Skip to main content
Track Trend following
20 / 38
Search the archiveLibrary
Library

2008issue C051-6

Parallel listings and divergent trend behavior

A historical case applied one moving-average baseline and one trend-following procedure to Shanghai and Hong Kong listings of the same company. The two venues did not share a common trend path, so each listing had to be read on its own.

  • A 60-day moving average was the explicit quantitative baseline on the Shanghai listing and was described as more reliable than shorter averages for defining the dominant trend.
  • The same 60-day construction on the Hong Kong listing produced a different price-to-average relationship, so the two venues did not share one common trend path.
  • A rule-based trend-following procedure using short- and long-group moving averages made entry, exit, and stand-aside decisions testable as one method on both listings.
  • Chart patterns on the two listings were not aligned in timing, form, or duration, so a single psychology-free fundamental story could not explain both price paths.
Entries in this reading2 entries
Current trackTrend following168 readingsMoving average597 readings

Two listings of the same issuer

The archive applied a long-period moving-average overlay and a rule-based trend-following procedure to Shanghai and Hong Kong listings of the same company. The moving average was the explicit quantitative baseline. The trend-following overlay used multiple short- and long-group moving averages so that entry, exit, and stand-aside decisions could be tested as one method.

The moving average baseline

On the Shanghai listing, a long-period moving-average overlay defined the baseline. A 60-day average was described as more reliable than shorter averages for defining the dominant trend. Trendline construction on that listing was judged less effective than this baseline for defining trending behavior and for locating shorter-term opportunities.

The same 60-day moving-average construction on the Hong Kong listing produced a different relationship between price and the average. The two venues did not share one common trend path.

The trend following procedure

The same rule-based trend-following procedure was run on both listings. On the Shanghai listing, the multiple-average overlay stayed aligned with a sustained advance for most of the sample. Shorter-term compression episodes still required a separate management rule.

On the Hong Kong listing, the same overlay signaled a clearer late-sample breakdown, including a close below a previously reliable rising support line in August.

Patterns that did not line up

The two listings produced chart patterns that were not aligned in timing, form, or duration. A single psychology-free fundamental story could not explain both price paths.

Educational research material, not investment advice. Historical source context does not establish present-day performance.
20 of 38 in the Trend following track
20081-1 pp.Next on Trend followingRecovery headlines versus trend-regime rulesBecause market location cannot be known with complete certainty, a technical approach states expectations as price-based-probability.
All readings on this track · 38 readings
  1. 1986A Marshall Wave book is assembled one confirmed stance at a time
  2. 1987Operator gut check when two systems conflict
  3. 1988Visual trend rules need one testable procedure
  4. 1988Audit trend and breakout rules sold without tests
  5. 1992Weekly 4 percent close reversal case study
  6. 1992Write down the plan, then wait for the cross
  7. 1994Constructing a three-rule moving-average system
  8. 1995Weekly long-only trend rules with a gated retracement exit
  9. 1997Constructing rainbow charts with repeated smoothing
  10. 1997Three-line break as a one-parameter mechanical filter
  11. 2000Nested horizon trend alignment with a momentum stack
  12. 2001When certainty turns off the stop
  13. 2001Price must confirm every setup
  14. 2001Constructing a color stack from every lookback
  15. 2002Evaluating mechanical trend signals from ten-session average excursions
  16. 2004Trend pullbacks with a fifty-day average and relative strength index
  17. 2005Stochastic overbought as a trend-regime state
  18. 2005Trend-following as one testable signal procedure
  19. 2007One checklist for entry, exit and abstention after a market switch
  20. 2008Parallel listings and divergent trend behavior
  21. 2008Recovery headlines versus trend-regime rules
  22. 2008Constructing an intraday trend procedure with confirming close, retest, and planned exits
  23. 2010Mechanical trend-following system design, stops, and validation
  24. 2010A trading-plan that sets entry, stop, trail, and pause together
  25. 2010Multi-horizon cycle signals, trend filters, and stops
  26. 2012Weekly bear-market and shock signals as a mechanical procedure
  27. 2013A 2013 rates week as a structure-first exit drill
  28. 2013Trend following as one testable procedure
  29. 2013A forex veto checklist: trend, pair economy, and crowd bias
  30. 2015Relative-strength-index rules under a 20-percent trend filter
  31. 2015Trend-gated oscillator entry and exit rules
  32. 2016Trend process versus end-goal trading
  33. 2017Gold as a classroom for one midterm-trend procedure
  34. 2017Falling-knife FX longs wait for a four-hour trend turn
  35. 2018A closed procedure for quarterly sector rank slots
  36. 2018A recursive median as shared state for trend rules
  37. 2020Moving-average construction as an objective trend filter
  38. 2020Constructing first and second cross trend entries
By fieldTrend and channels228 readingsBy year2008150 readings
All 168 readings tagged Trend following
Also on Trend following5 readings
1988Simple systems over optimized complexity1989Weekly high and low averages as stop-and-reverse levels1990Fair-value gaps and a copper moving-average channel1991Independent formula timers kept as a testable combination1994Constructing a three-rule moving-average system