[no subject]

The problem does not lie with the MetaStock
formula language but with the
way that individual users set up their
explorations.

There seems to be a general lack of understanding,
even among experienced
users, that EXPONENTIAL moving averages require
much more data than the
"PERIODS" value of any affected function
will supply. When using the
Explorer with the "Minimum Periods"
option set we need to be aware that the
number of records explored will not exceed the
highest "PERIODS" value used
in the active exploration formulas.

An EMA displayed on a chart has access to ALL
loaded data, regardless of the
"PERIODS" value of the indicator.
However an exploration will only have
access to the amount of data that the user has
specified. The point to
remember with an exponential MA is that new data
is added with each bar, but
old data is never dropped out (as happens with a
simple MA). The old EMA
data becomes less significant with each new bar
but it continues to be a
component of the final EMA value. This is the
essential factor that causes
differences between chart and exploration values.

Quite a number of MetaStock functions use internal
smoothing, and this is
usually (but not always) exponential in nature.
Some functions allow user
control over the smoothing method employed, Mov()
being an obvious example.

The following list cannot be guaranteed as 100%
accurate but these are the
MS functions to watch out for that appear to use,
or are in themselves, a
form of exponential smoothing.

adx()
adxr()
atr()
bbandbot()
bbandtop()
dema()
dx()
emv()
forecastosc()
imi()
inertia()
macd()
mass()
mdi()
mov()
oscp()
oscv()
pdi()
pfe()
projosc()
qstick()
rangeindicator()
rmi()
rvi()
sar()
stoch()
tema()
trix()
wilders()

When using any of these functions in an
exploration the accuracy of the
reported results will require the number of records
explored to be set
appropriately. As a rule of thumb I would suggest
multiplying the highest
"PERIODS" value by a factor of 5.

Another trick that should force the exploration to
include the required
minimum number of records without actually specifying
that number is to add
the following code to the filter and adjust
"PERIODS" to a suitable value.
" AND Mov(C,PERIODS,S)>0"




> I use the indicator MACD_H =
MACD()-Mov(MACD(),9,E).  I have just
> realized that when I use it in a weekly
exploration, and in a weekly
> chart display, the numbers are
different.  For example, weekly MACD_H
> calculated in Explorer for Wesfarmers (I am
in <font size=2
  face="Courier New">Australia<font
size=2 face="Courier New">) for eod data<font
size=2 face="Courier New">
> for <st1:date
Month="1" Day="10" Year="2003"><span
 >10 January 2003<font
size=2 face="Courier New"> is 0.1218, but in the
weekly chart it shows as<span
>
> .09746 (and the chart is internally
consistent, ie, the histogram is
> exactly the difference between the MACD
lines).  I noticed it because
> the Exploration was occasionally returning
rising MACD_H's that didn't
> appear to be rising on the charts.  I
would appreciate any ideas on why
> MACD_H in Explorer and the display might be
different, when they both
> appear to be based on the same formula.
> Thanks,
> Barry
>
>
>
>






<font size=2
face="Courier New">To unsubscribe from this
group, send an email to:<span
>
equismetastock-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx



Your use of
Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
Terms of Service. 










Yahoo! Groups Sponsor


  ADVERTISEMENT









To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
equismetastock-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx





Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.