Subject: Re: Timing: recent highs
I am not Jim, but here is how I interpret it.

And me as well, techmo. I agree with everything you said.

With no datahelper, I could not go back and read the old post. At that time, the Board was still figuring out what period to use. It decided on 99 days. Jim expressed a preference for 114. That may have been because it gave fewer signals for statistically the same return.

In any case, I was just curious if he, or any one else, still tracked 114 days or any period other than 99.

Chip