Sounds reasonable.  

I guess the historical look up depends on investment horizon.  For a 
two week investment a 20 day lookup may be better than 60.  But that 
is just my opinion.


Shak



--- In [email protected], "EAdamy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I would not use a chart with less than 60 periods of price and 
volume data.
> 
> Earl
> 
>   -----Original Message-----
>   From: [email protected] [mailto:quotes-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Behalf Of shak458956
>   Sent: Monday, November 27, 2006 1:29 PM
>   To: [email protected]
>   Subject: [quotes-plus] Re: On The Balance Volume
> 
> 
>   You see, if we are looking at one stock at a time than OBV 
summation
>   since the beginning of time is fine. But, if we are comparing two
>   different instruments where the first instrument started trading 
in
>   1999 and the other in 2003 then we will have to compare the 
slopes
>   of OBVs which are calculated over same time periods (past 14 
days,
>   30 days, 200 days, etc)
> 
>   I am using QP data for OBV calculation. Just wondering if 14 days
>   are long enough to capture the essence of the metric or should I 
go
>   for 20 or more?
> 
>   Shak
> 
>   --- In [email protected], "EAdamy" <eadamy@> wrote:
>   >
>   > Assuming that price data and volume data is identical between 
two
>   different
>   > sources (a stretch, I know), the net differential in OBV 
between
>   any two
>   > dates should be identical.
>   >
>   > Earl
>   >
>   > -----Original Message-----
>   > From: [email protected] [mailto:quotes-
>   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>   > Behalf Of gary
>   > Sent: Monday, November 27, 2006 6:25 AM
>   > To: [email protected]
>   > Subject: Re: [quotes-plus] On The Balance Volume
>   >
>   >
>   > Hi
>   >
>   > The OBV is a sum of the positive volume - negative volume from
>   the
>   > beginning of our history. The actual numbers will almost never
>   match anyone
>   > else's numbers, as they depend on having the same number of 
days
>   for the
>   > data, and the volume on each day must be identical.
>   >
>   > From decision point:
>   >
>   > OBV was invented by Joe Granville. OBV is calculated by adding
>   the daily
>   > volume to the cumulative total of volume if the stock closes
>   higher than the
>   > previous day, or subtracting it if the stock closes lower. (No
>   change days
>   > are ignored.) Absolute values in OBV are meaningless, and 
there is
>   no scale
>   > on an OBV chart; however, a graph of OBV movement is very 
useful
>   in spotting
>   > divergences in OBV and price.
>   >
>   > The OBV graph and price index should be similar in shape, and
>   they usually
>   > are. Divergences in price and OBV (also called non-
confirmations)
>   are
>   > important events which warn that a change of price trend is
>   likely. An
>   > example of a negative divergence (which predicts lower prices 
to
>   come) would
>   > be for the stock to hit a higher price high that is not 
confirmed
>   by
>   > corresponding new high in OBV.
>   >
>   > Best regards,
>   >
>   > Gary
>   >
>   > ----- Original Message -----
>   > From: shak458956
>   > To: [email protected]
>   > Sent: Sunday, November 26, 2006 7:16 PM
>   > Subject: [quotes-plus] On The Balance Volume
>   >
>   > Dose anyone know what time period is used for building On The
>   Balance
>   > Volume in QP Charts? I calculated the metric from raw data 
using
>   20
>   > days as well as 14 days, but my numbers do not match QP Charts.
>   >
>   > What is the appropriate (industry standard) period for this
>   metric.
>   >
>   > Thanks,
>   >
>   > Shak
>   >
>   > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>   >
>   >
>   >
>   >
>   >
>   >
>   > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>   >
> 
> 
> 
>   
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>


Reply via email to