Screener Issues with Moving Averages like others

Viewing 3 posts - 1 through 3 (of 3 total)

Author

Posts
01/30/2024 at 12:33 PM #227097 quote

A320Guy
Participant

New

Hello there,

I am running a simple screener and have a similar issue to others. I am running prorealtime through IG Index, am not entirely sure if that counts as the free or premium version ?

Anyway I am just screening for stocks that have the 20 day EMA cross the 200 day SMA. Even if i were on the non premium version the surely a 256 bar lookback would be sufficient ?

Have attached the basic screener and some examples of when it has given a “correct” result and also where it is not ” correct”. These were results from the screener today.

Thanks in advance

A

Screenshot-2024-01-30-111602.jpg Screenshot-2024-01-30-111531.jpg Screenshot-2024-01-30-111439.jpg Screenshot-2024-01-30-111414.jpg

01/31/2024 at 9:55 AM #227148 quote
Nicolas
Keymaster

Master
Firstly, let me recode the screener, to see if it could work better:
```
// Definition of moving averages
EMA20 = ExponentialAverage[20](close)
SMA200 = Average[200](close)

// Condition for the crossover
BullishCrossover = EMA20 crosses over SMA200

// Volume condition
SufficientVolume = volume > 100

// Screener criteria
Criteria = BullishCrossover and SufficientVolume

// Execution of the screener
SCREENER[Criteria] (EMA20 AS "EMA 20", SMA200 AS "SMA 200", volume AS "Volume")
```
This screener code is designed to identify stocks where a 20-day Exponential Moving Average (EMA20) crosses over a 200-day Simple Moving Average (SMA200), with an additional condition that the volume must be greater than 100. It focuses on bullish crossovers only, indicating potential upward momentum in the presence of adequate trading volume.
01/31/2024 at 2:57 PM #227176 quote

A320Guy
Participant

New

Thankyou so much for the swift response.

I copied and pasted it and made a new screener.

Of the 20 results that I got 17 were “correct” showing the 20EMA crossing over the 200SMA but three still showed the 20EMA still below the 200SMA so should not have been in the results.

Am still confused as to why this should happen

As ever all guidance or suggestions are much appreciated

Alastair

Screenshot-2024-01-31-134821.jpg Screenshot-2024-01-31-135616.jpg Screenshot-2024-01-31-135555.jpg Screenshot-2024-01-31-135532.jpg
Author

Posts