’t scale. It’s nice for some one-off exchanges, but we’re talking about paying for lunch here.

You may be able to make a 50% return, but if that tops out on a few hundred dollars of profit, then it’s not worth the time and effort. For the big boys, they look at those small opportunities and scoff; not enough liquidity and not enough scale. That’s where the disciplined small investor can thrive.

Longer term for less competition

Prioritizing this month’s or this quarter’s earnings has long been an issue in capital markets. Fund managers are eager to keep clients happy so their AUM doesn’t take a hit, but they’re pressured to release monthly earnings statements which show growth, or they risk losing clients (and their hefty fees).

We can see this in the data as the average holding period for a stock has continued to fall over the years.

This short-term, chase-what’s-hot-now-approach is part of human nature, so good luck trying to make money in the same realm that everyone else is working in.

You can go against the flow, zig when everyone else zags, by trading more slowly and longer term. Taking long term approaches can help you avoid playing in an overcrowded market, because you’re the only investor you need to answer to. If you can develop a plan and stick to it, then ride it without apology.

How You Can Use Algos to Reduce Your Emotions

Sticking to a plan is where the rub lies. We are emotional creatures, particularly when it comes to money.

Too many live and die with every up and down day in the market, changing their “strategy” accordingly.

So how do we deal with ourselves – our biggest enemy in investing?

My answer has long been algorithmic trading.

We can program a cold, emotionless computer trade for us. We just need to develop some rules, hand them over and let the machine run.

This raises the question, how do we find good rules?

There are a few ways to go about that, but it always boils down to doing your own research.

This should be obvious to some extent. If you want to come up with a good strategy, you’re going to need to research it to make sure it works. Get the data, try the rules and see if your stats check out. If not (and most don’t work well) then you tweak it or come up with a new idea and try it again.

Can you take a shortcut? Like reading a book that promises to make you a stock market millionaire? 

That’s all great! But you better go test it before you start trading it. See if the claims you read actually match up with reality. There’s no shortage of authors who will print a beautiful equity curve that marches up and to the right. It gets eyeballs and sells books. But is it real or just an illusion?

So you’re back at spending time to get data, code a strategy, debug it, and see if it works (and have fun if you’re going to do this right without coding!).

And you repeat that cycle every time you want to test something new. We haven’t even gotten to deploying it so you can make money either.

It doesn’t have to be that way. At Raposa, we’re building a no-code algorithmic trading platform. We want you to be able to design and test a strategy in just a few clicks with high-quality data, and get results fast so you spend less time working through the tedious minutiae of debugging your code and can find trading strategies that fit you.

Get the tools to play where the big boys ain’t and join our waitlist here.

How to Trade like a Turtle without $1,000,000

A simple job ad was placed in a handful of major newspapers calling for participants to be trained as traders. Of the applicants, a total of 23 individuals were chosen to become Turtle Traders: systematic trend followers who simply followed rules and made millions in the process.

These were average, ordinary people who were taught a system in order to determine whether trading could be taught, or if it relied on some innate skill. The system is perfect for algorithmic trading – just give a computer the rules and let it run.

The turtles were given a list of markets to trade: US treasury bonds of different maturities, cocoa, coffee, cotton, oil, sugar, gold, silver, copper, gasoline, and various global currencies. They were also given $1 million to work with.

For the typical retail investor who wants to implement a Turtle trading strategy, you’re going to have a hard time working across all of those markets without that capital.

Consider a typical oil contract. It consists of 1,000 barrels, and at say, $70/barrel, you’re going to be putting up $70k for a single contract. Most retail traders (especially younger ones) aren’t going to be able to afford that, and if they can, it doesn’t leave much else for other trades.

Commodities do provide significant leverage, so you may only need to put up 30-60% of the capital for a single contract (depending on the contract and exchange rules – which can change). But that still doesn’t leave most people with smaller accounts many options.

Enter in the wide world of ETFs!

There are ETFs for just about everything under the sun which trade like stocks. These tend to be much more affordable than commodity contracts, and you don’t have to worry about rolling futures as the contract comes closer to expiration.

With this in mind, the question is – can we build a portfolio of ETFs to replicate the Turtle trading portfolio that was so successful?

Building the Turtle Portfolio

To start, we need a list of the instruments that the Turtles traded. Covel gives us a breakdown in his book:

  • 30-yr US Treasury
  • 10-yr US Treasury
  • 3-month US Treasury
  • Gold
  • Copper
  • Silver
  • Oil
  • Cotton
  • Coffee
  • Cocoa
  • Sugar
  • Gasoline
  • Swiss Franc
  • Deutschmark
  • French Franc
  • Japanese Yen
  • Canadian Dollar
  • Eurodollar
  • S&P 500 futures

The idea is to have a diverse set of uncorrelated markets, so if trends die down in one, they might be emerging elsewhere (long or short). There’s a slight problem with some of these markets: two of them no longer exist.

The Turtles plied their trade in the 1980’s which was a very different world. The USSR still existed and the EU with its single currency zone was still a ways off. So any modern analysis is going to have to drop the French Franc and Deutschmark in favor of the Euro. For our analysis though, we’re going to simply ignore these dormant currencies.

We want to see how well some modern ETFs stack up, so it’s time to go grab a list of ETFs for each of these instruments. Some are only going to have one, others will have multiple. Let’s go through each of these groups.


There are dozens of bond ETFs on the market to choose from, but I wasn’t able to find any that are designed to track our specific US treasuries, so I grabbed a few different ones that are described as short, medium, and long-term to see what we can use.


Many major commodities (e.g. oil, gold) have multiple ETFs that track their performance. Some of the less common markets have very young ETFs as others have been taken off the market in recent years. For example coffee – despite being one of the word’s most commonly traded commodities – has a few recently defunct ETFs and a new one that launched in 2018. There are plenty of ETFs that track coffee growers, roasters, brewers, and everyone up and down the value chain, but I could only find a single ETF for the coffee contract on US exchanges.


The ETF choices for currencies were much slimmer than for commodities, offering only one ETF for each.


The Turtles traded S&P 500 and Eurodollar futures. The SPY is one of the most commonly traded and liquid instruments in the world, so it’s an obvious choice here. Unfortunately, I didn’t find a Eurodollar ETF that’s currently available on US markets, so I dropped it from the list.

With the list of instruments, we can go get the data. Most of the futures data isn’t available for free, so I relied on EOD and Quandl data subscriptions for those.

Trading Commodities without Futures

With our data in hand, we can see how these instruments correlate with the futures used by the Turtles.

Running correlations against the baseline contracts, we see some very strong correlations with the underlying contracts.

To build a modern, ETF-based Turtle portfolio, we can’t just take the most highly correlated gold ETF or long-term bond ETF and plug it in though. While these may be well-correlated with the underlying assets, it doesn’t follow that they maintain similar correlations with each other.

This can cause some confusion, so let’s look at a simple example. Your level of fitness and muscle mass are positively correlated. Additionally, there are many studies that show a positive effect on fitness and intelligence, so these are correlated as well. But, does that mean that muscle mass and intelligence are positively correlated? Of course not!

The same goes for our portfolio, we can’t assume because GLD is highly correlated with our gold futures and BAL is highly correlated with cotton that the correlation between GLD and BAL is the same as between gold and cotton.

What we really want, is a portfolio that has a similar overall correlation to the Turtle portfolio.

Selecting our Instruments

We have a few different portfolio selections we can make from the available instruments. If we want to match the correlations of the original turtles, we need to find out which instruments make the most sense to trade.

Let’s set up some parameters first, otherwise we could get into combinatorial explosion hell very quickly.

First, we need some metric for how closely our new portfolio matches our baseline portfolio’s correlation matrix. There are a number of distance metrics we can choose, but here we’ll go with a standard cosine similarity metric. This measures the angular distance between data, and the smaller the value, the closer they are together.

From there, we need to provide some constraints on our selections. We could trade more instruments, or drop certain markets if we’re not interested in them. But for now, we’ll constrain ourselves to trade one of each kind of market that the turtles did. Although we have multiple gold ETFs available, we’ll limit ourselves to only choosing one, and that will be it for gold. Likewise we’ll only choose one oil ETF, one sugar ETF, and so forth.

This is going to yield us 864 different portfolio combinations. We could get clever about this, but with just a few hundred possible portfolios, we can brute force our selection by trying every potential portfolio and measuring the distance between it and our baseline. If we do this, we get the following plot:

We get a few that are pretty close, but a long tail of distant portfolios. If we take the closest one, we can look at its correlation below:

This is looking at finding correlations between modern ETFs and trying to match them to the set of correlations in the futures market. We can take a cue from Ray Dalio who states that the “Holy Grail of Investing” is in diversification among uncorrelated assets.

That simple chart struck me with the same force I imagine Einstein must have felt when he discovered E=mc2: I saw that with fifteen to twenty good, uncorrelated return streams, I could dramatically reduce my risks without reducing my expected returns… I called it the “Holy Grail of Investing” because it showed the path to making a fortune.

Ray Dalio, Principles

That’s the same thing Dennis and Eckhardt were trying to do all those years ago and modern trend following traders are up to today: diversify to find uncorrelated returns.

The set of instruments we found above isn’t necessarily the most uncorrelated set of instruments to apply trend following to – just the set that’s closest in correlations to the Turtle portfolios. We can re-run our brute force optimizer again by looking to minimize the distance between our instruments and a completely uncorrelated portfolio (which sadly for us, doesn’t exist).

Swapping out these values, we get the following heat map for our least correlated set of instruments:

Interestingly, this is very close to what we had above! The only ETF we changed was BIL for SHV.

We could probably do better if we expanded our investment universe beyond the markets that the original Turtles traded in the 1980’s. There have been a plethora of new instruments and markets created in the intervening 40 years (ever heard of crypto?) which could greatly increase our diversification.

Testing the Turtle Portfolio

How well does this Turtle portfolio perform? To find out, we’d need to run a backtest using the Turtle rules and this new portfolio. Long-time Turtle traders like Jerry Parker, say that the original trend following rules should be tweaked to favor longer trends due to changes in the market over the years.

At Raposa, we’re doing the hard work of making developing and deploying an algorithmic trading strategy easy. You can check out our free demo here to learn more.

How Random is the Market? Testing the Random Walk Hypothesis

A mainstay of academic research into the market is the Random Walk Hypothesis (RWH). This is the idea that market moves are random and follow a normal distribution that can be easily described using a concept borrowed from physics called Brownian Motion.

This makes the market mathematics manageable, but is it true? Is the market really random?

If it is, then there’s little point to trying to beat it. But if it isn’t, then there are repeatable patterns that can be algorithmically exploited.

Thankfully, the issue of randomness is very important for fields like cryptography, so it is well studied and there are statistical tests that we can apply to market data to investigate this.

We’re going to borrow a few standard tests for randomness and apply it to historical data to see just how randome the markets really are.

Measuring Market Randomness

There are a host of randomness tests that have been developed over the years which look at binary sequences to determine whether or not a random process was used to generate these values. Notably, we have test suites such as the Diehard TestsTestU01NIST tests and others that have been published over the years.

We could run a large battery of tests (maybe we’ll get to that in a future post)to test our market data, but for now, we’ll just select three tests to see how the RWH holds up: runs test, discrete Fourier Transform test, and the Binary Matrix Rank test from the NIST suite.

Runs Test

If the market truly is random, then we shouldn’t see any dependence on previous prices; the market being up today should have no impact on what it will do tomorrow (and vice versa).

The runs test can help us look this aspect of randomness. It works by looking at the total number of positive and negative streaks in a sequence and checking the lengths.

We’ll take our prices and make all positive price changes into 1s and negative changes into 0s, and keep this binary vector as X. We’ll set n as the number of observations we have (e.g. n = len(X)). Then, to implement the runs test, we take the following steps (adapted from section 2.3 of the NIST Statistical Test Suite):

1. Compute the proportion of 1s in the binary sequence:

\pi = \frac{\sum_j X_j}{n}

2. Check the value \pi against the frequency test. It passes if: \mid \pi - 1/2 \mid < \tau, where \tau = \frac{2}{\sqrt{n}}. If the frequency test is failed, then we can stop and we don’t have a random sequence and we’ll set our P-value to 0. If we pass, then we can continue to step 3.

