[clam61]

isn't the hull moving average based on the SMA, not the EMA?

Consider a series of 10 numbers from '0' to '9' inclusive and imagine that they are successive price points on a chart with 9 being the most recent price point at the right hand leading edge. If we take the 10 period simple average of these numbers then, not surprisingly, we will determine the midpoint of 4.5 which significantly lags behind the most recent price point of 9. Here's the clever bit…first let's halve the period of the average to 5 and apply it to the most recent numbers of 5,6,7,8, and 9, the result being the midpoint of 7.

16-Week Hull Moving Average

Finally, to remove the lag we take the midpoint of 7 and add the difference between the two averages which equals 2.5 (7 - 4.5). This gives a final answer of 9.5 (7 + 2.5) which is a slight overcompensation. But this overcompensation is very handy because it offsets the lagging effect of the nested averaging.