Jump to content

Welcome to the new Traders Laboratory! Please bear with us as we finish the migration over the next few days. If you find any issues, want to leave feedback, get in touch with us, or offer suggestions please post to the Support forum here.

  • Welcome Guests

    Welcome. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest which does not give you access to all the great features at Traders Laboratory such as interacting with members, access to all forums, downloading attachments, and eligibility to win free giveaways. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free. Create a FREE Traders Laboratory account here.

jswanson

The Death Cross - How To Trade It

Recommended Posts

In mid-August of this year (2011) there were many people pointing out the newly formed “Death Cross” in the major indices. The Death Cross is simply when a 50-period simple moving average (SMA) crosses under a 200-period SMA on a daily chart. Such a signal is believed to warn of upcoming bearish market activity. The opposite signal is called a “Golden Cross” and is alleged to warn of bullish market activity. But does the Death Cross or the Golden Cross hold any merit? What can we learn from these signals and how can we use this information in our trading? In this article I’m going to demonstrate why the Death Cross is important and why its opposite signal, the Golden Cross, may be even more important.

 

Both the 50-period SMA and the 200-period SMA are well known moving averages. Thus a lot of eyes are watching price around these levels. It’s no surprise when these moving averages cross the event might be worth noting. One way to test how well the Death Cross and Golden Cross perform historically is to create a simple trading system based upon these signals. Using TradeStation’s EasyLanguage coding language it’s simple to create a trading system that is always in the market switching between a long position and a short position based upon a moving average crossover. Here is what the entire trading system code looks like:

 

if ( Average(Close,50) crosses above Average(Close,200) ) then
buy(“Golden Cross”) next bar at open;
if ( Average(Close,50) crosses under Average(Close,200) ) then
Sell short(“Death Cross”) next bar at open;

 

In order to get a long-term feel for this system I’m going to use the S&P500 index going back to 1961. The trading system will have an initial trading account size of $20,000. To keep the position sizing simple each signal will use $10,000 to determine the number of shares to purchase. By dedicating $10,000 to each trade we are attempting to normalize the number of shares we purchase based upon the cost per share. Back in the 1960s one share was around $70 while today it’s worth over $1,000.

 

Next, I opened a chart with daily data for the S&P E-mini from 1961 to September 30, 2011. I then applied the strategy to the chart while making no deductions for commissions and slippage.

 

Before we start looking at some of the numbers I want to break this study into two parts: Shorting a Death Cross vs. going long the Golden Cross. What interests me is how well the system functions going long vs going short. In other words, what does the SMA cross tell us about a bearish cross vs a bullish cross? Are they different?

Since we recently experienced a Death Cross, let’s first look at shorting every Death Cross signal. The equity graph is below and it’s not pretty.

 

SHORTING THE DEATH CROSS

 

Death_Cross_EQ_Curve.png

 

What does this tell us? To simply short the Death Cross may not be very profitable. We can see the equity curve hangs around the zero line for decades. In recent times it has climbed from negative territory to just below the zero line. Yet, there is nothing in this picture that suggests we have an edge simply shorting the S&P index upon a Death Cross signal.

 

Maybe we should be taking the Death Cross as a buying opportunity? Why not? We want to be opposite the crowd, right? Below is the equity graph when we go-long at every Death Cross.

 

GOING LONG THE DEATH CROSS

 

Death_Cross_Long_EQ_Curve.png

 

Interesting! At times going long actually makes money and notice how the equity graph spends a lot of its time above the zero line. Furthermore, unlike shorting the Death Cross, going long actually produces a positive result. Counter intuitive to common knowledge, I would say. Yet, it’s not much of a profit for all those years of trading and it’s certainly not an edge we can take advantage of. All in all this strategy is a wash much like shorting the Death Cross. This graph probably reflects the fact that the S&P 500 has had a bullish bias since 1961. It also points to the idea that during a Death Cross we have continued market weakness. In other words, market gains are not likely to happen when the 50-period SMA is below the 200-day SMA.

 

Next let’s look at taking every long signal. The equity graph below depicts going long at each Golden Cross.

 

GOING LONG THE GOLDEN CROSS

 

Golden_Cross_EQ_Curve.png

 

This is a much improved equity graph! We seem to have a clear edge going long the S&P 500 when a Golden Cross is triggered. This graph highlights the fact that when the 50-period SMA is above the 200-day SMA the market often exhibits bullish behavior.

Combining what we have now learned I would say our two equity graphs above might be suggesting moving your investing accounts into cash when a Death Cross forms may be a good idea. This would be done in my opinion to prevent drawdown and thus avoid the pain seeing your profits evaporate. It’s certainly can be much more psychologically appealing to be in cash when those big bear markets hit. Shorting a Death Cross does not have much of an edge and only after a Golden Cross does the market hold a strong bullish edge.