3. Compute our test statistic V_n where:

V_n = \sum_{k=1}^{n-1} r(k) + 1

where r(k) = 0 if X_k = X_{k+1}, otherwise r(k) = 1. So if we have the sequence [0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1], then this becomes: V_n = (1 + 1 + 0 + 0 + 1 + 0) + 1 = 4

4. Compute our P-value where:

p = erfc\bigg( \frac{ \mid V_n - 2n \pi (1 - \pi) \mid}{2 \pi (1-\pi) \sqrt{2n}} \bigg)

Note that erfc is the complementary error function (given below). Thankfully, this is available in Python with scipy.special.erfc(z):


With all of that, we can now use our P-value to determine whether or not our sequence is random. If our P-value is below our threshold (e.g. 5%), then we reject the null hypothesis, which means we have a non-random sequence on our hands.

import numpy as np
from scipy.special import erfc

def RunsTest(x):
  # Convert input to binary values
  X = np.where(x > 0, 1, 0)
  n = len(X)
  pi = X.sum() / n
  # Check frequency test
  tau = 2 / np.sqrt(n)
  if np.abs(pi - 0.5) >= tau:
    # Failed frequency test
    return 0
  r_k = X[1:] != X[:-1]
  V_n = r_k.sum() + 1
  num = np.abs(V_n - 2 * n * pi * (1 - pi))
  den = 2 * pi * (1 - pi) * np.sqrt(2 * n)
  return erfc(num / den)

The NIST documentation gives us some test data to check that our function is working properly, so let’s drop that into our function and see what happens.

# eps from NIST doc
eps = '110010010000111111011010101000100010000101101' + \ 
x = np.array([int(i) for i in eps])

p = RunsTest(x)
H0 = p > 0.01
# NIST P-value = 0.500798
print("Runs Test\n"+"-"*78)
if H0:
  print(f"Fail to reject the Null Hypothesis (p={p:.3f}) -> random sequence")
  print(f"Reject the Null Hypothesis (p={p:.3f}) -> non-random sequence.")
Runs Test
Fail to reject the Null Hypothesis (p=0.501) -> random sequence

We get the same P-value, so we can be confident that our implementation is correct. Note also that NIST recommends we have at least 100 samples in our data for this test to be valid (i.e. $n \geq 100$).

Discrete Fourier Transformation Test

Our next test is the Discrete Fourier Transformation (DFT) test.

This test computes a Fourier Transform on the data and looks at the peak heights. If their are too many high peaks, then it indicates we aren’t dealing with a random process. It would take us too far afield to dive into the specifics of Fourier Transforms, but check out this post if you’re interested to go deeper.

Let’s get to the NIST steps. We have data (x) and we need to set a threshold, which is usually 95% as inputs.

1. We need to convert our time-series x into a sequence of 1s and -1s for positive and negative deviations. This new sequence is called \hat{x}.

2. Apply discrete Fourier Transform (DFT) to \hat{x}:

\Rightarrow S = DFT(\hat{x})

3. Calculate M = modulus(S') = \left| S \right|, where S' is the first n/2 elements in S and the modulus yields the height of the peaks.

4. Compute the 95% peak height threshold value. If we are assuming randomness, then 95% of the values obtained from the test should not exceed T.

T = \sqrt{n\textrm{log}\frac{1}{0.05}}

5. Compute N_0 = \frac{0.95n}{2}, where N_0 is the theoretical number of peaks (95%) that are less than T (e.g. if n=10, then N_0 = \frac{10 \times 0.95}{2} = 4.75).

6. Compute the P-value using the erfc function:

P = erfc \bigg( \frac{\left| d \right|}{\sqrt{2}} \bigg)

Just like we did above, we’re going to compare our P-value to our reference level and see if we can reject the null hypothesis – that we have a random sequence – or not. Note too that it is recommended that we use at least 1,000 inputs (n \geq 1000) for this test.

def DFTTest(x, threshold=0.95):
  n = len(x)
  # Convert to binary values
  X = np.where(x > 0, 1, -1)
  # Apply DFT
  S = np.fft.fft(X)
  # Calculate Modulus
  M = np.abs(S[:int(n/2)])
  T = np.sqrt(n * np.log(1 / (1 - threshold)))
  N0 = threshold * n / 2
  N1 = len(np.where(M < T)[0])
  d = (N1 - N0) / np.sqrt(n * (1-threshold) * threshold / 4)
  # Compute P-value
  return erfc(np.abs(d) / np.sqrt(2))

NIST gives us some sample data to test our implementation here too.

# Test sequence from NIST
eps = '110010010000111111011010101000100010000101101000110000' + \
x = np.array([int(i) for i in eps])
p = DFTTest(x)
H0 = p > 0.01
print("DFT Test\n"+"-"*78)
if H0:
  print(f"Fail to reject the Null Hypothesis (p={p:.3f}) -> random sequence")
  print(f"Reject the Null Hypothesis (p={p:.3f}) -> non-random sequence.")
DFT Test
Fail to reject the Null Hypothesis (p=0.646) -> random sequence

Same as the NIST documentation, we reject the null hypothesis.

Binary Matrix Rank Test

We’ll choose one last test out of the test suite – the Binary Matrix Rank Test.


1. Divide the sequence into 32 by 32 blocks. We’ll have N total blocks to work with and discard any data that doesn’t fit nicely into our 32×32 blocks. Each block will be a matrix consisting of our ordered data. A quick example will help illustrate, say we have a set of 10, binary data points: X = [0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 0, 1, 0, 1, 0] and we have 2×2 matrices (to make it easy) instead of 32×32. We’ll divide this data into two blocks and discard two data points. So we have two blocks (B_1 and B_2) that now look like:

B_1 = \begin{bmatrix}0 & 0 \\0 & 1\end{bmatrix} B_2 = \begin{bmatrix}1 & 0 \\1 & 0\end{bmatrix}

2. We determine the rank of each binary matrix. If you’re not familiar with the procedure, check out this notebook here for a great explanation. In Python, we can simply use the np.linalg.matrix_rank() function to compute it quickly.

3. Now that we have the ranks, we’re going to count the number of full rank matrices (if we have 32×32 matrices, then a full rank matrix has a rank of 32) and call this number F_m. Then we’ll get the number of matrices with rank one less than full rank which will be F_{m-1}. We’ll use N to denote the total number of matrices we have.

4. Now, we compute the Chi-squared value for our data with the following equation:

\chi^2 = \frac{(F_m-0.2888N)^2}{0.2888N} + \frac{(F_{m-1} - 0.5776N)^2}{0.5776N} + \frac{(N - F_m - F_{m-1} - 0.1336N)^2}{0.1336N}
  1. Calculate the P-value using the Incomplete Gamma Function, Q\big(1, \frac{\chi^2}{2} \big):
P = Q \bigg(1, \frac{\chi^2}{2} \bigg) = \frac{1}{\Gamma(a)} \int_x^{\infty} t^{a-1} e^{-1} = e^{\frac{\chi^2}{2}}

Scipy makes this last bit easy with a simple function call to scipy.special.gammaincc().

Don’t be intimidated by this! It’s actually straightforward to implement.

from scipy.special import gammaincc

def binMatrixRankTest(x, M=32):
  X = np.where(x > 0, 1, 0)
  n = len(X)
  N = np.floor(n / M**2).astype(int)
  # Create blocks
  B = X[:N * M**2].reshape(N, M, M)
  ranks = np.array([np.linalg.matrix_rank(b) for b in B])
  F_m = len(np.where(ranks==M)[0])
  F_m1 = len(np.where(ranks==M - 1)[0])
  chi_sq = (F_m - 0.2888 * N) ** 2 / (0.2888 * N) \
    + (F_m1 - 0.5776 * N) ** 2 / (0.5776 * N) \
    + (N - F_m - F_m1 - 0.1336 * N) ** 2 / (0.1336 * N)
  return gammaincc(1, chi_sq / 2)

If our P-value is less than our threshold, then we have a non-random sequence. Let’s test it with the simple example given in the NIST documentation to ensure we implemented things correctly:

eps = '01011001001010101101'
X = np.array([int(i) for i in eps])
p = binMatrixRankTest(X, M=3)
H0 = p > 0.01
print("Binary Matrix Rank Test\n"+"-"*78)
if H0:
  print(f"Fail to reject the Null Hypothesis (p={p:.3f}) -> random sequence")
  print(f"Reject the Null Hypothesis (p={p:.3f}) -> non-random sequence.")
Binary Matrix Rank Test
Fail to reject the Null Hypothesis (p=0.742) -> random sequence

And it works! Note that in this example, we have a much smaller data set, so we set M=3 for 9-element matrices. This test is also very data hungry. They recommend at least 38 matrices to test. If we’re using 32×32 matrices, then that means we’ll need 38x32x32 = 38,912 data points. That’s roughly 156 years of daily price data!

Only the oldest companies and commodities are going to have that kind of data available (and not likely for free). We’ll press on with this test anyway, but take the results with a grain of salt because we’re violating the data recommendations.

Testing the RWH

With our tests in place, we can get some actual market data and see how well the RWH holds up. To do this properly, we’re going to need a lot of data, so I picked out some indices with a long history, a few old and important commodities, some of the oldest stocks out there, a few currency pairs, and Bitcoin just because.

Data from:

  • Dow Jones
  • S&P 500
  • Gold
  • Oil

One thing to note as well, we want to also run this against a baseline. For each of these I’ll be benchmarking the results against NumPy’s binomial sampling algorithm, which should have a high-degree of randomness.

I relied only on free sources so you can replicate this too, but more and better data is going to be found in paid subscriptions. I have defined a data_catalogue as a dictionary below which will contain symbols, data sources, and the like so our code knows where to go to get the data.

data_catalogue = {'DJIA':{
    'source': 'csv',
    'symbol': 'DJIA',
    'url': '^dji&i=d'
    'S&P500': {
        'source': 'csv',
        'symbol': 'SPX',
        'url': '^spx&i=d'
    'WTI': {
        'source': 'yahoo',
        'symbol': 'CL=F',
    'Gold': {
        'source': 'yahoo',
        'symbol': 'GC=F',
    'GBP': {
        'source': 'yahoo',
        'symbol': 'GBPUSD=X'
    'BTC': {
        'source': 'yahoo',
        'symbol': 'BTC-USD'

Now we’ll tie all of this together into a TestBench class. This will take our data catalogue, reshape it, and run our tests. The results are going to be collected for analysis, and I wrote a helper function to organize it into a large, Pandas dataframe for easy viewing.

import pandas as pd
import pandas_datareader as pdr
import yfinance as yf
from datetime import datetime

class TestBench:

  data_catalogue = data_catalogue

  test_names = ['runs-test',

  def __init__(self, p_threshold=0.05, seed=101, 
               dftThreshold=0.95, bmrRows=32):
    self.seed = seed
    self.p_threshold = p_threshold
    self.dftThreshold = dftThreshold
    self.bmrRows = bmrRows
    self.years = [1, 4, 7, 10]
    self.trading_days = 250
    self.instruments = list(self.data_catalogue.keys())

  def getData(self):
    self.data_dict = {}
    for instr in self.instruments:
        data = self._getData(instr)
      except Exception as e:
        print(f'Unable to load data for {instr}')
      self.data_dict[instr] = data.copy()
    self.data_dict['baseline'] = np.random.binomial(1, 0.5, 
      size=self.trading_days * max(self.years) * 10)

  def _getData(self, instr):
    source = self.data_catalogue[instr]['source']
    sym = self.data_catalogue[instr]['symbol']
    if source == 'yahoo':
      return self._getYFData(sym)
    elif source == 'csv':
      return self._getCSVData(self.data_catalogue[instr]['url'])
    elif source == 'fred':
      return self._getFREDData(sym)

  def _getCSVData(self, url):
    data = pd.read_csv(url)
    close_idx = [i 
      for i, j in enumerate(data.columns) if j.lower() == 'close']
    assert len(close_idx) == 1, f"Can't match column names.\n{data.columns}"
      std_data = self._standardizeData(data.iloc[:, close_idx[0]])
    except Exception as e:
      raise ValueError(f"{url}")
    return std_data

  def _getYFData(self, sym):
    yfObj = yf.Ticker(sym)
    data = yfObj.history(period='max')
    std_data = self._standardizeData(data)
    return std_data

  def _getFREDData(self, sym):
    data = pdr.DataReader(sym, 'fred')
    data.columns = ['Close']
    std_data = self._standardizeData(data)
    return std_data

  def _standardizeData(self, df):
    # Converts data from different sources into np.array of price changes
      return df['Close'].diff().dropna().values
    except KeyError:
      return df.diff().dropna().values

  def runTests(self):
    self.test_results = {}
    for k, v in self.data_dict.items():
      self.test_results[k] = {}
      for t in self.years:
        self.test_results[k][t] = {}
        data = self._reshapeData(v, t)
        if data is None:
          # Insufficient data

        self.test_results[k][t]['runs-test'] = np.array(
          [self._runsTest(x) for x in data])
        self.test_results[k][t]['dft-test'] = np.array(
          [self._dftTest(x) for x in data])
        self.test_results[k][t]['bmr-test'] = np.array(
          [self._bmrTest(x) for x in data])

        print(f"Years = {t}\tSamples = {data.shape[0]}")

  def _reshapeData(self, X, years):
    d = int(self.trading_days * years) # Days per sample
    N = int(np.floor(X.shape[0] / d)) # Number of samples
    if N == 0:
      return None
    return X[-N*d:].reshape(N, -1)

  def _dftTest(self, data):
    return DFTTest(data, self.dftThreshold)

  def _runsTest(self, data):
    return RunsTest(data)

  def _bmrTest(self, data):
    return binMatrixRankTest(data, self.bmrRows)

  def tabulateResults(self):
    # Tabulate results
    table = pd.DataFrame()
    row = {}
    for k, v in self.test_results.items():
      row['Instrument'] = k
      for k1, v1 in v.items():
        row['Years'] = k1
        for k2, v2 in v1.items():
          pass_rate = sum(v2>self.p_threshold) / len(v2) * 100
          row['Test'] = k2
          row['Number of Samples'] = len(v2)
          row['Pass Rate'] = pass_rate
          row['Mean P-Value'] = v2.mean()
          row['Median P-Value'] = np.median(v2)
          table = pd.concat([table, pd.DataFrame(row, index=[0])])
    return table

We can initialize our test bench and call the getData() and runTests() method to put it all together. The tabulateResults() method will give us a nice table for viewing.

