TradingView settings for investors are defaults, not investment instructions. A backtest cannot tell you whether an RSI or MACD setup works until the entry, exit, execution lag, trading cost, cash return, and tax treatment are defined. In a reproducible rolling-window check, two common ways to act on the same RSI settings produced opposite conclusions: one often matched or beat buy-and-hold, while another almost always trailed. For a long-term investor, the safest default is to treat RSI and MACD as context, not automatic trade orders.
When people look for TradingView settings for investors, they often start with the numbers already on the screen. You add RSI to a chart and see 14 already filled in. You add MACD and get 12, 26, and 9. The numbers look like recommendations because the platform supplies them, but they only define how the indicators are calculated. They do not tell you what to buy, when to sell, how long to stay out, or what a trade will cost.
That distinction matters when a long-term holding has a strong run. An RSI reading above 70 can describe recent momentum without proving that the next move is down. A MACD crossover can describe a change in momentum without telling you whether selling a diversified fund is sensible. The chart can be accurate about what just happened and still be a poor portfolio manager.
Start with the decision, not the indicator
The right TradingView settings for investors depend on what the indicator is allowed to do. A passive investor, a rules-based trader, and someone using charts only for context should not use the same decision process, even when the numbers on the screen match.
| Your use case | What the indicator may do | What it should not do | Practical setting choice |
|---|---|---|---|
| Long-term index investor | Describe momentum and recent price behavior | Trigger a sale by itself | Keep the indicator only if you can ignore its alerts; otherwise remove it |
| Investor using charts for review | Prompt a check of valuation, allocation, or risk | Replace the investment thesis | Use a timeframe that matches the review cycle, often weekly rather than daily |
| Rules-based trader | Generate entries and exits inside a fully specified system | Stand alone without costs, lag, and out-of-sample testing | Defaults may be a starting point, never the final evidence |
| Taxable account holder | Flag a possible review | Assume every trade has the same tax result | Check holding period, tax lots, and realized gain before acting |
| Tax-advantaged account holder | Support a tested trading process | Ignore turnover, spread, and time out of the market | Tax treatment changes, but trading friction and strategy risk remain |
This is the useful dividing line: an indicator can inform a decision without owning the decision. The trouble starts when a descriptive reading becomes a command.
What TradingView settings for investors actually mean
TradingView’s own documentation says 14 bars is the default RSI length. Its MACD strategy uses 12 days for the fast average, 26 days for the slow average, and 9 days for the signal line. Those are calculation inputs. They are not a statement that a 14-day RSI or a 12/26/9 MACD improves a ten-year investment plan.
The platform’s built-in strategy pages make another point that is easy to miss: a strategy needs complete rules. TradingView’s RSI strategy enters long when RSI crosses up through the oversold line and reverses short when RSI crosses down through the overbought line. Its MACD strategy changes direction when the histogram changes sign. Simply saying “follow RSI 14” or “trade MACD 12/26/9” leaves out the part that determines the result.
Plain English
RSI 14 tells the chart how much recent price history to use. It does not tell you whether to sell at 70, wait for a cross back below 70, buy at 30, short the asset, or sit in cash. Each choice creates a different strategy.
Primary source: TradingView, Relative Strength Index documentation and MACD Strategy documentation.
For a deeper explanation of why an overbought reading is not automatically a sell signal, see the analysis of the RSI overbought signal. The same issue appears with MACD, where the indicator and the trading rule are often treated as though they were the same thing.
What the 7,846-rule research proves, and what it does not
Technical rules can look impressive after researchers or traders search through thousands of alternatives. Sullivan, Timmermann, and White used White’s Reality Check to account for that search across a large universe of technical rules. The best historical result looked strong in the sample used to find it, but the evidence did not carry cleanly into later out-of-sample tests.
Bajgrowicz and Scaillet later revisited the same 7,846-rule universe on Dow Jones data through 2011. Their work found that apparently successful rules became much less convincing after false-discovery controls, persistence tests, and transaction costs were included.
The practical lesson for investors is narrower and more useful. A good-looking backtest is not enough when the rule was selected after trying many alternatives. You need a prewritten rule, unseen data, realistic execution, and a benchmark. The full workflow is covered in the technical analysis backtest data guide.
Academic sources: Sullivan, Timmermann, and White (1999), Data-Snooping, Technical Trading Rule Performance, and the Bootstrap; Bajgrowicz and Scaillet (2012), Technical Trading Revisited.
A replication: the same default can produce opposite conclusions
To test TradingView settings for investors in a way that exposes the missing assumptions, I ran several complete long-or-cash rules using the same default inputs. The purpose was not to find a winning strategy. It was to see whether the phrase “obey the default RSI alert” has one stable meaning. It does not.
Backtest design. Daily SPY data from January 29, 1993 through February 19, 2019; 194 monthly-spaced rolling 10-year windows; adjusted close used for returns; one-trading-day signal lag; 5 basis points charged each time exposure changed; cash earned 0%; taxes were not modeled.
Benchmark. Buy-and-hold over the same dates.
Interpretation. A positive CAGR gap means the rule trailed buy-and-hold. A negative gap means it led in that sample.
