Trend bearish_trend_breakout

Bearish Trend Breakout

Identifies stocks trading near short-term highs but within long-term lows, confirmed by a 20-day new high. Triggers when price is above the Nth percentile of the short range AND below the Nth percentile of the long range AND makes a new N-day high.

Signal family

Trend — Signals that fire when price is continuing or reversing an established directional move. Momentum-following by nature.

Parameters

Name Description Default Range
short_months Short range (calendar months) 3 1–6
short_percentile Short range percentile 80 50–99
long_years Long range (calendar years) 5 2–10
long_percentile Long range percentile 25 1–50
breakout_period New high lookback (days) 20 5–60

Historical context

185,074 triggers on 10,936 tickers, 1993-01-27 → 2026-05-01. Universe: US large-cap (mcap ≥ $100,000,000, price ≥ $1). Long-only convention: BUY at open T+1, hold the horizon, compare to S&P 500 Equal Weight over the same window.

Methodology footnotes

Benchmarks shown in the detail tables: spxew (S&P 500 Equal Weight — primary, median-stock view, avoids the 2020+ megacap-concentration distortion), spx (S&P 500 cap-weighted, distorted post-2020), msci (MSCI World USD). Per-stock regime tags: trending = ADX(14) ≥ 25, high vol = 20d realized annualized vol ≥ 20%. 1d return = intraday T+1 open→close; 20d = open T+1 to close T+20.

At a glance — alpha vs S&P 500 Equal Weight, US-only

Holding-period sensitivity. Bullish columns: positive = signal worked (long the trigger beat the index). Bearish columns: negative = signal worked (the flagged stock underperformed).

Horizon Bullish α
5-day +0.15%
20-day +0.89%
60-day +1.66%
1-year +8.36%
Random-date null check (20-day): Bullish: beats random (p=0.005)

Bearish Trend Breakout is a single-direction signal — only the bullish side is meaningful.

Where does BEARISH_TREND_BREAKOUT actually fire?

The bucket distribution often reveals what the signal really is, regardless of its textbook label. Heavy concentration in "non-trending + high vol" = it's mostly a chop-market event. Heavy in "trending + low vol" = it picks up the smooth grinds. Read the chart before the alpha numbers — context shapes everything that follows.

Bearish Trend Breakout (bearish_trend_breakout) — trigger count distribution by per-stock regime quadrant (trending/non-trending × high/low realized volatility) for , US-only universe

Does it work in every regime?

Trigger alpha split by the host stock's own regime on the trigger date — trending or ranging, high-vol or low-vol. The 20d alpha you'd actually capture if you took the trade. Bars matching your direction's "right" sign (green) = the signal worked in that regime; opposite sign = avoid it there. A signal with one strong-positive bar and three flat ones isn't a "20d alpha" signal — it's a "20d alpha when the stock is X" signal.

Bearish Trend Breakout (bearish_trend_breakout) — mean 20-day alpha versus S&P 500 Equal Weight by per-stock regime quadrant,  side by side
Trending + Low vol
Stock in a clean directional move with low realized volatility. Textbook "trend-following paradise" — smooth grind with little whipsaw risk.
Trending + High vol
Violent directional moves — parabolic rallies, crisis selloffs. Trend exists but the path is noisy. Signal timing may be imprecise.
Non-trending + Low vol
Quiet chop, summer doldrums, consolidations. No directional bias but also no big swings — small edges become reliable if they exist at all.
Non-trending + High vol
Choppy and violent — the classical "whipsaw zone" for momentum signals. Crossovers and breakouts fire repeatedly without follow-through.

Does it work in every era?

A multi-year average can hide major instability. The sample splits into three windows: 2015–2019 (pre-COVID), 2020–2022 (pandemic + 2022 bear), and 2023+ (post-ZIRP + AI megacap rally). All three matching your direction's "right" sign = the signal is durable. One era doing all the work = a regime-specific edge that may not repeat. The bigger the variance across eras, the smaller the position you should run. Long-history signal: requires 1260 trading days of prior data per ticker. The earliest era may show fewer triggers as a result.

Bearish Trend Breakout (bearish_trend_breakout) — 20-day alpha split by historical sub-period (2015-2019, 2020-2022, 2023+) to check consistency across market regimes

Longer-horizon views

This signal carries a long lookback window (1260 trading days of prior history required per ticker), suggesting it's designed to catch moves that play out over months, not days. The charts below repeat the quadrant and sub-period analyses at the 60-day and 1-year (252-day) horizons so you can see how the signal's relationship with the benchmark evolves with holding period.

