for some reason there was no reply button available on your response to me with respect to moving averages. i don't want to beat the horse to death but have you ever seen any written analysis on AOD or other funds with heavy turnover (excess of 100%) that brings up moving averages. and i mean from some semi-professional people (not americafirst, or some other posters on the board !!!).
some people like to look at the 50 day versus the 200 day. when they cross, it is considered a 'golden cross' or a 'death cross'. the golden is when the 50 day moves above the 200 day and it is supposed to suggest things are looking good for the stock. the death is the reverse, when the 50 day moves below the 200 day. of course it doesn't always work (AAPL did the death cross in mid dec at about $525 so that one seems to have panned out so far).
but as i said previously, if a fund is always buying/selling, the moving average is meaningless as it is tracking something different over time. the holdings need to be somewhat static for it to be relevant.
in your post you had this:
What stocks the funds hold at any given time is not relevant to the comparison; MA is an evaluation of pricing changes over time - irrespective of market volatility, individual stock selection, or any other criteria.
The idea of comparing MAs is actually rather pointless - unless of course, you're trying to determine how well an index fund tracks the index it is supposed to replicate.
neither of these make any sense at all and make me question your intelligence. i'm not trying to bash, just being honest. as an example if i want to see how well an index fund tracks the index it is supposed to replicate, i wouldn't look at a moving average. i'd look at the total return for the period for each of them.
i wondered about that. thought maybe i was put on 'ignore' and that was the reason. many of the old time AOD holders have me on ignore as they were in denial about the status of their investment.........