 

The chart below shows each trading system with the addition of a buy-and-hold approach.

 

Death-Cross-Summary.png

 

You can see the market has had a clear up-side bias since 1960 and buying and holding produced the best annualized return. But at what cost? The drawdowns you must live through can be substantial! The maximum intra-day drawdown, expressed, in terms of your initial capital is 777%. While buy and hold has worked wonders if you started in 1961 it has not done well over the past 15 years. Over the past 15 years the buy and hold has returned a zero annualized return while the long-Golden Cross has returned around 2% annual return over the same period. But the advantages and disadvantages of buy-and-hold are for another topic.

 

SUMMARY:

 

By comparing the market behavior during a Death Cross vs a Golden Cross we can come to some generalizations that might help in both your investing accounts as well as your trading accounts (depending upon your timeframe).

 

* Upon a Death Cross signal the market shows general weakness to the upside. This weakness can be difficult to short. Moving into cash during this time may prevent you from experiencing significant drawdowns. Remember, we are not talking about day trading in this article. The Death Cross and Golden Cross are based on slow moving averages that work best for long term holding periods. A skilled day trader can make a lot of money shorting during a bear market, of course. However, when it comes to using a slow timing method such as the Death Cross, it does not seem to pay off.

 

* Upon a Golden Cross signal the market has demonstrated a lot of bullish activity. This one is easy. When a Golden Cross occurs, going long the market may lead to strong gains over the coming months and years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi jswanson,

 

Thanks - that is very interesting and nicely laid out.

 

Can I ask what signal you use to exit each position? Eg is it one of the two moving averages crossing back over, or one (or both) turning negative (or positive) or is it for a fixed period of time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi jswanson,

 

Thanks - that is very interesting and nicely laid out.

 

Can I ask what signal you use to exit each position? Eg is it one of the two moving averages crossing back over, or one (or both) turning negative (or positive) or is it for a fixed period of time.

 

