Volume & money flow · daily rule · Energy & power
Money Flow Index on Enerflex
EFX with the play, last two years
Shading shows the play's call from the close that triggered it.
Money Flow Index (14)
Dashed lines at 20, 80.
Growth of C$10,000 since 2011
Log scale. After trading costs, with T-bill interest while out.
The record
The play against buying and holding EFX over exactly the same dates, after costs.
| Play, since 2011 | Hold, since 2011 | Play, 5 yrs | Hold, 5 yrs | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Annual return | +2.1% | +10.2% | +5.1% | +33.2% |
| Total return | +37% | +341% | +28% | +316% |
| Worst drawdown | −80.2% | −76.3% | −46.4% | −53.3% |
| Volatility | 32.0% | 41.1% | 32.5% | 46.5% |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.18 | 0.41 | 0.21 | 0.77 |
| Time invested | 52% | 100% | ||
| Switches per year | 2.2 | 0 |
Every call, graded
Right on 22 of 34 closed calls (65%). In calls averaged +4.6%; out calls saw EFX move +14.0% on average.
| Called | Call | Price | Until | EFX moved | Result |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 6, 2026 | OUT | C$34.66 | now | +12.8% | open |
| Aug 11, 2026 | IN | C$28.96 | Oct 6, 2026 | +19.7% | ✓ right |
| Jun 12, 2025 | OUT | C$10.55 | Aug 11, 2026 | +174.4% | ✕ wrong |
| Feb 24, 2025 | IN | C$12.37 | Jun 12, 2025 | −14.7% | ✕ wrong |
| Jan 31, 2024 | OUT | C$6.73 | Feb 24, 2025 | +83.9% | ✕ wrong |
| Aug 30, 2023 | IN | C$8.05 | Jan 31, 2024 | −16.5% | ✕ wrong |
| Jul 20, 2023 | OUT | C$9.77 | Aug 30, 2023 | −17.5% | ✓ right |
| Mar 28, 2023 | IN | C$7.35 | Jul 20, 2023 | +32.8% | ✓ right |
| Nov 8, 2022 | OUT | C$7.20 | Mar 28, 2023 | +2.0% | ✕ wrong |
| Dec 9, 2021 | IN | C$7.13 | Nov 8, 2022 | +1.0% | ✓ right |
| Sep 29, 2021 | OUT | C$8.86 | Dec 9, 2021 | −19.5% | ✓ right |
| Aug 4, 2021 | IN | C$6.37 | Sep 29, 2021 | +39.1% | ✓ right |
An in call is right when the price rose before the next call; an out call is right when it fell. The latest 12 of 35 calls shown.
How the play works
- In when the 14-day MFI crosses up through 20.
- Out when it crosses down through 80.
The creators also stress divergences, which this rule ignores.
The case against
Valeriy Zakamulin tested moving-average timing on up to 155 years of U.S. stock data and found no statistically significant edge in the second half of that record. The rules earned their keep in a few severe bear markets and lagged buy and hold for long stretches in between.