When we run our tests, we have a print out for the number of years and full samples of data we have. You’ll notice that for some of these (e.g. Bitcoin) we just don’t have a great amount of data to go off of, but we’ll do our best with what we do have.

tests = TestBench()
Years = 1	Samples = 129
Years = 4	Samples = 32
Years = 7	Samples = 18
Years = 10	Samples = 12
Years = 1	Samples = 154
Years = 4	Samples = 38
Years = 7	Samples = 22
Years = 10	Samples = 15
Years = 1	Samples = 21
Years = 4	Samples = 5
Years = 7	Samples = 3
Years = 10	Samples = 2
Years = 1	Samples = 20
Years = 4	Samples = 5
Years = 7	Samples = 2
Years = 10	Samples = 2
Years = 1	Samples = 18
Years = 4	Samples = 4
Years = 7	Samples = 2
Years = 10	Samples = 1
Years = 1	Samples = 10
Years = 4	Samples = 2
Years = 7	Samples = 1
Years = 10	Samples = 1
Years = 1	Samples = 100
Years = 4	Samples = 25
Years = 7	Samples = 14
Years = 10	Samples = 10

We have 129 years of Dow Jones data, which gives us 12, 10-year samples and 154 years for the S&P 500 (the index doesn’t go back that far, but our data source provides monthly data going back to 1789). This is in contrast to most of our other values which have two decades or less.

To take a look at the results, we can run the tabulateResults() method, and do some pivoting to reshape the data frame for easier viewing.

table = tests.tabulateResults()
pivot = table.pivot_table(index=['Instrument', 'Years'], columns='Test')
samps = pivot['Number of Samples'].drop(['bmr-test', 'dft-test'], axis=1)
pivot.drop(['Number of Samples'], axis=1, inplace=True)
pivot['Number of Samples'] = samps

Let’s start with the baseline.

As expected, NumPy’s random number generator is pretty good, and it passes most of the tests without issue. The median P-values for the runs and DFT tests remain fairly high as well, although they are lower for the BMR test. Another thing to note, the 1 and 4 year BMR tests didn’t return any values because we were unable to complete a single 32×32 matrix with such small sample sizes. Overall, the lack of data for the BMR test makes the results here dubious (we could recalculate it with a smaller matrix size, but we’d need to recalibrate all of the probabilities for these different matrices).

The DFT test showed randomness for most cases in our test set. For what it’s worth, the P-values for our DFT tests of all sizes remained fairly high regardless of the sample size.

The runs test provides the most varied and interesting results.

import matplotlib.pyplot as plt

plt.figure(figsize=(12, 8))
for i, instr in enumerate(tests.instruments):
  sub = table.loc[(table['Instrument']==instr) &
  plt.plot(tests.years, sub['Pass Rate'], label=instr, 
           c=colors[i], marker='o')

plt.ylabel('Pass Rate (%)')
plt.title('Runs Test Pass Rate for all Instruments')

The runs test tends to produce less random results as time goes on. The notable exception being our WTI data, which passes more tests for randomness over time. However, if we look at our P-values, we do see them falling towards 0 (recall, our null hypothesis is that these are random processes).

plt.figure(figsize=(12, 8))
for i, instr in enumerate(table['Instrument'].unique()):
  sub = table.loc[(table['Instrument']==instr) &
  plt.plot(tests.years, sub['Median P-Value'], label=instr, 
           c=colors[i], marker='o')
plt.title('Median P-Values for Runs Test for all Instruments')

We added the baseline to this plot to show that it remains high even as the time frame increases, whereas all other values become less random over time. We’re showing P-values here, which are the probabilities that the results are due to noise if the process we’re testing is random. In other words, the lower our values become, the less likely it is that we have a random process on our hands.

This downward sloping trend may provide evidence that supports the value of longer-term trading.

Jerry Parker, for example, has moved toward longer-term trend signals (e.g. >200 day breakouts) because the short term signals are no longer profitable in his system. Data is going to be limited, but it could be interesting to run this over multiple, overlapping samples as in a walk forward analysis to see if randomness in the past was lower during shorter time frames. Additionally, there are more statistical tests we could look at to try to tease this out.

Death of the Random Walk Hypothesis?

The evidence from these few tests is mixed. Some tests show randomness, others provide an element of predictability. Unfortunately, we can’t definitively say the RWH is dead (although I think it, and the theories it is based on, are more articles of academic faith than anything).

To improve our experiment we need more data and more tests. We also used a series of binary tests, although technically the RWH asserts that the changes in price are normally distributed, so statistical tests that look for these patterns could strengthen our methodology and lead to more robust conclusions.

If you’d like to see more of this, drop us a note at and let us know what you think!

Why I Left Value Investing Behind

You have probably heard the old adage “buy low and sell high.”

That’s great, but the question is what is “low” and what is “high?”

To know the difference between high and low, you need an evaluation framework. Here we have two main camps — the fundamental analysis camp (also known as value investing methodology) and the quantitative analysis camp.

Both methodologies are used to grow portfolios. I started off in the fundamental value camp in my early 20’s, studying the great value investors. I sorted through scores of annual reports, balance sheets, and income statements to build investment theses. Things worked out well, blessed by excellent timing, I was more lucky than good. No matter how many reports I read or industries I analyzed, I couldn’t separate the emotional and subjective nature of this approach from my decision making. On top of that, value has continued to lag other approaches since the 2008 crash.

Over time, I began building algorithms to guide my trading decisions. The more progress I made the more I transitioned into the quantitative analysis camp. The result of this journey has become Raposa Technologies — a way to validate your trading strategies without any coding knowledge.

Fundamental Analysis: One Stock at a Time

Fundamental analysis seeks to find the “intrinsic value” of a security based on attributes like free cash flow, debt levels, book value, and so forth. To do it well — like Warren Buffett — you need to read a copious amount of annual reports, quarterly earnings, and understand drivers in an industry you’re investing in. You will become an expert about companies you consider investing in. A core step of fundamental analysis is estimating all future cash flows and year over year profitability. In order to do this well— you must discount all future cash flows because money today is worth more than money 10 years from now.

So if you have the time to apply careful analysis to dozens of companies, read hundreds of reports, understand several industries, and carefully calculate future cash flows — — you will have an estimate for the fundamental price of a security. If the market price is lower than what your fundamental analysis estimates it to be, congratulations! You now have a good candidate to buy low while you wait for the market to realize the value of this stock and raise the price.

Value investors tend to get a lot of press (who hasn’t heard of Buffett?) because they can weave a narrative around a stock’s price journey. These narratives appeal to the emotional centers in our brains. Our brains are quick to use these stories as rationalization to support our gut feeling telling us to buy (or sell) a particular stock.

Your gut is quickly convinced by fundamental value narratives — particularly when they come from people who made fortunes riding these stocks to the top. Stories of double or triple digit returns from Amazon, Apple, Google, and even meme-stocks make it all too easy to believe the first fundamental narrative we hear.

During a bull market — it is easy to imagine the profits rolling in — but do not forget the emotional toll of holding names like Amazon through the long dark periods of doubt and uncertainty. You forget that their triumph wasn’t inevitable in the mid-2000s when the competitive landscape was forming. Could you have held on through the tech bust? What about the 2008 crash? Will you be confident in your fundamental analysis the morning you wake up to a 50–80% drop in your portfolio?


But that’s fine. It takes a LOT of research and emotional work to invest in stocks based on fundamental analysis — which is why Buffett himself recommends people just buy an index fund and let it ride.

Quantitative Analysis: Separate the Signal from the Noise

After years of trying to invest based on fundamentals, not only was I treading water trying to balance my time — but I came to the realization that most of my investment decisions boiled down to a gut feeling no matter how rational and logical I tried to be.

There are successful quants and successful value investors. But if you are reading this far, you are probably unimpressed with the prospect of spending hundreds of hours researching companies for your fundamental analysis spreadsheets. You want new strategies in your war chest.

Quants are unconcerned about the intrinsic value of a stock or security, we look at the statistical profile of its price. How is it correlated with other prices? How does volume impact it? Are there regular patterns in price that can be leveraged for profit? Once we find a pattern — we can design algorithms to automatically execute trades that over time will grow our profiles.

These patterns often make no sense from a value perspective. Why would you buy a stock that appears to be incredibly overvalued? If you’re running a momentum or trend following strategy, you could find yourself buying near all-time highs. The value investor views that as insanity, but you do it because the algorithm shows that you have a potentially profitable pattern in your data set. That means you’re playing the odds that you can buy high and sell higher.

Do most investors have data-backed confidence for their trades? Or are decisions the results of a gut feeling? Considering most people run from math and code, I wager many trades are emotionally driven.

Break Away from the Narrative

Quantitative methods involve complicated statistical analysis, calculus, and machine learning capabilities. If you want to do it yourself, you’re going to need to learn to code. The upside? Your algorithms are working for you — which won’t eliminate your emotions or temptation to intervene — but the emotionless data will provide a beacon of rationality when FOMO or headline panic sets in.

For me, this was a big upside. I decided to apply my data science skills (those same skills I had honed during a PhD and applied everyday in a 9–5 for many years) and found that the math and stats in the quant world were much better for me, and improved my returns.

I firmly planted myself in this camp and never looked back.

I realize too that these methods aren’t easy, so that’s why I started Raposa — to build a no-code platform to enable investors to test and trade a variety of quantitative strategies. If you hate math and stats, then it’s not for you. Otherwise, join the waitlist and sign up below.

Your Professors are Wrong: You Can Beat the Market

“I have noticed that everyone who ever told me that the markets are efficient is poor.”

Larry Hite

If you’ve had any academic training in economics, you have likely been told that nobody can “beat the market” because markets are efficient.

Right out of the gate your hopes and dreams of becoming the next Jim Simons or Warren Buffett are dashed by the Efficient Market Hypothesis (EMH). In fact, according to the EMH, their performance is the result of blind luck; if you have enough monkeys banging on typewriters, you will eventually produce some Shakespeare.

The EMH (or at least the strong version) states that all information has been priced into stocks and securities. In other words, there’s no way to consistently beat the broad market averages. Your best bet then is to passively invest in a low-cost index fund and just let the market do its thing.

One of the theory’s strongest proponents, Burton Malkiel, writes:

The theory holds that the market appears to adjust so quickly to information about individual stocks and the economy as a while that no technique of selecting a portfolio…can consistently outperform a strategy of simply buying and holding a diversified group of securities…A blindfolded monkey throwing darts at a newspaper’s financial pages could select a portfolio that would do just as well as one carefully selected by the expert.

EMH and Random Walks

Proponents of EMH argue that the market moves in a “random walk” that can be neatly described by equations borrowed from physics, i.e. Brownian Motion. This follows from the EMH. If investors are pricing in all information, both public and private into their decisions and forecasting rationally, then only new information – which is random and unforecastable in nature – is the only thing that can move prices. Thus, prices move randomly.

This assumption underlies most financial modeling and risk measurements, despite some spectacular failures.

The academic edifice of EMH seems daunting – Nobel Prizes have been bestowed on its developers! Despite this, the EMH remains a deeply flawed theory; thankfully so for intrepid investors seeking to beat the market.

