Is technical analysis getting the recognition it deserves in university studies?
- Thread starter marty_f
- Start date
schools of higher education teach science, fact and testable subjects ( atleast they should) hence TA has no place in an academic setting other than for historical reference or in art class.
this thread is full of classic misinformation and myth. to assert that TA is a science is akin to calling art a science. despite the misleading scientific sounding name, TA is an UNTESTABLE and even an UNDEFINABLE artform. Anytime quantification and definition of a TA pattern is attempted, the results are dismal.
With the advent of PC's and free/cheap charting programs, TA appears to be the easy way out for numerous newbies, what could be easier?? whether a wizetrade type program or do it yourself indicators, etc depending on your personality type and intellect---they ALL have the same inherent flaws and start from a false premise. i could go on and on--- may i suggest "winner take all" and "practical speculation" as good starting points in this subject.
the market infrastracture, forever starved for new blood, unrelentingly pushes the TA myth to lure more and more capital for lubrication and energy.
However, when looked at as an intuitive artform, or for visualization of the past, TA has some value--but thats as far as it goes---
surf
this thread is full of classic misinformation and myth. to assert that TA is a science is akin to calling art a science. despite the misleading scientific sounding name, TA is an UNTESTABLE and even an UNDEFINABLE artform. Anytime quantification and definition of a TA pattern is attempted, the results are dismal.
With the advent of PC's and free/cheap charting programs, TA appears to be the easy way out for numerous newbies, what could be easier?? whether a wizetrade type program or do it yourself indicators, etc depending on your personality type and intellect---they ALL have the same inherent flaws and start from a false premise. i could go on and on--- may i suggest "winner take all" and "practical speculation" as good starting points in this subject.
the market infrastracture, forever starved for new blood, unrelentingly pushes the TA myth to lure more and more capital for lubrication and energy.
However, when looked at as an intuitive artform, or for visualization of the past, TA has some value--but thats as far as it goes---
surf
Then so does FA as numbers are often and easily fudged.
.
The fact remains, it's in the universities as an academic study.
No misinformation and no myth...it's a fact.
Whether its science or not especially when math gets involved...
That's arguable.
Will they offer it as a science degree versus some other degree 10 - 20 years from now?
That's anybody's guess and I won't speculate on that (pun intended).
Mark
Agreed. 99.9% use it completely wrong and then go on to give it a bad name as "useless" or "voodoo".
I know the truth. And the truth is my volatility based trend following system has smoked the avgs year in and year out.
Here's a study that appeared in the Journal of Finance in 2000
http://web.mit.edu/alo/www/Papers/techanal.html
http://web.mit.edu/alo/www/Papers/techanal.html
That isn't the only one.
There are PhD work that shows Technical Analysis has some value and I've seen a few that shows it doesn't.
Thus, it really gets down to what part of Technical Analysis are we talking about because TA is a big field of study.
Therefore, in this thread as many other online discussions...
One guy is talking about one thing involving TA and the other guy is talking about something else involving TA.
Yet, overall, I think Technical Analysis has value as an accredited course to satisfy academic requirements.
I'm obviously not the only one that believes such because the fact remains...
There are prestigious universities offering Technical Analysis as an accredited course to satisfy academic requirements.
Summary - If you can't make money via using TA especially if you take a scientific approach...
Most likely your opinion will be that it does not work and/or has no value.
If you can make money via using TA especially if you take a scientific approach...
Most likely your opinion is that it works and/or has value even in a university academic environment.
Mark
A scientific approach to TA implies that the results (presumably making money) will be repeatable by anyone who uses the agreed upon scientific method. I haven't seen the formula yet. You can't invoke science to achieve results using TA.
TA is an accurate historical account of what has happened. It has no predictive value whatsoever. I know. I can already see it coming..."But you don't really "understand" TA, Max". Maybe, but consider this. Institutions higher dozens of TA specialists, who likely DO understand TA. Why is it then that managed funds only rarely beat the lowly index funds?
Great discussion...
Sure you have.
Many TA guys have posted the specific math calculations behind their indicator, chart pattern, wave or whatever.
The fact is we are different (our psych make up)...
Even if we both agree on the same math numbers.
The odds are good that we will apply it differently.
Reason why we will have different trading results although the formula is the same for both of us.
My point...profits are dependent upon more than one variable and TA is just one variable.
Thus, some traders get tunnel vision on one variable and forget about everything else.
Simply, TA is useful and needed in the scheme of things for some profitable traders even though they are using other stuff with TA.
Therefore, I think a student at the university level will benefit from learning as many variables as possible and there's value with such an education.
Thus, its safe to assume if the day arrives where college degrees are offered in Technical Analysis...
These students will have also learned all the other variables as part of the equation just like all other academic studies.
How they apply it is a different story.
Mark