60-day alpha by stock regime

Bearish Trend Breakout (bearish_trend_breakout) — mean 60-day alpha versus S&P 500 Equal Weight by per-stock regime quadrant

60-day alpha by era

Bearish Trend Breakout (bearish_trend_breakout) — 60-day alpha split by historical sub-period

1-year alpha by stock regime

Bearish Trend Breakout (bearish_trend_breakout) — mean 1-year (252 trading day) alpha versus S&P 500 Equal Weight by per-stock regime quadrant

1-year alpha by era

Bearish Trend Breakout (bearish_trend_breakout) — 1-year alpha split by historical sub-period

1-year observed alpha vs random-date null

Bearish Trend Breakout (bearish_trend_breakout) — bullish 1-year observed alpha versus the random-date permutation null distribution

↑ Bullish triggers

Bench Metric 1d 5d 20d 60d 252d
spx Stock % +0.03% +0.26% +1.19% +3.12% +14.63%
Bench % +0.03% +0.21% +0.73% +3.00% +12.91%
Alpha % -0.01% +0.05% +0.45% -0.06% +1.59%
Median alpha -0.13% -0.51% -1.33% -3.87% -8.09%
Hit rate (α>0) 47.1% 45.8% 44.7% 41.1% 41.2%
p (naive) 0.5119 0.0144 <0.001 0.3352 <0.001
p (HAC) 0.5096 0.0654 <0.001 0.7099 0.0163
N 179,558 173,577 171,983 167,129 129,633
msci Stock % +0.03% +0.26% +1.19% +3.12% +14.63%
Bench % +0.04% +0.17% +0.58% +2.53% +10.81%
Alpha % -0.02% +0.09% +0.61% +0.40% +3.53%
Median alpha -0.15% -0.47% -1.20% -3.43% -6.41%
Hit rate (α>0) 46.9% 46.0% 45.1% 41.9% 43.0%
p (naive) 0.0087 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
p (HAC) 0.0083 0.0006 <0.001 0.0118 <0.001
N 178,337 172,488 171,887 165,758 128,622
spxew Stock % +0.03% +0.26% +1.19% +3.12% +14.63%
Bench % +0.03% +0.12% +0.28% +1.26% +6.02%
Alpha % -0.01% +0.15% +0.89% +1.66% +8.36%
Median alpha -0.13% -0.39% -0.84% -2.06% -2.16%
Hit rate (α>0) 47.3% 46.6% 46.5% 44.8% 47.3%
p (naive) 0.5496 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
p (HAC) 0.5471 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
N 178,507 172,160 171,462 165,734 128,799
Distribution of all 20d alpha outcomes for this direction. Median and winsorized mean shown.
Bearish Trend Breakout (bearish_trend_breakout) — bullish 20-day alpha histogram showing distribution of per-trigger returns
Observed 20d alpha (vertical line) against the null distribution of random-date firing. If the line is deep inside the null cloud, the signal adds no information. If it sits in a tail, the signal is doing real work in that direction.
Bearish Trend Breakout (bearish_trend_breakout) — bullish 20-day observed alpha versus random-date permutation null (200 iterations)
Permutation null detail — all horizons × both benchmarks
200-iteration null: for each ticker, sample N random dates from its history (matching observed trigger count) and compute the same alpha. Both observed and null are baseline-centered per ticker (each ticker's own baseline alpha is subtracted), so the null distribution is centered on ~0 and the comparison tests signal effect alone — not the universe-selection lift that all surviving large-caps share. pperm = one-sided fraction of null iters with mean in the "signal was right" tail (right for bullish, left for bearish).
Horizon Bench Observed lift Null mean Null 95% CI pperm
1d spx +0.12% +0.09% [+0.08%, +0.10%] 0.005
1d msci +0.13% +0.09% [+0.08%, +0.11%] 0.005
1d spxew +0.13% +0.08% [+0.07%, +0.09%] 0.005
5d spx +0.60% +0.39% [+0.36%, +0.42%] 0.005
5d msci +0.63% +0.39% [+0.36%, +0.43%] 0.005
5d spxew +0.66% +0.37% [+0.34%, +0.40%] 0.005
20d spx +2.20% +1.24% [+1.19%, +1.30%] 0.005
20d msci +2.23% +1.25% [+1.20%, +1.31%] 0.005
20d spxew +2.43% +1.22% [+1.16%, +1.28%] 0.005
60d spx +3.97% +2.63% [+2.53%, +2.73%] 0.005
60d msci +3.97% +2.64% [+2.54%, +2.73%] 0.005
60d spxew +4.97% +2.56% [+2.45%, +2.65%] 0.005
252d spx +14.04% +5.69% [+5.50%, +5.87%] 0.005
252d msci +13.46% +5.60% [+5.40%, +5.79%] 0.005
252d spxew +16.55% +5.28% [+5.09%, +5.47%] 0.005

