DeployQuantEMA 12/26 Trend on QQQ
Invesco QQQ Trust: tracks the Nasdaq-100, a tech-heavy growth index. Backtest 2021-01-04 to 2026-10-02, $10,000 starting capital, computed by the same engine that runs live DeployQuant strategies.
The EMA 12/26 rule is a long-or-flat switch. It buys QQQ at the open when the 12-day exponential average is above the 26-day average, and sells at the open when the 12-day falls below the 26-day. From 2021-01-04 to 2026-10-02 it turned $10,000 into $15,430, a 7.85% CAGR, with a maximum drawdown of 23.93% and a Sharpe ratio of 0.61. Holding QQQ ended at $24,265, a 16.7% CAGR, with a drawdown of 34.23%.
The rule made 22 closed round trips and had one position open at the end. Nine of the 22 won, a 41% win rate. The average win was 11.3% and the average loss was 3.89%, and the profit factor was 1.94. It was invested 66.9% of the time and held for 63.1 days on average.
Against the other templates on QQQ, EMA 12/26 ranks 9th of 12 by CAGR. Among the 59 funds tested with this rule it ranks 18th. The EMA 12/26 strategy page gives a median CAGR of 2.76% across all 59 funds and 7.85% across the broad index group, so QQQ's result sits exactly at its group median. The rule trailed holding by 8.85 points of CAGR and cut the drawdown by 10.3 points. The year, month, trade and drawdown tables show where that trade-off came from.
Year by year
| Year | EMA 12/26 trend | buy & hold |
|---|---|---|
| 2021 | 4.3% | 28.4% |
| 2022 | −17.6% | −31.7% |
| 2023 | 27.5% | 53.0% |
| 2024 | 14.0% | 25.1% |
| 2025 | 10.9% | 20.4% |
| 2026 | 11.3% | 22.1% |
Year by year against holding
The rule returned 4.3% in 2021 against 28.4% for holding, a gap of 24.1 points. In 2022 it lost 17.6% while QQQ lost 31.7%, and its 14.1 point lead was the only year in which it beat holding. In 2023 it returned 27.5% against 53%, in 2024 14% against 25.1%, in 2025 10.9% against 20.4%, and in 2026 so far 11.3% against 22.1%.
The pattern is steady. In every year QQQ rose, the rule captured a smaller share of the move, and in the one year QQQ fell, it lost less. That is what a rule that is invested 66.9% of the time and always a few weeks late to enter looks like. The 2021 figure is lowest because the first trade did not begin until 2021-02-10, after the average needed time to form, and it lost 5.22% by 2021-03-03.
The 2022 result deserves a closer look, because that is where the rule paid for itself. All four trades closed in 2022 lost money: 5.97% on the trade that began 2021-12-27 and ended 2022-01-10, 3.72% from 2022-03-25 to 2022-04-14, 2.05% from 2022-07-21 to 2022-09-01 and 8.02% from 2022-11-15 to 2022-12-20. Each loss was small compared with the 34.23% peak-to-trough fall in holding. The rule stayed out of the market during February, May, June and October of 2022, and that is how a string of four losing trades still beat a falling fund by 14.1 points.
Month by month
| Year | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2021 | 0.0% | −6.1% | 1.1% | 3.1% | −5.0% | 6.1% | 2.8% | 4.1% | −3.4% | 3.0% | 1.9% | −2.5% |
| 2022 | −5.4% | 0.0% | 0.7% | −4.2% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 3.9% | −4.9% | −0.8% | 0.0% | 0.4% | −8.2% |
| 2023 | 3.8% | −0.4% | 5.4% | 0.5% | 7.6% | 6.3% | 3.8% | −3.7% | −5.3% | −1.8% | 4.0% | 5.3% |
| 2024 | 1.7% | 5.1% | 1.2% | −2.5% | 2.5% | 6.1% | −3.5% | −0.9% | −0.8% | −0.8% | 5.2% | 0.4% |
| 2025 | −3.1% | −4.2% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 6.4% | 6.1% | 2.3% | 0.9% | 5.2% | 4.6% | −5.0% | −2.0% |
| 2026 | 1.2% | −3.5% | 0.0% | 8.9% | 10.0% | −0.2% | −5.6% | −0.8% | 0.4% | 1.3% | – | – |
The monthly record
In 2021 the rule made -6.09% in February, 1.09% in March, 3.11% in April and -4.95% in May, then 6.12% in June, 2.77% in July and 4.11% in August. September cost 3.43% and December 2.54%.