Rational Expectations – Irrational Investors

A core problem of EMH is that it relies on rational expectations theory, a theory that states people are free from biases in their decision making and are utility optimizers.

Unfortunately for the theory, investors are far from rational actors – take a minute or two to watch TikTok investors, or read some of the posts on just about any investing message board. To call some of these discussions “rational” stretches the meaning of the word beyond recognition.

Contra rational expectations, investors – who are just normal people after all – are fraught with cognitive biases. These biases can’t simply be assumed away to make the stock market math more manageable (Nobel Prizes have been awarded for work on these cognitive biases as well).

EMH: Simplifying Investor Decisions

If the EMH is correct, however, the price right now is “correct” in that all information is baked in and properly discounted. If one investor thinks a stock is undervalued (again, according to her cold, rational analysis), then she is going to bid the price up to the point she no longer considers it undervalued. Likewise if one believes a stock is overvalued, he’s going to push it down until it is no longer overvalued by selling or shorting the shares.

There is some plausibility (and truth) to this story, but only partially because it ignores real constraints that investors have.

Take for example, someone who believes firmly that Tesla is massively overvalued – there seems no shortage of such short selling bears. If they could really bid the price down accordingly, they would. However there remains far too much buying pressure on the other side of these trades for even large funds and groups of investors to move the price significantly lower.

To borrow another example from Bob Murphy. Imagine you get a time machine and can jump forward five years and see that the best performing stock over this period increased from $1 today to $500 five years from now. According to our EMH and rational expectations theory, you should value that stock at $500 today (ignoring discounting for simplicity’s sake) and buy every share until it reaches that price. You may leverage your home, max out your credit cards, get friends and family to invest, and throw every spare dollar you can into this stock, but how high could you really move it? If you’re like most people, you simply won’t have enough capital to significantly move the price on your own despite your perfectly rational expectations.

Markets are not Random

Let’s pick on Prof. Malkiel again. In his famous book, he provides an anecdote whereby he proceeds to flip a coin for his class to determine the daily price of a hypothetical security. Heads yielded a slight rise, tails a slight reduction in price. Over time, a chart was developed using this random generation process, when the good professor brought his creation to a chartist. The chartist suggested that this stock should be bought and had a strong, bullish forecast for this random stock. Based on this prognostication, Prof. Malkiel concluded that stocks are indistinguishable from random processes.

Is this a real or simulated stock?

It’s a nice story, but Malkiel made a number of critical errors in his conclusion. First, while the chartist was unable to visually differentiate between a random process and actual stocks, it could just as well be that the random pattern Malkiel created was an excellent forgery; repeating this test may have yielded different results. Second, while the human eye may not have been able to distinguish between a randomness and an actual time series of prices, that doesn’t mean a computer can’t. In fact, auto-correlation – the tendency for stocks to trend in a given direction over time – is a well known phenomenon and goes sharply against EMH and the random walk hypothesis. Finally, even if stock prices stand up to strong tests of randomness, it doesn’t mean that additional information (e.g. volume, earnings or fundamental data) couldn’t reveal important, non-random patterns in prices.

In short, Malkiel’s test was too simple and he reached his conclusion far too hastily.

Too Many Outliers to Count

Perhaps one of the most difficult issues to reconcile with the EMH worldview are the long list of outliers. Both market events – typically crashes – and highly successful investors with long track records which should not exist if the EMH were true.

We have the October 1987 crash, a single day loss that the markets have never seen before or since. The blow-up of Long Term Capital Management (LTCM), a hedge fund founded by Nobel Prize winners in a series of events that should have never happened if their theories were correct. My favorite example comes from the Great Financial Crisis where the CEO of Goldman Sachs said they experienced losses from a series of 25-sigma events!

If you don’t know how often a 25-sigma event should occur, we have a handy table available:

From How Unlucky is 25-Sigma?

The authors, Dowd et al. give some context for these numbers:

These numbers are on truly cosmological scales, and a natural comparison is with the
number of particles in the Universe, which is believed to be between 1.0e+73 and 1.0e+85 (Clair, 2001). Thus, a 20-event corresponds to an expected occurrence period measured in years that is 10 times larger than the higher of the estimates of the number of particles in the Universe. For its part, a 25-sigma event corresponds to an expected occurrence period that is equal to the higher of these estimates but with the decimal point moved 52 places to the left!

It seems safe to say if you experience a few events with a 1/1.3019 x 10^135 chance of occurring, your model might have some faulty assumptions.

On the other hand, there is a long list of investors who have consistently beat the market year in and year out. Yes, some of this is certainly luck, but the longer your track record, the less likely luck is at play. Luck simply cannot account for everything. If the EMH was true, these people should not exist.

Inefficiencies are Available to You!

Thankfully for us, markets do exhibit inefficiencies. These enable savvy investors to outperform the market. Unfortunately, this is easier said than done.

We try to make it as easy as possible for investors by providing robust tools using high-quality data to allow you to develop your own quantitative strategies. You can design your signals, adjust your risk, and test your strategy to see how it performs in a variety of market environments. When you’re happy with the results, just deploy the system and you’re ready to trade it!

Check out our free demo here.

How To Reduce Lag In A Moving Average

Moving average indicators are commonly used to give traders a general idea about the direction of the trend by smoothing the price series. One of the big drawbacks to most common moving averages is the lag with which they operate. A strong trend up or down may take a long time to get confirmation from the series leading to lost profit.

In 2005, Alan Hull devised the Hull Moving Average (HMA) to address this problem.

The calculation is relatively straightforward and can be done in 4 steps after choosing the number of periods, N, to use in the calculation:

  1. Calculate the simple moving average over the past N periods.
    • SMA1 = SMA(price, N)
  2. Calculate the simple moving average over the past N/2 periods, rounded to the nearest whole value.
    • SMA2 = SMA(price, int(N/2))
  3. Multiply the shorter moving average by 2 and then subtract the first moving average from this.
    • SMA_diff = 2 * SMA2 - SMA1
  4. Take the moving average of this value over a period length equal to the square root of N, rounded to the nearest whole number.
    • HMA = SMA(SMA_diff, int(sqrt(N)))

This winds up being more responsive to recent changes in price because we’re taking the most recent half of our data and multiplying it by 2. This provides an additional weighting on those values before we smooth things out again with the final moving average calculation. Confusingly, many blogs list each of these moving averages as weighted moving averages, but never specify the weights themselves. Don’t worry about that, all we have are a few simple moving averages which are weighted before being combined at the end.

For completeness, we can also write this out mathematically.

If we are calculating the SMA at time t over the last N periods, we’re going to call this SMA^N_t. For moving averages, we’re just getting a summation over the last N prices (we’ll use P for prices) and dividing by N like so:

SMA_t^N = \frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^{N} P_{i-N}

SMA_t^M = \frac{1}{M}\sum_{i=1}^{M} P_{i-M}

HMA_t^H = \frac{1}{H} \sum_{i=1}^{H} (2SMA^M_t - SMA^N_t)

where the symbols M and H are N/2 and the square root of N rounded to the nearest integer values.

M = \bigg\lfloor \frac{N}{2} \bigg\rceil

H = \bigg\lfloor \sqrt{N} \bigg\rceil

Hopefully, that’s all pretty straightforward. Let’s get to some examples in Python to illustrate how this works.

Hull Moving Average in Python

Like usual, let’s grab a few packages.

import numpy as np
import pandas as pd
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
import yfinance as yf

From here, we can write a function to calculate the HMA in just three lines of code, corresponding to the three equations we showed above.

def calcHullMA(price: pd.Series, N=50):
  SMA1 = price.rolling(N).mean()
  SMA2 = price.rolling(int(N/2)).mean()
  return (2 * SMA2 - SMA1).rolling(int(np.sqrt(N))).mean()

We have our two moving averages, take the difference, and then smooth out the results with a third moving average. This function assumes we’re working with a Pandas data series and takes advantage of many of the methods that enables. Just be careful not to pass it a list or a NumPy array!

Getting Some Data

Let’s illustrate how this works on some historical data. I’m just getting a year’s worth from a common stock, DAL.

ticker = 'DAL'
start = '2014-01-01'
end = '2015-01-01'
yfObj = yf.Ticker(ticker)
data = yfObj.history(start=start, end=end)
data.drop(['Open', 'High', 'Low', 'Volume', 'Dividends', 'Stock Splits'],
          axis=1, inplace=True)

# Applying our function
N = 50
data[f'HMA_{N}'] = calcHullMA(data['Close'], N)

Take a look to see how it behaves:

plt.figure(figsize=(12, 8))
plt.plot(data['Close'], label='Close')
plt.plot(data[f'HMA_{N}'], label='HMA')
plt.ylabel('Price ($)')
plt.title(f'HMA and Price for {ticker}')

As you can see, the HMA follows pretty closely. Of course, there is a lag as can be seen with some of the larger peaks and valleys over this time frame. Does it smooth well and with a lower lag than other moving averages as Hull intends?

To find out, let’s compare it to a typical, simple moving average and an exponential moving average (EMA). Like the HMA, the EMA is designed to be more responsive to recent price changes.

The code for the EMA calculation below was taken from a previous post you can dive into for further details.

def _calcEMA(P, last_ema, N):
    return (P - last_ema) * (2 / (N + 1)) + last_ema
def calcEMA(data: pd.DataFrame, N: int, key: str = 'Close'):
    # Initialize series
    sma = data[key].rolling(N).mean()
    ema = np.zeros(len(data)) + np.nan
    for i, _row in enumerate(data.iterrows()):
        row = _row[1]
        if np.isnan(ema[i-1]):
            ema[i] = sma[i]
            ema[i] = _calcEMA(row[key], ema[i-1], N)
    return ema

Plotting the results:

data[f'EMA_{N}'] = calcEMA(data, N)
data[f'SMA_{N}'] = data['Close'].rolling(N).mean()

plt.figure(figsize=(12, 8))
plt.plot(data['Close'], label='Close', linewidth=0.5)
plt.plot(data[f'HMA_{N}'], label='HMA')
plt.plot(data[f'EMA_{N}'], label='EMA')
plt.plot(data[f'SMA_{N}'], label='SMA')
plt.ylabel('Price ($)')
plt.title('Comparing 50-Day Moving Averages to Price')

The plot looks pretty good. The HMA seems to track the price more closely than the other indicators while providing some good smoothing. However, we aren’t technical traders here at Raposa, so we need to do more than just look at a chart. We want to see the data!

To get an idea for the tracking error, we’re going to use the root mean square error (RMSE) to measure the difference between the indicator value and the price.

The RMSE is a common error metric that punishes deviations by squaring the error term. This means an error of 2 is 4 times greater than an error of 1! These squared errors all get summed up and then we take the square root of the values divided by the number of observations, n.

RMSE = \sqrt{\frac{\sum_t \big(\hat{P}_t - P_t \big)^2}{n}}

We’ll run our errors through a quick RMSE function we’ll write and see the results.

# Calculate tracking error
def calcRMSE(price, indicator):
  sq_error = np.power(indicator - price, 2).sum()
  n = len(indicator.dropna())
  return np.sqrt(sq_error / n)

hma_error = calcRMSE(data['Close'], data[f'HMA_{N}'])
ema_error = calcRMSE(data['Close'], data[f'EMA_{N}'])
sma_error = calcRMSE(data['Close'], data[f'SMA_{N}'])

print('Lag Error')
print(f'\tHMA = \t{hma_error:.2f}')
print(f'\tEMA = \t{ema_error:.2f}')
print(f'\tSMA = \t{sma_error:.2f}')
Lag Error
	HMA = 	1.65
	EMA = 	1.24
	SMA = 	1.53

Whoa! The HMA actually has greater error vs the price it’s tracking than the EMA and the SMA. This seems to cut against the intent of the HMA.

This is a small sample size, however, so maybe it really does have less lag than the other indicators and we just chose a bad stock and/or time frame.

Let’s test this by calculating the RMSE all of the stocks in the S&P 500 over the course of a year. Additionally, we’ll do this for different values of N to see if there’s any relationship between shorter or longer term values and the error.

Below, we have a helper function to calculate these values for us.

def calcErrors(data: pd.DataFrame, N: list):
  hma_error, sma_error, ema_error = [], [], []
  for n in N:
    hma = calcHullMA(data['Close'], n)
    ema = pd.Series(calcEMA(data, n), index=data.index)
    sma = data['Close'].rolling(n).mean()
    hma_error.append(calcRMSE(data['Close'], hma))
    ema_error.append(calcRMSE(data['Close'], ema))
    sma_error.append(calcRMSE(data['Close'], sma))
  return hma_error, ema_error, sma_error

The calcErrors function takes our data and a list of time periods to calculate the HMA, EMA, and SMA. From there, we calculate the RMSE for each series versus our closing price and return lists of each.

