Talk:Technical analysis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article is part of WikiProject Finance, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Finance. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
This article is within the scope of the Economics WikiProject, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve economics-related articles..
Start rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale
High rated as high-importance on the importance scale
Archive
Archives
/Archive 1 (April 2005 - Jan. 2006) /Archive 2 (Jan 2006 - May 2007)


Contents

[edit] Unhelpful edits

The unsourced, critical personal remarks about MTA members is inappropriate in an encyclopedia article on technical analysis, as is a link to financial astrology. --Rgfolsom 15:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The edits and comments regarding financial astrology are inappropriate and unsourced. It's true that the Market Technicians Association has not defined technical analysis, but it clearly does not include financial astrology in the CMT course curriculum. --Rgfolsom 17:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


The MTA has a definition of TA. I've included it in the article. Additionally,there are few technicians that consider Financial Astrology to be part of TA. Some do use it however, and I was always one who argued that we should not disallow it from discussions on the old MTA email list. That however does not me we consider it to be TA. We discussed economics there are as well.
I'm glad to be corrected about the MTA having a definition, and I followed up to find a linked reference to include in the article. I've removed the mention of Bollinger in the paragraph, at best it adds nothing to the article overall.
--Rgfolsom 17:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Edits by 207.195.244.116 to Technical analysis have been unsourced and inappropriate for the article. Please stop, or I'll request that the page be protected.
--Rgfolsom 01:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neural Networks

I've added 2 references to this, the one to Funahashi and the one to Hornik in the same journal (and volume). The Hornik article is slightly later and is probably the first source of the phrase 'universal function approximators.' The Funahashi article refers only to continuous functions, and says that for function defined on a bounded region there is an arbitrarily good uniform approximation using a 3 level neural network allowing large numbers of neurons in the middle layer.

Also it would be good if someone had an idea how this section fits into the article.

Just as 'technical analysis' is controversial, also the use of neural networks in attempting to extrapolate a single function of time is also controversial in the same way the usefulness of Fibonacci numbers or Elliot Waves is controversial. For the 1 or 2 articles finding a statistically significant gain, many more do not. But the concept of approximating a function is not controversial and neural networks perhaps fit in in the sense that they bridge the gap between fundamental analysis where actual equations can be written down, and there is no question effects exist, on the one hand, versus technical analysis which is intuition and in some opinions questionable. If a function of several variables can be empirically approximated, it can be used even if the precise equation is not known or understood. 82.26.87.140 23:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually I see someone did talk about this concept of neural networks 'bridging the gap' between technical and fundamental analysis, which is insightful or else I copied the idea, but the end of the sentence explaining why, that "these variables can be used as inputs" doesn't seem clear enough. I think it refers to the variables from fundamental analysis??? YES Yay the article is more intelligent than I thought, but no one but a genius is going to understand that the antecedent of 'these variables' is the variables of fundamental analysis. I am going to make a 1 or 2 word edit if people think it is OK to make the antecedent of 'these' clearly refer to the variables of fundamental analysis.82.26.87.140 23:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Continued changes regarding "what is technical analysis"

I have never seen Bollinger say dividends are part of TA. He suggests a different form of analysis that is more an inclusive than TA: Rational Analysis. Here is a link for the Bollinger "Rational Analysis" definition: http://www.bollingerbands.com/bbandsforum/viewtopic.php?=&p=15. Unless you can cite a source, please stop entering this statement.

As far as financial astrology is concerned, it is not part of the MTA's Body of Knowledge. There is no reason for the MTA to say that financial astrology is not part of TA. That is kind of like requiring George Bush to say he is not a Democrat for us to believe it, when he is a registered Republican.

Please halt these useless, and factually incorrect changes.

Sposer

[edit] Financial astrology

George Bush has never denied doing cocaine either, even though there are many eye witness reports that he used the drug in his youth.

There is every reason for the MTA to say that financial astrology is not a part of TA, given the multitudinous, heated discussions that have taken place on T.A. forums over the years on this subject, and which continue to occur on a regular basis. Not to mention that one of the best known and most visble "technicians" is Arch Crawford, who blends Financial Astrology with technical analysis, which further confuses the public. Chris Carolan won the 1998 MTA Dow Award for his paper which shows fibonacci time relationships with the lunar cycles between major market tops and bottoms, including a discussion of the impact of "full moons." Given all of this, and much more, it makes every good sense in the world for organized technical societies to take a clear, public position on the issue. The same argument is made for dividends and other non-technical data. Mr. Bollinger has spoken publically about dividends being technical, as recently as his posts to the Markets List, on Feb 22-23, 2007.

[edit] Explanation for changing edits

Carolan's paper combines TA and lunar cycles, not astrology (nothing about Uranus going retrogade with another planet, or signs of the Zodiac). Combining methods does not make it purely TA. Again, there is nothing in anything the MTA has ever written that even comes close to implying that astrology is part of TA. Stop twisting things. If financial astrology was considered part of TA by the MTA, or IFTA, or any other TA organization, it would be in their Body of Knowledge or in books on the subject, which I have never seen (not that I've seen every book).

As far as dividends and price ratios, I personally would call it techno/fundamental, which seems to be a developing field. It combines both. I think a technical analyst would not be doing his/her fiduciary duty to not consider such ratios. Double tops and bottoms based on ratios combine both types of analysis. Bollinger wrote that many technical analysts use dividend yield. He did not say it is technical analysis. However, this is basically playing games with words. To be honest, arguing over dividends is a waste of time, as is ratios. Suggesting that use of dividends is not globally accepted as being TA is reasonable, but I wouldn't use a post that does not directly say dividends are TA, as an example.

--Sposer

[edit] You are certainly entitled

To your own opinions, but you are not entitled to your own facts.

I propose removal of this section unless the author would like to provide specific facts that need to be included. VisitorTalk 22:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Can other editors please weigh in here and help us get a consensus

There are two issues at hand:

(1) It is completely reasonable to suggest that there is no real agreement on what is or is not technical analysis. Some consider items like P/E ratio to be part and parcel of TA, because price is what technicians chart to determine future price. Sentiment also falls into this category. Some use a more restrictive definition that says that only data directly produced by trading, or its arithmetic derivatives are under the aegis of TA. I think this is an important and valid point to be brought up. The dispute revolves around statements that are taken out of context. Mr. Bollinger is referred to as having said that TA includes the study of dividends. This comes from a protected GMAIL group. However, he actually said that many technical analyst use dividends in their work. Most technical analysts do not ONLY use TA. Bollinger has consistently argued that technicians need to go beyond price and volume and look at non-direct trading factors. He calls this "Rational Analysis". I provided a link for this earlier in the talk chain.

(2) The second issue is over the constant attempts to either imply that the Market Technicians Association (MTA)considers Financial Astrology to be part of TA, because it has never outright said that it does not. However, Financial Astrology does not show up in its Body of Knowledge, nor is it a requirement for the Chartered Market Technician exam. Just becuase a few technical analysts look at things like lunar cycles, and in the case of the editor's reference to Arch Crawford, other astro-items, does not mean that Crawford considers it TA. I honestly do not know what he considers it.

The editor brings up an interesting point regarding the work of Chris Carolan. Carolan received the Dow Award, which is given by the MTA for advances in TA. Carolan's work ties Fibonacci work, which is TA, with lunar cycles. I was not part of that Dow Award decision (I have been on the committee at other times), so I do not know their thinking. However, a pure technical analyst would essentially say he/she has found a price cylce, whereby prices move in an approximate 28-day cycle. That person would also have found that there have been many major market turns around these points. I found a similar pattern in the bond market, which coincidentally occurred around the monthly U.S. non-farm payrolls release. In my case, that does not mean that I consider economics to be part of TA, nor would anybody else I know of. It means that I found, outside of TA, a reason or correlation for the price cycle. Carolan found a non-TA correlation for this price cycle. Adding it to technical work, was a major accomplishment in my opinion, and aids any market analyst, if they believe in the validity of the study, in their attempt to find turning points in price trends.

This article is about technical analysis, and so the definition is certainly critical. I added the MTA definition of TA, because of the repeated attempts to suggest the MTA is avoiding the issue of things like financial astrology. To be honest, I would be just as happy without bringing the MTA into the discussion at all. It is perfectly valid to state that there is some disagreement over what is TA. However, if you polled 100 technicians, I doubt you'd find one that says Financial Astrology is part of TA, I submit that there is no reason for it to even be mentioned in this article.

--Sposer


Wikipedia's rules and guidelines speak to the question at hand.
Articles cannot include original research, namely "unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories. The term also applies to any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position…"
Instead, what articles must include are reliable sources:

"…any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a source, as do quotations, and the responsibility for finding a source lies with the person who adds or restores the material. Unsourced or poorly sourced edits may be challenged and removed at any time….Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand."