The month table for 2022 is mostly zeros and small losses. January lost 5.4%, then February was flat, March made 0.66%, April lost 4.19%, May and June were flat, July made 3.92%, August lost 4.94%, September lost 0.76%, October was flat, November made 0.38% and December lost 8.19%, the rule's worst month. That December loss is the exit from the 2022-11-15 trade at an 8.02% loss.
The recovery months are where the lag shows. In 2023 January made 3.77%, March 5.43%, May 7.56%, June 6.28% and July 3.79%, then August lost 3.7%, September 5.32% and October 1.76%, before November made 4.03% and December 5.32%. In 2024 February made 5.1% and June 6.07%, and November made 5.18%. Holding's best month in the whole window was April 2026 at 15.44%, and the rule's best was May 2026 at 10.03%, one month after it re-entered on 2026-04-13.
March and April 2025 both show 0.0%. The rule sold on 2025-02-28 and did not return until 2025-05-02, so it sat out the 22.38% drawdown that ran from 2025-02-19 to 2025-04-08. That is the cleanest example of the rule doing its job in a V-shaped decline, and it also came with a cost: May and June 2025 made 6.42% and 6.13% after the re-entry, and the sit-out left the 2025 total at 10.9% against 20.4%.
Every trade
EMA 12/26 trend on QQQ made 22 closed round trips and one position still open at the end of the test, an average hold of 63 days, an average winner of 11.30%, an average loser of −3.89%, a profit factor of 1.94, a longest losing streak of 4. It held a position at the close on 66.9% of trading days.
| Entry | Entry price | Exit | Exit price | Return | Days held |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2021-02-10 | $323.79 | 2021-03-03 | $306.90 | −5.2% | 21 |
| 2021-04-05 | $316.44 | 2021-05-12 | $310.17 | −2.0% | 37 |
| 2021-05-28 | $322.94 | 2021-09-28 | $354.71 | 9.8% | 123 |
| 2021-10-21 | $362.81 | 2021-12-21 | $372.71 | 2.7% | 61 |
| 2021-12-27 | $387.09 | 2022-01-10 | $363.99 | −6.0% | 14 |
| 2022-03-25 | $349.17 | 2022-04-14 | $336.19 | −3.7% | 20 |
| 2022-07-21 | $294.95 | 2022-09-01 | $288.90 | −2.0% | 42 |
| 2022-11-15 | $285.46 | 2022-12-20 | $262.58 | −8.0% | 35 |
| 2023-01-18 | $277.66 | 2023-03-13 | $281.15 | 1.3% | 54 |
| 2023-03-16 | $291.61 | 2023-08-15 | $362.60 | 24.3% | 152 |
| 2023-09-01 | $373.55 | 2023-09-22 | $353.09 | −5.5% | 21 |
| 2023-10-17 | $359.46 | 2023-10-20 | $352.81 | −1.9% | 3 |
| 2023-11-08 | $366.81 | 2024-04-17 | $426.86 | 16.4% | 161 |
| 2024-05-09 | $434.96 | 2024-07-26 | $456.68 | 5.0% | 78 |
| 2024-08-21 | $475.58 | 2024-09-06 | $455.77 | −4.2% | 16 |
| 2024-09-17 | $471.13 | 2025-01-13 | $497.09 | 5.5% | 118 |
| 2025-01-22 | $525.06 | 2025-02-28 | $494.95 | −5.7% | 37 |
| 2025-05-02 | $483.12 | 2025-11-19 | $594.07 | 23.0% | 201 |
| 2025-12-03 | $616.32 | 2025-12-19 | $609.83 | −1.1% | 16 |
| 2025-12-22 | $618.77 | 2026-02-06 | $597.64 | −3.4% | 46 |
| 2026-04-13 | $608.48 | 2026-07-17 | $691.84 | 13.7% | 95 |
| 2026-08-10 | $722.03 | 2026-09-16 | $707.92 | −1.9% | 37 |
| 2026-09-21 | $728.68 | open | – | 2.9% | – |
Prices are adjusted for splits and dividends, so they sit below the quotes printed at the time. An open position is marked at the last close.
