Unless you just randomly picked two items to trade at the same time, you had to do some analysis based on technical data to determine the relationship between the pairs. You could choose to trade Microsoft and Ford as a pair but you still have do some technical analysis to determine what if any relationship exists between the prices of the stock.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
neither TA not FA?
- Thread starter i_c_fed_people
- Start date
Unless you just randomly picked two items to trade at the same time, you had to do some analysis based on technical data to determine the relationship between the pairs. You could choose to trade Microsoft and Ford as a pair but you still have do some technical analysis to determine what if any relationship exists between the prices of the stock.
Quote from spd:
In my opinion, if you are basing trades off the behaivor of price in any respect, its technical analysis.
If you are basing your trades of any information regarding a company or commodity, rumor or fact, its fundamental analysis.
Anything else is simply guessing.
Exactly.
Quote from i_c_fed_people:
Interesting you should say that.
Here is a quote from the T2W guy:
"My view ( one familar to other successful speculators that I know) is that the past has no relevance as in order to be successful the here and now is what matters, not the past. I thought it reasonable that readers would also realize this and understand my comment! No matter what behavior is reflected in the chart, nobody, except someone manipulating that market, can know with any semblance of certainty whether the next tick will be up or down and therefore a trend continuation or the begining of a reversal"
Note, this is the guy who also discounted level2/DOM/timeandsales etc etc.
Doesn't all information come 'from the past'?
The person you quoted was making a strong effort to inform you.
He is correct in his view.
Categorically he is not speaking about FA or TA or FA and TA.
He is speaking about the four category which is the title of the thread.
The title may have been chosen by serendipitous means, however. Specifically it ws NOT chosen by the person who tried to inform you.
A consideration of making money is being informed.
FA and TA are tools that have limitations as the informer pointed out to you.
It may not be just coincidence that in Behavioral Finance the terms the informer used, also come up. There in BF the subject is traders. You, in this thread, seem to be dicussing measuring the market.
From my viewpoint it was good to see you consider listening to an input from someone else who, in fact, knows things that are not commonly known, but on the other hand are know to traders who person exceptionally well (his colleagues in this case).
He has succinctly explained to you a context unknown to you and he has stripped away FA and TA, FA alone, and TA alone.
None applies in his context. Also he is correct about his context's pertinent considrations.
The rules that apply are well trusted in their many applications; terra firma, so to speak.
Behavioral finance explains, empirically, just what the record is at the three times he mentions.
How to inform people who occupy a different space or world is difficult at best. I admire you and your informer.
He is making you think about that which he knows.
Pragmatically speaking, the only test that has to be dealt with is knowing the markets have no noise nor anomallies.
As a personal warm up drill you may want to consider another informative resourse. If so, go to Behavioral Finaince and read a snippet on the Home page entitled BF or BS. Focus on the three items. They are dicussed in the proximity of the two market conditions your informer mentioned.
The subject of NOT FA AND NOT TA is framed by Keyne's "like kind" principle and Carnap's logic Theorems. This is entirely new turf for you; it is way beyond amazing and unbelievable.
You may be able to arrive in the region of non probabilitisitc information theory in a while if you can begin to think critically. It is exclusive of probability. your informer was not talking to you using probailistic terminology. He was speaking using two ortogonal terms.
My comments will turn out to just be a temporary interruption until the next 20 years have passed.