EdgeTools 전용 스크립트 및 전략

Risk Appetite Index What This Indicator Does The Risk Appetite Index measures market participants' willingness to take risk by analyzing multiple market factors. This indicator attempts to provide insights into overall market sentiment by combining information from different market segments into a single composite measure. How It Works The indicator uses a multi-factor approach that examines various aspects of market behavior including equity market conditions, interest rate environments, credit markets, volatility patterns, and other relevant market data. These factors are processed and combined to create a composite reading on a 0-100 scale. Theoretical Foundation The methodology is grounded in established financial theories including Modern Portfolio Theory principles for risk assessment, behavioral finance concepts regarding market sentiment cycles, and factor investing approaches for multi-dimensional market analysis. The indicator incorporates insights from academic research on market microstructure, volatility clustering phenomena, and cross-asset correlation patterns during different market regimes. The approach draws from research on fear and greed cycles in financial markets, term structure modeling, and credit risk assessment methodologies. Statistical techniques employed include robust normalization methods and composite index construction principles established in econometric literature. The methodology employs statistical techniques to normalize the different market inputs and reduce the impact of extreme values. The final output aims to reflect the general level of risk appetite present in financial markets. Signal Interpretation Values above 60 may suggest higher risk appetite conditions in markets. Values below 30 may indicate lower risk appetite environments. The 30-60 range represents neutral or mixed conditions where market sentiment may be unclear. The indicator includes threshold levels that may help identify potential changes in market conditions. However, like all technical indicators, these levels should be considered as potential reference points rather than definitive signals. Research Context The approach builds upon established sentiment measurement methodologies documented in financial literature, including studies on VIX-based fear indicators, credit spread analysis, yield curve interpretation, and cross-asset momentum research. The multi-factor design reflects principles from academic research on composite economic indicators and systematic risk assessment frameworks used by central banks and institutional investors. The threshold-based signal generation follows established precedents in quantitative finance research regarding regime detection and market state classification methodologies documented in institutional portfolio management literature. Key Features Analytics Dashboard: Displays real-time information about current readings, market regime assessment, and signal quality indicators. Visual Tools: Multiple color schemes and background options to help visualize current market conditions and trends. Alert System: Optional alerts for threshold crossings and regime changes to help monitor market conditions. Quality Assessment: Built-in filters attempt to distinguish between higher and lower confidence readings based on data quality and market conditions. How to Use This indicator is designed to be used on daily timeframes and displays in a separate panel below the main chart. It works best when used as part of a comprehensive market analysis approach rather than as a standalone trading tool. The dashboard provides additional context about current readings and may help users understand the quality and reliability of current signals. Users should consider multiple factors and conduct their own analysis when making trading decisions. Important Considerations This indicator is designed for educational and analytical purposes. It does not guarantee profitable trading results and should not be used as the sole basis for trading decisions. Market conditions can change rapidly and unpredictably. Past behavior of any indicator does not predict future market movements. All trading involves substantial risk and may not be suitable for all investors. The indicator's effectiveness may vary across different market environments and conditions. Users should consider their own risk tolerance and investment objectives when using any analytical tool. Data Limitations The indicator relies on multiple external data sources and may be affected by data quality, market holidays, or limited trading hours. Performance may vary during unusual market conditions or structural changes in financial markets. Like all quantitative models, this indicator has inherent limitations and may not capture all relevant market factors or unprecedented market events. Intended Use This indicator may be useful for traders and analysts seeking additional tools for market sentiment analysis. It is designed for those who want to incorporate multiple market factors into their decision-making process. Academic Research Foundation The development approach incorporates established research methodologies from quantitative finance literature. Key theoretical frameworks include: Factor Models: Based on research into multi-factor asset pricing models and their application to portfolio construction and risk management practices developed in academic finance literature. Behavioral Finance: Incorporates findings from behavioral economics research on market anomalies, investor psychology, and sentiment-driven market movements as documented in financial psychology studies. Market Microstructure: Utilizes principles from market microstructure research regarding information flow, price discovery mechanisms, and cross-market relationships established in institutional finance literature. Risk Management: Built upon established risk measurement frameworks including Value at Risk methodologies, stress testing approaches, and systematic risk assessment techniques documented in risk management research. Econometric Methods: Employs statistical techniques based on time series analysis, robust estimation methods, and composite index construction principles established in econometric literature and central bank research methodologies. The proprietary methodology combines various market inputs in an attempt to provide insights into overall risk appetite trends, though results may vary and should always be considered alongside other forms of analysis. Risk Warnings Past performance does not guarantee future results. All trading involves substantial risk of loss. This indicator does not eliminate market risk and should be used as part of a comprehensive trading plan. Market conditions can change rapidly and unexpectedly. No indicator is accurate in all market conditions. Technical Requirements Optimal use on daily charts with TradingView Pro or higher for real-time data access. Designed primarily for US equity market analysis during regular trading hours. Note: This is a closed-source indicator with proprietary calculation methods designed to maintain effectiveness and provide users with a unique analytical tool.