The editor behind the anonymous IP address who asserts that astrology is technical analysis is putting unsourced, original research into this article. Editors can and should remove any such assertions.
As for Bollinger, his comments about "rational analysis" do not belong, unless Bollinger himself can be quoted in a reliable source as saying that "rational analysis" fits within the definition of technical analysis.
These matters are very straightforward, especially when the unsourced claims are coming from an anonymous IP address. I'm going to bring all this to the attention of an administrator who can put an appropriate block on the page, if it comes to that again.
--Rgfolsom 14:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

If financial astrology was true, it would still not be technical analysis. By definition, technical analysis is analysis of past price changes, and prediction of future price changes, based only on the history of price changes. Technical analysis only considers information available in the history of prices through time. Financial astrology attempts to use information NOT available in the price chart as a basis for financial predictions. Thus, it is a form of fundamental analysis: analysis of any factors that are believed to affect the underlying security and/or its economic environment. Therefore, references to financial astrology should be moved to a page discussing forms of fundamental analysis. The debate would then be whether or not financial astrology techniques are effective forms of fundamental analysis - a question that has nothing to do with technical analysis. The introduction to this article, by the way, should explicitly mention fundamental analysis as the alternative to technical analysis, with a link to an appropriate page about fundamental analysis techniques. VisitorTalk 07:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC) VisitorTalk 07:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks VisitorTalk. I agree with you except that I would not call financial astrology fundamental analysis either. The edit I made to the article page is to try to highlight that you can use any kind of analysis you want, and combine it with technicals, or fundamentals, etc. That does not make it TA or fundamental analysis. I hope the new section I wrote makes that clear. TA is based on prices and volume and other market data. Fundamentals are macro-economics, micro-economics, marketing, competition, management, etc.Sposer 13:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Sposer, was this your revised sentance? "Similarly, some analysts may combine technical analysis with other methodologies including, but not limited to, quantitative analysis, economics, and even astrology." That line seems fine but would benefit from inline links to each of the types of analysis - or to a page that compares multiple types of financial analysis, if there is such a page. VisitorTalk 00:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
It was my sentence. There is a link for quantitative analyst, but quantitative analysis. Certainly, there is one for economics, and there's one for financial astrology. I will add these.Sposer 00:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I like that wording. This issue is not whether the other methodologies are valid predictive tools, but whether or not they fit the definition of technical analysis. Your sentance makes that distinction clear. VisitorTalk 22:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Offensive, Patently False

It is offensive and against all Wiki policies to smear another editor, in order to push a personal POV. There has never been a single attempt by anyone to "assert that astrology IS technical analysis," as Rgfolsom has falsely accused. Nor has there been any attempts to imply that the MTA considers Financial Astrology to be part of TA, as Sposer has falsely accused.

Administrators should reprimand Rgfolsom and Sposer for attempting to spread these lies.

What is true, and what has been claimed, is that Financial Astrology is often confused with technical analysis, and that (some of) the reasons for this include the following, verifiable FACTS:

1) The largest organizing body for technical analysis in the United States has granted its most prestigious award to an analyst for a paper which specifically deals with Astrological factors.
2) One of the most prominent and visible ambassadors for technical analysis, Arch Crawford, is a strong proponent of Financial Astrology.
3) Personal pledges by certain editors notwithstanding, the MTA's own official definition of technical analysis does not exclude Financial Astrology, or fundamentals, as viable "technical" subjects.

Combine 1+2+3 plus Sposer's own admission that "it is completely reasonable to suggest that there is no real agreement on what is or is not technical analysis" and one can begin to see how this issue is vitaly important to an understanding of technical analysis, and the importance to this article.

Apparently there is an effort underway to suppress the truth and the facts about the ongoing, extant debate over the definition of technical analysis, and the question of whether the MTA's current definition of technical analysis permits the inclusion of subjects such as stock dividends and Financial astrology.

This is not a trivial matter, given the wide public exposure to, and confusion over, the term "technical analysis," and given the fact that there is no agreement on the definition by and between the the most prominent and visible ambassadors of technical analysis, such as Mr. Bollinger, who believes the study of fundemental data falls under the definition of technical analysis, and who rejects the notion of any true defintion of technical analysis, and therefor has come up with an entirely new subject heading which he refers to as "rational analysis," and Mr. Crawford, and the MTA itself.

As Sposer points out, Mr. Bollinger has claimed that "many technical analyst use dividends in their work" in support of the idea that that fundemental data, and specifically dividends, either do, or should, fall under the subject heading of "technical analysis." There is nothing wrong or evil with this. It does however underscore the fact that a) there is no widespread agreement on the definition of technical analysis, and b) the current definition offered by the MTA, while made in good faith, does not add any clarity or help resolve the underlying issue.

Some editors have decided to remove any reference to these facts, which are all fully documentable and true, in order to push their own personal points of view. Administrators please take note. At least one of the individuals behind the effort to block this information is a representative of the MTA, which perhaps partially explains their motives.

[edit] MTA, etc.

I stand by the simple facts that the MTA defines technical analysis by its Body of Knowledge and there is no Financial Astrology in its BoK. I honestly do not know if things like dividends and P/E ratios are in it or not, as I do not have it in front of me. But, as I said, I think that inclusion of financial ratios and dividend yields, since they include price, is a discussion that is important (no price in tracking in the moon). I explained why I suspect the Dow Award went to Mr. Carolan, but this article should not be based on assumptions, mine or others, but rather on facts, and there is no fact that suggests that the MTA considers Financial Astrology to be part of TA. Not denying Financial Astrology is part of TA, in my opinion, does not muddy the waters. The other editor thinks it does. The whole concept is based on POV, so it does not belong here.

I am going to stand down on this going forward, since the other editor seems to think I am trying to protect the MTA. I am on the board of the MTA, but the MTA has not asked me to do anything. The MTA does not know of these discussions, and I am not writing as anything but an independent editor and person who has worked as a technical analyst and author. However, some people may not believe that, so to avoid any hint or suggestion of bias, I will exit this discussion, as it relates to the MTA, and leave it to others. I will no longer edit anything that has to do with the MTA in this article, even when it becomes unlocked.

As far as the issue regarding Mr. Bollinger, I am not going to put words in Mr. Bollinger's mouth either. That is the only issue I have with referring to him in the article.

This is the last I will contribute on the discussion. I have stated the case. It is up to others to come to an agreement.

--Sposer


[edit] Response to MTA, etc.

It has never been asserted that the MTA includes Financial Astrology in its Body of Knowledge, nor has it ever been asserted or implied that the MTA endorses or considers Financial Astrology to be part of technical analysis. THE ONLY thing that has been said, and which deserves to be part of any official article on "technical analysis," is the FACT that there is much debate, disagreement and public confusion over the definition of "technical analysis," and that the current definition offered by the MTA and by other well known leaders in the field such as Mr. Bollinger, contributes to this ambiguity. Mr. Bollinger for example supports a definition of technical analysis which includes the study of dividends. That is not hearsay, it is a fact.

If Mr. Poser and Rgfolsom are going to include the MTA's definition of "technical analysis" in this article, then it is only fair that all of the facts surrounding this definition be included. Currently the article is "locked" in an effort to protect the personal POV held by Poser and Rgfolson. This is unfair and not in the spriti of Wiki policy.

[edit] NPOV

The article flunks WP:NPOV by segregating the criticism and omitting it from the lead section. Mainstream financial specialists consider technical analysis to be quackery, and the article fails to indicate that up front. THF 17:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Calling technical analysis quackery is THF's POV. There is a growing body of academic work that suggests TA to be a valid discipline. The London School of Economics published papers more than 15 years ago supporting things like moving averages in the FX markets leading to positive alpha (although it did not delve deep enough to determine whether transaction costs could be overcome). Such academics as Andrew Lo (MIT), Elizabeth Odders-White (University of Wisconsin), Blake LeBaron (Brandeis), and many others have published papers that show its efficacy. Most recent papers that look into technical analysis lead with sentences like "Academics no longer consider technical analysis to be a waste of time..." and now are seeking to understand how and my it may very well work. Sposer 18:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I am respectfully removing the tags that THF placed in the article. Adding to what Sposer said, please consider the following:
  • Federal Reserve economists have published numerous favorable studies about TA.[1][2][3]
  • The Boston branch of the Federal Reserve for years has published its monthly "Stock Market Report," which "incorporates technical and fundamental analysis commonly used by investment professionals to interpret the direction and valuation of equity markets." Each report begins with a discussion of "Technical Trends." It also includes the types of charts that technical analysts typically use, plus abundant notes and definitions regarding the technical indicators mentioned in each issue.
  • There's this comment in an online text (chapter 11, pp. 114-115) from the then-executive vice president of the New York Federal Reserve: "Nearly all traders acknowledge their use of technical analysis and charts. According to surveys, a majority say they employ technical analysis to a greater extent than 'fundamental' analysis, and that they regard it as more useful than fundamental analysis—a contrast to twenty years ago when most said they relied many more heavily on fundamental analysis."
  • The professional designation for technical analysts (CMT) is now recognized by Wall Street's two primary self-governing bodies, and by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. [4] [5]
The regulatory agencies allow those who have passed the first two (of three) CMT exams to skip the Series 86 exam for analysts. They also expect the Market Technicians Association to protect the CMT designation.Sposer 01:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, --Rgfolsom 19:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but if THF had written "nearly all mainstream financial specialists consider technical analysis to be quackery, and the article fails to indicate that up front." Then he would have been 100% correct. Leaving out the controversy upfront - with 2 folks with admitted COI's - patrolling this article, has led to a POV that goes throughout. e.g. quoting Greenspan as supporting a technical POV when he clearly doesn't. I'd like to see Sposer's quotes to support 'Most recent papers that look into technical analysis lead with sentences like "Academics no longer consider technical analysis to be a waste of time..."' I'll put the tags back. Smallbones 19:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I found the quotes while researching a response to Mr. Frank's changes. I saw a quote in a magazine article and a paper that said this. Sadly, I cannot find this. So, don't put the tags back, based on my statement. If I find it, I will be sure to let you know. Sposer 21:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Smallbones, I need to politely remind you of what happened the last time you were in a dispute with me about who has a problem with bias. THF offered no evidence for his assertion, and in reposting those tags, you ignore the facts and evidence that I have included. As for Greenspan, the article flatly says "he has not described himself as a technical analyst." Please don't do this.
--Rgfolsom 19:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Smallbones, the book Technical Analysis, The Complete Resource for Financial Market Technicians, by Kirkpatrick && Dahlquist, has extensive discussion of this subject. It references many sources detailing the history of technical analysis and specifically pays attention to just this subject, too many to note here. My vote is to remove the tags. // Brick Thrower 05:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] From the Financial Times