What the 23 trades looked like
The trade list has 22 closed trades and one open. Nine were winners. The two largest were 24.34% from 2023-03-16 to 2023-08-15 over 152 days and 22.97% from 2025-05-02 to 2025-11-19 over 201 days, the longest hold in the window. The third, 16.37%, ran from 2023-11-08 to 2024-04-17, and the fourth, 13.7%, from 2026-04-13 to 2026-07-17. Those four trades carry the result. The remaining winners were smaller: 9.84% from 2021-05-28, 5.51% from 2024-09-17, 4.99% from 2024-05-09, 2.73% from 2021-10-21 and 1.26% from 2023-01-18.
Losers were small and frequent. The worst was 8.02%, and the next, 5.97%, 5.73%, 5.48% and 5.22%, were all under 6%. Several lasted only a few days: the trade from 2023-10-17 to 2023-10-20 lost 1.85% in 3 days, and the 2021-12-27 entry lost 5.97% in 14 days. The median trade lost 1.85% and the median hold was 42 days, so a typical trade is a small loss, and the result depends on the winners being much larger. The longest losing streak was 4, which is the 2022 sequence.
An entry on 2025-01-22 at $525.06 and an exit on 2025-02-28 at $494.95 lost 5.73%, and the rule then missed the next two months. The re-entry on 2025-05-02 was at $483.12, below the earlier exit. The rule bought back below its exit price. Contrast it with 2023-09-01, when it re-entered at $373.55 after a sale at $362.60 on 2023-08-15, a re-entry above the exit price, and lost 5.48% by 2023-09-22.
The open position began on 2026-09-21 at $728.68 and was up 2.86% at the last close. The previous trade, 2026-08-10 to 2026-09-16, lost 1.95%. Prices are adjusted for splits and dividends. By exit year the wins were 2 of 4 in 2021, 0 of 4 in 2022, 2 of 4 in 2023, 2 of 3 in 2024, 2 of 4 in 2025 and 1 of 3 in 2026.
Winners and losers by holding time
Hold length separates the two groups cleanly. The nine winners were held between 54 and 201 days, and the four largest of them were held for 95 days or more. The losers were held between 3 and 46 days. A crossover rule that exits quickly is exiting because the fast average has already turned down, so a short trade is nearly always a losing one, and a long trade is one where the trend kept going.
The December 2025 sequence shows the whipsaw cost in small form. The rule bought on 2025-12-03 at $616.32 and sold on 2025-12-19 at $609.83 for a 1.05% loss. It bought again on 2025-12-22 at $618.77, higher than the exit, and sold on 2026-02-06 at $597.64 for a 3.41% loss. Two entries inside three weeks both lost money, and the fund traded in a narrow band for the whole stretch. The 2021 pair works the same way: the 2021-04-05 entry at $316.44 closed at $310.17 for a 1.98% loss, and the next entry came on 2021-05-28 at $322.94, which was higher than where the rule had left.
The average win of 11.3% against an average loss of 3.89% gives the 1.94 profit factor on the page. Only 41% of trades win, so the rule earns its return from a few long holds rather than from a high hit rate, and the open trade had not yet shown which group it would join.
Largest drawdowns
| Peak | Low point | Depth | Days to low | Recovered | Days to recover |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2021-11-19 | 2023-01-19 | −23.9% | 426 | 2023-07-13 | 175 |
| 2024-07-10 | 2025-05-06 | −12.9% | 300 | 2025-07-03 | 58 |
| 2023-07-18 | 2023-11-09 | −11.6% | 114 | 2024-01-19 | 71 |
Buy-and-hold's deepest drawdown ran from 2021-11-19 to 2022-11-03 and reached −34.2%.
Drawdowns
The rule's deepest drawdown was 23.93%, from 2021-11-19 to 2023-01-19, 426 days, and it recovered on 2023-07-13, 175 days later. Holding's equivalent drawdown ran from the same peak to 2022-11-03 and reached 34.23%, recovering on 2023-12-12. The rule's low came later than QQQ's, because it was invested in the 2022-11-15 trade that lost 8.02% in December, after the fund's low.