Credit Cycle Index The Credit Cycle Index represents a systematic approach to measuring financial market conditions through the aggregation of multiple credit and risk metrics. This indicator draws conceptual inspiration from academic research on credit cycles and their relationship to asset returns, building on the work of Gilchrist and Zakrajsek (2012) who demonstrated that credit spreads contain significant predictive information about economic activity and equity market performance. The indicator synthesizes publicly available market data into a unified framework that captures shifts in financial conditions before they become apparent in price action. The theoretical foundation of credit cycle analysis rests on decades of research documenting the relationship between credit market conditions and asset returns. Bernanke and Gertler (1995) established the credit channel of monetary policy transmission, demonstrating how financial conditions amplify and propagate economic shocks through the broader economy. Schularick and Taylor (2012) documented how credit growth and credit conditions historically preceded major market dislocations, while Krishnamurthy and Muir (2017) showed that credit market variables exhibit predictable cyclical patterns that correlate with subsequent equity returns. These empirical findings suggest that monitoring credit conditions provides valuable information about the risk environment facing investors. Unlike sentiment indicators that employ contrarian logic based on the assumption that crowd psychology overshoots at extremes, the Credit Cycle Index operates on regime-based principles. Credit market conditions tend to persist rather than mean-revert quickly. Favorable credit conditions typically support continued risk asset performance, while deteriorating conditions often precede extended periods of weakness. This approach recognizes that credit cycles operate on different timescales than sentiment cycles and require different strategic responses. Methodology and calculation framework The methodology underlying the Credit Cycle Index incorporates statistical normalization techniques that transform raw market data into comparable standardized scores. Each component factor undergoes robust calculation using median absolute deviation to reduce sensitivity to outliers, a technique that proves particularly valuable during market stress when traditional standard deviation measures become unreliable. These normalized components aggregate using a weighting scheme that adjusts dynamically based on prevailing market conditions, with stress-sensitive components receiving increased weight during periods of elevated market vulnerability. The model produces values on a scale from zero to one hundred, where higher readings indicate favorable financial conditions and lower readings signal deteriorating conditions. Readings above seventy suggest healthy credit environments where risk assets typically perform well. The zone between forty and seventy represents normal conditions without strong directional bias. Readings below forty indicate meaningful stress, with values below twenty signaling crisis-level conditions across multiple components. The model incorporates quality filters designed to enhance signal reliability. A consensus filter examines whether multiple underlying components align in the same direction, adding weight to signals when broad agreement exists across different market factors. A momentum filter requires positive index momentum to persist for a minimum duration before confirming entry signals, preventing premature positioning during temporary rebounds within deteriorating environments. These refinements reduce the probability of acting on spurious readings. Professional application and portfolio integration Professional portfolio managers recognize the value of credit condition indicators as tools for risk management and tactical allocation. The fundamental insight underlying credit-based strategies is empirically robust: favorable credit conditions create supportive environments for risk assets, while deteriorating conditions warrant defensive positioning. Lopez-Salido, Stein and Zakrajsek (2017) found that credit market sentiment significantly predicts economic activity and asset returns, with their research suggesting that credit conditions lead equity market performance by several months. For institutional investors operating with fiduciary responsibilities, the Credit Cycle Index serves as one input in risk management frameworks. Asset managers might use deteriorating readings to trigger portfolio review processes, stress testing exercises, or adjustments to tactical allocation overlays. The indicator proves valuable when it diverges from prevailing market narratives, as such divergences often precede meaningful market inflections. Systematic investors can incorporate the index as a conditioning variable that adjusts position sizing based on the prevailing credit environment. The