The question people actually have about a liquidity dashboard is which thing to buy when it turns green. It is the right question and it usually gets a lazy answer, because "risk assets rise in a liquidity expansion" covers everything from an investment grade bond fund to a microcap token, and those are not the same trade. The Global Liquidity Scorecard is showing a composite of 85 on a 0 to 100 scale with a regime label of RISK-ON and a policy label of EASING. Its Trade Signals tab states plainly that it produces directional signals for six major assets. What it does not do is tell you which of those six moves hardest when the composite moves. That is the number you need in order to choose an expression, and you have to produce it yourself.
What the signals panel actually claims
Read the method note on the panel literally, because it is more specific than most dashboards bother to be. Liquidity Trade Signals gives directional signals for six major assets derived from current liquidity conditions, and each factor is scored bullish (+1), bearish (-1) or neutral (0) and weighted per asset class. Three things follow from that one sentence.
The output is directional, not sized. A +1 on one instrument and a +1 on another mean the same thing to the panel and completely different things to your account balance. A directional call is an answer to "which way", never to "how much".
The weights differ per asset class. That phrase is the module conceding, in its own description, that the same liquidity factor does not count equally for every instrument. Sensitivity varies. The panel just does not hand you the sensitivities.
And "current liquidity conditions" means the read is about now. There is no claimed lead time attached to that panel, so nothing on it entitles you to say the signal front-runs anything.
Five of six sitting neutral is the first thing to notice
Look at the tally strip in the screenshot before you look at anything else. One bullish, zero bearish, five neutral. Now look at the header block on the same page: composite 85, regime RISK-ON, and three component reads of LIQUIDITY NEUTRAL on net flows, FUNDING NEUTRAL on the SOFR and IORB relationship, and MARKETS NEUTRAL on asset momentum.
That is a page telling you two things at once. The top-line label is risk-on. The per-asset detail underneath is mostly shrugging. If you had walked in, seen 85 and RISK-ON, and gone straight to your broker, you would have skipped the part of the page that says the signals themselves are not committing to much.
This is the single most useful habit I can give you on this module and it takes ten seconds. The composite is one number. The tally is six opinions. When those disagree, the six are the more conservative read, and being conservative on a macro overlay is almost always the correct default because you are wrong about macro more often than you think.
Sensitivity is a measurement, not something you can read off a tile
If you want a ranking, you have to build one, and the construction is simple enough to do in a spreadsheet. Log the composite once a week at a fixed time, along with the closing price of each instrument you might use to express a liquidity view. After that, sensitivity is a slope: the average percentage move in an asset's weekly return per one-point change in the composite that week.
Three practical notes on doing this without fooling yourself.
- Use changes, not levels. The composite is bounded between 0 and 100 and sits in ranges for long stretches. Regressing prices on levels will produce a beautiful relationship that is mostly the shared upward drift of two series over time.
- Use the number you saw on the day. Do not go back later and rebuild history from restated inputs. The whole point of your own log is that it records what was on the screen at the time.
- Accept that a year of weekly readings is 52 observations. That is enough to see whether one asset is roughly twice as twitchy as another. It is nowhere near enough to say the ratio is 2.1 rather than 1.6.
You will get a ranking out of this. Treat it as ordinal. Asset A responds more than asset B, which responds more than asset C, and the gap between the top and the bottom of your list is large enough to matter for position sizing. That is the whole finding, and it is genuinely useful.
Why the ranking you build will not hold still
Four forces move a sensitivity estimate around, and none of them is a flaw in your arithmetic.
The first is the regime itself. An asset that barely reacts to liquidity while conditions are calm can become almost the only thing that reacts once conditions tighten, because in a squeeze the thing that gets sold is the thing that can be sold. Sensitivity measured across a placid year understates what happens in the month you actually need the estimate.
The second is the dollar. A large part of what any global liquidity aggregate measures is dollar funding conditions, and instruments priced in dollars, denominated in dollars, or funded in dollars pick that up mechanically. If your list mixes a domestic equity fund with a foreign one, part of the difference in their apparent sensitivity is currency, not liquidity.
The third is crowding. When enough people are running the same overlay, the sensitivity of an asset to a published liquidity read increases because the read itself moves flows. That is a real effect and it also decays, usually right after you have sized up on it.
The fourth is your own sample. Any estimate built on a year of data is dominated by whatever happened in that year. If there was one large drawdown in the sample, your ranking is largely a ranking of how each asset behaved in that drawdown.
Choosing the expression while your sample is still too short
Here is the decision you can make this week, without waiting a year for your own data.
Pick the expression you can hold through being wrong, then size it by how twitchy it is. Concretely, on a 10,000 dollar account, that means the most liquidity-sensitive thing on your list gets the smallest dollar allocation, not the largest. If you believe an instrument moves three times as hard as a broad index fund for the same composite move, then a 900 dollar position in it carries about the same liquidity risk as a 2,700 dollar position in the index. Most people do the opposite, buying the most sensitive instrument in the largest size precisely because it moves most, and then discovering that the position is unholdable on the first two-week move against them.
Second, do not take the signal in an instrument you would not otherwise own. A liquidity read is a reason to adjust exposure to something you already understand. It is not a reason to acquire a new asset class along with a new set of failure modes you have never traded through.
Third, write the sizing map before the composite moves. Top band means full intended risk, middle band means two thirds, bottom band means a third and no new entries, with the band boundaries chosen by you. The value of that map is not precision. It is that it exists before the screen is red, when your judgement is still worth something.