Next, we’ll loop over all the stocks in the S&P 500 and get the data for each. We’ll pass this to our error calculation function and collect the errors for each symbol.

We’re relying on the list of stocks in Wikipedia, which doesn’t necessarily correspond to how the symbols are represented in yfinance (e.g. Berkshire Hathaway has two classes of shares A’s and B’s, which cause issues) so we need to wrap this in a try-except statement for those edge cases. We’ll still get enough that we should be able to get a decent estimate.

# Sample 10 tickers from S&P 500
url = ''
table = pd.read_html(url)
df = table[0]
syms = df['Symbol']
start = '2019-01-01'
end = '2020-01-01'
N = [5, 10, 15, 20, 30, 50, 100, 150, 200]
for i, s in enumerate(syms):
    yfObj = yf.Ticker(s)
    data = yfObj.history(start=start, end=end)
  he, ee, se = calcErrors(data, N)
  if i == 0:
    hma_error = np.array(he)
    ema_error = np.array(ee)
    sma_error = np.array(se)
    hma_error = np.vstack([hma_error, he])
    ema_error = np.vstack([ema_error, ee])
    sma_error = np.vstack([sma_error, se])

# Drop rows with missing values
hma_error = hma_error[~np.isnan(hma_error).any(axis=1)]
ema_error = ema_error[~np.isnan(ema_error).any(axis=1)]
sma_error = sma_error[~np.isnan(sma_error).any(axis=1)]

After a few minutes, we can take a look at the mean tracking error across all of our metrics and tickers below:

Here we see that the HMA does track the price much better than other moving average measurements. There’s much less difference in short-time frames, but the values do start to diverge from one another fairly quickly and become more pronounced over time.

Trading with the Hull Moving Average

We could be more rigorous by tracking the deviation of our error measurements and getting more data, however for most purposes, it does seem as if the HMA does deliver on its promise to reducing lag. How do you trade it though?

The nice thing about the HMA, is that you can use it anywhere you’d use a moving average of any variety. You could build a whole new strategy around it, or just plug it into an existing system to see if you get any boost in your results.

We make all of that as easy as possible at Raposa, where we’re building a platform to allow you to backtest your ideas in seconds, without writing a single line of code. You can check out our free demo here!

Why you need more data than you think in your Backtest

How many years does it take before you can be confident in a trading strategy?

Does one great year mean you have a tremendous strategy? Does one bad year mean you should pack it up and try something else? How soon can you tell that a system is flawed and needs changing?

These aren’t easy questions, but they’re incredibly important to any investor, whether you’re systematic or not!

While we can’t give hard and fast rules – because there aren’t any – we can outline a series of principles based on your trading and explain why we try to provide as much, high-quality data as possible in our platforms.

How significant are your results?

Although it is not without its flaws, the Sharpe Ratio remains the standard measure of risk-adjusted returns. A high Sharpe means you have good returns against your baseline with little volatility, something most traders crave. A Sharpe of 0 indicates that your strategy isn’t providing any real value, and a negative Sharpe means you’re destroying value.

With that in mind, Rob Carver laid out an experiment whereby he asked how long would he have to run a daily strategy with a given Sharpe Ratio to determine whether or not it is profitable or just noise?

His results were surprising.

Results taken from Systematic Trading.

Lower Sharpe Ratio strategies took decades to distinguish from noise! Consider the implications.

Many retail traders don’t run proper backtests – even those trying to be systematic – so they jump into a strategy based on some vague ideas of what might/might not work from a guru, or message board, YouTube video, or who knows what. They start trading and maybe they’re doing well enough with a Sharpe Ratio of 0.4 after their first year. Does that mean they have an edge? Well, maybe! But they’re going to need to continue that for 32 more years before they can be sure!

The other thing to note is that strategies with higher Sharpe Ratios are easier to distinguish from noise. They stand out more, so if you have a system that turns in some excellent years (e.g. Sharpe > 1) then it’s likely that you’ve got something great.

If you’re trading daily signals, it seems that you’re going to want at least 20 years of history to properly test a strategy.

Test in multiple regimes

Never confuse genius with luck and a bull market

John Bogle

Markets go through bull and bear markets, moving up, down, and sideways; periods of high volatility and low volatility. If you build a strategy and only test it on one type of regime, then you’re setting yourself up for some nasty surprises when the market inevitably turns!

Extending your backtest and getting more historical data is key to ensuring that your strategy can hold up in these different environments.

What if you are trading something that doesn’t have a long history?

In a case like this, you have a few options:

  1. Find a comparable proxy that does have a long history to see how your model performs. Are there correlated instruments such as equities in the same industry (e.g. energy companies) or commodities with similar drivers (e.g. gold and silver)?
  2. Generate simulated data to test your ideas. This requires you to generalize from the statistics of the data you’re working with to simulate additional time series data to see how your strategy performs. An advantage of this approach is that you can tweak some of those statistics or create different trends and scenarios to build broader tests. Caution needs to be exercised in this approach because you may be fitting a system on something that has no link to reality.
  3. Don’t trade it.

Use High-Quality Data

For most of our tutorials, we rely on the yfinance Python API because it’s free, easy to use, and generally has reliable data. Except when it doesn’t.

In fact, a lot of free data sources are mostly reliable, but occasionally, you’ll run into big problems.

Take the first 5 years of this single-instrument backtest below:

The high-level statistics looked tremendous, too good to be true in fact. Plotting the equity curve shows why.

Early in the backtest, there’s a major jump in returns as a leveraged short position makes an absolute killing. Looking at the data, we see a (fictional) overnight drop of 94%.

Simply adjusting the starting point to begin after the anomaly shows that the strategy doesn’t add much above the baseline.

Data quality makes a big difference, but even paid sources aren’t perfect – although they tend to be much better.

To increase your confidence in your data quality, you could use multiple, independent sources to check for differences. If you have three sources, if two sources agree on a given price and one differs, take the value from the two. If all are different, then average the three and rely on a single source to fill in missing data if 2 out of the 3 are missing a value.

It won’t ensure your data is flawless, but will greatly reduce the odds of a data error being introduced.


Best practice dictates that only some of your data be used for fitting your parameters (e.g. tweaking lookback periods, stop loss levels, etc.) and the remaining be used for testing. The first portion is called in-sample data while the latter is out-of-sample.

The idea is that the out-of-sample data provides you a chance to see what your system is going to do on new data that it has not been calibrated to trade. The stats should be worse, but not significantly (unless you over-fit on your in-sample data). This is designed to give you a better estimate for future performance.

Unfortunately, this requires even more data to complete effectively.

Frequently you’ll see recommendations for a 70-80% of your data being used as in-sample data with the remaining 20-30% as out of sample data.

Another way to deal with this is by using cross-validation techniques like walk forward optimization. This allows you to optimize and test on subsets of your data and choose the best.

Long Data Bias

Can we ever have enough data?

On the extreme end, we have funds that go back to the 1880’s to better understand their strategies, or Renaissance Technologies which collected price data from the 1700’s.

How much is enough is going to depend on your goals and whether you’re really getting value from adding 1959 to your time series that already goes back to 1960. There is a law of diminishing returns that will eventually kick in for most investors.

Regardless, data is our raw material and we frequently need more of this resource than we think.

How to Trade the MACD: Four Strategies with Backtests

The Moving Average Convergence-Divergence (MACD) is a popular and versatile indicator that appears in a number of trading systems. In it’s most basic form, we have the difference between two exponential moving averages (EMA), one fast and the other slow. The MACD is the difference between these two EMAs. From this simple beginning a host of other indicators such as signal lines and MACD bars are built. We’ll show you how to implement each of these, but refer back to this article for a thorough explanation.

In this post, we’re going to implement and backtest three versions of the MACD in Python to illustrate how to trade it and discuss areas for improvement.

Of course, if you want to skip all the code, you can try our new platform for free here to test these ideas.

Mean-Reverting MACD

A good place to get started with the MACD is to see when the signal diverges, i.e. when the MACD moves far away from 0. A mean-reverting strategy can quickly be built on top of this.

Our strategy is going to use standard parameters for the MACD. Our fast EMA will look over the past 12 days, and the slow EMA will run over 26 days. The model is going to buy our stock when the price breaks below a certain threshold, and will sell when the MACD converges back to 0. If the MACD runs high, we’ll short the stock and sell when it gets back to 0. We’re simply trying to jump on large, outlier movements in the price with the hope that the price will move back towards the longer EMA.

To get going, fire up Python and import the following packages.

import numpy as np
import pandas as pd
import yfinance as yf
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt

To start, we need to calculate the MACD. As stated above, the MACD is built on top of the EMA, so we’re going to write a few functions to calculate the EMA, one to plug in the values, the other that will initialize it and apply it to our data frame. From there, we can write our MACD function that will take these parameters, calculate the EMAs, our MACD, and fill in our data frame.

The code for the following functions was taken from this, previous post on the MACD and will go through all of the details on the code and calculations.

def _calcEMA(P, last_ema, N):
  return (P - last_ema) * (2 / (N + 1)) + last_ema

def calcEMA(data: pd.DataFrame, N: int, key: str = 'Close'):
  # Initialize series
  data['SMA_' + str(N)] = data[key].rolling(N).mean()
  ema = np.zeros(len(data)) + np.nan
  for i, _row in enumerate(data.iterrows()):
    row = _row[1]
    if np.isnan(ema[i-1]):
      ema[i] = row['SMA_' + str(N)]
      ema[i] = _calcEMA(row[key], ema[i-1], N)
  data['EMA_' + str(N)] = ema.copy()
  return data

def calcMACD(data: pd.DataFrame, N_fast: int, N_slow: int):
  assert N_fast < N_slow, 
    ("Fast EMA must be less than slow EMA parameter.")
  # Add short term EMA
  data = calcEMA(data, N_fast)
  # Add long term EMA
  data = calcEMA(data, N_slow)
  # Subtract values to get MACD
  data['MACD'] = data[f'EMA_{N_fast}'] - data[f'EMA_{N_slow}']
  # Drop extra columns
  data.drop(['Open', 'High', 'Low', 'Volume',
    'Dividends', 'Stock Splits'], axis=1, inplace=True)
  return data

Now with the MACD in place, we’re going to write two more functions. One is going to be our strategy function, and the other will calculate all of our returns. We’re breaking this second one into its own function because we can re-use the code later when we write other MACD strategies.

The MACDReversionStrategy is where our strategy is implemented (if you didn’t guess that by the name). This is a simple, vectorized implementation that is just going to look for our level value, and trade if the MACD moves outside of its bounds.

def calcReturns(df):
  df['returns'] = df['Close'] / df['Close'].shift(1)
  df['log_returns'] = np.log(df['returns'])
  df['strat_returns'] = df['position'].shift(1) * df['returns']
  df['strat_log_returns'] = df['position'].shift(1) * \
  df['cum_returns'] = np.exp(df['log_returns'].cumsum()) - 1  
  df['strat_cum_returns'] = np.exp(
    df['strat_log_returns'].cumsum()) - 1
  return df

def MACDReversionStrategy(data, N_fast=12, N_slow=26, 
  level=1, shorts=True):
  df = calcMACD(data, N_fast, N_slow)
  # Drop extra columns
  df.drop(['Open', 'High', 'Low', 'Volume',
    'Dividends', 'Stock Splits'], axis=1, inplace=True) 
  df['position'] = np.nan
  df['position'] = np.where(df['MACD']<level, 1, df['position'])
  if shorts:
    df['position'] = np.where(df['MACD']>level, -1, df['position'])
  df['position'] = np.where(df['MACD'].shift(1)/df['MACD']<0, 
    0, df['position'])
  df['position'] = df['position'].ffill().fillna(0)
  return calcReturns(df)

The next step is to get data. We’ll rely on the yfinance package to get some free data from Yahoo! Finance. For backtests, more data is better, so we’re going to grab an older company so we can see how this performs over a long, multi-decade time horizon, so let’s choose 3M (ticker: MMM) and see how this strategy works.

ticker = 'MMM'
start = '2000-01-01'
end = '2020-12-31'
yfObj = yf.Ticker(ticker)
df = yfObj.history(start=start, end=end)
N_fast = 12
N_slow = 26
df_reversion = MACDReversionStrategy(df.copy(), 
  N_fast=N_fast, N_slow=N_slow, level=1)
fig, ax = plt.subplots(2, figsize=(12, 8), sharex=True)
colors = plt.rcParams['axes.prop_cycle'].by_key()['color']
  label='MACD Reversion')
ax[0].plot(df_reversion['cum_returns']*100, label=f'{ticker}')
ax[0].set_ylabel('Returns (%)')
  'Cumulative Returns for MACD Reversion Strategy' +
  f'and Buy and Hold for {ticker}')
ax[1].axhline(level, label='Short Level', color=colors[1],
ax[1].axhline(-level, label='Long Level', color=colors[1],
ax[1].axhline(0, label='Neutral', color='k', linestyle='--')
ax[1].set_title(f'{N_fast}/{N_slow} MACD for {ticker}')

Our MACD mean reversion strategy outpaces the underlying stock from 2000–2016, before the strategy begins giving back some value and then underperforms for a few years. Starting in 2018 and continuing through the end of 2020, however, the strategy simply takes off!

