IMO the crossover in itself doesn't seem to signify much. In my experience it produces too many false signals and misses/lags behind many of the best entries. Basing an automated strategy on MA crossover alone will lead to lots of trades that even just a glance at the chart would tell you are obviously be bad.
However the (rate of change of the) change of the difference between two MAs respective rate of climb/descent can be a good indicator of a move in price (that you have identified prior to looking at the MAs!) either strengthening or weakening. At least in relation to the longer-term trend. I.e. if the shorter MA is starting to move away from the longer one at an increasing rate, we are very likely in the early stages of a big swing and we might wnat to increase our position. If the longer MA is starting to catch up rapidly, the swing might be coming to an end and we might be looking to exit our position soon. But waiting for an eventual crossover seems to be just a couple of bars slower than necessary, at least in my tests.
Astute readers might note that this is somewhat similar to what the MACD does, though I don't believe the way MACD is commonly used to generate signals is a good way to go about it. Again, I have to say that the blind faith in crossovers seems to be misplaced. It seems to be mostly a psychological "the x marks the spot" thing that makes people want to see significance in it. But then again I'm still very new to trading myself and might be talking out of my behind. Let's just say that I personally haven't gotten it to work.
The following user says Thank You to skoa for this post:
Thanks for your comment. I understand where you are coming from. The primary objective is to run filter for US stocks (currently I'm using volume scan only) and also to complement existing chart reading based on price action. Yes, not that I've researched into MACD, it does have similar methodology I must say!