[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: MACD vs. "relative" MACD


  • To: <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: MACD vs. "relative" MACD
  • From: "Vitaly Larichev" <vitaly-l@xxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 18:27:38 -0800
  • In-reply-to: <200012272303.AAA00552@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

PureBytes Links

Trading Reference Links

Hello Onno,

I use MACD normalized not by Close , but it's longer-term component like
this

(Mov(C,12,E)-Mov(C,24,E))/(Mov(C,24,E)+0.000001)

It produces about the same "typical" MACD value for any (almost) equity that
allows to compare stocks in term of MACD.

Happy New Year!

Vitaly




----- Original Message -----
From: "Onno Goedknegt" <goedkneg@xxxxxx>
To: <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday December 27 2000 6:03 PM
Subject: MACD vs. "relative" MACD


>
> Maybe there is someone out there who investigated the following issue?
>
> When using divergence to forecast a change of direction, what do you
prefer:
> the "normal" MACD or a "relative" MACD (MACD/CLOSE)?
>
> And finally to you all: Happy New Year!
>
> Best regards,
> Onno Goedknegt
>