Limitation. The public price file is a reproducibility dataset rather than an issuer-certified institutional database. Results end in 2019 and are evidence about rule sensitivity, not a forecast.
| Rule tested | 10-year windows | Share that trailed buy-and-hold | Median annualized gap |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cash only while RSI(14) is above 70 | 194 | 16.5% | -0.34 percentage points |
| Sell when RSI reaches 70; buy again at 30 | 194 | 99.0% | 3.46 percentage points |
| Exit after RSI crosses below 70; re-enter above 30 | 194 | 100.0% | 3.89 percentage points |
| Hold only while MACD is above its signal line | 194 | 92.8% | 4.76 percentage points |
| Require both RSI and MACD filters | 194 | 91.2% | 4.35 percentage points |
The first row is the useful warning. Under one plausible definition, going to cash while RSI stayed above 70 did not produce the large universal penalty the earlier claim implied. Raise the one-way trading cost from 5 to 10 basis points, however, and that same rule trailed in 80.4% of the rolling windows. The rule, cost assumption, and execution details matter enough to change the conclusion.
The other rows show the danger of long periods in cash. Waiting for RSI to fall from 70 to 30 can miss months or years of market gains. A MACD long-or-cash rule was invested roughly half the time in the full sample, so its result reflects market exposure as much as indicator quality.
Taxes would add another layer, but there is no honest single percentage to subtract from every investor’s return. A sale can create a short-term gain, a long-term gain, or a loss depending on the lot and holding period. The IRS generally classifies gains as short-term when the asset was held for one year or less and long-term when held for more than one year. That is why a tax claim needs lot-level data rather than a blanket annual drag.
Tax source: IRS, Topic No. 409, Capital Gains and Losses.
A practical guide to TradingView settings for investors
You do not need to discover a better magic number. You need to decide what can trigger a trade.
1. Turn off automatic trade alerts you have not tested
An alert should not have decision authority just because it arrived with a polished chart. Keep price alerts tied to a real plan, such as a rebalancing threshold or a prewritten risk rule. Mute RSI and MACD trade notifications when they only create pressure to act.
2. Keep indicators only for a defined question
RSI can answer, “How strong has recent price movement been relative to recent losses?” MACD can answer, “How has shorter-term momentum changed relative to a slower trend?” Neither answer is the same as “Should I sell my fund today?”
3. Match the chart timeframe to the decision horizon
A daily chart may be useful for execution, but it is often too noisy for a portfolio reviewed monthly or quarterly. Looking at weekly bars does not create an edge. It simply reduces the number of observations competing for your attention.
4. Write the complete rule before testing it
State the signal, next action, re-entry condition, execution price, delay, position size, cash return, costs, tax treatment, and benchmark. Without those fields, you do not have a strategy. You have an indicator and a story.
5. Test the rule on data it did not use to choose the settings
Separate the period used to design the rule from the period used to judge it. Then add costs and compare against simply holding the same asset. A rule that only wins before costs or only in the sample that created it is not ready for money.
Unnecessary turnover also has costs beyond the chart. The spread, order execution, and brokerage business model are explained in zero-commission broker hidden fees. For a focused look at MACD evidence, continue with does MACD work?
Frequently asked questions
These questions cover the most common decisions behind TradingView settings for investors.
What are TradingView’s default RSI and MACD settings?
TradingView documents 14 bars as the default RSI length. Its MACD strategy uses a 12-day fast average, a 26-day slow average, and a 9-day signal line. Those values define the indicator calculation. They do not create a complete investing strategy.
Should a long-term investor change RSI from 14?
There is no universally proven replacement number. A longer length or a weekly chart may reduce how often the indicator moves, but that is a noise-management choice, not evidence of higher returns. The more important decision is whether an RSI reading can trigger a trade at all.
Does RSI above 70 mean sell?
No. It means recent gains were strong relative to recent losses under the chosen calculation window. A market can remain above 70 while continuing to rise. Selling also requires a re-entry rule, and that missing rule often determines the backtest result.
Should I remove MACD?
Remove it when it creates trades that are not part of a tested plan. Keep it when you use it only to describe momentum or when it belongs to a complete rules-based system that has survived out-of-sample and cost testing.
Do taxes make indicator trading worse?
They can, especially when profitable lots are sold after one year or less, but the result is investor-specific. Holding period, tax lots, losses, account type, and tax bracket all matter. A flat annual tax drag is not a reliable substitute for lot-level calculation.
The bottom line
TradingView settings for investors are legitimate calculation conventions. They are not personalized instructions and they do not define a full strategy.
The replication makes the problem concrete. With the same RSI 14 and the same 70/30 lines, one long-or-cash rule trailed buy-and-hold in 16.5% of rolling 10-year windows while another trailed in 99.0%. The difference came from what “follow the signal” meant.
For a long-term investor, set the boundary before the alert arrives: RSI and MACD may describe the market, but they do not get to trade the portfolio by themselves.
Your turn: Which indicator on your chart has permission to trigger a trade, and what exact rule gives it that permission?
Editorial transparency: this article was revised with AI assistance and reviewed by Danny Hwang. The calculations and cited primary sources were checked independently.
Update history
- : Replaced the unsupported fixed-dollar cost claim with a reproducible rule-definition backtest; removed the blanket tax-drag estimate and unsupported claims that the defaults were personalized 1970s day-trading instructions; updated the structure, sources, byline, and internal links.
- : Initial publication.
Educational quantitative analysis based on published data. Not investment, tax, or legal advice. Consult a licensed professional before acting on any calculation. About TheFinSense.