Does anything beat buy & hold on Hubbell Incorporated (HUBB)?
Every setup we tested on Hubbell Incorporated (HUBB) — ranked out-of-sample, corrected for multiple testing, and forward-tracked in public from the day this page published. The honest answer is the headline.
Beat buy-and-hold out-of-sample AND cleared the multiple-testing hurdle.
Beat buy-and-hold out-of-sample AND full-sample out-of-sample Sharpe 0.91 cleared the selection hurdle 0.90. Buy-and-hold benchmark: +15.3% CAGR over 54.5 years (+17.9% CAGR in the out-of-sample window).
Educational research from historical backtests — not investment advice. Past performance does not predict future results.
Hubbell Incorporated (HUBB): One Setup Cleared the Bar — What That Does and Doesn't Mean
A validated verdict on an individual stock is rare, and it should be. Single companies are earnings-driven and idiosyncratic: one guidance cut or CEO exit can swamp any technical signal. We ran 744 indicator setups on Hubbell Incorporated, of which 677 had enough history to qualify. Most stocks in our universe produce nothing that beats simply holding shares. Here, QQE on the weekly timeframe outperformed buy-and-hold in both the full window and the held-out period, and its out-of-sample Sharpe of 0.91 cleared the multiple-testing hurdle of 0.9. A signal that survived 16.4 years of company-specific noise is worth documenting.
Read this as a record, not a promise. Out-of-sample alpha of +3.9% (full-window +0.2%) against a buy-and-hold CAGR of +15.3% came with a win rate of 50.0%, a maximum drawdown of -59.4%, and 110 trades — enough to measure, few enough that a handful of outcomes shaped the result. Only 0.1% of setups beat holding at all, so selection pressure is real even after the hurdle. Note the survivorship trap: HUBB exists today to be tested; delisted peers don't. Companies change, regimes change, and past validation does not predict future results.
Every figure above is computed from our own backtests — nothing is estimated or invented. Hypothetical results; not investment advice.
The setups that ranked, and what they are
Fully mechanical — no discretionary steps, no hidden filters. We name the indicator and publish its record; we keep the settings.
QQE
What it is: A channel / envelope rule: it measures how far price has travelled from a moving reference and acts at the extremes. Long/flat only — no leverage, no shorting. The parameters we tested are not published.
How it was tested: signals evaluated at weekly-bar close, the position changes on the NEXT bar, 0.08% cost per side. Same engine, same cost model, same out-of-sample split as every other number on this site.
Out-of-sample (last ~30% of the window, never used to pick this setup): Sharpe 0.91 · alpha +3.9% · 46 trades over 16.4 yrs.
Pascal's Weighted MA
What it is: A trend-following rule: it holds while a smoothed trend reference is pointing up and goes flat when it turns. Long/flat only — no leverage, no shorting. The parameters we tested are not published.
How it was tested: signals evaluated at daily-bar close, the position changes on the NEXT bar, 0.08% cost per side. Same engine, same cost model, same out-of-sample split as every other number on this site.
Out-of-sample (last ~30% of the window, never used to pick this setup): Sharpe 0.77 · alpha -6.9% · 219 trades over 16.2 yrs.
HalfTrend
What it is: A channel / envelope rule: it measures how far price has travelled from a moving reference and acts at the extremes. Long/flat only — no leverage, no shorting. The parameters we tested are not published.
How it was tested: signals evaluated at weekly-bar close, the position changes on the NEXT bar, 0.08% cost per side. Same engine, same cost model, same out-of-sample split as every other number on this site.
Out-of-sample (last ~30% of the window, never used to pick this setup): Sharpe 0.73 · alpha -4.3% · 18 trades over 16.4 yrs.
Since publication — including if it loses
Buy-and-hold is ahead so far — we publish that too. That is the point. Marked to market nightly from real prices, rules frozen at publication, as of 2026-10-19. Currently LONG.
We tested 744 setups (indicator × parameters × timeframe) on Hubbell Incorporated (HUBB). Only setups with ≥30 trades qualify (677 did). Setups are ranked by out-of-sample Sharpe — the last ~30% of history, which standard-parameter rules never saw during selection. Because picking the best of 744 tries mines even the holdout, the VALIDATED verdict additionally requires the top setup’s OOS Sharpe to clear a selection hurdle of 0.9 (√(2 ln N)/√T) AND positive alpha in both windows. Of the eligible setups, 0.1% had positive out-of-sample alpha (median OOS Sharpe 0.36) — the table below is truncated, but this summary covers all of them. How we test: methodology. The scoring contract is published in full; the parameters of each individual setup are not.
