Loading ...GDX Daily and the 65 SMA…Taking a stab here…
“The Moving Average Most Investors Miss:
Lots of people, including the talking heads on TV, monitor a stock’s 50-day moving average.
But I firmly believe the 65-day moving average holds more answers than the widely watched 50-day.
That’s because, when a stock breaks its 65-day moving average to the downside, it provides the first clue the stock is in trouble.”
There’s another important reason why I watch the 65-day.
“Simply, 65 is the number of trading days in a typical fiscal quarter.”
https://www.uncommonwisdomdaily.com/dont-miss-the-right-time-to-sell-a-stock-20207
GDX Daily…
Note the brown boxes…
The last move was contained by the 65 SMA…
Note the 65 SMA today…
Silvercrest
Another leader…
Break out of BULL flag and back test complete…
Thanks Eagle. I just added the Ma 65 to some of my charts and see a bit of a different picture. Interesting
There’s an old thought that I will probably get in trouble for repeating however.
That idea is that if some indicator seems to rely on a fixed number rather than other numbers (65 as opposed to 50 or 30 or 63) then maybe it works by coincidence. Or maybe it works a bit, but not as well as one thinks. Maybe one is fooling one’s self by retrospective back-fitting of data. According to this notion, if 63 or 73 or 64 or 47 doesn’t work about as well 65, then one should be wary of the indicator altogether or at least of expecting the 65 indicator to work in the future much better than the 50 or the 32 or the 96 or the 66.
A more perverse variation to this notion is that you might actually do better if you would deliberately write your own formula writing a number that is different from the one everyone else uses, perhaps randomly or quasirandomly chosen since you will be using one that is less likely to be used by manipulators such as those who deliberately try to go through limits set by obvious and well known TA formulas.
I personally do not know, but I note these concepts. When I have had time though I have played by entering different numbers in most indicators.
I also note that I suspect one could argue that having a MA = the number of a ‘typical’ quarter might be noisier than having one deliberately set to be different from a trading quarter. Or that one should vary the MA so that it was to match or weigh the most recent trading quarters well rather than ‘typical’ ones. Or that one might use 65 at certain times w/ respect to the trading quarter and other numbers at other times.
Sorry. Had to indulge self.
Actually Karl, I was expecting the 34 EMA to contain this move using a comparison of last year to current. Last year the 65 SMA was hit 4 months out of the bull move; this year only 2 months. The 13 EMA remains above the 34 EMA which is bullish on a daily perspective. This is why I trade off the minute charts using the daily for perspective. Yesterday, the IHS idea failed–but that was too obvious, because everyone had their eyes on that formation. Today, just maybe, the 65 SMA will contain this move. This does coincide with Nightingale’s “line in the sand”. NUGT breached a bullish descending wedge today on the 15 minute. No one knows but in hindsight…