FA â Fundamental Analysis
QA â Quant Analysis
TA â Technical Analysis
Many people believe that FA and QA have more validity than TA as they have a firm rooting in mathematical theories. This is true.
But the common denominator of all three approaches is that when used profitably, then all three are essential trend following approaches. Profits can only be associated with trends â bigger trends generate bigger profits.
BTW: Buffet and Soros donât use TA as Bubba asserted. Look at the 500 richest people list and almost all of them are businessmen who more or less use fundamental analysis to guide their investments. But even they are essentially trend followers, they make an investment and they stick to it for decades â IOW they never cut their profits short. Bill Gates is probably the ultimate trend follower (and skilled at eliminating competition). He rode the PC OS trend all the way till he had a monopoly on it. But you canât ignore the role chance plays: you have to be at the right place at the right time (for good entries).
QA â Quant Analysis
TA â Technical Analysis
Many people believe that FA and QA have more validity than TA as they have a firm rooting in mathematical theories. This is true.
But the common denominator of all three approaches is that when used profitably, then all three are essential trend following approaches. Profits can only be associated with trends â bigger trends generate bigger profits.
BTW: Buffet and Soros donât use TA as Bubba asserted. Look at the 500 richest people list and almost all of them are businessmen who more or less use fundamental analysis to guide their investments. But even they are essentially trend followers, they make an investment and they stick to it for decades â IOW they never cut their profits short. Bill Gates is probably the ultimate trend follower (and skilled at eliminating competition). He rode the PC OS trend all the way till he had a monopoly on it. But you canât ignore the role chance plays: you have to be at the right place at the right time (for good entries).
Quote from FishSauce:
Perhaps the word "cause and effect" might be a bad usage of words.
I think "underlying assumption" might be apropos. Everything we act on must have some LOGICAL assumption guiding it.
Going back to my original question, if you use TA, how do you know if the method is valid? What assumption are you assuming? Most trader believe that just by Backtesting, one can translate and interpret that into validity. It does not!
In one of the article I posted, one of the underlying assumption of TA is the mere fact that RANDOM WALK produces TRENDS. I think it's hard for some people to swallow this. All those trends: MA, RSI, MACD might be byproduct of Random walk. A harsh conclusion indeed. But the bright side is that random walk does not eliminate the possibility of TA.
The other article deals with psychological tendency, which I think is a haphazard assumption at best.