Hi

You got it right, the holidays are included on the charts, but excluded for the 
scans.

Best regards,

Gary



  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: optiontrader3290 
  To: [email protected] 
  Sent: Monday, December 04, 2006 5:21 PM
  Subject: [quotes-plus] Re: qp scan question


  Howard:

  The New York stock exchange observes 9 holidays each year + it was 
  closed during 9/11 in 2001. So for 7 years that would be 63 days + 
  was about 5 days in 2001. 68+1872 would be 1940. 

  It appears the Display Charts charts counts calendar days while the 
  Scan program counts market days.

  Maybe Gary could give let us know on this. Would be great if this all 
  worked the same in the new Beta version

  I should have shown the first data date as 6/25/1999 as this was the 
  IPO date on JNPR.

  Just trying to keep everybody on their toes.

  Dale

  --- In [email protected], "Howard R. Hansen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  wrote:
  >
  > Dale,
  > 
  > Thanks for clearing up the JNPR mystery. Once again I over looked 
  the 
  > obvious. 
  > However, there must be an inconsistency between how "Display 
  Charts" and 
  > the Scan program counts days. You show the data for JNPR only goes 
  back 
  > 1872 days. Where as "Display Charts" indicates the data goes back 
  for 
  > 1940 periods.
  > 
  > Howard
  > 
  > optiontrader3290 wrote:
  > >
  > > Mike:
  > >
  > > JNPR does not appear in your results because the data for JNPR 
  begins
  > > at -1872 (6/24/1999) in the suggested scan you are requiring 1900.
  > > Therefore JNPR is skipped.
  > >
  > > Dale
  > >
  > > --- In [email protected] 
  > > <mailto:quotes-plus%40yahoogroups.com>, "Michael Last" <mr_last@>
  > > wrote:
  > > >
  > > >
  > > >
  > > >
  > > > Thanks Howard and Gary for your ideas. I now have a scan that 
  does
  > > exactly what I need. It is strange that JNPR does still not 
  appear on
  > > the list.
  > > >
  > > > Mike
  > > >
  > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
  > > >
  > >
  > >
  >



   

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Reply via email to