“ Business television shows trot out one technical analyst after another to tell you how to invest, based on resistance levels, moving averages, momentum and buy/sell signals. Don’t listen to them. Technical analysis is an oxymoron. It sounds technical, but it is not analysis. It is rubbish, plain and simple. There is not a single money manager or mutual fund who has generated an impressive long-term record using technical analysis. Nor a single academic study that indicates technical analysis offers any utility to investors. It is the stock market’s version of snake oil. Columns touting investment strategies based on technical analysis belong in the horoscope section of the newspaper, not in the business section. ”

[6]

Simply put, this Financial Times op-ed reflects mainstream financial thinking on technical analysis. It's only one point of view, and should not be the only point of view in the article, but it is the majority point of view, and the article as currently constituted gives undue weight to the minority opinion on technical analysis in violation of WP:NPOV. The majority opinion should be given at least equal weight, and should certainly be included in the lead section per WP:LEAD. Financial Times is at least as much of a reliable source as the sources cited in this article.

Moreover, the article, instead of integrating criticism, improperly has a criticism section that segregates the criticism from the rest of the article. This is also a violation of WP:NPOV: see WP:Criticism. And much of the criticism section is marred by WP:NOR violations "responding" to the criticism. THF 20:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I can give you so many academic papers that support TA, from slightly, to extremely, that it will make your head spin. Citing an article from the FT is incongruous. I am willing to bet that in the same edition where they had this piece, they quoted at least five technical analysts in articles in the paper.
I suggest you go to www.ssrn.com and do a search on technical analysis. You will find that most of the papers support TA. I only went down a couple of pages, but I am guessing that is the more recent research. One paper (when I find it again I will provide a link) listed a bunch of surveys and found far more surveys found evidence supporting TA than suggesting it did not work.
Additionally, to suggest that TA does not work because there are no technical managers with long-term positive results is just plain wrong. Tudor uses TA, for one. But, that is not proof anyway. Citing 500 investors or papers will not be good enough for people that believe it does not work. Sposer 21:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I've been here before, THF. I respectfully urge you to read this arbitration decision, including the evidence pages. The question of whether I write and edit from a NPOV has been answered decisively.
Regarding the quote you provide, it includes inflammatory words like "quackery," "rubbish," "snake oil," "horoscope" and "oxymoron" -- and does so with zero accompanying evidence. On its face that fails WP:NPOV, specifically:
"We sometimes give an alternative formulation of the non-bias policy: assert facts, including facts about opinions — but do not assert opinions themselves. There is a difference between facts and opinions. By 'fact' we mean 'a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute.'"
This critic plainly asserts opinions instead of facts. Critical facts are neutral; critical opinions are not neutral. What's more, it fails WP:RS, specifically:
"Claims not supported or claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community".
The relevant community in this case is financial academics, such as those listed here, the research from the Fed economists I cited above, and the regulatory body for the securities industry (SEC).
The one quote you offer from an obviously biased columnist is the opposite of a "reliable source," and the burden remains squarely with you to back up your as-yet unsubstantiated claim.
--Rgfolsom 21:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
There are multiple facts stated in the article. You disagree with the facts, but I disagree with the astrological "facts" you've propounded. That's why we have an NPOV policy: editors don't have to decide whether the mainstream view propounded by Alsin is correct or incorrect. Both points of view get included, and the mainstream point of view is supposed to be given the primary weight, not the other way around. Your repeated reversion of a legitimate tag violates Wikipedia policy. The tag indicates a dispute and should not be removed until the dispute is resolved. You don't get to unilaterally remove a tag because you disagree with it. Please self-revert. THF 22:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] convenience break 2

THF: Your points might be reasonable if they were based in fact. Even papers that suggest that TA does not work, usually do it from the perspective that academia does not understand why market participants continue to use something that they believe should not work (note they say they believe it should not work due to some, IMO, belief in a largely discredited model of the markets). I don't have time to give you the list, but I doubt you would find a single paper cited above, or even one that seemingly disproves TA, that does not take that tact. You cite an op-ed that is purely opinion, while Rgfolsom and I both cite academic papers. The suggestion of astrology does not belong as this article has nothing to do with astrology. Furthermore, if you spent some time reviewing the literature, and articles from the mainstream, you would find the the mainstream POV is that TA is valuable. When I first started in TA, that opinion was largely limited to traders and technical analysts (i.e., those people that actually had to live and breathe the markets). Now, that appears to be changing. Much of quantitative analysis is merely TA done by a person with a PhD as it is. I suggest you do some soul-searching. There is certainly a dispute that TA works or not, but mainstream is that it does. There are more CFAs in the Market Technicians Association (MTA), than there are Chartered Market Technicians. As for my bias, you should know that although I am on the board of the MTA, I no longer work as a technical analyst, and my education is in mathematics, computer science and economics. I came to TA only because I found it was the ::only thing that did appear to work. It isn't perfect. It isn't deterministic, but it is not voodoo or quackery. Sposer 22:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Sposer, you are arguing that my point of view is incorrect. I disagree, but it's beside the point on Wikipedia. The whole point of WP:NPOV is to avoid issuing judgments on which side is correct; in fact, it is irrelevant. The question is whether it is verifiable, and it's verifiably the case that technical analysis is discredited among the reputable. That point of view is not adequately represented in the article. It's also beyond dispute that the page improperly contains a criticism section instead of integrating the criticism into the article. Thus the NPOV tag is appropriate, because the page does not comply with WP:NPOV. THF 23:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
THF: You apparently have not read anything cited by anybody here. It is undeniably the case that TA is absolutely accepted by most people in the markets and an increasing number of academics. You said that the article states the fact that the generally accepted fact should be that TA is not accepted and not useful. In point of fact, it is the exact opposite that is true. I have no problem mentioning that there are many that question TA's efficacy in the early part of the article, but not as if that is the general belief, because it is 100% the opposite. Read any newspaper. Talk to most traders, and money managers. Virtually all use TA at some level. Sposer 01:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
THF, What’s ironic is that you offer a quote which objects to technical analysts always appearing in the one place that epitomizes “mainstream financial thinking” -- namely business television shows! If financial forums that have the largest audiences (by far) constantly feature technical analysis, then are business televisions shows outside of “mainstream financial thinking”?
Sposer and I have spoken directly to your points, yet you have ignored the abundant facts and evidence we provide showing that technical analysis is well within the financial mainstream. Wikipedia’s guideline (not policy) about a criticism section warns against it becoming a magnet for trolls, etc. That’s not the case in this article – other theories are linked to and explained fairly; the critics are quoted speaking for themselves, which is entirely consistent with NPOV.
This article has few contributors, so reaching a viable consensus is unlikely. The other editor who spoke up for your view probably put himself on very thin ice, given that he was banned from articles closely related to technical analysis – among other things, he kept putting biased remarks and quotations in the lead section. Again, read the arbcom decision for yourself.
You say this article fails NPOV for not indicating “up front” that “mainstream” analysts think technical analysis is “quackery.” I am more than prepared to take the other side of that argument to dispute resolution, and it won't be the first time. --Rgfolsom 02:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a chatroom. Again, you are arguing that my opinion is incorrect, and this is beside the point. Wikipedia doesn't care that you think that I'm incorrect. (Don't take it personally. Wikipedia doesn't care that I think you're incorrect either.) The article flunks NPOV because it fails to integrate criticism of technical analysis into the article, because it improperly uses original research to falsely claim that Greenspan is a technical analyst, and because it doesn't give appropriate weight to what every reputable finance professor I've ever seen quoted about the subject thinks about technical analysis. Astronomers don't waste a lot of time refuting astrology, either, it doesn't mean that astrology is a mainstream scientific view. THF 02:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Nobody ever said Greenspan was a technical analyst (although I suspect he is a closet technician, which I was implying at the time and was properly chastised for, as I did not know the Wiki rules well enough at that time). What was put in was that he has been quoted using verbiage that is similar to what technicians see as their reasons for believing in the subject. As far as "reputable finance professors", the articles cited as supporting technical analysis include pieces by professors at MIT, Brandeis, Notre Dame, the London School of Economics, the University of Wisconsin, the University of Warwick, among others. Sposer 02:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