Thanks. The entry/exit was simply when the 50-period SMA crosses the 200-period SMA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Thx for reminding us... I don't bang that drum often enough anymore Another part for consideration is who that money initially went to...
    • TDUP ThredUp stock, watch for a top of range breakout above 2.94 at https://stockconsultant.com/?TDUP
    • How long does it take to receive HFM's withdrawal via Skrill? less than 24H?
    • My wife Robin just wanted some groceries.   Simple enough.   She parked the car for fifteen minutes, and returned to find a huge scratch on the side.   Someone keyed her car.   To be clear, this isn’t just any car.   It’s a Cybertruck—Elon Musk's stainless-steel spaceship on wheels. She bought it back in 2021, before Musk became everyone's favorite villain or savior.   Someone saw it parked in a grocery lot and felt compelled to carve their hatred directly into the metal.   That's what happens when you stand out.   Nobody keys a beige minivan.   When you're polarizing, you're impossible to ignore. But the irony is: the more attention something has, the harder it is to find the truth about it.   What’s Elon Musk really thinking? What are his plans? What will happen with DOGE? Is he deserving of all of this adoration and hate? Hard to say.   Ideas work the same way.   Take tariffs, for example.   Tariffs have become the Cybertrucks of economic policy. People either love them or hate them. Even if they don’t understand what they are and how they work. (Most don’t.)   That’s why, in my latest podcast (link below), I wanted to explore the “in-between” truth about tariffs.   And like Cybertrucks, I guess my thoughts on tariffs are polarizing.   Greg Gutfield mentioned me on Fox News. Harvard professors hate me now. (I wonder if they also key Cybertrucks?)   But before I show you what I think about tariffs… I have to mention something.   We’re Headed to Austin, Texas This weekend, my team and I are headed to Austin. By now, you should probably know why.   Yes, SXSW is happening. But my team and I are doing something I think is even better.   We’re putting on a FREE event on “Tech’s Turning Point.”   AI, quantum, biotech, crypto, and more—it’s all on the table.   Just now, we posted a special webpage with the agenda.   Click here to check it out and add it to your calendar.   The Truth About Tariffs People love to panic about tariffs causing inflation.   They wave around the ghost of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff from the Great Depression like it’s Exhibit A proving tariffs equal economic collapse.   But let me pop this myth:   Tariffs don’t cause inflation. And no, I'm not crazy (despite what angry professors from Harvard or Stanford might tweet at me).   Here's the deal.   Inflation isn’t when just a couple of things become pricier. It’s when your entire shopping basket—eggs, shirts, Netflix subscriptions, bananas, everything—starts costing more because your money’s worth less.   Inflation means your dollars aren’t stretching as far as they used to.   Take the 1800s.   For nearly a century, 97% of America’s revenue came from tariffs. Income tax? Didn’t exist. And guess what inflation was? Basically zero. Maybe 1% a year.   The economy was booming, and tariffs funded nearly everything. So, why do people suddenly think tariffs cause inflation today?   Tariffs are taxes on imports, yes, but prices are set by supply and demand—not tariffs.   Let me give you a simple example.   Imagine fancy potato chips from Canada cost $10, and a 20% tariff pushes that to $12. Everyone panics—prices rose! Inflation!   Nope.   If I only have $100 to spend and the price of my favorite chips goes up, I either stop buying chips or I buy, say, fewer newspapers.   If everyone stops buying newspapers because they’re overspending on chips, newspapers lower their prices or go out of business.   Overall spending stays the same, and inflation doesn’t budge.   Three quick scenarios:   We buy pricier chips, but fewer other things: Inflation unchanged. Manufacturers shift to the U.S. to avoid tariffs: Inflation unchanged (and more jobs here). We stop buying fancy chips: Prices drop again. Inflation? Still unchanged. The only thing that actually causes inflation is printing money.   Between 2020 and 2022 alone, 40% of all money ever created in history appeared overnight.   That’s why inflation shot up afterward—not because of tariffs.   Back to tariffs today.   Still No Inflation Unlike the infamous Smoot-Hawley blanket tariff (imagine Oprah handing out tariffs: "You get a tariff, and you get a tariff!"), today's tariffs are strategic.   Trump slapped tariffs on chips from Taiwan because we shouldn’t rely on a single foreign supplier for vital tech components—especially if that supplier might get invaded.   Now Taiwan Semiconductor is investing $100 billion in American manufacturing.   Strategic win, no inflation.   Then there’s Canada and Mexico—our friendly neighbors with weirdly huge tariffs on things like milk and butter (299% tariff on butter—really, Canada?).   Trump’s not blanketing everything with tariffs; he’s pressuring trade partners to lower theirs.   If they do, everybody wins. If they don’t, well, then we have a strategic trade chess game—but still no inflation.   In short, tariffs are about strategy, security, and fairness—not inflation.   Yes, blanket tariffs from the Great Depression era were dumb. Obviously. Today's targeted tariffs? Smart.   Listen to the whole podcast to hear why I think this.   And by the way, if you see a Cybertruck, don’t key it. Robin doesn’t care about your politics; she just likes her weird truck.   Maybe read a good book, relax, and leave cars alone.   (And yes, nobody keys Volkswagens, even though they were basically created by Hitler. Strange world we live in.) Source: https://altucherconfidential.com/posts/the-truth-about-tariffs-busting-the-inflation-myth    Profits from free accurate cryptos signals: https://www.predictmag.com/       
    • No, not if you are comparing apples to apples. What we call “poor” is obviously a pretty high bar but if you’re talking about like a total homeless shambling skexie in like San Fran then, no. The U.S.A. in not particularly kind to you. It is not an abuse so much as it is a sad relatively minor consequence of our optimism and industriousness.   What you consider rich changes with circumstances obviously. If you are genuinely poor in the U.S.A., you experience a quirky hodgepodge of unhelpful and/or abstract extreme lavishnesses while also being alienated from your social support network. It’s about the same as being a refugee. For a fraction of the ‘kindness’ available to you in non bio-available form, you could have simply stayed closer to your people and been MUCH better off.   It’s just a quirk of how we run the place and our values; we are more worried about interfering with people’s liberty and natural inclination to do for themselves than we are about no bums left behind. It is a slightly hurtful position and we know it; we are just scared to death of socialism cancer and we’re willing to put our money where our mouth is.   So, if you’re a bum; you got 5G, the ER will spend like $1,000,000 on you over a hangnail but then kick you out as soon as you’re “stabilized”, the logistics are surpremely efficient, you have total unchecked freedom of speech, real-estate, motels, and jobs are all natural healthy markets in perfect competition, you got compulsory three ‘R’’s, your military owns the sky, sea, space, night, information-space, and has the best hairdos, you can fill out paper and get all the stuff up to and including a Ph.D. Pretty much everything a very generous, eager, flawless go-getter with five minutes to spare would think you might need.   It’s worse. Our whole society is competitive and we do NOT value or make any kumbaya exception. The last kumbaya types we had werr the Shakers and they literally went extinct. Pueblo peoples are still around but they kind of don’t count since they were here before us. So basically, if you’re poor in the U.S.A., you are automatically a loser and a deadbeat too. You will be treated as such by anybody not specifically either paid to deal with you or shysters selling bejesus, Amway, and drugs. Plus, it ain’t safe out there. Not everybody uses muhfreedoms to lift their truck, people be thugging and bums are very vulnerable here. The history of a large mobile workforce means nobody has a village to go home to. Source: https://askdaddy.quora.com/Are-the-poor-people-in-the-United-States-the-richest-poor-people-in-the-world-6   Profits from free accurate cryptos signals: https://www.predictmag.com/ 
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.