Audits
Complete audits of well-known rules and strategies, run with the same toolkit and sealed rubric as a paid audit, and published whatever the result. We start with the markets most of our clients trade: stocks, ETFs and bonds.
Want an indicator or strategy tested in public? Request an audit; free, and published whichever way it falls.
1
Indicator Audit · Batch 3 · 3 audits · sealed
Moreira & Muir, a low-volatility sector rule and USMV, each judged on its own claim of a better Sharpe ratio. None survives; the best (volatility management) graded D.
Indicator Audit · Batch 2 · 11 audits · sealed
SPY, QQQ, IWM, EFA and the sector SPDRs. None beat its benchmark with statistical support, and none survive Holm’s correction.
Indicator Audit · Batch 1 · 10 audits · sealed
MACD, RSI, Bollinger Bands, Supertrend and six more, with the settings they ship with. None beat holding SPY (10.9% a year).
Sample audit 1
Sharpe 0.77 over 1994–2026, but it trailed buy-and-hold SPY by 1.8% a year and fell further behind in the holdout.
Sample audit 2
The best of 60 settings trailed buy-and-hold SPY by 5.9% a year; its excess Sharpe over buy-and-hold fell from −0.16 in-sample to −0.92 in the holdout.
Request an audit of another indicator or strategy in this market.
2
Indicator Audit · Batch 3 · 3 audits · sealed
Faber timing cut drawdowns robustly (43.9% to 14.5%), but it gave up 3.2% a year against the 1.0% declared in advance, so it grades C. None survives.
Indicator Audit · Batch 2 · 3 audits · sealed
SPY, EFA, AGG and IEF. Antonacci’s dual momentum trailed SPY, and the 60/40 bands trailed an unrebalanced 60/40. Faber on Treasuries trailed holding IEF.
Request an audit of another indicator or strategy in this market.
3
Public audit · LB-1 · preregistered and sealed
Went the other way. Net Sharpe ratio −0.88 in-sample (2000–2023) and −1.08 in the locked holdout (2024–2026). All 15 settings lost, and it lost even before costs.
Request an audit of another indicator or strategy in this market.
4
Indicator Audit · Batch 1 · 10 audits · sealed
No default came close to holding Bitcoin (70.4% a year over 2015–2026). A few long-only variants compounded faster, but none showed a statistically robust edge.
On-chain Indicator Audit · 12 indicators · sealed
None of the 12 primary claims supported: three were testable and none survived; nine can’t be validated yet (only 1 to 4 signals each since publication). A non-blind follow-up flagged 4 of 24 level tests under its sealed test; we then found that test too lenient for such persistent series, and after a calibration check none is significant. All five implied trading rules graded F: none showed a statistically robust edge over holding Bitcoin.
Sample audit 4 · preregistered and sealed
The built-in default compounded at 2.4% a year against 70.4% for holding Bitcoin.
Sample audit 3
Sharpe 1.47 over 2016–2026. Annualised average excess return −2.6 points a year vs holding Bitcoin; compound growth 80.8% vs 66.0% a year (different measures). Graded F: its excess-return evidence didn’t survive the overfitting tests.
Request an audit of another indicator or strategy in this market.
These audits analyze public rules on historical data for illustration. They are not recommendations to trade any of these strategies, and a grade is not a prediction. Prices from Yahoo Finance (equities, ETFs and bonds), HistData (GBP/USD) and Coinbase (Bitcoin); we publish derived statistics only, never raw prices; no redistribution.
The same sealed rubric and tests, applied to your strategy, with a written report and fix list.
Just curious whether a public indicator holds up? Request a free public audit instead.
Send a high-level description. We’ll confirm scope, then send payment and secure-upload instructions.
Out of Sample · newsletter
Out of Sample, free, no spam. Every result published, including the failures.
You sign up on our newsletter page (hosted by Beehiiv); unsubscribe any time. Want a specific indicator tested? Request an audit.