[edit] convenience break 3

Sposer improperly removed the NPOV and criticism-section tags. There remains a dispute about the compliance of the page with NPOV, and the page quite obviously flunks WP:Criticism. THF 02:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The tags were removed, because I made edits that seemed to address your concerns regarding the criticism and NPOV section. Sposer 02:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

You could've asked. No, I wouldn't remove the tags, for the reasons I've previously stated. THF 02:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Response to RfC

I think that it is overkill to include criticism so high up. There is already a good-sized criticism section. It does not have to be flogged so prominently. I agree with some previous comments that this tends to skew the NPOV of the article and that an NPOV tag is necessary until this issue is resolved. Right now this article is over-weighted with criticism.

I would not cut back on the size of the criticism section but I would remove the repetitious discussion early in the article. --Samiharris 21:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Greenspan

There remains no question in my mind that Alan Greenspan believes in TA. He speaks TA's language and regularly uses it in his speeches. Look at this from one of his speeches:

"History tells us that sharp reversals in confidence happen abruptly, most often with little advance notice. These reversals can be self-reinforcing processes that can compress sizable adjustments into a very short time period. Panic market reactions are characterized by dramatic shifts in behavior to minimize short-term losses. Claims on far-distant future values are discounted to insignificance. What is so intriguing is that this type of behavior has characterized human interaction with little appreciable difference over the generations. Whether Dutch tulip bulbs or Russian equities, the market price patterns remain much the same.

We can readily describe this process, but, to date, economists have been unable to anticipate sharp reversals in confidence. Collapsing confidence is generally described as a bursting bubble, an event incontrovertibly evident only in retrospect. To anticipate a bubble about to burst requires the forecast of a plunge in the prices of assets previously set by the judgments of millions of investors, many of whom are highly knowledgeable about the prospects for the specific companies that make up our broad stock price indexes." [7]

The man refers to the exact reasons that technicians believe in its value -- because human behavior and interactions have not changed. HE WROTE THAT THE "MARKET PRICE PATTERNS REMAIN MUCH THE SAME." In the next sentence, he says economists cannot predict bubble collapses. That's fine. Technical analysts can. If you think he doesn't believe in TA, you are ignoring what he says, and are instead listening to your own biases. Do you have any quotes from Greenspan where he says that he rejects it?Sposer 20:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source that explicitly says he accepts it? shotwell 21:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
No, nor am I arguing that he accepts it. I argue that he uses the terminology of technicians. I do have "unnamed sources" that say he uses it and believes in it, and we all know that the Fed uses it and studies it and works against it in interventions (there are academic studies that show this for central banks in general), as you can see from the many articles they've written on the subject. I do know they follow it, simply because they, and other central banks, are clients of technical analysts on the Street (I used to be one such person). My point is that if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it might very well be a duck. Greenspan argues that the patterns remain the same. If they remain the same, you can profit from them (my words, not his), and that is what technical analysts do. I propose something like, "Although Alan Greenspan is clearly not a technical analyst, he has repeatedly espoused ideas that proponents of technical analysis point to in support of their craft. For example,(above quote) .... I would then add, to make those that have not kept up with academia lately and are under the, IMO, false impression that academia does not believe TA works, "This does not prove that Alan Greenspan accepts or uses technical analysis in any way, but explains the many papers that Fed economists have written on the subject."Sposer 21:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Ok, maybe it does look like a duck, but we aren't here to decide the matter. It seems like you're trying to tie a Greenspan endorsement into this article based on your own deduction that he espouses some central principles of TA. The one glaring problem is that this constitutes original research. The second problem is that I don't think the above quote entirely supports your position. In the last paragraph, he says that economists are unable to predict sharp reversals and this article says that TA analysts attempt to predict reversals. I'm completely ignorant about this subject, so please correct me if I'm reading it wrong.
If there are academic studies showing that the fed uses TA, then it isn't necessary to include the Greenspan information. The studies would be far more convincing anyhow. shotwell 21:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
shotwell,
Thanks for archiving the talk page, it helped a lot. Please look at the link I’ve provided above to the arbitration case with smallbones and myself. He has nothing but contempt for technical analysis, and has proven that he cannot be unbiased in articles that relate to it.
The quotation shows that a public comment by Greenspan agrees with one of the core premises of technical analysis. This is a simple statement of fact, not original research that tries to concoct an “endorsement.” The text flatly says that Greenspan has not identified himself as a technician. The Fed doesn’t “endorse” any particular analytical method or tool, but the links and quotes I provided above make it undeniably clear that the Fed recognizes and treats technical analysis as mainstream, in that it’s widely used among financial professionals. These are facts that people who throw around words like “pseudoscience” and “quackery” refuse to face.
I’m also going to take down the “expert” tag, because this article has been and is getting attention from an expert. Sposer is a technical analyst who has practiced the trade professionally, written a book published by a reputable publisher, and is a Chartered Market Technician in good standing with the MTA, the largest professional group of its kind in the U.S. --Rgfolsom 23:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
1) The article needs an academic expert. CMT and MTA carries negative weight on this question. It's not the case that only astrologers get to edit astrology articles.
2) The Greenspan quote does not mention technical analysis, so concluding that it is relevant to the technical analysis article is a violation of WP:SYN, and thus WP:NOR. The conclusory argument that it is not original research woefully misunderstands the NOR policy. THF 00:04, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
The example given in WP:SYN shows that the violation is analysis that injects opinion. Yet it is a fact that technicians believe the history of investor behavior appears to repeat itself. It is also a fact that Alan Greenspan believes the history of investor behavior appears to repeat itself. The article cites reliable sources to present these facts so, the quote stands.
Your demands about what this article needs have progressed from expert, to “real” expert, to chiropractor, to “academic” expert. The tag on the page says “expert,” and that is what Sposer is. As for your comment about the MTA, you may as well claim that a CPA carries “negative weight” in an article on accounting.--Rgfolsom 20:08, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
"CMT and MTA carries negative weight"...That reasoning happily therefore removes from consideration anybody in the CFA that does not believe TA works and other flat earth afficianados. You are limiting yourself then to finding the one or two academics that know something about TA, efficient markets, and fundamental analysis, and somehow have no opinion on the efficacy of any of the above. I wish you luck.Sposer 16:23, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
I really don't agree with you about the Greenspan thing. If Greenspan has regularly espoused the principles of TA and this fact was noteworthy, then there would be mention of the fact in some reliable source. As mundane as it may seem, it is your opinion that he's espousing the principles and you've yet to provide a source that echoes this opinion. Moreover, it is clear that the section is being put there in order to serve as some sort of defence or endorsement. I don't understand the need to defend TA in this manner. I did a search on Academic Search Premiere and loads of articles about technical analysis came up (most were just about techniques). shotwell 22:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Greenspan might even be a TA believer, but dropping this quote in the article is astonishing OR. WP:SYN quite clearly speaks of using perfectly factual and verifiable material to advance a new position: that's precisely what's going on here. Shotwell says it very well above. Cool Hand Luke 09:20, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Just to be clear about Greenspan (this is from the Fed and was on the talk page previously). He states rather clearly that no system can predict foreign exchange prices and uses language similar to that some of the TA's here seem to find offensive. Thus I am removing the other Greenspan quote which, in the context of this article, implies that he believes in TA (or is otherwise just pure OR)Smallbones 16:49, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Remarks by Chairman Alan Greenspan At the European Banking Congress 2004, Frankfurt, Germany November 19, 2004
From Federal Reserve [8]
“The inability to anticipate changes in supply and demand for a currency is at the root of the statistically robust finding that forecasting exchange rates has a success rate no better than that of forecasting the outcome of a coin toss.2”
Footnote 2. The exceptions to this conclusion are those few cases of successful speculation in which governments have tried and failed to support a particular exchange rate. Nonetheless, despite extensive efforts on the part of analysts, to my knowledge, no model projecting directional movements in exchange rates is significantly superior to tossing a coin. I am aware that, of the thousands who try, some are quite successful. So are winners of coin-tossing contests. The seeming ability of a number of banking organizations to make consistent profits from foreign exchange trading likely derives not from their insight into exchange rate determination but from the revenues they derive from making markets.
Once again, the introduction to the Greenspan quote begins by saying that he does not identify himself as a technician; the entire point of including that introductory remark is to stipulate that the quote DOES NOT “endorse” or “support” technical analysis. That said, what this use of the quote does have now is a reference to a reliable source. WP:NOR and WP:SYN are moot.--Rgfolsom 19:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Nonsense. You have no source that shows he was referring to anything remotely like TA. It's therefore either off-topic or SYN. Either way, it doesn't belong here. Cool Hand Luke 20:11, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
I have a properly sourced reference showing that the quote from Greenspan was published in Futures magazine, along with the observation that his words concur with a key premise of technical analysis.
WP:OR refers “to unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories. The term also applies to any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position….the only way to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research is to cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and to adhere to what those sources say.”
Furthermore, in the Robert Blair decision, the Arbitration Committee said:
"It is inappropriate to remove blocks of well-referenced information which is germane to the subject from articles on the grounds that the information advances a point of view. Wikipedia's NPOV policy contemplates inclusion of all significant points of view.
Use of this quote is within policy. I will report any further removal of it to the appropriate noticeboard as disruptive editing.--Rgfolsom 16:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Count me with those who oppose the Greenspan quote. If Greenspan had been saying something about technical analysis, it might be worth arguing about. He is making general comments about human psychology that are related to technical analysis as a subject in only a very tangential way. And as written, the disputed passage seems to do everything it can to imply that Greenspan is sympathetic with technical analysis without actually bringing any evidence to the table of the fact. Ministry of random walks 16:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
The quote is sourced, but including it here is SYN. It's being used to introduce a premise of technical analysis, but he is not commenting on TA. Compare the example of WP:SYN where a reliable source is illegitimately used to comment on a subject it wasn't directly addressing. WP:SYN prevents us from taking commentary out of context this way. If Greenspan is supporting the fundamentals of TA in his quote, you must find previous analysis that comes to this conclusion. Cool Hand Luke 16:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
He has provided an additional source: Poser, Steven W. (April 1999). “Through Alan Greenspan's eyes,” Futures (magazine), p. 26. Whether or not this supports the claim, I don't know. I think that this addition may have gone unnoticed. shotwell 17:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh jeez. You're right. Here's the relevant article text:

Even among true believers, few contend that technical analysis can be used to predict fundamental events. But technical analysis is a study of crowds and markets, and that is what the economy is. This mindset is particularly apropos to not only the U.S. Fed's interest rate moves but the recent forex interventions of overseas regulators. The rationale for this notion does not come from a spurious source. Consider the following:

"[T]here is one important caveat to the notion that we live in a new economy, and that is human psychology... The same enthusiasms and fears that gripped our forebears are, in every way, visible in the generations now actively participating in the American economy... [J]udging the way prices behave in today's markets compared with those of a century or more ago, one is hard pressed to find significant differences... As in the past, our advanced economy is primarily driven by how human psychology molds the value system that drives a competitive market economy. And that process is inextricably linked to human nature, which appears essentially immutable and, thus, anchors the future to the past."

This isn't from an influential technical analyst or highly respected trader. It's from a recent speech by none other than Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan.

Such thinking explains why technical analysis is a useful tool in your analytical cadre. It probably is easier to predict the Fed with this art than it is to plot the next tick in Treasury bonds. Technical analysis explains group dynamics, which are reflected in the markets. Greenspan seems aware of this. Forecasting what the Fed would do with interest rates last November came down to understanding that the credit markets were set to roll over again if the Fed did not ease.

Fine, but credit this analysis inline to Steven W. Poser, who "is president of Poser Global Market Strategies Inc., a global markets advisory .firm based in Upper Saddle River, New Jersey. Reach him via www.poserglobal.com." Cool Hand Luke 17:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
The source is "previous analysis," and it absolutely does "come to this conclusion." Removing the quote is an on-point example of what the arbitration committee said is inappropriate.--Rgfolsom 17:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I think it was an honest mistake. That said, I agree with Cool Hand Luke about attributing this analysis to the source if it's included. shotwell 17:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
The footnote did attribute the source, according to normal conventions for a proper reference. To include the author's name, title, company name, location and web address would only invite accusations of spam, etc., etc. I'll move the Futures magazine footnote reference to the sentence that introduces the quote, which I hope everyone will (at last) find satisfactory.--Rgfolsom 17:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
No, not his business and all of that. Just include the name of the person who thinks Greenspan was talking about TA. He was not addressing it in his speech, and another analyst (Poser) made this logical leap. Cool Hand Luke 17:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Then we have the issue that Poser's opinion is neither notable nor a reliable source, even before you get to the undue weight problem in WP:NPOV. The POV-pushing is not encyclopedic. The quote should be excluded. THF 13:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I think, being Mr. Poser,that his opinion is more notable than anybody here wishing to remove it. That said, I wrote the original section about Greenspan, so quoting an article I wrote, even if Cool Hand Luke and Shotwell do not see it as being a policy issue, I don't think it is the spirit, so remove it.

[edit] convenience break 4

HOWEVER, this article needs to be rewritten to get rid of all the garbage going on. Go to www.ssrn.com and try and find articles that have been written in recent years that are negative on TA. You won't find many. I have worked on Wall Street for years, with economists that have worked for the Fed, in fact. In all my time, I've found ONE -- just one -- that did not think TA was valid. The article should be written from the perspective that (1) Give the definition. (2) The encylopedic POV, is what TA states it is. (3) Give a small mention that some academics think it does not work. (4) Discuss types of TA. (5) Show how PROFESSIONALS use TA to make positive alpha. Although I may not be reliable, and it is original research -- thus on the talk page -- I worked with an economist who traded, and used TA only to trade. It was another economist that taught me TA; I had never used it and wasn't taught it (sadly enough) at university. My MBA is in economics, with a post-MBA certificate in finance and BA in Math/Comp Sci, so coming to the TA view was not easy for me, but I am a financial economist that thinks it works, so TedFrank, you've found me, the guy who had me start doing it, and the one who trades with it. I came to TA, because the technicians were the only people who ever seemed to get the market right. Not the economists. Not the fundamental analysts. By even providing anything but a very minor criticism section, you are actually promoting a POV that has almost no merit. Sposer 19:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

This rant, which reflects a woeful misunderstanding of Wikipedia policies and WP:NPOV, demonstrates precisely why this article is a mess and needs attention from an expert. That Mr. Poser thinks TA is correct is absolutely irrelevant, and not for discussion on this page, much less the article that he insists on edit-warring about. His most recent POV-pushing edit is inappropriate, violates WP:LEAD and WP:WEIGHT, and needs to be reverted. THF 19:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

From my reading of the Greenspan quote, he doesn't say anything remotely in favour of TA. What he seems to be saying is that it's immpossible to predict market downturns. That's the complete opposite of what TA is about.Ticklemygrits 08:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Understanding Wiki Policy

This is not a chat room, but you tend to use that only when it is to your advantage. Bottom line, you are forcing a POV that questions TA, when few question it anymore. Forcing so much focus on the few that believe TA is not valid, is like focusing on Creationism in an article on the Big Bang. Wikipedia policy is to get the most accurate article possible, but THF and other flat-earthers are trying to promote a POV that nobody that I have met on Wall Street in years, and few in academia, seems to agree with.Sposer 20:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adding it up

Having a chance to read Greenspans speech - it's clear that he did not say anything about technical analysis in it. He does mention fundamental analysis however.

There are some pretty strong objections to putting this quote in, namely WP:OR and WP:SYN. The following users have seen fit to remove the quote personally, first User:Benna, myself, THP, and User:Cool Hand Luke (Have I left anybody out?) Ministry of random walks is against putting the quote in, and to my reading shotwell leans in that direction.

Against that is Fgfolsom and Sposer, both of whom have WP:COI.