Top 20 of 677 eligible setups
Ranked by out-of-sample Sharpe. Full + out-of-sample columns, costs included. Hypothetical.
| # | Setup | TF | Total ret | Sharpe | Max DD | Win | Trades | α vs B&H | OOS Sharpe | OOS α | OOS trades |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | QQE | Weekly | >+999% | 0.24 | -59.4% | 50.0% | 110 | +0.2% | 0.91 | +3.9% | 46 |
| 2 | Pascal's Weighted MA | Daily | +308.2% | 0.28 | -47.9% | 41.6% | 488 | -12.9% | 0.77 | -6.9% | 219 |
| 3 | HalfTrend | Weekly | >+999% | 0.21 | -64.0% | 57.1% | 42 | -2.8% | 0.73 | -4.3% | 18 |
| 4 | Half Trend | Weekly | >+999% | 0.21 | -64.0% | 57.1% | 42 | -2.8% | 0.73 | -4.3% | 18 |
| 5 | Chandelier Exit | Weekly | >+999% | 0.21 | -58.0% | 43.5% | 62 | -2.6% | 0.69 | -4.6% | 27 |
| 6 | Ehlers Reflex | Daily | >+999% | 0.2 | -48.3% | 48.5% | 365 | -4.3% | 0.69 | -6.7% | 138 |
| 7 | LSMA 10/30 Cross | Weekly | >+999% | 0.17 | -53.6% | 34.8% | 115 | -7.7% | 0.69 | -7.2% | 36 |
| 8 | Ehlers Reflex | Weekly | >+999% | 0.17 | -62.3% | 50.0% | 104 | -7.2% | 0.69 | -7.4% | 29 |
| 9 | Advance Trend Pressure | Weekly | >+999% | 0.39 | -43.9% | 61.8% | 89 | -10.4% | 0.68 | -6.2% | 52 |
| 10 | True Strength Index | Weekly | >+999% | 0.2 | -47.6% | 43.7% | 71 | -3.4% | 0.67 | -7.7% | 35 |
| 11 | Demand Index | Weekly | >+999% | 0.4 | -46.7% | 71.2% | 80 | -10.3% | 0.66 | -6.8% | 39 |
| 12 | Linear Regression Slope | Weekly | >+999% | 0.2 | -66.6% | 45.5% | 44 | -4.3% | 0.65 | -6.6% | 19 |
| 13 | Correlation Trend | Weekly | >+999% | 0.2 | -66.6% | 45.5% | 44 | -4.3% | 0.65 | -6.6% | 19 |
| 14 | Delta Volume (CVD proxy) | Weekly | +998.2% | 0.37 | -46.2% | 52.7% | 91 | -10.8% | 0.65 | -6.9% | 52 |
| 15 | FRAMA 10/30 Cross | Weekly | +156.9% | 0.19 | -75.1% | 52.9% | 157 | -13.6% | 0.65 | -7.5% | 70 |
| 16 | QQE | Daily | >+999% | 0.38 | -63.6% | 42.2% | 516 | -9.7% | 0.64 | -3.6% | 248 |
| 17 | RSI (21) | Weekly | >+999% | 0.21 | -44.7% | 40.0% | 60 | -2.2% | 0.64 | -6.1% | 27 |
| 18 | SMC: Liquidity Sweep | Daily | >+999% | 0.39 | -51.7% | 70.4% | 115 | -10.4% | 0.63 | -6.9% | 61 |
| 19 | HMA 9/21 Cross | Weekly | +491.8% | 0.3 | -44.1% | 38.6% | 158 | -12.0% | 0.63 | -8.0% | 56 |
| 20 | Camarilla Pivots | Weekly | +551.7% | 0.31 | -45.5% | 56.8% | 333 | -11.8% | 0.63 | -8.5% | 160 |
Hypothetical backtests with 0.08%/side costs. Not investment advice — see the full disclaimer.
These are historical backtests of mechanical rules. They are educational research, not investment advice, not a recommendation, and not tailored to you. Educational information only — not investment advice. Hypothetical backtested results; past performance does not guarantee future results. Trading involves risk of loss.