technical analysis

tomkat22 said:
Yeah lying under oath about her insider trading.LOL


"According to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), Stewart avoided a loss of $45,673 by selling all 3,928 shares of her ImClone Systems stock on December 27, 2001, after receiving material, nonpublic information from Peter Bacanovic, her broker at Merrill Lynch. The day following her sale, the stock value fell 16%."
More...
If she admitted, most likely she would get a fine and let go. Few insider trading sinners went to jail if they admitted.
 
Last edited:
M.W. said:
Issue I see is that a lot of individuals here dance around the definition of "TA". TA as agreed in uncountable threads and posts TA is not price or volume. It is the utilization of derivatives of price and/or volume in the form of "indicators" such as MAs, imaginary support and resistence levels as function of where prices of the past set a bottom or top, random numbers that represent wave counts, waves, which are either completely undefined or ill defined. Basically trying to find patterns that one believes repeat themselves. The biggest issue of TA I see is not the mere utilization of such tools but the fact that they will repeat themselves sometimes but often times not or in modified form with timing and frequency that is completely unpredictable, purely random. This is supported by evidence of most at best breaking even but often generating negative returns. If it proved profitable with statistical relevance then the top players would not shell out hundreds of millions for technology and human resources in the quest for other edges. This is an argument that has never been refuted by any logical arguments.
More...
%%
LOL party true;
but not a logical conclusion. LOL.NO such thing as luck or random; what ''you call luck i calla small sample '' -T Follower+Red socksBoston Nets John Henry. I like the NET bible more than any sports team LOL:D:D,:D:D:D:D:D:caution::caution:
 
As many have pointed out, this is a pretty dumb debate, but I will bite. We are all arguing over definitions. It’s pretty stupid.

Here is how I delineate investing. If you use market derived data, meaning price or a derivative of price, such as a technical indicator or correlations, or volatility, that is in the realm of technical analysis. If you use data from the company’s financial statements, such as return on equity or margins, or something like that that is fundamental analysis.

Technical analysis has earned It’s bad rap in my opinion. the problem as I see it is there is no barrier to bad technical analysis takes. Anybody can throw up a chart and draw on it and act like they are doing technical analysis even if it’s complete bullshit. That being said, that is not the fault of technical analysis, that’s the fault of the analyst.

Here are some examples in my view that are inarguable “proofs” that TA works.

CTAs is have a 50 year track record of just following price trends in markets. This is technical analysis.

The momentum factor is empirically the strongest anomaly academics have found in the asset pricing literature. The momentum factor is technical analysis.

The low risk/vol/beta factor as applied to equities is another very popular and effective factor for professional investors. Since all we are doing is using a derivative a price a.k.a. volatility that is technical analysis

Short term reversal factor is another proven financial anomaly. This refers to the observation that very large short term moves tend to mean revert over shorter time frames like a week. This is also TA

If you say technical analysis doesn’t work, you’re gonna have to explain to me how the above trading strategies many of which are over 50 years old are invalid.
 
GlobalMacro90 said:
As many have pointed out, this is a pretty dumb debate, but I will bite. We are all arguing over definitions. It’s pretty stupid.

Here is how I delineate investing. If you use market derived data, meaning price or a derivative of price, such as a technical indicator or correlations, or volatility, that is in the realm of technical analysis. If you use data from the company’s financial statements, such as return on equity or margins, or something like that that is fundamental analysis.

Technical analysis has earned It’s bad rap in my opinion. the problem as I see it is there is no barrier to bad technical analysis takes. Anybody can throw up a chart and draw on it and act like they are doing technical analysis even if it’s complete bullshit. That being said, that is not the fault of technical analysis, that’s the fault of the analyst.

Here are some examples in my view that are inarguable “proofs” that TA works.

CTAs is have a 50 year track record of just following price trends in markets. This is technical analysis.

The momentum factor is empirically the strongest anomaly academics have found in the asset pricing literature. The momentum factor is technical analysis.

The low risk/vol/beta factor as applied to equities is another very popular and effective factor for professional investors. Since all we are doing is using a derivative a price a.k.a. volatility that is technical analysis

Short term reversal factor is another proven financial anomaly. This refers to the observation that very large short term moves tend to mean revert over shorter time frames like a week. This is also TA

If you say technical analysis doesn’t work, you’re gonna have to explain to me how the above trading strategies many of which are over 50 years old are invalid.
More...
%%
MOST all right;
but its more than >''just following price trends'' even if that's a semi=accurate + profitable summary.
For example I meant, last post ''including but not limited to price charts'' My bad.
And while Rich dennis said ''if it doesnt work on bonds + beans we dont want it''
but I never believed bonds traded like beans exactly. Could use a same % or $top
And Dave ramsey doesnt ever like bonds ; but likes beans + rice LOL:D:D .Thanks.
 
GlobalMacro90 said:
As many have pointed out, this is a pretty dumb debate, but I will bite. We are all arguing over definitions. It’s pretty stupid.

Here is how I delineate investing. If you use market derived data, meaning price or a derivative of price, such as a technical indicator or correlations, or volatility, that is in the realm of technical analysis. If you use data from the company’s financial statements, such as return on equity or margins, or something like that that is fundamental analysis.

Technical analysis has earned It’s bad rap in my opinion. the problem as I see it is there is no barrier to bad technical analysis takes. Anybody can throw up a chart and draw on it and act like they are doing technical analysis even if it’s complete bullshit. That being said, that is not the fault of technical analysis, that’s the fault of the analyst.

Here are some examples in my view that are inarguable “proofs” that TA works.

CTAs is have a 50 year track record of just following price trends in markets. This is technical analysis.

The momentum factor is empirically the strongest anomaly academics have found in the asset pricing literature. The momentum factor is technical analysis.

The low risk/vol/beta factor as applied to equities is another very popular and effective factor for professional investors. Since all we are doing is using a derivative a price a.k.a. volatility that is technical analysis

Short term reversal factor is another proven financial anomaly. This refers to the observation that very large short term moves tend to mean revert over shorter time frames like a week. This is also TA

If you say technical analysis doesn’t work, you’re gonna have to explain to me how the above trading strategies many of which are over 50 years old are invalid.
More...
This is why I like to distinguish between "technicals" and "technical analysis".

Chart-based voodoo is garbage, but quantitative analysis of technical (and fundamental) data is empirically sound.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top