Maybe they should consider other people's opinions on the matter. Smallbones 18:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I have no COI. Yes, I am a director of the Market Technicians Association, but I make not a cent from TA, and consider myself to be an economist. Sposer 20:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Are you the "S. Poser" who wrote the dishonest article in question that purports to show that Greenspan supports TA? THF 21:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
You must not think much of libel laws. The article was not dishonest, nor did the editor of Futures Magazine. I did not say in the article that Greenspan believed in TA. I made sure not to say that. Do not put words into my mouth. Yes, I wrote that article.Sposer 21:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
You might want to add WP:COI to WP:NPOV on your queue of Wikipedia policies to read, then, before disclaiming COI on whether the Wikipedia article should include a couple of hundred words about a minor piece that you wrote for a TA magazine. THF 21:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I said elsewhere I agree on the removal of the Greenspan quote. I still believe he uses it, but that is my research. What I disagree with is your accepting arguments that only back up your untruths. Osler has written multiple articles. Some say some things in TA work, so say some items to not. I also mentioned Odders-White, LeBaron, and Lo and others. Golfsom has provided others. You are happy to include Fama. Great, he has a Nobel. I still respectfully believe he and EMH are wrong. Maybe we should go back to pre-Copernican astronomy too, for the seminal papers on that. Sposer 23:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Excuse me, but taking other people's opinions into account is precisely what I've been doing. That is why I provided a reliable source for the quote, then moved the placement of the reference, and now I'll be citing Poser by name as the source. Cool Hand Luke will accept this, and so will shotwell. Ministry of random walks should recognize that does not "cool things off" to revert a good-faith edit, even as reaching a consensus is exactly what I'm trying to do -- it's equally unsporting to decide to suddenly "add it up" just as several participants here are close to an agreement about an acceptable way to keep the quote in. --Rgfolsom 18:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't think this is an OR or SYN violation anymore. I suspect that it's a WEIGHT problem, and I think it's bizarre to go to such lengths for a quote that isn't even about TA (and is presumably less apt than an on-topic quote), but I won't directly interfere with this any more. My primary policy objection has been answered. I still think you should find something else though. Cool Hand Luke 18:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I pretty much agree with Luke. shotwell 18:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I trust that other editors can see that Smallbones spoke on behalf of a nonexistent consensus, and then reverted my good faith edits just as a real consensus appeared at hand. Ministry of random walks has answered my good faith attempts to reach a consensus by claiming 3rr on the admin board.--Rgfolsom 19:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Luke that the quote doesn't belong. Aside from the WEIGHT problem, Poser's opinion is neither notable nor a reliable source. I see no one other than TAists who believe the quote has relevance, much less belongs in a Wikipedia article, just a couple of editors who object to the POV-pushing but are worn down by tendentious editing. The consensus reflects that the quote does not belong. THF 13:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

We can both put words in Luke's mouth, including "My primary policy objection has been answered." I'd rather point out that Greenspan's quote has been properly sourced and footnoted. What you or any other user here says about Poser is irrelevant -- his views appeared in a reliable source, period. The quote stays.
I'll also point out that the 3rr accusation by Ministry of random walks was completely bogus -- not because I say so, but because I got an administrator to review what's been said on this page and done in the article itself. He lifted the block, and thanked me for bringing all of this to his attention.--Rgfolsom 16:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Aside: it should be clear that I don't think the quote belongs. I only mean that I will not personally remove it from the article now that it's not a manifest violation of OR and SYN. There's a good argument that Poser is too unreliable of a source to justify such a large block invoking an off-topic quote from a highly respected commentator.
As for your eight-hour block, I think AGK was dead wrong to remove it. The blocking admin was correct. Disputes of supposed consensus do not justify breaking the rule: consensus is to be developed on the talk page. Cool Hand Luke 18:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
That you tricked one admin into removing a legitimate block by misrepresenting what happened on your talk page does not make the initial accusation--supported by at least one admin and multiple observers--bogus. As you've immediately resumed edit-warring despite the very clear talk-page consensus that the additions are inappropriate (and the best support you can find is an editor saying he "won't directly interfere" with the inappropriate addition), we'll see what happens now that I've notified WP:AN/3RR of your bad-faith resumption of the edit-warring. THF 16:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
We will indeed see what happens, just as we've seen what happened already when a fair-minded administrator takes the time to examine all the particulars. It's bloody obvious that shotwell and Cool Hand knew that the quote was properly sourced -- Cool Hand was telling me how to make sure the attribution was done properly. These facts, the obvious policy violation in taking down a relevant and properly sourced quotation, plus your name calling and incivility -- all of it will come into play as this dispute is resolved.--Rgfolsom 17:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Observers might find poetic parallels in the accuracy of your invocation of Alan Greenspan on behalf of technical analysis on the one hand and your invocation of administrator Anthony and user Cool Hand Luke on behalf of your conduct on the other. There were multiple problems with the Greenspan quote; solving the WP:NOR problem by rewriting the section in the main text to make it clear that the interpretation was the idiosyncratic belief of a minor person in an unreliable source (which, incidentally, you have yet to do in your revisions) just demonstrates problems of WP:N, WP:RS, and Undue weight. The consensus remains to keep it out, and I hope for the sake of civility and cooperative editing you cease your disruptive attempts to revert. That you were fortunate enough to face a worse actor in a previous content dispute, and thus avoided scrutiny of POV-pushing in your WP:SPA edits, is hardly an endorsement from on high. THF 19:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Experts needed?

...and yet this member of the MTA board, who is an expert on Technical Analysis, also has a graduate degree in economics and a post-graduate certificate in finance (plus undergraduate in mathematics and computer science). I spoke with a PhD today, who told me that I would be hard pressed to find a neutral academic. Either it will be one that supports TA, or one that is against it. Academics will not weigh in on something they have no knowledge of. So, then, we wind up with more he said/she said. In all honesty, I have no problem with removing the Greenspan quote, because I can see how one could misinterpret it as original research, even though it is not and I think it provides valuable insight. The article is less interesting without it, but at least it removes some of the silly stuff.
What is absolutely uncalled for is to use terminology such as charlatan, astrologer, chiropractor (which is pretty much accepted as a real alternative anyway, but wrongfully has a negative connotation among people who don't know better)when referred to a respected and increasingly academically supported field of study. Sposer 01:57, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Excessive weight given to Efficient Markets Theory

I wanted to reiterate and amplify my concerns about the insertion of material pertaining to Efficient Markets Theory in the initial introductory portion of this article. Prominent placement of this criticism gives a negative weight to this article that in my view is contrary to WP:NPOV. I believe that the material on EMT obviously needs to be mentioned but not at this length and not so high in the article. --Samiharris 22:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you that there is too much focus on the controversy in the introduction. I think that the introduction should make a brief mention of the controversy, since it seems to be a major thing. The rest of the material about controversy should be integrated into the article. shotwell 16:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I trimmed as discussed above.--Samiharris 21:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the introduction needs some work - it looks too much like an out-of-control back and forth. The intro should only state the outline of the basic facts of who says what. The EMH should not drowned out what TA says - what TA says should be the focus of the article. Nevertheless, when a method such as TA contradicts (to the extreme) a standard well-known academic theory, that theory should be mentioned throughout the article, at least in passing.

It should also be stated accurately. "Suggestive" which I have changed to "state" in the following and 1 other spot, is just much too weak. The "many academic papers" will likely be controversial among TA proponents here - but ask any financial economist, and I'm sure that they will consider the whole sentence to be accurate. Smallbones 09:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Technical analysis has generated controversy among market participants and financial economists for decades. Critics include advocates of the efficient market hypothesis, who state that past price and volume data - or indeed any "old news" - cannot be used to profitably predict future prices.
Many academic papers contradict the validity of technical analysis, but a few support it.
I put my comment back the way that I wrote it.
It will be quite difficult to find a way to summarize the weight of the academic evidence on EMH and TA. The papers are numerous (though often they don't bother to directly mention TA), going back at least to the 1930's. They do have some grays in them: it is not all black and white. Nevertheless, I think that it's fair to say that 90% of the research goes against TA, and maybe 10% might be veiwed as supporting it. Others might say that it's 80%-20%, but that's about the extent of disagreement on this topic among academics. Is there any chance we could poll Wikipedian economists on this to get a more solid answer? Smallbones 08:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Smallbones, where do you get 90%/10% or 80%/20%. First of all, before EMH, the markets were assumed to be inefficient, and were perfectly in compliance with the idea of TA. By going back to the 1930s to tally it up, is like including all the writings prior to Copernicus, 10 years after he figured out that the Earth was not the center of the universe. Please look at the recent evidence, not just the papers written back to 1930s. Like I said, I honestly went back to ssrn.com and could hardly find a paper written in the last 5 years that was negative on TA. This includes a survey on the subject. Sposer 14:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Academic support or not

Many academic papers contradict the validity of technical analysis, but a few support it.