The second drawdown was 12.92%, from 2024-07-10 to 2025-05-06, which recovered on 2025-07-03. Holding's drawdown over a similar span was 13.31% from 2024-07-10 to 2024-08-07 and then 22.38% from 2025-02-19 to 2025-04-08. The rule's low came on 2025-05-06, days after its re-entry, following losses in July 2024, January 2025 and February 2025 of 3.48%, 3.15% and 4.17%. The third was 11.55%, from 2023-07-18 to 2023-11-09, which recovered on 2024-01-19.
The rule's drawdown profile is consistent: three episodes between 11.55% and 23.93%, against holding's three of 13.31%, 22.38% and 34.23%. Each of the rule's three drawdowns was shallower than the matching one for holding, and the gap is largest in 2021 to 2022, when QQQ lost 35% on the fund's own price series.
With trading costs
The headline run fills at the bar price. These runs charge slippage on every fill.
| Slippage per fill | CAGR | Max drawdown | Final value | Sharpe |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| None (headline) | 7.8% | −23.9% | $15,430 | 0.61 |
| 5 basis points | 7.5% | −24.2% | $15,184 | 0.59 |
| 10 basis points | 7.0% | −24.6% | $14,723 | 0.55 |
Slippage on 45 fills
The rule made 45 fills, so costs matter more than they do for golden cross. With 5 basis points of slippage per fill the CAGR was 7.55% and the ending value $15,184, with a drawdown of 24.21%. With 10 basis points the CAGR was 6.97% and the ending value $14,723, with a drawdown of 24.62%. Each step costs a few tenths of a point of CAGR and a few tenths of a point of drawdown. QQQ's average daily dollar volume was $18,772,024,579, and the median minute volume was 77,976 shares, so a $10,000 order is very small against the market. The test does not measure spreads or fills.
What the cost runs do to the Sharpe ratio
The headline Sharpe ratio is 0.61. At 5 basis points per fill it falls to 0.587, and at 10 basis points to 0.55. The ending values of $15,184 and $14,723 compare with $15,430 for the run with no costs. Most of the damage in the cost runs comes from the 45 fills being spread across 22 round trips, each of which pays on the way in and again on the way out. Drawdown moves only a little because the drawdown episodes are set by the price path and the trade dates, not by a few basis points on each fill. The costs here are a flat slippage assumption, so commissions, spreads and partial fills are outside what the run measures.
Changing the parameters
| Version | CAGR | Max drawdown | Round trips | Win rate | Final value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Published rules | 7.8% | −23.9% | 22 | 41% | $15,430 |
| EMA 8/21 | 8.6% | −25.1% | 32 | 34% | $16,086 |
| EMA 20/50 | 6.6% | −24.2% | 14 | 50% | $14,433 |
| EMA 12/50 | 11.2% | −17.4% | 14 | 57% | $18,364 |
The 8/21, 20/50 and 12/50 versions
Three variants change the pair of averages. EMA 8/21 returned 8.63% with a drawdown of 25.08%, from 32 trades and 11 wins, ending at $16,086. EMA 20/50 returned 6.6% with a drawdown of 24.2%, from 14 trades and 7 wins, ending at $14,433. EMA 12/50 returned 11.17% with a drawdown of 17.36% and a Sharpe ratio of 0.815, from 14 trades and 8 wins, ending at $18,364. The published 12/26 returned 7.85% with a drawdown of 23.93% and 22 round trips.
The 12/50 variant is the most interesting because only the slow average changed. It made fewer trades, 14 against 22, and had a better CAGR, a shallower drawdown and a higher Sharpe ratio than the published rule. The 20/50 variant made the same number of trades but slowed both averages and did worse than 12/26. The 8/21 variant was faster, made 32 trades, and returned slightly more than 12/26 with a deeper drawdown.
Three variants on one fund over one window cannot show which setting is better. A change in the slow average from 26 to 50 days shifts a handful of entry and exit dates, and the difference in results comes from whether those shifts happened to land before or after the large moves. The 12/50 result is a description of this window.