integration of credit analysis into investment practice finds support in the concept that credit markets often lead equity markets in recognizing fundamental shifts. Credit market participants including bond investors and lenders frequently possess informational advantages regarding corporate financial health and economic conditions. When credit conditions deteriorate, this often reflects information that has not yet fully incorporated into equity prices, creating opportunities for investors who monitor these signals systematically. Practical implementation for individual investors The practical implementation of the indicator follows straightforward principles. When the index rises into the favorable zone above seventy with quality filter confirmation, this suggests credit conditions support risk asset exposure. When the index falls below the caution threshold of forty, defensive positioning becomes appropriate. This could manifest as reducing equity allocations, increasing cash reserves, or implementing protective strategies. The zone between these thresholds suggests balanced conditions where other analytical frameworks should take precedence. Individual investors can derive benefit from the indicator by treating readings as alerts warranting examination of portfolio positioning. A reading in the favorable zone might prompt consideration of whether current equity exposure aligns with target allocations. A reading in the stress zone could trigger review of whether risk reduction measures merit consideration. The indicator should inform rather than dictate investment decisions, serving as one perspective within a broader analytical framework. The decision to implement a credit condition indicator within an investment process requires consideration of how it complements existing approaches. Fundamental investors can use credit readings to assess whether the risk environment supports their positioning. Technical analysts may find that credit conditions help contextualize price patterns, with favorable conditions adding conviction to bullish setups and deteriorating conditions warranting caution. Quantitative investors might incorporate credit factors into multi-factor models or use them to adjust position sizing. Trading behavior and strategy characteristics The Credit Cycle Index employs a regime-following methodology that differs from both trend following and contrarian approaches. The trading logic accumulates positions when credit conditions indicate favorable environments and reduces exposure when conditions deteriorate. This approach positions with prevailing credit market signals rather than against them, recognizing that credit conditions exhibit persistence. The observation that the indicator may signal favorable conditions while price volatility continues represents an inherent characteristic of regime-based strategies. When the indicator signals favorable conditions, this indicates that underlying credit metrics remain supportive despite surface-level price fluctuations. The indicator identifies phases where credit fundamentals support risk positioning, though short-term price movements may deviate from this underlying support. Potential users should understand this behavioral characteristic before implementation. The strategy will maintain risk exposure during favorable credit conditions even when equity prices experience temporary weakness. It will advocate defensive positioning during credit deterioration even when equity prices appear stable. Success requires trust in the underlying credit signals and willingness to accept that price action and credit conditions may temporarily diverge. Suitability and implementation requirements The Credit Cycle Index aligns appropriately with investors possessing specific characteristics. First, a medium to long term investment horizon proves essential. Credit cycles operate over weeks to months rather than days, and the strategy requires patience to capture regime shifts. Second, a risk management orientation that prioritizes avoiding large drawdowns suits the defensive nature of the indicator during stress periods. Third, comfort with systematic decision making helps maintain discipline when credit signals conflict with prevailing market narratives. The indicator proves less suitable for day traders seeking intraday signals, investors who prefer purely contrarian approaches, those requiring constant market exposure regardless of conditions, and individuals unable to tolerate periods when the indicator conflicts with price momentum. Institutional investors with strict benchmark tracking requirements may find the strategy incompatible with their mandates despite its risk management merits. For appropriate investors, the Credit Cycle Index offers a systematic framework for monitoring financial conditions and adjusting risk exposure accordingly. By providing an objective assessment of credit market health, the indicator helps investors recognize environment shifts and consider positioning adjustments when conditions warrant. The strategy demands patience and discipline but rewards those characteristics with the potential for improved risk-adjusted returns through drawdown reduction during stress periods. References Ang, A. and Timmermann, A. (2012) Regime changes and financial markets. Annual Review of Financial Economics, 4, pp. 313 to 337. Bernanke, B.S. and Gertler, M. (1995) Inside the black box: The credit channel of monetary policy transmission. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 9(4), pp. 27 to 48. Campbell, J.Y. and Thompson, S.B. (2008) Predicting excess stock returns out of sample: Can anything beat the historical average? The Review of Financial Studies, 21(4), pp. 1509 to 1531. Collin-Dufresne, P., Goldstein, R.S. and Martin, J.S. (2001) The determinants of credit spread changes. The Journal of Finance, 56(6), pp. 2177 to 2207. Gilchrist, S. and Zakrajsek, E. (2012) Credit spreads and business cycle fluctuations. American Economic Review, 102(4), pp. 1692 to 1720. Hamilton, J.D. (1989) A new approach to the economic analysis of nonstationary time series and the business cycle. Econometrica, 57(2), pp. 357 to 384. Krishnamurthy, A. and Muir, T. (2017) How credit cycles across a financial crisis. NBER Working Paper No. 23850. Lopez-Salido, D., Stein, J.C. and Zakrajsek, E. (2017) Credit-market sentiment and the business cycle. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 132(3), pp. 1373 to 1426. Merton, R.C. (1974) On the pricing of corporate debt: The risk structure of interest rates. The Journal of Finance, 29(2), pp. 449 to 470. Schularick, M. and Taylor, A.M. (2012) Credit booms gone bust: Monetary policy, leverage cycles, and financial crises, 1870 to 2008. American Economic Review, 102(2), pp. 1029 to 1061.

Volatility Term Structure Index Volatility Term Structure Index The Volatility Term Structure Index represents a systematic approach to measuring market stress and complacency through the analysis of volatility derivatives and their term structure relationships. This indicator draws conceptual inspiration from academic research on volatility forecasting and the informational content embedded in options markets. The theoretical foundation rests on decades of research documenting the relationship between implied volatility patterns and subsequent market returns. Black (1976) first documented the inverse relationship between equity returns and volatility changes, establishing a fundamental principle in financial economics. Whaley (2000) demonstrated how volatility indices reflect aggregate market fear and uncertainty, with systematic patterns preceding major market dislocations. Engle (2004) provided foundational work on volatility modeling that underpins modern risk measurement approaches. Unlike momentum strategies that follow price trends or contrarian approaches that bet against prevailing sentiment, this indicator operates on regime-identification principles. The relationship between short-term and long-term implied volatility reveals market expectations about risk evolution. When markets expect calm conditions to persist, the volatility term structure typically exhibits an upward slope. When stress emerges, this relationship inverts as near-term uncertainty exceeds longer-term expectations. This structural information reflects the aggregate positioning of sophisticated derivatives market participants. Methodology and calculation framework The methodology incorporates statistical normalization techniques that transform raw volatility data into comparable standardized scores. Each component factor undergoes robust z-score calculation using median absolute deviation to reduce sensitivity to outliers, a technique that proves particularly valuable during market stress when traditional standard deviation measures become unreliable. These normalized components aggregate using a weighting scheme informed by historical predictive power and correlation characteristics. The indicator produces values on a scale from zero to one hundred, where higher readings indicate calm market conditions and lower readings signal elevated stress. Readings above seventy suggest complacent environments where equity markets typically perform well. The zone between forty and seventy represents mixed conditions without strong directional bias. Readings below forty indicate meaningful stress, with values below twenty signaling crisis-level conditions. Internal quality mechanisms enhance signal reliability by requiring confirmation across multiple underlying factors before generating actionable signals. This reduces the probability of acting on isolated or unreliable readings and improves overall signal consistency. Professional application and portfolio integration Professional portfolio managers recognize the value of volatility regime indicators for risk management and tactical allocation. The fundamental insight is empirically robust: periods