One thing to notice about this model, is that the range of values for the MACD increases over time. It’s likely the case that the signal value we chose (-1 and 1 for simplicity) aren’t optimal and an adaptive value may prove better. The drawback of this is that we now have another parameter we need to fit, which can lead to overfitting our results.

MACD with Signal Line

This next method relies on the MACD signal line. This is just the EMA of the MACD itself. Because of this, we can re-use a lot of our code from the previous functions to add the signal line to our data.

def calcMACDSignal(data: pd.DataFrame, N_fast: int, N_slow: int,
  N_sl: int = 9):
  data = calcMACD(data, N_fast=N_fast, N_slow=N_slow)
  data = calcEMA(data, N_sl, key='MACD')
  # Rename columns
    columns={f'SMA_{N_sl}': f'SMA_MACD_{N_sl}',
      f'EMA_{N_sl}': f'SignalLine_{N_sl}'}, inplace=True)
  return data

A common way to trade the MACD with the signal line, is to buy when the MACD is above the signal line, and short or sell if the lines cross again.

def MACDSignalStrategy(data, N_fast=12, N_slow=26, N_sl=9,
  df = calcMACDSignal(data, N_fast, N_slow, N_sl)
  df['position'] = np.nan
  df['position'] = np.where(df['MACD']>df[f'SignalLine_{N_sl}'], 1,
  if shorts:
    df['position'] = np.where(df['MACD']<df[f'SignalLine_{N_sl}'],
      -1, df['position'])
    df['position'] = np.where(df['MACD']<df[f'SignalLine_{N_sl}'],   
      0, df['position'])
  df['position'] = df['position'].ffill().fillna(0)
  return calcReturns(df)

For the signal line, it’s fairly typical to look at the 9-day EMA, so that’s what we’ll use here. Again, no fiddling with the settings or optimization, we’re just taking a first pass at the backtest.

N_sl = 9
df_signal = MACDSignalStrategy(df.copy(), N_fast=N_fast,
  N_slow=N_slow, N_sl=N_sl)

fig, ax = plt.subplots(2, figsize=(12, 8), sharex=True)
  label='MACD Signal Strategy')
ax[0].plot(df_signal['cum_returns']*100, label=f'{ticker}')
ax[0].set_ylabel('Returns (%)')
  f'Cumulative Returns for MACD Signal Strategy and' + 
  f'Buy and Hold for {ticker}')

ax[1].plot(df_signal['MACD'], label='MACD')
  label='Signal Line', linestyle=':')
ax[1].set_title(f'{N_fast}/{N_slow}/{N_sl} MACD for {ticker}')


Here, our results weren’t nearly as great compared to the mean reversion model (the interplay between the signal line and the MACD is hard to discern at this time scale, zooming in will show its many crosses). This strategy does, however, avoid large or long drawdowns. It seems to be slow and steady, but does fail to win the race via a long-only strategy.

In a more complex strategy where you are managing a portfolio of strategies, an equity curve like we’re showing for the MACD signal strategy could be very valuable. The steady returns could provide a safe haven to allocate capital to if you’re high-return strategies suddenly underperform due to a shift in the market regime.

If you’re looking for all out returns, changing up some of the parameters could be a good way to go beyond the standard values we used here.

MACD Momentum

Another technique that is frequently used is to take the difference between the MACD and the signal line. This is then plotted as vertical bars and called MACD bar or MACD histogram plots. If the bars grow over time, then we have increasing momentum and go long, if they decrease, then we have slowing momentum and a possible reversal.

Calculating this is rather straightforward, we just take our MACD and subtract off the signal line. Again, we can re-use a lot of our previous code to keep things short and sweet.

def calcMACDBars(data: pd.DataFrame, N_fast: int, N_slow: int,
  N_sl: int = 9):
  data = calcMACDSignal(data, N_fast=N_fast, N_slow=N_slow,
  data['MACD_bars'] = data['MACD'] - data[f'SignalLine_{N_sl}']
  return data

The histogram is positive when the MACD is above the signal line, and negative when it falls below.

This is an indicator of an indicator and is a few steps removed from the actual price. Regardless, there are a variety of ways to trade using it. One way is to look for increasing or decreasing momentum. If consecutive, positive bars grow, it means that we have a bullish signal for increasing momentum as the MACD moves away from the signal line. If they’re moving closer to one another, then we have a bearish signal and can short it.

We can also look for crossovers, however this is the same as the signal line strategy we implemented above.

You’ll also see things such as peak-trough divergences or slant divergences to generate signals. These look for consecutive hills in the MACD histogram chart and are usually picked up via visual inspection.

We’re going to start with a momentum strategy that looks at the growth of consecutive bars. We’ll use the standard, 12/26/9 format for the MACD signal line parameters, but we’ll see if we can pick up on three consecutive days of growth (positive or negative) in the bars for buy/short signals.

def MACDMomentumStrategy(data, N_fast=12, N_slow=26, N_sl=9,
  N_mom=3, shorts=False):
  df = calcMACDBars(data, N_fast=N_fast, N_slow=N_slow, N_sl=N_sl)
  df['growth'] = np.sign(df['MACD_bars'].diff(1))
  df['momentum'] = df['growth'].rolling(N_mom).sum()
  if shorts:
    df['position'] = df['momentum'].map(
      lambda x: np.sign(x) * 1 if np.abs(x) == N_mom else 0)
    df['position'] = df['momentum'].map(
      lambda x: 1 if x == N_mom else 0)
  df['position'] = df['position'].ffill().fillna(0)
  return calcReturns(df)

Running and plotting:

N_mom = 3

df_mom = MACDMomentumStrategy(df.copy(), N_fast=N_fast, 
  N_slow=N_slow,N_sl=N_sl, N_mom=N_mom)

fig, ax = plt.subplots(3, figsize=(12, 8), sharex=True)
ax[0].plot(df_mom['strat_cum_returns']*100, label='MACD Momentum')
ax[0].plot(df_mom['cum_returns']*100, label=f'{ticker}')
ax[0].set_ylabel('Returns (%)')
ax[0].set_title(f'Cumulative Returns for MACD Signal Strategy and Buy and Hold for {ticker}')
ax[1].plot(df_mom['MACD'], label='MACD')
ax[1].plot(df_mom[f'SignalLine_{N_sl}'], label='Signal Line', 
ax[1].set_title(f'{N_fast}/{N_slow}/{N_sl} MACD for {ticker}')
ax[2].bar(df_mom.index, df_mom['MACD_bars'], label='MACD Bars',
ax[2].set_title(f'MACD Bars for {ticker}')

This one doesn’t look so great. 20 years and losing 15% is not a strategy I want to be invested in. If we look a little deeper into this one, we can see that we jump in and out of a lot of positions very quickly. Usually we have some momentum, but because the momentum signal we’re looking at can change after a day or two, we aren’t in a position long enough to ride a trend. Essentially, we’re acting like a trend follower, but we bail so quickly we wind up taking a lot of small losses and have very few gains to show for it.

To alleviate this, let’s see if we can improve by using our MACD bars to signal momentum and only exit a position when the MACD bar crosses over. To see this, we’ll look for a sign change from positive to negative or vice versa.

def MACDSignalMomentumStrategy(data, N_fast=12, N_slow=26, N_sl=9,
  N_mom=3, shorts=False):
  df = calcMACDBars(data, N_fast=N_fast, N_slow=N_slow, N_sl=N_sl)
  df['growth'] = np.sign(df['MACD_bars'].diff(1))
  df['momentum'] = df['growth'].rolling(N_mom).sum()
  # Enter a long/short position if momentum is going in the right
  # direction and wait for cross-over
  position = np.zeros(len(df)) + np.nan
  for i, _row in enumerate(data.iterrows()):
    row = _row[1]
    mom = row['momentum']
    if np.isnan(mom):
      last_row = row.copy()
    if np.abs(mom) == N_mom and position[i-1] == 0:
      # Enter new position
      if shorts:
        position[i] = np.sign(mom)
        position[i] = 1 if np.sign(mom) == 1 else 0
    elif row['MACD_bars'] / last_row['MACD_bars'] < 0:
      # Change in sign indicates cross-over -> exit
      position[i] = 0
      # Hold position
      position[i] = position[i-1]
  df['position'] = position
  return calcReturns(df)

Running this combined strategy:

df_sig_mom = MACDSignalMomentumStrategy(df.copy(), N_fast=N_fast, 
  N_slow=N_slow,N_sl=N_sl, N_mom=N_mom)
fig, ax = plt.subplots(3, figsize=(12, 8), sharex=True)
  label='MACD Momentum')
ax[0].plot(df_sig_mom['cum_returns']*100, label=f'{ticker}')
ax[0].set_ylabel('Returns (%)')
ax[0].set_title(f'Cumulative Returns for MACD Signal Strategy' +
  f'and Buy and Hold for {ticker}')
ax[1].plot(df_sig_mom['MACD'], label='MACD')
ax[1].plot(df_sig_mom[f'SignalLine_{N_sl}'], label='Signal Line', 
ax[1].set_title(f'{N_fast}/{N_slow}/{N_sl} MACD for {ticker}')
ax[2].bar(df_sig_mom.index, df_sig_mom['MACD_bars'], 
  label='MACD Bars', color=colors[4])
ax[2].set_title(f'MACD Bars for {ticker}')

This combined model does perform better, yielding us about 250% over this time frame. That is still about half of the long-only strategy that we’re trying to beat, but we could continue to tinker with these ideas to come up with something even better.

Before moving on, let’s take a look at some of the key metrics for each of these strategies.

Comparing Strategies

Below, we use have a helper function to get our strategy statistics.

def getStratStats(log_returns: pd.Series, 
  risk_free_rate: float = 0.02):
  stats = {}
  # Total Returns
  stats['tot_returns'] = np.exp(log_returns.sum()) - 1
  # Mean Annual Returns
  stats['annual_returns'] = np.exp(log_returns.mean() * 252) - 1
  # Annual Volatility
  stats['annual_volatility'] = log_returns.std() * np.sqrt(252)
  # Sharpe Ratio
  stats['sharpe_ratio'] = (
    (stats['annual_returns'] - risk_free_rate) 
    / stats['annual_volatility'])
  # Max Drawdown
  cum_returns = log_returns.cumsum()
  peak = cum_returns.cummax()
  drawdown = peak - cum_returns
  stats['max_drawdown'] = drawdown.max()
  # Max Drawdown Duration
  strat_dd = drawdown[drawdown==0]
  strat_dd_diff = strat_dd.index[1:] - strat_dd.index[:-1]
  strat_dd_days = x: x.days).values
  strat_dd_days = np.hstack([strat_dd_days,
    (drawdown.index[-1] - strat_dd.index[-1]).days])
  stats['max_drawdown_duration'] = strat_dd_days.max()
  return stats

Getting stats for each strategy:

stats_rev = getStratStats(df_reversion['strat_log_returns'])
stats_sig = getStratStats(df_signal['strat_log_returns'])
stats_mom = getStratStats(df_mom['strat_log_returns'])
stats_sig_mom = getStratStats(df_sig_mom['strat_log_returns'])
stats_base = getStratStats(df_reversion['log_returns'])
stats_dict = {'Mean Reversion': stats_rev,
  'Signal Line': stats_sig,
  'Momentum': stats_mom,
  'Signal-Momentum': stats_sig_mom,
  'Baseline': stats_base}

This baseline was pretty tough to beat. Over 9% annual returns despite some large drawdowns, however, the MACD mean reversion strategy beat it easily and with a better Sharpe Ratio to boot. The signal line and the momentum model both severely underperformed the baseline — with the MACD momentum model just being flat out atrocious. However, combining these two yielded better results, still below the baseline, but with a reasonable Sharpe Ratio and a lower drawdown (albeit longer than the baseline).

