Comments on: Government Tax Cuts on Stocks Make China ETFs Soar

By: Tom Lydon

Tom Lydon — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 18:07:38 +0000

Charles,

We don’t offer that feature, but we’ll look into it!

Thanks for reading!

By: Charles

Charles — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 04:59:57 +0000

Tom,

Thanks for the reply. Most charting web sites and software calculate MA’s anyway so it should not be a problem for most to calculate EMA’s.

Is there a way to have replies to ETFtrends articles forwarded? I sometimes forget to check back after I post a message. Thanks for your web site and hard work.

By: Tom Lydon

Tom Lydon — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 15:55:14 +0000

Charles,

Thank you for your excellent comment. We had been using the simple 200 DMA because we’re not giving specific investment advice and just noting trends. The simple 200 DMA is easier for the average investor to understand. However, going forward, we’re going to begin using the EMA. Thanks again!

Richard,

You are correct. We listed this ETF yesterday because it was one of the China-related funds showing strong performance after the tax cuts, going up 4%.

By: R. Richard Schweitzer

R. Richard Schweitzer — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 01:51:03 +0000

Shouldn’t you note that PGJ is an index of U S listed companies trading INTO and with China? Unlike FXI which reflects the Chinese “market.”

By: Charles

Charles — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 21:56:43 +0000

I am assuming that the moving average referenced in this article is a “Simple” moving average. The simple 200 day MA IS below the average BUT the “exponential” 200 day MA is above it. Compuationally, the EMA is the simplest and most streamlined of all moving average techniques. A significant advantage of this superior computational method is that the EMA is never distorted by old data suddenly dropping out of the calculation. With this in mind, why is the SMA used instead of the EMA in the articles posted on ETFtrends when the EMA is more responsive?