Field Note 20

Why the Dashboard Uses Top-Down and Bottom-Up Signals

Field note Published: June 1, 2026

Top-down macro can explain the weather. Bottom-up trend tells you whether the asset is actually responding. The dashboard uses both because either one can be wrong or early by itself.

A good story still needs price confirmation

Top-down evidence describes the environment. Bottom-up trend tells you whether the asset is actually responding.

Either layer can mislead on its own. A macro story can sound airtight while the asset refuses to confirm. A trend can look strong while credit and funding quietly get worse.

The best setups usually have both. The four-domain market regime is supportive and the asset’s own price behavior agrees. The separate liquidity and macro dashboards provide context; they do not directly change KISS allocation.

Two kinds of evidence

The model is stronger when the macro setup and asset behavior agree.

Top-down Participation, credit, rates and inflation pricing, funding and the dollar.
Bottom-up Asset trend, momentum, volatility, confirmation.
Macro risk Can be early or too narrative-driven.
Trend risk Can whipsaw without context.

Why top-down alone is not enough

Macro frameworks are useful, but they can become storytelling machines.

A recession call can be early for years. A liquidity concern can be real while stocks continue higher. A dollar squeeze can hurt some markets and leave others untouched for a while. The NBER’s business cycle dating is a good reminder that clean macro labels often arrive late.

That is why the dashboard does not stop at the macro view. It asks whether stocks, gold, and bitcoin are confirming the story with their own trend and momentum.

Why bottom-up alone is not enough

Trend signals also need context.

A price can rise because the setup is improving, or because a crowded trade is squeezing. A risky asset can rally inside a still-hostile liquidity regime. A defensive asset can weaken even though the broader macro risk is rising.

AQR’s trend-following research supports the value of trend as a discipline, but it does not mean trend should be the only input. The dashboard uses trend as evidence, not as a religion.

When signals agree or conflict

Agreement is cleaner. Conflict requires smaller sizing and more patience.

Macro up / trend up Clean risk-on

Best setup for spending more risk budget.

Macro down / trend down Clean risk-off

Best setup for holding more cash.

Macro up / trend down Wait

Backdrop may be improving before assets confirm.

Macro down / trend up Fragile

Price strength may be fighting a hostile backdrop.

Conflict is not a bug

Sometimes top-down and bottom-up signals disagree. That is useful information.

If the top-down regime is supportive but the asset is still weak, the dashboard may wait. If the regime evidence is tied, thin, or stale, it reports Mixed and holds the last confirmed top-down target. Conflict is where risk management earns its keep.

This connects to what changes when VAMS flips. A sleeve flip matters more when the broader regime agrees.

Let disagreement slow the portfolio down

Portfolios live in both worlds. The environment matters, and the asset still has to behave.

The domain-balanced regime describes the market environment. VAMS checks whether each asset confirms it. Agreement produces the cleanest signal; disagreement should slow the portfolio down. The exact input roles and uncertainty rules are in the public methodology.