No Guarantees

Each of these models could be tweaked and improved, but they’re only a small taste of the possibilities available to trade using the MACD and its derivatives. No matter how good that mean reversion strategy looks, nothing here should be blindly implemented.

While we ran a fine backtest, there are issues. Dividends weren’t taken into account, transaction costs were ignored, slippage, only one stock was examined, and so forth. If you really want to trade algorithmically, you’re better off with a strategy that manages a diversified portfolio, on data that has been adjusted for dividends, with transaction costs, over a long time horizon.

At Raposa, we’re building an engine that will enable you to quickly test ideas like these on a portfolio of securities, with proper money management, a plethora of signals, and high quality data, all without a single line of code. We have a state-of-the-art system that will allow you to customize your model to suit your needs, and deploy it when you’re ready so you can trade live. If you want to move beyond simple backtests and strategies, then sign up below to be kept up to date on our latest developments.

How to Build a Better Trading System

Most trading strategies you find online are of questionable value. So if you’re going to put your money into it, we suggest you build and test it yourself.

Thankfully, building your own strategy doesn’t have to be a daunting task – we provide tools to do just that – and outline 6 steps you can follow to build your own strategy that you can have confidence in.

Data or Ideas?

Profitable strategies can come from a variety of sources. Most algorithmic traders break it into idea-first and data-first strategies.

Idea-first strategies starts with a hypothesis about what might be profitable. For example, you might wonder if some indicator can be applied to a given stock or currency or if there’s a way to profit on cognitive biases. So you go ahead, get the data and test your idea.

Data-first strategies start with the data and try to extract potentially profitable patterns from the data which then form your hypothesis. These can be found using black-box models (e.g. machine learning) or oddball patterns you observe in the market, even if you can’t explain why they work.

Gregory Zuckerman explains this type of thinking while asking an executive at the famous quant fund Renaissance Technologies about signals they’d trade. As long as they had the statistics to back it up, they’d trade such strange signals as “volume divided by price change three days earlier;” it doesn’t matter if they have a story about why that works or not, just go for it.

Which is better?

Well, that’s hard to say – traders have had a lot of success with both approaches. The data-first approach is often more mathematically challenging, but that doesn’t mean it’s going to be more profitable. I agree with systematic trader and author Rob Carver when he writes, “consistently profitable trading comes out of careful research, done by thoughtful and knowledgeable people, who seek to understand where their profits come from. The loss-making systematic trading I’ve seen has often been the result of haphazard data mining…That experience, combined with my preference for things I can trust and understand, means I favor the ideas-first method.”

Test a Simple Version of Your Strategy

Now you have some idea, so you need to go test it to see if it really holds up. I suggest starting simple, without a lot of fancy position sizing, use of stop losses, checking correlations, and so forth – unless these are key parts of your idea! Just try to test the simplest version you can to see if there’s some potential.

You’re not looking for a world-beating backtest at this point, you just want to know whether or not there’s some potential in the signal you’re trying to exploit. Does it seem to do better in a bear market or bull market? What about high volatility regimes vs low volatility?

If there’s an edge in some situations, you might have something you can build and work with!

Add the Bells and Whistles

Assuming you’ve got a trading signal that piques your interest, you can start adding in some of the key components that a live strategy is going to need. You’re going to want to work with position sizing and risk management to avoid blowing up, add stops/targets to get out of trades, and add filters or other signals to restrict entry into a trade during periods where your model will perform at its best.

Optimize your Parameters

A lot of traders get into trouble by over-fitting their strategies. They jump on a signal and keep tweaking parameters until they get a model with an astronomical return. Lured in by the promise of riches, they don’t realize that their model is incredibly fragile and doomed to failure.

File:Overfitting.svg - Wikimedia Commons
The green line is over-fit to the data. It’s going to show great stats, but looking more closely, it’s clear that it is going to struggle with new data (image from Wikipedia).

While there are no hard and fast rules to avoid over-fitting, it’s a good idea to limit the number of parameters in your model and the number of runs you try.

Too many parameters allow you to play with a lot of combinations to find that combination that is “just right” and looks great in a backtest, but doesn’t generalize to your trading account. Each set of parameters requires a new run, so if you find yourself running “My Retire-Next-Year Strategy #149285” then it’s safe to say you should give it a break and try a new idea.

Out-of-Sample Testing

Let’s say you have 20 years of historical data available – most novice traders are going to fit their strategy on all 20 years, then go and trade. A better approach is to split between test and training data, so you optimize your parameters on the first 15 years, then test the results on the last 5 years. The first 15 years are your in-sample data while the last 5 years comprise your out-of-sample data. This helps prevent over-fitting as discussed above because you should be able to see how much your strategy’s performance degrades during the out-of-sample test.

Some degradation is expected, so your in-sample test should have higher returns and better risk metrics than your out-of-sample test. But if in-sample is amazing and out-of-sample is horrendous, then you’ve probably over-fit your data and need to go back to the drawing board.

A lot more can be said about proper testing and optimization (we’ll go into details in future posts). One of the best techniques to use is walk forward optimization. This is where you optimize on a small, subset of in-sample data (e.g. 1 year) then run a test on the next subset of your data for out of sample testing. You can do this with a lot of different parameters and keep the top 30% every time and see what survives. This requires a lot of data and discipline, but is widely considered the gold-standard approach.

Sanity Check

Congrats if your strategy has made it this far! Look closely at those returns though, do you really believe they’re possible in practice?

Carver argues that a single-instrument strategy should produce a realistic Sharpe Ratio of 0.3. You can get higher Sharpe Ratios using proper money and risk management as well as a broader portfolio of instruments, but if all of that gets well above 1, then you’re probably traipsing into fantasy land.

If you want to hold onto this strategy, then it may be prudent to paper trade for a bit while gathering more data to see if it performs the way you expected.

Go Trade!

Now you should have a clearly defined, optimized, and well tested trading system that provides attractive yet reasonable returns. Looks like it’s time to trade it!

Some people build custom dashboards, spreadsheets, and all sorts of infrastructure to manage and trade their own portfolio. An easier solution would be to work with a system that will provide you automated alerts when your time to trade has come up. Even better would be one that enables you to also quickly test a variety of ideas in an easy, no-code framework like this one here.

If you’re interested in learning more about Raposa and our cloud-based trading products, you can also join our list below!

4 Ways to Trade the Trend Intensity Indicator

Determining the strength of a trend can provide a valuable edge to your trading strategy and help you determine when to go long and let it ride, or not. This is what the Trend Intensity Indicator (TII) was designed to do.

This indicator is as simple to interpret as more familiar values like the RSI. It’s scaled from 0-100 where higher numbers indicate a stronger upward trend, lower values a stronger downward trend, and values around the centerline (50) are neutral.

Calculating the TII takes place in 3 quick steps:

  1. Calculate the Simple Moving Average (SMA) of your closing prices (60-day SMA is typical, i.e. P=60).
    • `SMA[t] = mean(Price[t-P:t])`
  2. Determine how many time periods close above the SMA over P/2 periods.
    • `PositivePeriods[t] = count(SMA[t-P/2:t]>Price[t-P/t:t]`
  3. Divide the number of positive periods by P/2 and multiply by 100 to scale from 0-100.
    • `TII[t] = PositivePeriods[t] / (P/2) * 100`


We provide backtests and code for four distinct trading strategies using the TII. These tests are designed to give you a feel for the indicator and running backtests. If you want something faster and more complete, check out our free, no-code platform here.

Trend Intensity Indicator

Let’s get to coding this in Python:

import pandas as pd

def calcTrendIntensityIndex(data, P=60):
  data[f'SMA_{P}'] = data['Close'].rolling(P).mean()
  diff = data['Close'] - data[f'SMA_{P}']
  pos_count = x: 1 if x > 0 else 0).rolling(int(P/2)).sum()
  data['TII'] = 200 * (pos_count) / P
  return data

The function is quick and easy.

Let’s grab some data and look a bit closer before trading it.

import numpy as np
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
import yfinance as yf

ticker = 'GDX'
start = '2011-01-01'
end = '2013-01-01'
yfObj = yf.Ticker(ticker)
data = yfObj.history(start=start, end=end)
# Drop unused columns
    ['Open', 'High', 'Low', 'Volume', 'Dividends', 'Stock Splits'], 
    axis=1, inplace=True)

P = [30, 60, 90]

colors = plt.rcParams['axes.prop_cycle'].by_key()['color']

fig, ax = plt.subplots(2, figsize=(12, 8), sharex=True)
ax[0].plot(data['Close'], label='Close')

for i, p in enumerate(P):
  df = calcTrendIntensityIndex(data.copy(), p)
  ax[0].plot(df[f'SMA_{p}'], label=f'SMA({p})')
  ax[1].plot(df['TII'], label=f'TII({p})', c=colors[i+1])

ax[0].set_ylabel('Price ($)')
ax[0].set_title(f'Price and SMA Values for {ticker}')

ax[1].set_title('Trend Intensity Index')

Just like the RSI and other oscillators, the TII ranges from 0-100. It does so in a steadier fashion than many of these other indicators because it’s simply counting the number of days where the price is greater than the SMA over the past P/2 periods (30 days in this case). It only moves in discrete steps up and down over time.

Even though the TII is derived from the SMA crossover, it differs significantly from the standard indicator as shown below.

P = 60
df = calcTrendIntensityIndex(data.copy(), P)
vals = np.where(df[f'SMA_{P}'] > df['Close'], 1, 0)
df['SMA_cross'] = np.hstack([np.nan, vals[:-1] - vals[1:]])

fig, ax = plt.subplots(2, figsize=(12, 8), sharex=True)
ax[0].plot(df['Close'], label='Close')
ax[0].plot(df[f'SMA_{P}'], label=f'SMA({P})')
              marker='^', c=colors[3],
              label='Cross Above', zorder=100, s=100)
              marker='v', c=colors[4],
              label='Cross Below', zorder=100, s=100)

ax[0].set_ylabel('Price ($)')
ax[0].set_title(f'Price and {P}-Day SMA for {ticker}')

ax[1].plot(df['TII'], label='TII')
              marker='^', c=colors[3],
              label='Cross Above', zorder=100, s=100)
              marker='v', c=colors[4],
              label='Cross Below', zorder=100, s=100)
ax[1].set_title('Trend Intensity Index')

In this plot, we have the 60-day SMA marked with orange triangles when the price moves above the SMA and blue triangles showing when it drops below the SMA. As can be seen in the lower plot, these occur all over the TII. So you can’t necessarily tell when a cross over occurs by looking at the TII. While it is a straightforward derivative of the SMA crossover, you’re going to have very different signals when trading it.

Let’s turn to a few examples of how we can use it.

Buy Low and Sell High

The first model we’ll run approaches the TII in a similar fashion as the RSI; we buy when the TII crosses below 20 and sell/short when it breaks above 80. We hold the positions until they reach the exit value.

The basic idea is that the price should be split roughly between days above and below the SMA. When we have a series that has deviated from the long-run average, we put a position on and wait for it to revert back to the mean.

def TIIMeanReversion(data, P=60, enter_long=20, exit_long=50, 
                     enter_short=80, exit_short=50, shorts=True):
  df = calcTrendIntensityIndex(data, P=P)
  df['position'] = np.nan
  df['position'] = np.where(df['TII']<=enter_long, 1, np.nan)
  _exit_long = df['TII'] - exit_long
  exit = _exit_long.shift(1) / _exit_long
  df['position'] = np.where(exit<0, 0, df['position'])

  if shorts:
    df['position'] = np.where(df['TII']>=enter_short, -1, 
    _exit_short = df['TII'] - exit_short
    df['position'] = np.where(exit<0, 0, df['position'])

  df['position'] = df['position'].ffill().fillna(0)
  return calcReturns(df)

# A few helper functions
def calcReturns(df):
  # Helper function to avoid repeating too much code
  df['returns'] = df['Close'] / df['Close'].shift(1)
  df['log_returns'] = np.log(df['returns'])
  df['strat_returns'] = df['position'].shift(1) * df['returns']
  df['strat_log_returns'] = df['position'].shift(1) * df['log_returns']
  df['cum_returns'] = np.exp(df['log_returns'].cumsum()) - 1
  df['strat_cum_returns'] = np.exp(df['strat_log_returns'].cumsum()) - 1
  df['peak'] = df['cum_returns'].cummax()
  df['strat_peak'] = df['strat_cum_returns'].cummax()
  return df

def getStratStats(log_returns: pd.Series,
  risk_free_rate: float = 0.02):
  stats = {}  # Total Returns
  stats['tot_returns'] = np.exp(log_returns.sum()) - 1  
  # Mean Annual Returns
  stats['annual_returns'] = np.exp(log_returns.mean() * 252) - 1  
  # Annual Volatility
  stats['annual_volatility'] = log_returns.std() * np.sqrt(252)
  # Sortino Ratio
  annualized_downside = log_returns.loc[log_returns<0].std() * \
  stats['sortino_ratio'] = (stats['annual_returns'] - \
    risk_free_rate) / annualized_downside  
  # Sharpe Ratio
  stats['sharpe_ratio'] = (stats['annual_returns'] - \
    risk_free_rate) / stats['annual_volatility']  
  # Max Drawdown
  cum_returns = log_returns.cumsum() - 1
  peak = cum_returns.cummax()
  drawdown = peak - cum_returns
  max_idx = drawdown.argmax()
  stats['max_drawdown'] = 1 - np.exp(cum_returns[max_idx]) \
    / np.exp(peak[max_idx])
  # Max Drawdown Duration
  strat_dd = drawdown[drawdown==0]
  strat_dd_diff = strat_dd.index[1:] - strat_dd.index[:-1]
  strat_dd_days = x: x.days).values
  strat_dd_days = np.hstack([strat_dd_days,
    (drawdown.index[-1] - strat_dd.index[-1]).days])
  stats['max_drawdown_duration'] = strat_dd_days.max()
  return {k: np.round(v, 4) if type(v) == np.float_ else v
          for k, v in stats.items()}

I also added a few helper functions to get our returns and statistics for easy plotting and comparison.

