I have decided that I will write some background research papers against the possibly false or illogical claims of CFTC below. I have enough studied the state of the art in stock market modelling by latest scientific researchers (when I began to do fundamental research myself so as not to reinvent the wheel if posible ) to be able to ridiculise them because what they affirm here about scientific research was paradigm admitted 50 years ago but the latest scientific researchs have changed since hee hee !
"Technical analysts . . . first make a deterministic (one might say
spiritual) leap of faith that non-random price patterns exist. They
then illogically posit that these patterns, once revealed to the few
(or indeed -- through marketing -- to the many), may be successfully
exploited in trading. To accomplish this, of course, the 'pattern'
must remain undetected by others (otherwise the increased market
activity defeats the 'pattern' by driving the price to a point where
speculation is no longer profitable). See Marshall (1989) at
263-264. Public policy presumes that markets are not so witless.
'The presumption is [] supported by common sense and probability [as]
recent empirical studies have tended to confirm Congress' premise that
the market price of shares traded on well-developed markets reflects
all publicly available information . . . ' Basic, 485 U.S. at 246."
(note 75, page 41)"
"[A]ny marketer's claim of increased profitability or reduced risk
through the use of these systems is likely to be fraudulent". (note
75, page 41)"
----
Also I will put a big disclaimer on my site saying: "We are obliged to declare that people shouldn't consider any trading system as viable ACCORDING TO THE AUTHORITIES LIKE THE CFTC, that they must not take our content as advice or technical analysis that are totally unscientific according to CFTC but as a scientific fondamental research on the market (since our model is based on a serie of econometric equations which is not the case of TA that is based on pure psychology and thus pure faith and not valid proof according to CFTC) like the many that exist currently in scientific laboratories in the world, that we think that our is most advanced but that is opinion not a universal claim, that the way our model should be used by a trader is only subject to his own strategy based on the numerical outputs of the model so that this model should not be considered as trading system, that we give interpretation of it in term of physical law interpretation not in term of advice for buying or selling except for education purpose of possible trading strategies and that performance can only be claimed to be between - infinite and +infinite and due most probably to chance so that we can comply with CFTC rule in the strictest manner" hee hee !
P.S.: I have a questions will CFTC sue firm like Futures Truth or others that make tests since 20 years on trading systems for others and rank the ones that succeed their tests ?
