There is a study of the Dow 200 day moving average from 1886 to 2001. See Siegal, Stocks for the Long Run, chapter 17. It depends on your time frame as to whether it beats buy-hold or not. Some years there are many switches like 2000 with 16 switches. Taxes can play a role too.
Most people will not want to deal with such an active strategy. I wouldn't want to personally. Too many real world problems to distract one.
So this was a buy above the 200 EMA and sell below? I don't think that's the best way to use the moving average. Many use a long average and short average. So you buy when the short average crosses above the long average. In the example shown it uses a 77 day short average, a 110 day long average, and a there is a 3 day trade delay (don't act on a signal unless it remains in effect for more than 3 days) which reduces whipsaw trades.
In this example there were only .76 trades per year and 15 total trades in the last 20 years, so it's not a very active strategy. If you don't use the trade delay there were 17 trades.
Of course the numbers I used in this example are only one possibility, but I found these have worked pretty well. Many use a 50 day short and 200 day long and this had a 12.10% CAGR over 20 years.
I tried using just the 200 day average and this resulted in 157 trades total (7.91/year) so that's definitely not the way to go.
Using the moving average strategy I described, over 20 years a $20,000 investment grows to $236,245 v.s. $107,379 for buy and hold, so over double the result and with greatly reduce volatility (a maximum drawdown of 19.20% v.s. 55% for the S&P). This (or any strategy including buy and hold) may not perform as well in the future, but it might. A lot of people follow the "buy and hold" approach which is fine, but here's something to consider:
If you look at the graphs for the last 20 years and the results were reversed, and the buy and hold strategy produced the moving average result and the moving average strategy produced the buy and hold result, I think people would be absolutely raving about the buy and hold (better gains, lower drawdowns) and bashing the moving average (half the gains, horrible drawdowns).
Since the graphs aren't reversed, maybe the buy and hold idea deserves some bashing??
I propose that any strategy that has resulted in 2 stress filled 50%+ drops in the last 10 years may not be the best way to go. Food for thought.
Maybe the above mentioned strategy isn't for you (And when say you, I mean any reader, not just Lsbcal), but I'm genuinely curious about what other strategies people are using that they have found to work well. I'm here to learn.