Quote from SWScapital:
Wow, what an insightful and helpful post above. Telling someone your opinion of what does not work and then not following up with somethng you think may work....ha. Not a trader nor ever was I guess?
Fine. Show any significant, well accepted evidence that it DOES work and I wil take it back. Dozens to hundreds of studies show the opposite. It is the best advice this person will get.
...
Then anything by Murphy or Mcgee will fill you up with chart patterns and a technical approach. Regardless of what rcanfeld says there are 1000 ways to approach the market. And TA is as edit: useless as any of them.
SOME EXAMPLES & FAMOUS QUOTES:
The Wall Street Journal Europe states "Whether technical analysis is really useful ... is a matter of some dispute on Wall Street. Some investors believe that it is impossible to forecast the market's ups and downs. Academic studies have shown that when most people, professionals and amateurs alike, try to move money in and out of stocks to beat market fluctuations, they tend to wind up with losses." The same article shows how several technical analysts can simultaneously make contradictory predictions.
Peter Lynch once commented, "Charts are great for predicting the past."
Warren Buffett has said, "I realized technical analysis didn't work when I turned the charts upside down and didn't get a different answer" and "If past history was all there was to the game, the richest people would be librarians."
a comprehensive study of the question by Amsterdam economist Gerwin Griffioen concludes that: "for the U.S., Japanese and most Western European stock market indices the recursive out-of-sample forecasting procedure does not show to be profitable, after implementing little transaction costs. Moreover, for sufficiently high transaction costs it is found, by estimating CAPMs, that technical trading shows no statistically significant risk-corrected out-of-sample forecasting power for almost all of the stock market indices
Economist Eugene Fama published the seminal paper on the EMH in the Journal of Finance in 1970, and said "In short, the evidence in support of the efficient markets model is extensive, and (somewhat uniquely in economics) contradictory evidence is sparse."
if prices quickly reflect all relevant information, no method (including technical analysis) can "beat the market." Developments which influence prices occur randomly and are unknowable in advance.
Princeton economist Burton Malkiel said that technical forecasting tools such as pattern analysis must ultimately be self-defeating: "The problem is that once such a regularity is known to market participants, people will act in such a way that prevents it from happening in the future."