Hi oem

I don't understand the question and so the answer doesn't make sense to me either. Can you expand your question a little?

Roy

Hi oem

There are possibly one or more reasons for the apparent discrepancy, and since I don't have current MetaStock data with me I can't do a lot of testing until after the weekend. The common perception is that MACD is derived from the difference between 12 and 26 period exponential moving averages. In MetaStock the Periods parameters are 12.3333 and 25.6666 (recurring), so this is one possibilty for the apparent difference.

Another possible reason is the amount of data loaded for the MACDcalculation. A 26-period EMA actually requires 100-130 bars of data to give a truly accurate result, and the reason for this has been explained many times previously on this forum. You can use the Search function to do a little research of your own.

Yet another possibility is that one or more chart vendors may use"seeding" for the MACD EMAs in much the same way that Wilders Smoothing (a slower type of EMA) is seeded with a Periods-length Simple Moving Average. To my knowledge this is not usually applied to an EMA, but that's not to say that the method isn't used on either of the charts shown in your link.

Please understand that there are always reasons for unexplained differences or apparent anomalies, and usually some lateral thinking and a little bit of research will provide an answer.

Roy