Example triggers on US large-caps (2023+, mcap ≥ $30B)

Six recent bullish BEARISH_TREND_BREAKOUT triggers on US mega-caps. Top three: the signal's best outcomes. Bottom three: the worst. Catalyst-driven outliers (|α| > 25%) excluded so what's left is the signal's own typical good and bad days, not earnings shocks.

Strongest outcomes (what BEARISH_TREND_BREAKOUT looks like when it works)
Weakest outcomes (what BEARISH_TREND_BREAKOUT looks like when it fails)
Stock-regime quadrants (2×2 per-stock, 20d alpha detail table)
Each quadrant groups triggers by the stock's own ADX(14) and RV(20) at the trigger date — the textbook conditioning variable (not market-level). Stock %, bench %, alpha %, and HAC p-value shown for each benchmark.
Quadrant N Stock % (spx) Bench % (spx) Alpha % (spx) p (HAC) Stock % (msci) Bench % (msci) Alpha % (msci) p (HAC) Stock % (spxew) Bench % (spxew) Alpha % (spxew) p (HAC)
Trending + Low vol Clean directional grind, low whipsaw 15,861 +0.90% +0.34% +0.45% 0.0085 +0.90% +0.24% +0.56% 0.0010 +0.90% -0.20% +0.98% <0.001
Trending + High vol Crisis selloff or parabolic rally 83,438 +1.25% +0.77% +0.49% <0.001 +1.25% +0.61% +0.66% <0.001 +1.25% +0.29% +0.96% <0.001
Non-trending + Low vol Quiet chop, summer doldrums 17,254 +0.77% +0.40% +0.38% 0.0001 +0.77% +0.29% +0.49% <0.001 +0.77% -0.04% +0.81% <0.001
Non-trending + High vol Classical "whipsaw zone" for momentum 68,521 +1.34% +0.87% +0.46% <0.001 +1.34% +0.70% +0.62% <0.001 +1.34% +0.45% +0.85% <0.001
Sub-period breakdown table (20d alpha)
Historical clustering check. If alpha concentrates in one era, the signal's robustness is questionable.
Period N Alpha % (spx) p (HAC) Alpha % (msci) p (HAC) Alpha % (spxew) p (HAC)
2015-2019 2015-01-01 → 2020-01-01 264 -12.23% 0.0098 -11.86% 0.0120 -11.28% 0.0163
2020-2022 2020-01-01 → 2023-01-01 51,582 +0.59% <0.001 +0.73% <0.001 +0.34% 0.0060
2023-2026 2023-01-01 → 2099-01-01 132,730 +0.41% <0.001 +0.58% <0.001 +1.12% <0.001

Methodology and caveats

How to read. Entry at open of T+1 (one trading day after the signal fires on close of T). 20d = open T+1 to close T+20. Alpha = stock return − benchmark return over the same window (Convention A, single-sided, textbook). For bullish triggers, POSITIVE alpha = signal was right. For bearish triggers, NEGATIVE alpha = signal was right (stock underperformed market). No sign-flipping; the direction of the bet determines what "good" looks like. Per-stock regime is each stock's own ADX(14) and RV(20) at the trigger date — not market-wide state.

Three p-values, three robustness tests. (a) p_naive: scipy one-sample t-test on winsorized alphas. Optimistic because overlapping 20d windows on the same ticker inflate effective N. (b) p_hac: Newey-West HAC with lag = horizon — corrects for the overlap and is the academic-finance standard. (c) p_perm: fraction of 200 random-date null iterations with mean ≥ observed. Tests whether the signal beats random date selection at all. A signal that clears all three (pnaive, phac, pperm all < 0.05) has real information; a signal that fails pperm has zero edge even if the t-test says "significant."