Let’s get some extra data for our ticker to see if we can hit it big more than our gold mining ETF.

ticker = 'GDX'
start = '2000-01-01'
end = '2020-12-31'
yfObj = yf.Ticker(ticker)
data = yfObj.history(start=start, end=end)
# Drop unused columns
    ['Open', 'High', 'Low', 'Volume', 'Dividends', 'Stock Splits'], 
    axis=1, inplace=True)

P = 60
enter_long = 20
enter_short = 80
df_mr = TIIMeanReversion(data.copy(), P=P, enter_long=enter_long, 

fig, ax = plt.subplots(3, figsize=(12, 8), sharex=True)
ax[0].plot(df_mr['Close'], label='Close')
ax[0].plot(df_mr[f'SMA_{P}'], label=f'SMA({P})')
ax[0].set_ylabel('Price ($)')
ax[0].set_title(f'Price and {P}-Day SMA for {ticker}')

ax[1].plot(df_mr['TII'], label='TII')
ax[1].axhline(enter_short, c=colors[1], 
              label='Short Signal Line', linestyle=':')
ax[1].axhline(enter_long, c=colors[2], 
              label='Long Signal Line', linestyle=':')
ax[1].axhline(50, c=colors[3],
              label='Exit Line', linestyle=':')
ax[1].set_title('Trend Intensity Index')
ax[1].legend(bbox_to_anchor=[1, 0.65])

ax[2].plot(df_mr['strat_cum_returns']*100, label='Mean Reversion')
ax[2].plot(df_mr['cum_returns']*100, label='Buy and Hold')
ax[2].set_title('Cumulative Returns')
ax[2].set_ylabel('Returns (%)')

df_stats = pd.DataFrame(getStratStats(df_mr['log_returns']),
                        index=['Buy and Hold'])
df_stats = pd.concat([df_stats,
                        index=['Mean Reversion'])])

The mean reversion model yields some reasonable returns above and beyond the buy and hold approach. The risk adjusted metrics aren’t great, but it is a good boost against the underlying.

Momentum Trading

Like RSI and other oscillators, we can interpret the TII as a momentum indicator, buying when it breaks above the centerline and selling/shorting when it crosses below it. For this, we’ll add a bit of a wrinkle such that we’ll hold while the TII goes above an upper level and then sell if it proceeds to fall below that level. We treat the short side the same way. This will get us out of positions sooner, hopefully with a larger profit than if we held until it reversed all the way back to the centerline again.

def TIIMomentum(data, P=60, centerline=50, upper=80,
                lower=20, shorts=True):
  df = calcTrendIntensityIndex(data, P=P)
  position = np.zeros(df.shape[0])
  for i, (idx, row) in enumerate(df.iterrows()):
    if np.isnan(row['TII']):
      last_row = row.copy()
    if row['TII'] >= centerline and last_row['TII'] < centerline:
      # Go long if no position
      if position[i-1] != 1:
        position[i] = 1
    elif row['TII'] > centerline and position[i-1] == 1:
      # Check if broke below upper line
      if last_row['TII'] > upper and row['TII'] <= upper:
        position[i] = 0
        position[i] = 1
    elif position[i-1] == 1 and row['TII'] <= centerline:
      # Sell/short if broke below centerline
      if shorts:
        position[i] = -1
        position[i] = 0
    elif shorts:
      if row['TII'] <= centerline and last_row['TII'] > centerline:
        # Go short if no position
        if position[i-1] != -1:
          position[i] = -1
        elif row['TII'] <= centerline and position[i-1] == -1:
          # Check if broke above lower line
          if last_row['TII'] < lower and row['TII'] > lower:
            position[i] = 0
            position[i] = -1
        elif position[i-1] == -1 and row['TII'] > centerline:
          # Exit short and go long if it crosses
          position[i] = 1

    last_row = row.copy()
  df['position'] = position  
  return calcReturns(df)

The easiest way to get the logic right is just by looping over the data and buying/selling in each of the different cases. The code is a bit longer, but hopefully easier to understand.

Let’s move on to testing it with our standard settings.

P = 60
df_mom = TIIMomentum(data.copy(), P=P)

fig, ax = plt.subplots(3, figsize=(12, 8), sharex=True)
ax[0].plot(df_mom['Close'], label='Close')
ax[0].plot(df_mom[f'SMA_{P}'], label=f'SMA({P})')
ax[0].set_ylabel('Price ($)')
ax[0].set_title(f'Price and {P}-Day SMA for {ticker}')

ax[1].plot(df_mom['TII'], label='TII')
ax[1].axhline(20, c=colors[1], 
              label='Exit Short Signal Line', linestyle=':')
ax[1].axhline(80, c=colors[2], 
              label='Exit Long Signal Line', linestyle=':')
ax[1].axhline(50, c=colors[3],
              label='Center Line', linestyle=':')
ax[1].set_title('Trend Intensity Index')
ax[1].legend(bbox_to_anchor=[1, 0.65])

ax[2].plot(df_mom['strat_cum_returns']*100, label='Momentum')
ax[2].plot(df_mom['cum_returns']*100, label='Buy and Hold')
ax[2].set_title('Cumulative Returns')
ax[2].set_ylabel('Returns (%)')

df_stats = pd.concat([df_stats,

This strategy lost over 60% of its initial capital – clearly not what we were hoping for. The underlying is fairly volatile, so it may perform better if we reduce P to try to take advantage of some of these shorter moves. I leave that as an exercise to the reader.

Adding a Signal Line

Like the MACD, the TII is often traded with a signal line. This signal line is just the EMA of the TII (i.e. EMA(TII(P))).
To calculate this, we need to grab a couple of functions for the EMA calculation.

def _calcEMA(P, last_ema, N):
  return (P - last_ema) * (2 / (N + 1)) + last_ema

def calcEMA(series, N):
  series_mean = series.rolling(N).mean()
  ema = np.zeros(len(series))
  for i, (_, val) in enumerate(series_mean.iteritems()):
    if np.isnan(ema[i-1]):
      ema[i] += val
      ema[i] += _calcEMA(val, ema[i-1], N)
  return ema

We’ll use these functions to calculate the signal line. We’ll buy when the TII crosses above the signal line, and sell/short when the signal line crosses below.

We’ll code this up below:

def TIISignal(data, P=60, N=9, shorts=True):
  df = calcTrendIntensityIndex(data, P=P)
  df['SignalLine'] = calcEMA(df['TII'], N=N)
  df['position'] = np.nan
  df['position'] = np.where(df['TII']>=df['SignalLine'], 1, 
  if shorts:
    df['position'] = np.where(df['TII']<df['SignalLine'], -1,
    df['position'] = np.where(df['TII']<df['SignalLine'], 0,
  df['position'] = df['position'].ffill().fillna(0)
  return calcReturns(df)

This strategy is short and sweet. Just buy on those signal line cross-overs.

P = 60
N = 9
df_sig = TIISignal(data.copy(), P=P, N=N)

fig, ax = plt.subplots(3, figsize=(12, 8), sharex=True)
ax[0].plot(df_sig['Close'], label='Close')
ax[0].plot(df_sig[f'SMA_{P}'], label=f'SMA({P})')
ax[0].set_ylabel('Price ($)')
ax[0].set_title(f'Price and {P}-Day SMA for {ticker}')

ax[1].plot(df_sig['TII'], label='TII')
ax[1].plot(df_sig['SignalLine'], label='Signal Line')
ax[1].set_title('Trend Intensity Index and Signal Line')
ax[1].legend(bbox_to_anchor=[1, 0.65])

ax[2].plot(df_sig['strat_cum_returns']*100, label='Signal Line')
ax[2].plot(df_sig['cum_returns']*100, label='Buy and Hold')
ax[2].set_title('Cumulative Returns')
ax[2].set_ylabel('Returns (%)')

df_stats = pd.concat([df_stats,

This model missed out on the big gold bull market from 2008-2011, enduring a long and protracted drawdown. It did have some great returns as the gold price fell into 2016. After running flat for a few years, closely following the GDX, it started to pick up with the underlying and managed to get on the right side of the COVID crash – but then gave it all back as the GDX rebounded quickly.

Lots of volatility here and not much upside leads to some poor risk adjusted metrics. You can always adjust the standard P and N values used to see if you can find some better parameters for this one.

Trading with Signal Momentum

I decided to throw in a bonus model now that we have the signal line. We can use that as a classic momentum indicator buying when the TII signal crosses the centerline. In this case, I didn’t bother with trying to hit the tops/bottoms when momentum starts to wane like we did above, just buy and sell based on the centerline, which drastically simplifies the code.

def TIISignalMomentum(data, P=60, N=9, centerline=50,
  df = calcTrendIntensityIndex(data, P=P)
  df['SignalLine'] = calcEMA(df['TII'], N=N)
  df['position'] = np.nan
  df['position'] = np.where(df['SignalLine']>centerline, 1, 
  if shorts:
    df['position'] = np.where(df['SignalLine']<centerline, -1,
    df['position'] = np.where(df['SignalLine']<centerline, 0,
  df['position'] = df['position'].ffill().fillna(0)
  return calcReturns(df)

And to test it on our data:

P = 60
N = 9
df_sigM = TIISignalMomentum(data.copy(), P=P, N=N)

fig, ax = plt.subplots(3, figsize=(12, 8), sharex=True)
ax[0].plot(df_sigM['Close'], label='Close')
ax[0].plot(df_sigM[f'SMA_{P}'], label=f'SMA({P})')
ax[0].set_ylabel('Price ($)')
ax[0].set_title(f'Price and {P}-Day SMA for {ticker}')

ax[1].plot(df_sigM['TII'], label='TII')
ax[1].plot(df_sigM['SignalLine'], label='Signal Line')
ax[1].axhline(50, label='Centerline', c='k', linestyle=':')
ax[1].set_title('Trend Intensity Index and Signal Line')
ax[1].legend(bbox_to_anchor=[1, 0.65])

ax[2].plot(df_sigM['strat_cum_returns']*100, label='Signal Line')
ax[2].plot(df_sigM['cum_returns']*100, label='Buy and Hold')
ax[2].set_title('Cumulative Returns')
ax[2].set_ylabel('Returns (%)')

df_stats = pd.concat([df_stats,
                        index=['Signal Momentum'])])

This wound up being the worst performer of them all! This strategy lost over 70% of its initial capital and spent 17 years in a drawdown. I don’t know anyone who would have the patience to stick with a strategy to endure those kinds of losses.

Of course, you’ve got the standard knobs to play with to try to pull some better returns out of this one. Plus you could try adding the complexity from the previous momentum strategy to see how that could boost returns.

Improving Your Trading

The TII is designed to measure the strength of a trend. We walked through four different trading strategies, but none really shined. That could be due to a variety of factors – poor selection of the underlying security, bad parameterization, it ought to be combined with other indicators, or maybe this indicator is just terrible.

The only way to know for sure is by testing it.

Proper testing and trading is difficult. The code here should not be relied upon for running your account – it makes too many simplifying assumptions for a real system. It’s just here to teach you about various indicators, running a backtest, and give you a feel for some of the key metrics used to evaluate a strategy.

If you want a fuller backtest experience, check us out where we provide professional backtests and data in a no-code framework so you can test ideas and find valuable trading ideas quickly.