How QQQ behaved
| Measure | QQQ |
|---|---|
| Data in this test | 2021-01-04 to 2026-10-02 (1444 sessions) |
| Total return, buy and hold | 151.1% |
| Annualized volatility | 22.4% |
| Deepest drawdown | −35.0% (2021-11-19 to 2022-11-03) |
| Up days | 54.8% |
| Average daily range | 1.58% |
| Average overnight gap | 0.59% |
| Correlation to SPY | 0.94 |
| Correlation to TLT | 0.09 |
| Sessions above the 200-day average | 75.2% |
| Crossings of the 200-day average | 20 |
| Falls of 10% or more from a 20-day high | 21 |
How QQQ interacts with a fast crossover
QQQ's annualized volatility was 22.39%, its average daily range 1.58% and its deepest drawdown 35%, from 2021-11-19 to 2022-11-03, recovering on 2023-12-12. The longest drawdown lasted 516 sessions. Calendar-year returns were 29.18% in 2021, -32.39% in 2022, 54.81% in 2023, 25.59% in 2024, 20.77% in 2025 and 22.44% in 2026 so far. QQQ correlates 0.94 with SPY with a beta of 1.29.
The fund was above its 200-day average on 75.18% of sessions and crossed it only 20 times. A fund that spends three-quarters of its time in an uptrend rewards a rule that stays invested and punishes one that leaves for weeks at a time, which is why a fast crossover with 22 trades gave up so much. The lag-1 daily autocorrelation was -0.04, so one day's move told little about the next.
The best days were 2025-04-09 at 11.75%, 2022-11-10 at 7.37%, 2022-11-30 at 4.59%, 2022-07-27 at 4.21% and 2025-05-12 at 4.05%. The worst were 2025-04-04 at -6.1%, 2022-09-13 at -5.52%, 2025-04-03 at -5.35%, 2022-05-05 at -4.96% and 2022-05-18 at -4.95%. The rule was in cash on 2025-04-09 and on 2022-11-10, since its next entries came on 2025-05-02 and 2022-11-15. It was also in cash for the worst days of April 2025. Of the return, 64.64% came overnight and 35.36% intraday, with log returns of 58.29% and 31.89%.
After RSI(14) fell below 30, on 15 sessions, the median forward 5-day return was 3.69% against a baseline of 0.56%, and the 20-day return was 1.42% against 1.74%. RSI(2) below 10 occurred on 144 sessions, with a median 5-day return of 0.8% and a 20-day return of 2.18%. There were 21 falls of 10% or more from a 20-day high across 82 days. A trend rule like EMA 12/26 sells after such falls begin, and the RSI figures show that rebounds followed quickly in this window.
Seasonal averages and what the rule sat out
QQQ's average return by calendar month varied a lot over the window. May averaged 5.19% and November 4.42%, followed by October at 2.77%, June at 2.7% and July at 2.26%. February averaged -0.77%, September -1.65% and December -0.51%. Each month has five or six observations, so these averages describe this window and carry little weight as a pattern.
The rule's own record lines up with the weak months in a loose way. September lost 3.43% in 2021, 0.76% in 2022, 5.32% in 2023 and 0.76% in 2024, and then made 5.19% in 2025. The strong months are the ones where lag hurts most, because a crossover that turns up in the middle of a rally has already missed part of it. The rule's May 2023 return was 7.56%, the best of that year, and it had entered in March.
The day-of-week averages are all small, from 0.03% on Tuesday and Thursday to 0.19% on Monday, so there is no weekday effect for a daily rule to use. About 54.82% of sessions were up days, with an average up day of 1.01% and an average down day of -1.06%. Those two averages are nearly equal, which means the fund's return came from having slightly more up days than down days and from the large rebound days, not from larger up moves.
A rule that reads the close and trades the next open does not own the overnight gap between the signal and the fill. The fund's average overnight gap was 0.59%, and 64.64% of its return came overnight, so a rule that must buy at the open leaves some of the fund's best-rewarded hours on the table at each entry. The test does not isolate that effect, and the trade list is the only direct evidence of what entries cost.
The rules
Hold while the 12-day exponential average is above the 26-day, the core of the MACD used as a position switch.
- WHEN the market opens · IF not invested AND EMA(12) > EMA(26) · THEN buy with 98% of the sleeve
- WHEN the market opens · IF invested AND EMA(12) < EMA(26) · THEN sell the whole position
The 12/26 exponential moving average pair is the core of the MACD indicator. Exponential averages weight recent days more than simple averages, so this crossover reacts faster than an SMA pair of the same length. Used as a long/flat switch, it gives you a position you can hold and measure.
