TSF Methodology


The Dimensional Structure of Forecasting

What separates success from failure—in every business, in every market—is timing. Every business owner, every operator, every financial manager knows WHAT to do. They just don’t know WHEN to do it. The cost of getting the timing wrong is catastrophic. A retailer who reorders late loses the sale. A restaurant that overpreps eats the margin. A manufacturer who ramps early bleeds cash. A fund manager who buys at the wrong time loses the fund. Solving the timing problem is the sole purpose of forecasting. The source of the timing problem is that every application of time series forecasting generates a Prediction, not a Forecast. A Prediction is a single-outcome call about the future. A Forecast is a probability distribution over what can actually happen, attached to a specific point in time.

The Model of Temporal Inertia and a Microscope for Time

The Model of Temporal Inertia (MTI) is the decomposition principle that grounds the {4,5,6} Forecast construction. It explains why a value in a time series can be split into two components that operate independently along the sequential timeline and the seasonal timeline: an atemporal absolute (the inertial trend) and a temporal relative (the seasonal relative). The two components can then be combined through Orthogonal Projection. Their product is a temporal absolute: a Dimension 4 value at a Dimension 6 calendar coordinate, restoring the {4,5,6} structure of the historical observations. The Microscope for Time is the proprietary library of seasonal models that makes the Dimension 6 component structurally engageable.

The Temporal Firewall

Historical Results are not backtests: the construction generates each forecast at each historical position using only data preceding that position, with the result that the historical record functions as a series of prospective Forecasts whose outcomes are now known. The Temporal Firewall is the structural mechanism that makes this true.

Preregistered Methodologies

The Temporal Structural Forecasting research using stock market data is extensive and far-reaching. All of the research hypotheses and forecast methodologies have been preregistered on Zenodo in advance of analyzing any forecast data or results. These omnibus preregistrations are specifically designed to allow for multiple studies testing a full range of hypotheses and configurations on the same out-of-sample universe of 346 S&P500 stocks with sufficient historical data to generate 20 full years of forecasts.

TSF Research


Temporal Structural Forecasting: Evidence of Exploitable Temporal Structure in S&P 500 Equity Returns

This study tests whether temporal structure exists in equity price data and can be systematically exploited for position entry timing. Using a preregistered methodology, we generate specific limit order entry prices one week in advance for 346 S&P 500 constituents across all 11 GICS sectors. We test 1,386 parameter permutations over the 10-year period 2016–2025, encompassing 6 factor strategies, 7 forecast models, and 3 confidence thresholds.

Structural Integrity Across Market Shocks

This study subjects the TSF confidence interval framework to a rigorous structural integrity test across 14 major market disruptions spanning 17 years (2007–2024). The events range from sector-specific dislocations (the SVB bank failure) to global systemic crises (the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy and COVID-19 pandemic). For each event, we evaluate whether TSF’s 90% confidence intervals maintain their calibration—that is, whether realized prices remain within the predicted bounds at rates consistent with pre-shock baselines.

Factor Betas Are Path-Dependent Regression Artifacts: Falsifying Fama-French with 6,560 Controlled Experiments

Fama and French (1996) called momentum “the main embarrassment” of their three-factor model—the one timing anomaly their framework could not explain away. We demonstrate that this embarrassment was not an exception but a warning: the entire factor-based methodology for dismissing timing anomalies is invalid. Using 6,560 controlled experiments where paired portfolios hold identical stocks with identical weights entered on identical dates—differing only in exit timing—we show that factor loadings fail equivalence tests at an 86% rate.