Home / Strategies / 10Y T-Note (ZN)
Commodity · strategy report

Does anything beat buy & hold on 10Y T-Note (ZN)?

Every setup we tested on 10Y T-Note (ZN) — 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.

NOTHING BEAT BUY-AND-HOLD

No setup beat simply holding once tested honestly. We say so plainly.

Its best setup only beat buy-and-hold in one window — a regime artifact, not a strategy. Buy-and-hold benchmark: +0.3% CAGR over 25.8 years (-1.1% CAGR in the out-of-sample window).

Educational research from historical backtests — not investment advice. Past performance does not predict future results.

10Y T-Note: Nothing Survived Honest Testing

We ran 748 indicator setups against 10Y T-Note (ZN), and none earned a pass. Macro instruments like this are hard terrain for timing systems: roll costs quietly tax every position, returns arrive in regime-driven bursts separated by long flat stretches, and a rule tuned to one macro environment tends to break in the next. The best-looking candidate, Gator Oscillator on the weekly timeframe, looked strong in-sample — which is exactly what you'd expect from the winner of hundreds of tries — and then failed to hold up on data it had never seen.

Read the numbers with the selection problem in mind. When you pick the best of 748 attempts, luck alone produces impressive backtests, so we require an out-of-sample Sharpe above a multiple-testing hurdle of 1.3. Here the top setup managed 0.49, with out-of-sample alpha of +2.0% against a buy-and-hold CAGR of +0.3%. Across all setups, only 53.8% beat holding at all. That's the finding for this window of history — markets change, and past results, good or bad, predict nothing.

Every figure above is computed from our own backtests — nothing is estimated or invented. Hypothetical results; not investment advice.

Failure exhibit

The least-bad setups — shown with their failure numbers

Nothing here earned a verdict — these are the best of a losing field, published so you can see exactly how "best" still failed.

#1 · Trend · Weekly

Gator Oscillator

Mechanical rule (exactly as backtested): Bill Williams' Alligator expansion — long while both jaws expand and lips lead. Signals are evaluated at weekly-bar close, the position changes on the NEXT bar, 0.08% cost per side, long/flat only — no leverage, no shorting.

-13.3%
Total return
-0.23
Sharpe
-23.5%
Max DD
42.9%
Win rate
70
Trades
-0.9%
vs B&H

Out-of-sample (last ~30% of the window, never used to pick this setup): Sharpe 0.49 · alpha +2.0% · 17 trades over 7.8 yrs.

#2 · Trend · Daily

SMA 20/50 Cross

Mechanical rule (exactly as backtested): Medium moving-average cross — long while the 20-day SMA is above the 50-day. Signals are evaluated at daily-bar close, the position changes on the NEXT bar, 0.08% cost per side, long/flat only — no leverage, no shorting.

+1.6%
Total return
0.04
Sharpe
-20.8%
Max DD
36.2%
Win rate
69
Trades
-0.3%
vs B&H

Out-of-sample (last ~30% of the window, never used to pick this setup): Sharpe 0.46 · alpha +2.8% · 16 trades over 7.7 yrs.

#3 · Momentum · Daily

TRIX (15)

Mechanical rule (exactly as backtested): VARIANT — TRIX(15); long while positive. Signals are evaluated at daily-bar close, the position changes on the NEXT bar, 0.08% cost per side, long/flat only — no leverage, no shorting.

-3.5%
Total return
-0.01
Sharpe
-21.7%
Max DD
35.9%
Win rate
78
Trades
-0.5%
vs B&H

Out-of-sample (last ~30% of the window, never used to pick this setup): Sharpe 0.41 · alpha +2.6% · 18 trades over 7.7 yrs.

Forward test

Since publication — including if it loses

0.0%
the published setup, since 2026-07-02 (0 market days)
0.0%
buy & hold, same window

The forward record is just getting started — the gap between the two is the honest score. Marked to market nightly from real prices, rules frozen at publication, as of 2026-06-29. Currently FLAT.

How this verdict was computed (mode: out-of-sample)

We tested 748 setups (indicator × parameters × timeframe) on 10Y T-Note (ZN). Only setups with ≥30 trades qualify (654 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 748 tries mines even the holdout, the VALIDATED verdict additionally requires the top setup’s OOS Sharpe to clear a selection hurdle of 1.3 (√(2 ln N)/√T) AND positive alpha in both windows. Of the eligible setups, 53.8% had positive out-of-sample alpha (median OOS Sharpe -0.23) — the table below is truncated, but this summary covers all of them. Full recipe: methodology · the engine’s contract lives in the repo as STRATEGY_METHODOLOGY.md.

Ranked table

Top 20 of 654 eligible setups

Ranked by out-of-sample Sharpe. Full + out-of-sample columns, costs included. Hypothetical.

#SetupTFTotal retSharpeMax DDWinTradesα vs B&HOOS SharpeOOS αOOS trades
1Gator OscillatorWeekly-13.3%-0.23-23.5%42.9%70-0.9%0.49+2.0%17
2SMA 20/50 CrossDaily+1.6%0.04-20.8%36.2%69-0.3%0.46+2.8%16
3TRIX (15)Daily-3.5%-0.01-21.7%35.9%78-0.5%0.41+2.6%18
4Bandpass OscillatorWeekly+3.7%0.05-14.7%38.7%62-0.2%0.36+2.5%16
5EMA 20/50 CrossDaily-5.1%-0.02-19.0%29.0%62-0.5%0.31+2.2%12
6Hull MA TrendWeekly-7.0%-0.05-20.6%37.5%72-0.6%0.31+2.2%17
7ADX Strong TrendDaily-0.2%0.01-16.9%33.7%104-0.3%0.3+2.0%24
8Vortex (7)Weekly-8.2%-0.06-22.3%37.8%90-0.7%0.27+2.1%22
9CCI (14)Weekly-11.1%-0.09-21.8%35.9%78-0.8%0.27+2.1%16
10WMA 20/80 CrossDaily-3.3%-0.01-16.4%32.3%65-0.5%0.27+2.0%14
11WMA 15/60 CrossDaily-6.5%-0.04-19.8%32.9%85-0.6%0.25+2.0%20
12SMA 200 TrendDaily-8.4%-0.06-20.0%29.5%105-0.7%0.25+1.8%24
13Pivot Point SuperTrendDaily-6.7%-0.04-23.4%40.0%50-0.6%0.24+2.0%11
14EMA 15/60 CrossDaily-14.3%-0.11-24.0%29.4%68-0.9%0.24+1.9%13
15RSI (25)Weekly-15.2%-0.12-25.4%24.2%62-1.0%0.24+1.9%11
16McGinley 10/30 CrossDaily-6.5%-0.03-20.7%27.4%62-0.6%0.23+1.9%12
17DPO (10)Weekly-14.8%-0.12-23.5%28.2%71-1.0%0.23+1.9%13
18EMA 13/48 CrossDaily-9.0%-0.06-20.9%28.0%75-0.7%0.22+1.9%16
19DMI DirectionWeekly+0.5%0.03-14.8%29.4%51-0.3%0.22+1.9%11
20Disparity (50)Weekly-16.1%-0.13-25.8%25.4%63-1.0%0.22+1.8%12

Hypothetical backtests with 0.08%/side costs. Not investment advice — see the full disclaimer.

Read this before acting on anything

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.

Keep digging