Good for: traders who like MACD logic but want it expressed as a simple, testable long/flat rule.
Watch out: faster reaction means more trades and more whipsaws than a 50/200 cross; check the trade count on each backtest page.
The other templates and funds
On the same fund the weekly 7% target led with 16.52% and a 19.41% drawdown, the monthly cycle returned 14.73% with 36.07%, the RSI(2) snapback 14.17% with 14.27%, golden cross 13.6% with 22.23% and the 200-day regime filter 12.9% with 19.93%. Trend plus trailing stop returned 11.27%, SMA 10/50 9.03%, 3-month momentum 8.21%, momentum breakout 7.84%, RSI mean reversion 6.4% and the dip buyer 5.37%. Golden cross and the 200-day filter, both slower, did better than EMA 12/26 on QQQ, and so did SMA 10/50.
The same EMA rule on other broad index funds returned 10.9% on IOO, 10.34% on VOO, 10.2% on SPY, 9.84% on VV, 8.87% on VOOG, 7.82% on QQQM, 7.65% on VOOV, 7.3% on VTV, 1.87% on QQQE, 0.29% on EEM and 0.18% on IWM. Several of these broad index funds finished with shallower drawdowns than QQQ, and the larger S&P index and global funds had a better CAGR. QQQ and QQQM, which track the same index, gave 7.85% and 7.82%.
The test is one window of 5.7 years with daily decisions, minute-bar fills, no margin and no fees in the headline run. The results describe what this rule did on these dates.
Build it from blocks (or type it in English), backtest it on 5.7 years of minute data in seconds, tweak any parameter, then paper trade it on live data. No card, no broker needed to start.
Frequently asked questions
Did EMA 12/26 trend beat buy-and-hold on QQQ?
Over 2021-01-04 to 2026-10-02, EMA 12/26 trend on QQQ returned 7.8% annualized vs 16.7% for buy-and-hold: it trailed buy-and-hold by 8.8% per year, with a maximum drawdown 10.3 points shallower than holding (23.9% vs 34.2%).
How many trades did it make?
22 completed round trips over 5.7 years (45 fills), with 41% of round trips closing profitably.
Is this the same as trading MACD signals?
It uses the MACD's underlying trend component. Classic MACD trades the signal-line crossover of the 12/26 spread. This template trades the spread's sign directly, which is simpler and can be built fully in blocks.
Did EMA 12/26 beat buy-and-hold on QQQ?
No. The rule returned 7.85% a year against 16.7% for holding, and ended at $15,430 against $24,265. Its maximum drawdown was 23.93%, against 34.23% for holding.
How many trades did EMA 12/26 make on QQQ?
It made 22 closed round trips and had one position open at the end, 45 fills in all. Nine of the 22 won, and the longest hold was 201 days. The median trade lost 1.85%.
Did the EMA 12/26 rule help in 2022?
Yes. It lost 17.6% in 2022 while QQQ lost 31.7%. All four trades that closed in 2022 lost money, but each loss was small, and the rule sat out several months.
Which EMA settings did best on QQQ?
EMA 12/50 returned 11.17% with a 17.36% drawdown, EMA 8/21 returned 8.63% and EMA 20/50 returned 6.6%, against 7.85% for 12/26. Each run made between 14 and 32 trades, so one window cannot show which setting is better.
What do trading costs do to EMA 12/26 on QQQ?
With 10 basis points per fill the CAGR was 6.97% against 7.85% at no cost, and the ending value $14,723. The rule made 45 fills.
Which strategy did best on QQQ?
The weekly 7% target had the highest CAGR at 16.52% with a 19.41% drawdown. The RSI(2) snapback had the shallowest drawdown at 14.27%. EMA 12/26 ranked 9th of 12.
Related
Backtests are hypothetical, computed by DeployQuant's engine on minute-resolution consolidated US market data (2021-01-04 to 2026-10-02, $10,000 starting capital, no margin, no fees or slippage in the headline run; buy-and-hold puts 98% of the account in at the first open, as the templates do) and do not guarantee future results. Nothing on this page is investment advice. Live trading involves risk of loss.