Caveats. (i) Universe reflects today's active tickers; delisted losers pruned → survivorship bias. (ii) Mcap ≥ $100M filter uses today's snapshot, not point-in-time — mild lookahead on which stocks enter the sample, not on returns. (iii) Means and p-values use winsorized alphas (1/99 percentile) to prevent data errors from dominating. Medians and hit rates use raw data. (iv) Zero transaction costs assumed. Realistic bid-ask + commissions remove 20–40bps from 20d alpha on US large-caps, more on small-cap. Sub-20bps alpha is noise in practice. (v) Past performance does not predict future results.

How to use this

1 · When to reach for this signal

Use Bearish Trend Breakout bullish as a long-side screening tile. Observed 20d alpha vs S&P 500 Equal Weight is +0.45%, which beats random (permutation test, 200 iterations). The bearish side does not add edge (unknown) — treat it as noise, not a short trigger.

2 · When it works — the setups that drive it

  • Best bullish setup: Trending + High vol — alpha +0.49% / 20d on 83,438 historical triggers.
  • Best era for bullish: 2020-2022 — alpha +0.59% / 20d.

3 · When it fails — common false positives

  • Weakest bullish cell: Non-trending + Low vol — alpha +0.38% / 20d on 17,254 triggers.
  • Worst era for bullish: 2015-2019 — alpha -12.23% / 20d.

Signal-specific failure patterns

Signal underperforms cap-weighted SPX but is roughly flat vs SPXEW
Across 27,548 valid triggers on US large-caps since 2020-05-01 (the signal requires 5 years of prior history, so the first valid trigger is 2020; 2015-2019 bucket is empty by construction), BTB bullish produces deeply negative alpha against cap-weighted SPX at every horizon, but is roughly flat against the equal-weight SPXEW benchmark. The gap IS the story: BTB fires on names that have been beaten down for 5 years — by construction it avoids the megacap winners carrying the cap-weighted index. Against the equal-weight median stock, the signal's picks are roughly as good.
evidence: 252d vs SPX: α=−7.31%, p(HAC)<0.001, p_perm=1.000. 252d vs SPXEW: α=+1.01%, p=0.57 (not significant). 20d vs SPX: α=−0.43% p<0.001; vs SPXEW: α=−0.02% p=0.93.
Damage vs SPX compounds with horizon
Against cap-weighted SPX the alpha is mildly negative at short horizons and becomes deeply negative by 1-year: 1d=−0.03%, 5d=−0.06%, 20d=−0.43%, 60d=−1.78%, 252d=−7.31%. This is what you'd expect if the signal is systematically selecting names the megacap-dominant index is LEAVING BEHIND for multi-month windows. Against SPXEW the same profile compresses to ~zero: 20d=−0.02%, 60d=−0.21%, 252d=+1.01% (point-estimate positive but statistically indistinguishable from zero).
evidence: vs SPX 1d/5d/20d/60d/252d: −0.03, −0.06, −0.43, −1.78, −7.31. vs SPXEW: −0.03, +0.00, −0.02, −0.21, +1.01.
2020-2022 sub-period was a loser; 2023-2026 flipped slightly positive vs SPXEW
The 2020-2022 slice (3,675 triggers, α_spxew=−1.86% at 20d) was rough — forced-recovery-era bounces bought the wrong end. In 2023-2026 (23,873 triggers, α_spxew=+0.27% at 20d) the edge turned slightly positive vs SPXEW though still strongly negative vs cap-weighted SPX (−7.38% at 252d). Pattern: concentration-rally environments hurt BTB against SPX but the signal's stock-selection is consistent with the broad equal-weight tape.
evidence: 20d α_spxew: 2020-22 −1.86 (N=3,675), 2023-26 +0.27 (N=23,873). 252d α_spx: 2020-22 −6.27, 2023-26 −7.38.
Worst against SPX in 'trending low vol' regime at 1-year
At 252d vs SPX, the most damaging regime is 'trending + low vol' (α=−10.31%, N=1,237) — what classical TA calls the cleanest setup. Stocks that are already in a smooth trend yet fire BTB (which means they had a BEARISH 5-year trend that broke) underperform by 10pp/year against SPX. Even against SPXEW the regime effect is smaller but still present: a structural reversal in a smoothly-declining name tends to give back most of its catch-up move.
evidence: 252d α_spx by regime: trending_low_vol −10.31, trending_high_vol −6.41, nontrend_low_vol −8.11, nontrend_high_vol −7.58.
Permutation null: observed is in the right tail of random-date firing (wrong direction)
For a bullish signal under Convention A, we want OBSERVED alpha HIGHER than the random-date null distribution. BTB bullish at 20d/60d/252d vs SPX shows p_perm=1.000 — observed is worse than every random-date draw in 200 iterations. Against SPXEW the same horizons show p_perm=0.99, 1.00, 0.95 — still the wrong tail, just less starkly. A random-date strategy that fires the same number of triggers per ticker beats the BTB signal against every benchmark at every horizon.
evidence: p_perm at 20d/60d/252d vs SPX: 1.000, 1.000, 1.000. Same horizons vs SPXEW: 0.990, 1.000, 0.945.