of low and stable volatility create supportive environments for equities, while regime transitions and elevated uncertainty warrant caution. Bollerslev, Tauchen and Zhou (2009) found that variance risk premium significantly predicts equity market returns, with volatility conditions leading price performance. For institutional investors, the index serves as one input in risk management frameworks. Asset managers might use deteriorating readings to trigger portfolio review processes, stress testing exercises, or tactical allocation adjustments. The indicator proves valuable when it diverges from consensus narratives, as volatility markets often recognize fundamental shifts before they appear in prices. Systematic investors can incorporate the index as a conditioning variable for position sizing. This integration finds support in the concept that derivatives markets often lead equity markets. Options market participants including market makers and institutional hedgers frequently possess informational advantages regarding expected market movements and tail risk. Practical implementation for individual investors When the index rises into the favorable zone above seventy with confirmed signal quality, volatility conditions support equity exposure. When the index falls below forty, reducing allocations, increasing cash reserves, or implementing protective strategies becomes appropriate. The zone between these thresholds suggests mixed conditions where other analytical frameworks should take precedence. Individual investors can treat readings as alerts warranting portfolio examination. A favorable reading might prompt consideration of whether current equity exposure aligns with targets. A stress reading could trigger review of risk reduction measures. The indicator should inform rather than dictate decisions, serving as one perspective within a broader analytical framework. Fundamental investors can use volatility readings to assess whether the risk environment supports their positioning. Technical analysts may find that volatility conditions help contextualize price patterns. Quantitative investors might incorporate volatility factors into multi-factor models. Trading behavior and strategy characteristics The index employs a regime-based methodology identifying periods when market conditions favor risk exposure versus caution. The trading logic accumulates positions when volatility conditions indicate calm environments and reduces exposure when conditions deteriorate. This approach positions with prevailing volatility market signals, recognizing that volatility regimes exhibit meaningful persistence. The indicator may signal favorable conditions while price fluctuations continue. This reflects underlying volatility metrics remaining supportive despite surface-level movements. The strategy maintains exposure during favorable volatility conditions even when prices experience temporary weakness, and advocates caution during volatility deterioration even when prices appear stable. Success requires trust in the underlying signals and acceptance that price action and volatility conditions may temporarily diverge. Suitability and implementation requirements The index aligns with investors possessing specific characteristics. A medium to long term horizon proves essential as volatility regimes operate over weeks to months. A risk management orientation that prioritizes avoiding large drawdowns suits the defensive nature during stress periods. Comfort with systematic decision making helps maintain discipline when signals conflict with market consensus. The indicator proves less suitable for day traders, investors requiring constant market exposure, and those unable to tolerate periods when the indicator conflicts with price trends. Institutional investors with strict benchmark tracking requirements may find the strategy incompatible with their mandates. For appropriate investors, the index offers a systematic framework for monitoring market conditions. By providing an objective assessment of volatility regime health, it helps recognize environment shifts and consider positioning adjustments. The strategy demands patience and discipline but rewards those characteristics with potential for improved risk-adjusted returns through drawdown reduction during stress periods. References Ang, A. and Chen, J. (2002) Asymmetric correlations of equity portfolios. Journal of Financial Economics, 63(3). Black, F. (1976) Studies of stock price volatility changes. Proceedings of the 1976 Meetings of the American Statistical Association, Business and Economics Statistics Section. Bollerslev, T., Tauchen, G. and Zhou, H. (2009) Expected stock returns and variance risk premia. The Review of Financial Studies, 22(11). Engle, R. (2004) Risk and volatility: Econometric models and financial practice. American Economic Review, 94(3). Whaley, R.E. (2000) The investor fear gauge. The Journal of Portfolio Management, 26(3).

Edgetools

이 유료 공간에 포함된 내용