Quote from rodden:
My main point is that TA Feedback is stressing the system and may lead to strange market developments.

so the crowd just follow. This is a DUAL REALITY and you only see one facette (in fact you only see the SHADOW of the other so that's it is FUZZY) the other is yes INVISIBLE to you that's why it is so funny for me : I have only applied my model to present (see "how the 1st day of the month of November packed information for half of the month" http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=24706 & http://tinyurl.com/x6hj) and not to so far past yet
.
. I'm still looking for datas that are reliable: yahoo is bugged for that I don't trust them.Quote from rodden:
Once upon a time TA was simple - and it worked. When TA traders referred to simple consolidation patterns, multiple tops/bottoms, volume-trend patterns and other such unsophisticated chart phenomena they had a definite advantage over the general - and generally disorganized - investing population.
Today, almost all transactions are guided by TA considerations (eg.: what fund is managed by the TA-ignorant?) and, for practical purposes, the trading population has distilled down to funds managers and professional 'day-traders'.
Today we have hundreds (thousands?) of TA terms in the trading lexicon; one requires the equivalent to a Ph.D. to comprehend it all.
Proposition: Today's market action is increasingly distorted by way of a feedback loop between the markets and TA application. The markets collective is in a state of transition from what it was to what it will be; what it will be is literally anybody's guess. I'm talking a change in the identity of the system here - and if you're acquainted with Chaos Theory 101, you know that that means danger!
The original basic psychology behind TA has been replaced by a still admittedly inchoate but ever-increasingly organized body of recondite theory; the markets are tending to become a balloon ungrounded in reality.
For example: The Fibonacci series is a pretty little progression, but why on earth should it be applicable to market action? What has it to do with market psychology? If it does work, it's because it indicates that the market is becoming more and more an internally-referencing mathematical phenomenon and less and less a function of grass-roots investor perceptions.
No wonder RSP season is losing its impact.
Quote from formikatrading:
Okay, I think I may now understand your point a little bit better. For example, people used to buy stocks with a major focus on dividends. From that standpoint, fundamentals mattered. Now it is just generally accepted that everyone should invest in the stock market because it always goes up in the long-run, and with 401k's, IRA's, etc., a much larger part of the population is "in the market" now in comparision to pre-1980's/1990's bull market. I could go on and on about this, but I just want to see if I'm getting closer to your point.
Quote from harrytrader:
TA has always been predominant in the past also:
In 1994 a paper untitled "Why diversification doesn't work" a hedge fund manager reminds that financial thoughts split between three schools: Fundamental, Technical and Quant. He remarked : "Until the early 1970s, the fundamental and technical schools supplied the ideas and methods that sophisticated investors used to make decisions. But recently, the Quant school has captured the Bulk of academic and professional attention."
Quote from OddTrader:
No, the things I found are not overwhelming!
PS: They are actually better.![]()
![]()
Quote from rodden:
I think that our ponderings might be more applicable than mere philosophical rambling. If you accept the notion that the whole market collective is drifting away from fundamentals (and it appears that you do) you won't be as inclined as those who take the current market rationale seriously to be taken by surprise by seemingly irrational future developments.
Sooner or later fundamentals prevail over theory.