4 · Pairing inside a screen

The statements below describe how this signal relates to others by construction — which indicator family it belongs to, and where same-family redundancy might reduce the independence of evidence inside a Daily Report. These are taxonomic classifications drawn from standard technical-analysis texts; they are not pairing backtests. A multi-signal convergence backtest is planned but not yet run.

No classical-TA family-redundancy claim applies to this signal. Pairing behaviour is a backtest question and has not been measured yet.

What would likely rescue this signal

This block calls out the data or conditions that could turn a technically weak signal into a usable one in a composite screen. Based on signal mechanics and the observed failure patterns above; individual combinations are not yet backtested.

  • Fundamental-improvement filterBTB identifies reversal-attempt candidates. Without fundamentals to distinguish real reversals (earnings improving, revenue reaccelerating, balance sheet repairing) from bear-rally bounces, the signal catches mostly the latter. Required layer: commercial fundamentals feed with rolling EPS revision trend, YoY revenue growth, and debt/cash delta — require all three trending positively alongside the BTB trigger.
  • Catalyst confirmationA 5-year low breakout is more likely real when paired with an identifiable event: new management, divestiture, regulatory approval, major contract, strategic pivot. Catalyst-tagged BTB triggers are plausibly a different population than the no-catalyst ones. Needs a news / event data source layered on top of the technical trigger.
  • Peer / sector breadth filterIsolated reversals inside a still-declining sector rarely stick. Require the stock's sector to also be broadening (>60% of sector members within 10% of their 200DMA) before the BTB trigger counts. This is data we already have via the breadth engine; wiring it into the screen filter layer is implementation work, not a new data source.
  • Valuation anchorStocks breaking out of multi-year lows AND trading in the cheapest decile of their sector by P/E or P/B are a structurally different bet than those still at premium multiples. Value-anchored BTB triggers would be testable with a fundamentals feed, and would likely cut the sample significantly while improving the alpha profile.

See also Why technical-only signals don't survive on their own for the broader argument.

5 · Before you act — a 5-point checklist

  1. Normal trading day? Rule out earnings (within ±3 days), ex-dividend, or known corporate-action dates — the signal is almost certainly reading noise, not momentum, in those windows.
  2. Where is price vs its own 50 / 200 DMA? A trend signal is only as credible as the underlying trend it claims to confirm. Check the 200DMA orientation before acting.
  3. What's the sector breadth doing? An isolated signal in a broadly down-trending sector is a lower-confidence setup than one firing with the rest of its peer group.
  4. Is ADV20 enough for your size? If the trigger is on a $500M name and you want to move $1M notional, you're the tape. Consider adv20d ≥ 5% of your intended position.
  5. What invalidates you? Define a price level (for longs: a close below the trigger-day low; for shorts: close above the trigger-day high) and honor it. The backtest alpha is an average; any one trade can be at either tail.

Execution notes

The signal's worst damage IS against cap-weighted SPX. Against equal-weight SPXEW the signal is roughly flat — so if your opportunity cost is a broad equal-weight basket rather than QQQ/SPY, BTB picks are roughly a wash in aggregate. 252d is the horizon with the most extreme SPX underperformance (−7.31%); 20d is closer to breakeven vs SPXEW (−0.02%). Short-horizon tactical trades (1-5 days) are essentially zero alpha. If you must trade BTB triggers, consider tight time stops (exit at 20 sessions) and firm price invalidation (close back below trigger-day low). As a standalone long-only screen it is unlikely to beat a passive equal-weight basket after costs.