robleonard
1 posts
msg #43702
- Ignore robleonard |
5/14/2006 11:25:38 AM
can somebody out there tell me how to setup up the following search:
stocks that have brokeout to a new 52 week high for the first time in more than 9 months?
Thanks
|
maxreturn
745 posts
msg #43705
- Ignore maxreturn |
5/14/2006 3:28:42 PM
To my knowledge this would be difficult using daily charts due to the 100 day limitation. However, there is a way I believe to get results close to what you're after using a weekly filter:
Regards
Max
|
TheRumpledOne
6,411 posts
msg #43715
- Ignore TheRumpledOne
modified |
5/14/2006 7:10:09 PM
Hey Max, you gave me an idea...
When I ran your filter, IMCL popped out. I looked at the chart and saw the 52 week high had been DECREASING. So I used one of my "bells and whistles" to display how many days (weeks) the 52 week high has been increasing/decreasing.
This should give a clue for finding real breakouts vs. retracements.
Look at CRRB, HIxHI = 6 ... that looks like a real breakout!
Going to use this in the Bowl Pattern Filter I wrote.
Thanks Max!!
HTH.
|
TheRumpledOne
6,411 posts
msg #43717
- Ignore TheRumpledOne |
5/14/2006 7:26:11 PM
Had to test with weekly middle!!
|
jbesr1230
28 posts
msg #43720
- Ignore jbesr1230 |
5/14/2006 8:17:38 PM
Hello TRO,
I have been looking at this filter “52 week high” and I was playing around with it and in doing so it became apparent that I am misunderstanding some very basic and probably very important filtering facts. I was interested in stocks that had reached a new 52 week high within the last 2 weeks, so I changed some of the variables to the following:
set{cnt52wh, count(weekly high reached a new 52 week high,2)}
set{HHb,days(52 week High is above 52 week High 1 day ago,10)}
set{HHa,days(52 week High is below 52 week High 1 day ago,10)}
set{HixHi, HHa - HHb}
show stocks where weekly high reached a new 52 week high
and cnt52wh 1 day ago below 1
and chart-display is weekly
add column hixhi
I had expected to get fewer stocks because I was limiting the new highs to the last 2 weeks rather than the last 39 weeks. To my surprise I got back many more stocks 326 stocks.versus 69 stocks with the 39 week parameter (run 05/14/06). Can you walk me through how the filter works. What I am trying to get are the stocks that reached a new 52 week high in last 2 weeks and then your count count for declining and increasing days of high.
A couple of the stocks that show up with the “last 2 week” parameter are cup and ms. These seem they should show up with the “last 39 week” parameter but does not.
Thanks.
JB
|
maxreturn
745 posts
msg #43721
- Ignore maxreturn |
5/14/2006 8:42:04 PM
TRO, that's a good insight. Nice enhancement to the filter. Glad I was the source of a nugget for you to mine :)
|
TheRumpledOne
6,411 posts
msg #43724
- Ignore TheRumpledOne |
5/15/2006 12:49:43 AM
5/14/2006 8:17:38 PM
Hello TRO,
I have been looking at this filter “52 week high” and I was playing around with it and in doing so it became apparent that I am misunderstanding some very basic and probably very important filtering facts. I was interested in stocks that had reached a new 52 week high within the last 2 weeks, so I changed some of the variables to the following:
I had expected to get fewer stocks because I was limiting the new highs to the last 2 weeks rather than the last 39 weeks. To my surprise I got back many more stocks 326 stocks.versus 69 stocks with the 39 week parameter (run 05/14/06). Can you walk me through how the filter works. What I am trying to get are the stocks that reached a new 52 week high in last 2 weeks and then your count count for declining and increasing days of high.
A couple of the stocks that show up with the “last 2 week” parameter are cup and ms. These seem they should show up with the “last 39 week” parameter but does not.
Thanks.
JB
===============================================================================
The periods should always be 100 (the max) for hixhi to be accurate:
set{HHb,days(52 week High is above 52 week High 1 day ago,100)}
set{HHa,days(52 week High is below 52 week High 1 day ago,100)}
set{HixHi, HHa - HHb}
This:
set{cnt52wh, count(weekly high reached a new 52 week high,2)}
and cnt52wh 1 day ago below 1
CNT52WH should either be 0, 1 or 2.
If is it 0 then that's what you want.
When it was "..., 39", then CNT52WH 1 day ago ranges from 0 to 39, so chances are fewer stocks return 0!
This should do what you want:
HTH.
|
jbesr1230
28 posts
msg #43743
- Ignore jbesr1230 |
5/15/2006 4:12:42 PM
Hi TRO,
I am still confused. What I am trying to get are:
>>>> stocks that had reached a new 52 week high within the last 2 weeks
So the following line in the filter likely needs to be adjusted and I’m not sure how
/* that haven't done so in the past 2 weeks */
and cnt52wh 1 day ago equal 0.
Thanks.
I like what I believe is the capability of this filter. Thanks to you for it.
As a twist, what coding would have to change so that it filtered for:
>>>>> Stocks that reached a new 52 week high 1 or 2 weeks ago
Then have the number of new daily highs since the the high was reached? (I would assume this would be 10 or less)
Thanks again for your patience with me on this.
JB
|
TheRumpledOne
6,411 posts
msg #43752
- Ignore TheRumpledOne |
5/16/2006 1:25:51 AM
Can you give an example of what is "wrong" with the filter?
|
jbesr1230
28 posts
msg #43768
- Ignore jbesr1230 |
5/16/2006 1:23:09 PM
Hi TRO,
There is probably nothing wrong with the filter just my understanding of it.
In any case, two stocks, by way of example, that reached a new 52 week high last week are MS and CUP. Neither are picked up by the filter.
Thanks again for working on this.
|