Golden Cross: One Source Fixes It at 50/200, Another Leaves the Periods Open — and in Both of Its Examples Three of Four Crosses Were Whipsaws

Source 1 attaches the name to a particular pair — this page's earlier version was built on that reading, with the golden cross as the 50-day crossing the 200-day from below.^[1]

Source 3 attaches the same name to the general case: “A bullish crossover occurs when the shorter moving average crosses above the longer moving average. This is also known as a golden cross.” and “A bearish crossover occurs when the shorter moving average crosses below the longer moving average. This is known as a death cross (sometimes called a “dead cross”).”^[3]

It then treats the period pair as a separate choice about horizon, not part of the definition: “A system using a 5-day EMA and a 35-day EMA would be deemed short-term. A system using a 50-day SMA and 200-day SMA would be deemed medium-term, perhaps even long-term.” The construction itself it credits to another author — “In Technical Analysis of the Financial Markets, John Murphy calls this the “double crossover method”.” — and notes “There is also a triple crossover method that involves three moving averages.”^[3]

This page does not rule on which usage is correct. It records that the name is used both ways, so “a golden cross occurred” is not a complete statement until the two periods are given.^[1][3]

Source 3 does not illustrate the technique with its successes. On a 10-day and 50-day EMA pair: “A moving average crossover would have resulted in three whipsaws before catching a good trade.” “After three bad signals, the fourth signal foreshadowed a strong move as the stock advanced over 20%.”^[3]

And the second example runs the same way on a longer horizon (50-day and 200-day EMA): “There were four moving average crossovers over a two-and-a-half-year period. The first three resulted in whipsaws or bad trades.”^[3]

Its own takeaway — “First, crossovers are prone to whipsaw. A price or time filter can be applied to help prevent whipsaws.” with a concrete remedy: “Traders might require the crossover to last three days before acting or require the 10-day EMA to move above/below the 50-day EMA by a certain amount before acting.”^[3]

This page carries no backtest of its own and draws no conclusion about profitability. What it records is that the platform documenting the technique publishes a 1-in-4 hit rate in both of its worked examples.^[3]

“Moving average crossovers produce relatively late signals. After all, the system employs two lagging indicators. The longer the moving average periods, the greater the lag in the signals.” “These lagging indicators identify trend reversals as they occur (at best) or after they occur (at worst).”^[3]

One concrete measure of the lag on a 150-day EMA: “Notice that it took a 15% decline to reverse the direction of this moving average.”^[3]

And a way to turn the crossover into a number — “MACD (10,50,1) will show a line representing the difference between the two exponential moving averages. MACD turns positive during a golden cross and negative during a death cross.” With a caveat that matters when comparing charts: “Note that MACD and the PPO are based on exponential moving averages and will not match up with simple moving averages.”^[3]

For price-versus-average crossings it uses the same trick with a one-period average, since “The 1-day EMA equals the closing price.”^[3]

The explanation offered is not a market mechanism but a crowd one: “The 200-day moving average may offer support or resistance because it's widely used. It is almost like a self-fulfilling prophecy.”^[3]

And it warns against reading precision into it: “Do not expect exact support and resistance levels from moving averages, especially longer moving averages.” “Instead of exact levels, moving averages can be used to identify support or resistance zones.”^[3]

Its closing position: “Even though the trend is your friend, securities spend much time in trading ranges, which renders moving averages ineffective.” “Don't expect to sell at the top and buy at the bottom using moving averages.” and “As with most technical analysis tools, moving averages should not be used alone, but in conjunction with other complementary tools.”^[3]

The two named crosses are specific, and the periods are part of the name. "Golden cross occurs when 50 days simple moving average crosses 200 days simple moving average from below." "Death cross is an opposite situation, when 50 days simple moving average crosses 200 days simple moving average from above." Both are defined on simple moving averages at 50 and 200 days — a 20/50 EMA crossing is a moving-average crossover, but calling it a golden cross does not match this definition.^[1]

Neither term has its own Wikipedia article as of 2026-09-23 — both redirect into or are covered only by this crossover article, which is why the definitions above are the ones this page reports. This page did not trace the origin of the 50/200 convention or find who first used the names.^[1]

The definition is mechanical: a crossover "occurs when, on plotting two moving averages each based on different degrees of smoothing, the traces of these moving averages cross." One is a faster (shorter period) average, the other slower (longer period). The next sentence is the one usually left out: "It does not predict future direction but shows trends."^[1]

That is a claim about what the indicator is, not a caveat added later. Both averages are computed from prices that have already happened, so a crossing is a statement about the recent past becoming visible — the signal necessarily arrives after the move that produced it. The article notes the crossing "is used either to enter (buy or sell) or exit (sell or buy) the market" and "can be used to trigger a trade in a black box trading system" — usage, not endorsement.^[1]

The most-quoted bearish signal in retail commentary is rejected in the reference itself. The article states: "Death cross is not a reliable indicator of future market declines." The sentence carries a citation to Hulbert.^[1]

This page does not adjudicate that, and did not read the cited work. It records that the reference source, in the same paragraph where it defines the term, states the term is not reliable for the purpose it is usually invoked for. Whether any crossover rule produces a profit is not addressed here, and this page carries no backtest figures.^[1]

One historical note from the companion article is worth keeping for perspective on how old the technique is: the moving average "was invented by the Bank of England in 1833 to conceal the state of its bullion reserves." This page did not verify that claim beyond the article.^[2]

This page rests on two encyclopedia articles and one charting platform's own documentation. Murphy's book, which source 3 credits for the double crossover method, was not consulted.^[1][2][3]

Vendor limitation: source 3 is StockCharts describing the overlays it offers. Its worked examples are its own chart selections, not a sample this page examined, and the 1-in-4 pattern in them is an illustration rather than a measured rate.^[3]

Not established: which usage of “golden cross” is standard; whether any crossover rule is profitable; how often crossovers whipsaw in any named market or period. No backtest figures of this page's own appear anywhere on it.^[1][2][3]

Retrieved 2026-09-28. Source 3 HTTP 200, read in full (202 lines); 23 quotations from it were each searched for in the fetched text before publication.^[3]