Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : NetCurrents NTCS -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ig who wrote (469)	10/9/2000 9:29:42 PM
From: Magnatizer	Respond to of 8925

IG I am having trouble with the links you provided. Giving me a page cannot be displayed error. ht Mag

To: ig who wrote (469)	10/10/2000 10:18:10 AM
From: Michael Watkins	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 8925

I guess the problem I have with MACD divergences, really, indicators in general, is that they still abstract what price and volume are showing. The MACD in the COMPX example you posted makes sense - price moved sideways for a while before the retest, so of course the "divergence" is going to be there since the moving averages during the sideways consolidation are indeed coming together. Since divergences can also fail, and we can see price bars with our own eyes, it doesn't seem any more reliable or instructive (to me) than watching price and volume. I'm not saying at all that a MACD divergence on a test of a recent top/bottom can not be made to be a profitable trading rule. Indeed it could with proper money management and focus on where the exit door should be... Disclaimer, I am a reformed system trader, used to have a whole heap o' indicators on all my charts. Now I have just ADX and a few moving averages. Just my two cents for the discussion.