i think you are slightly twisting facts. Why do I even sound as if you are talking about facts? My first back tests, which lie years back and where as elementary in nature as you could possibly imagine, have shown that you engage in massive negative edge when trading against trends based on RSI, CCI, even DeMark makes for a negative expectation, let alone fading simple MA cross overs. Following trends blindly on a naive cross over at least makes you at least break even over a longer period of time, proving that it pays to rather follow trends than fading them (all before transaction costs). So, I recommend you also test things for yourself rather than making blanket statements.
Of course most funds dont just trade on MA crossovers but have completely different triggers and additional filters. Not sure why you disparage my post as if I promoted MA crossover trend following strategies.
Of course most funds dont just trade on MA crossovers but have completely different triggers and additional filters. Not sure why you disparage my post as if I promoted MA crossover trend following strategies.
Quote from Ghost of Cutten:
I'm still long AAPL. Why did you think otherwise? If a long is based on valuation and market action, then a steady rally of around 10% is hardly a sign to exit, let alone reverse and go short.
My comments were just that jumping on every single trend is not a great money-making strategy - if it were, then a simple MA crossover system would significantly outperform, and would be literally free money. Therefore blanket trend-following doesn't have any particular edge, and thus fading trends does not put the odds massively against you. Selective trend-following can indeed work well, I agree, but so can selective reversal trading, as many renowned value investors, relative value players, and global macro traders have proven.