- To put in the lead that many papers contradict and some support is just plain not true. To make it that unbalanced, when recent research is favorable, can only be to promote a POV. For the time being, I am willing to stand by a more even appraisal, which I have provided until we can find a neutral party, whom I am 100% sure will finally put the naysayers in their place.Sposer 21:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

It'd be far far better to describe what the papers concluded and cite them, rather than just say they support or contradict the validity. I think this would also help eliminate the POV issues. shotwell 21:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
There is support for it, but it appears to be qualified support. Taking your suggestion to look into SSRN papers we find: technical analysis is not profitable on long time horizons technical analysis works only with immature markets technical analysis works for currency because of how large banks use stop-loss orders technical analysis not profitable unless underlying stock is illiquid Cool Hand Luke 21:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
And Candlestick TA doesn't work. And that Hsu/Kuan paper suffers from hindsight bias: if you test 100 rules, then 5 of them are likely to end up being "statistically significant" by chance.
Note also that there's a selection bias for SSRN. Most creditable economists don't waste time measuring TA because there's no academic prestige in stating the sky is blue. Academics are rewarded for surprising results, not the mundane ones. The definitive papers on TA were written forty years ago, have not been refuted, and aren't going to be on SSRN. THF 21:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Too, a complete SSRN search would include a search for "random walk" (advocates of the well-proven random walk hypothesis necessarily disbelieve TA) and "efficient markets" (advocates of the efficient markets hypothesis necessarily disbelieve TA). THF 21:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Finally, note that the Brandeis paper (Osler (2000)) repeatedly touted by Poser is far more ambiguous than Poser makes it out to be, as she does not test whether the strategies are profitable after transactions costs, only if they have some predictive power. THF 22:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction

Is there any agreement to just plainly remove the third and fourth paragraphs of the introduction? I'm saying this because:

  1. They are not sourced ("many academic papers...", "The MTA believes the tide is turning...", "The conundrum for academia is..." all need citations).
  2. They use overly dramatic language (e.g. "tide", "conundrum", etc..).
  3. They introduce clear POV issues.
  4. They provide hardly any real information; just bald assertions that sound as if they're ripped from a marketing brochure.

Any thoughts? shotwell 21:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. THF 21:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Agree. Langauge was way over the top, unsupported, and POV. Cool Hand Luke 00:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
My edits and sources provide unimpeachable references and NPOV language. THF's reverts flagrantly disregard Wikipedia policies about reliable sources. The failure of other editors to object to this abuse will speak for itself. --Rgfolsom 00:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Have you noticed that every third-party to look at this issue disagrees with your assessment of Wikipedia policies? Please recognize that you do not own this article, and edit collaboratively, and respect consensus. THF 00:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Latest edits

I found it interesting that several editors seemed fine with a "citation needed" tag on a sentence like "Technicians have long said that irrational human behavior influences stock prices, and that this behavior leads to predictable outcomes," but saw no need to challenge the claim that "Many academic papers contradict the validity of technical analysis, but a few support it." As for the Nison reference, here’s what it says: Page 17: “Among the first and most famous people in Japan to use past prices to predict future price movements was the legendary Munehisa Homma. He amassed a huge fortune trading in the rice market during the 1700s.”

Page 18: “In order to learn about the psychology of investors, Homma analyzed rice prices going back to the time when the rice exchange was in Yodoya’s yard.”

On page 19, “His [Homma’s] trading principles evolved into the candlestick methodology currently used in Japan.”

There’s more, of course. Page 14 of the other Nison book quotes Homma: “When all bearish, there is cause for prices to rise. When everyone is bullish, there is cause for prices to fall.” Everything I’ve just added is properly sourced, relevant to this article, and consistent with Wikipedia’s policies. I remind editors of what the Arbitration Committee said in the Robert Blair decision: "It is inappropriate to remove blocks of well-referenced information which is germane to the subject from articles on the grounds that the information advances a point of view. Wikipedia's NPOV policy contemplates inclusion of all significant points of view. --Rgfolsom 22:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

THF has reverted sources and edits that are from top financial professionals and academics, with no explanation beyond a bunch of WP acronyms. That is not acceptable. --Rgfolsom 00:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


Each of the acronyms represents a policy that Rgfolsom's edits violate.
  • WP:WEIGHT: "We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties. This applies not only to article text, but to images, external links, categories, and all other material as well."
You stand the meaning of that quote on its head. This article is about Technical analysis -- by definition the majority are technical analysts, and authors and academics who write about it. And also by definition the critics are the minority -- unless you have reliable sources to show that critics comprise the majority of experts.--Rgfolsom 00:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Again, your response greatly misunderstands the NPOV policy, and demonstrates why your version of the article fails to comply with NPOV. THF 01:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
The tags you put on the article fail to comply with the ability to answer my points. One op-ed harangue is a laughable answer to a request for reliable sources showing that critics comprise the majority of experts.--Rgfolsom 02:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • WP:LEAD: Again, the additions are inappropriate in the lead paragraph. Legitimate criticism was deleted from the lead paragraph in contravention of both talk-page consensus and WP:LEAD. THF 00:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
The lead had NO sources cited for the criticism, until my addition of Fama.--Rgfolsom 00:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • WP:NPOV: Again, the additions are one-sided and POV-pushing. Legitimate criticism was deleted from the lead paragraph. THF 00:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
See above. You (et. al.) have not added so much as one critic from a reliable source on the level of the references I cited.--Rgfolsom 00:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • WP:RS: Sellers of TA products should be identified as such. Conclusions of academic studies severely misrepresented by text. THF 00:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
If I've misrepresented the authors' text, it should be easy enough for you to show quotes from the books and papers to that effect. As it is you (et. al.) keep reverting the Nison reference, even after I produced the quotes to back up what the article says. As for identifying people "as such," let's also do so for editors who use language like "horoscope" and "pseudoscience" to describe the work of respected financial professionals?--Rgfolsom 00:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
It is YOUR POV that TA is supported by a small minority. You present zero evidence of this, except for the work of an extremist, such as Fama. And, I seem to remember Fama evening softening some of his stance on EMH. I rewrote the introduction last week, and that seemd to stand with the only criticism of it by a third party and that person said it focused too much on the criticism of TA. Sposer 00:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
It is a fact that TA is supported by a small minority, and that respectable economists and financial analysts pooh-pooh it. Cf. the Financial Times op-ed paragraph reprinted above. THF 01:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AOL chart and article in general

Cool Hand Luke - I agree that we need a citation. I wish I was more up on the studies. I have seen work that clearly shows that markets trend, especially over longer timeframes (the opposite conclusion of some academic papers that suggest that TA may work in shorter time frames, but not longer time frames). The reference for the chart is not clear there, but refers to the earlier in the article explanation that the market is trending down. As I said earlier, the view of THF, Smallbones and Ministry of Random Walks is that the consensus (not theirs, but the market and academia) is that EMH is correct, Random Walk is correct, and therefore technical analysis is not. Unfortunately, as you can see even in the EMH article, there is plenty of controversy as to the correctness of EMH. Furthermore, Fama allows for his own anamolies (market cap, value vs. growth I believe) and is an advisor in a fund with his frequent co-author, Kenneth French.

I do not understand why the TA article needs to represent a view that just does not exist. I worked on trading desks for years and nearly all traders used technical analysis to some degree to help them time entry and exit, some for long term and some for short term. Fidelity has a whole department dedicated to technical analysis. I could contact a few academics that I know, but folks like THF will say they are not reputable. Their logic? Because they support TA. Technical analysis is now taught as part of the MBA curriculum at many universities, and the list grows every day.

We are being required to defend against an opinion that TA is in the minority, when there is absolutely no evidence except to the opposite. Assertion via an op ed piece proves nothing. There are people that say TA is wrong, but use it, and call it another name. It is THF's POV that TA is not accepted. I cited a paper in an earlier version of this article that was written because the academics could not understand why so much time and money were spent on technical analysis. That suggests that TA is the majority view, not the minority, at least in the markets. Their conclusion was that it was at least of some use (though I do not remember how much). RGFolsom and I (and another who felt I was too negative on TA in my earlier attempt at a compromise) are trying to come to an amicable resolution, but the others only accept arguments from those that agree with them.

I suspect that MIT, Brandeis (not just Osler), Notre Dame, the Univeristy of Wisconsin, the London School of Economics and countless other universities should be warned by THF that their professors are not reputable since they have published papers that support technical analysis.Sposer 02:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

It's also obvious that THF (et. al.) don't even understand academic research, specifically that the findings are always couched with every possible exception and qualifier: the more understated the claim, the less open it is to a challenge. That said, scholars at Ivy League schools and other blue-chip universities would not be producing a steady flow of studies about horoscopes -- but they do produce plenty of studies about technical analysis. And when you read beyond the qualifiers, a lot of that research says "We see promising things..."--Rgfolsom 02:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, there are qualifiers, but some of them appear to be devastating. Of the papers in SSRN I cited above, this one on illiquid stocks suggests that TA works for almost no stock. And interestingly, the fact that it only appears to work with poor liquidity is probably consistent with EMF. Their introduction is also telling.
Technical analysis continues to prove very popular with practitioners despite the majority of academic studies finding it does not produce profits that are large enough to compensate for the transaction costs incurred. . . .
It seems that a lot of the research is an attempt to explain why large investors put so much effort into TA to begin with. The Park/Irwin literature review is similarly devastating in its qualifications. They note the positive results on one hand, but methodological flaws on the other. They moreover claim there is no evidence for successful TA in US stock markets since the early 1990s. They seem to agree with THF that most academics reject TA. It also seems that many of the theories purporting to explain success are made to be consistent with EMF (for example: market inefficiencies and central bank intervention). It therefore seems that even researchers who get positive results would prefer to retain EMF.
But I'm more concerned that the argument sections under EMF and random walk might be OR. Academics don't seem to attack EMF the way that this article suggests that technicians do. Seeing an example of these arguments would be helpful. Cool Hand Luke 14:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
There are lots of strong critiques of the EMH/Random walk. Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky's "Prospect theory" paper in 1979 helped launch the behavioral finance school, which was further pushed along by Robert Shiller's paper in 1981, "Do stock prices move too much to be justified by subsequent changes in dividends?" This web site includes academic critiques of the EMH going back to the early 1990s.
Here's a sample quote from Harvard economist Andrei Shleifer's book Inefficient Markets: An Introduction to Behavioral Finance:

"…the second line of defense of the efficient market theory is that the irrational investors, while they may exist, trade randomly, and hence their trades cancel each other out. It is this argument that the Kahneman and Tversky theories dispose of entirely. The psychological evidence shows precisely that people do not deviate from rationality randomly, but rather most deviate in the same way. To the extent that unsophisticated investors form their demands for securities based on their own beliefs, buying and selling would be highly correlated across investors. Investors would not trade randomly with each other, but rather many of them would try to buy the same securities or to sell the same securities at roughly the same time. This problem only becomes more severe when the noise traders behave socially and follow each other's mistakes by listening to rumors or imitating their neighbors (Shiller 1984). Investor sentiment reflects the common judgment errors made by a substantial number of investors, rather than uncorrelated random mistakes."

Aaronson's Evidence-Based Technical Analysis explains why Behavioral finance theory serves the practice of technical analysis, especially the chapter on "Theories of Nonrandom Price Motion."
Hope this helps.--Rgfolsom 15:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
NB that that passage has nothing to do with technical analysis, and that, in any event, Tversky is controversial. Refuting EMH (and the weaker version, random walk hypothesis), is necessary, but not sufficient for TA to be non-quackery. Luke's review is spot on: EMH is mainstream thinking, and thus needs to be reflected as such in this article. (Note, for example, that the entirety of American securities law theory is based on EMH, and noone has tried to get around a "fraud on the market" charge and overturn Basic v. Levinson by arguing that EMH is incorrect.) THF 15:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Speciousness and insults, as usual. The Shleifer passage isn't about technical analysis because I was responding to Luke's request for critiques of the EMH, which IS what the passage is about. Instead of typing out your screeds on this page, your time might be better spent reading Kahneman's acceptance address of his Nobel Prize. Prospect Theory itself was hugely controversial when it first published, because it challenged EMH orthodoxy -- yet nearly 30 years afterward, Tversky would have shared Kahneman's Nobel had he been alive. As for Basic v. Levinson, only a lawyer would advance the fiction that Supreme Court precedents have a shred of relevance to debates over competing theories of finance among academics.--Rgfolsom 17:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm arguing nothing of the sort. I'm arguing that close-to-unanimous legal academic consensus has a great deal of relevance to WP:WEIGHT. The mainstream may be wrong, but Wikipedia does not care if you are correct that it is wrong or that I am correct that it is correct. Wikipedia policy is to recognize the mainstream view as the mainstream view, rather than to deduce the truth, and even the legitimate papers you cite recognize that the validity of TA is a fringe academic view. The only people you cite to the contrary are selling TA books, and are not especially credible. THF 18:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Most of your posts here include insults ("quackery") and sneers ("not especially credible"), as if an abundance of drivel will obscure the fact that you have yet to cite a reliable source that concurs with (much less quantifies) your assertions of what is "mainstream." As I said before, the portfolio manager you quoted whined about technicians on business TV, which by definition IS mainstream!
The behavioral finance school now includes Nobel laureates, peer-reviewed research journals, tenured faculty at the best universities, and hundreds (maybe thousands) of published studies. Look here to see the growing mentions of behavioral finance vs. declining mentions of efficient markets.
To the extent that there is a mainstream among academics, the least one can honestly say is that it includes at least two major schools of thought.
Furthermore, "mainstream" is not confined to academia. The Wall Street and financial community includes people who actually use the methods -- and I've cited reliable sources which show that technical analysis is a common method. Then there's the media, e.g., "Business television shows trot out one technical analyst after another to tell you how to invest, based on resistance levels, moving averages, momentum and buy/sell signals."
"One technical analyst after another" indeed. If business TV never included any technicians, would you say technical analysis is not mainstream?--Rgfolsom 19:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
In the second blocks of the EMF/random walk sections, every line is a reply in a kind of dialog. I find some of these moves very dubious. The quote you reproduce above supports this line: "EMH advocates reply that while individual market participants do not always act rationally (or have complete information), their aggregate decisions balance each other, resulting in a rational outcome (irrational optimists who buy stock and bid the price higher are countered by irrational pessimists who sell their stock, until the price reaches equilibrium)."
I even take issue with this, because your quote is a characterization from an opponent. It seems to me that an EMF theorist would say something even stronger, like that prices could never get irrational beyond transaction costs because the irrational gap would be exploited and eliminated by rational players. I must admit that I'm an outsider with no economics background, but it seems to me that this is the essence of EMF. A behaviouralist would have to then argue that rational traders are not capitalized well enough to counter the herd, which would be at least a little counter-intuitive because rational traders would be expected to outperform in the long run. Who does Shleifer cite as offering this "second line of defense"? Cool Hand Luke 23:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] restarting margin

Luke,

The particular EMH premise that Schleifer describes is well-understood by both sides in the debate – he characterizes it fairly. Here’s another description from an academic paper written by EMH advocates:

The key reason for the existence of an efficient market is the intense competition among investors to profit from any new information. The ability to identify over- and underpriced stocks is very valuable (it would allow investors to buy some stocks for less than their “true” value and sell others for more than they were worth). Consequently, many people spend a significant amount of time and resources in an effort to detect "mis-priced" stocks. Naturally, as more and more analysts compete against each other in their effort to take advantage of over- and under-valued securities, the likelihood of being able to find and exploit such mis-priced securities becomes smaller and smaller. In equilibrium, only a relatively small number of analysts will be able to profit from the detection of mis-priced securities, mostly by chance. For the vast majority of investors, the information analysis payoff would likely not outweigh the transaction costs.

That paper also has this quote from Fama: "on the average, competition will cause the full effects of new information on intrinsic values to be reflected 'instantaneously' in actual prices," which is relevant to your comments in the text about index and statistical arbitrage. You noted correctly that those strategies exploit mispricing (or inefficient pricing) of securities. Yet weak-form EMH and random walk say that securities cannot be "mis"priced, given that “intrinsic values” translate immediately to “actual prices.” Statistical arbitrage thus couldn’t work as there are no "inefficiencies" to exploit.

Some forms of EMH obviously do allow for a limited degree of inefficient pricing, with emphasis on "limited" -- but identifying those limits can be thorny indeed. Nobel laureates Scholes & Merton thought they had a grip on those limits when they joined LTCM, but their assumptions about "efficiency" helped produce one of the worst trading debacles in history -- as in Keynes' remark, "markets can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent."--Rgfolsom 01:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I actually wasted a lot of time at work reading this paper, and statistical arbitrage does seems to be an interesting argument that markets are perpetually inefficient. I noticed that some apparent TA successes in currency exchange could rationally be explained by the higher risks that traders incur, but the risk involved in statistical arbitrage techniques purports to approach zero, and apparently gets very close to zero over relatively short periods. It still seems that a majority support effcient markets to some degree, and it's a very intuitive ides to me; there are possibly other explainations. In any case, as THF notes, rejecting EMF only gets one half way to the conclusion that TA methods could continually work. What research in behavioural economics supports it, and shouldn't citations to it be in the article? Cool Hand Luke 02:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
The best theoretical synthesis of TA and behavioral finance that I've read is Aronson's book, in the chapter I mentioned previously. And yes, that probably should be noted in the article -- I'll look for a way to do so.
I should also have mentioned Lo's 2001 book Non-random Walk Down Wall Street, which presents his evidence for completely dismissing the random walk (if not all forms of EMH) -- Lo also acknowledges the numerous overlooked studies that preceded his, which had also greatly undermined the random walk. The first few pages are available on Amazon. Lo's book and research played no small part in the paper Burton Malkiel wrote in 2003, which concluded with this blunt admission:

As long as stock markets exist, the collective judgment of investors will sometimes make mistakes. Undoubtedly, some market participants are demonstrably less than rational. As a result, pricing irregularities and even predictable patterns in stock returns can appear over time and even persist for short periods. Moreover, the market cannot be perfectly efficient, or there would be no incentive for professionals to uncover the information that gets so quickly rejected in market prices, a point stressed by Grossman and Stiglitz (1980). Undoubtedly, with the passage of time and with the increasing sophistication of our databases and empirical techniques, we will document further apparent departures from efficiency and further patterns in the development of stock returns.

He also stated his belief that markets are usually very efficient and that inefficiencies don't last long. But for the father of the random walk to say that "pricing irregularities and even predictable patterns in stock returns can appear over time and even persist for short periods" was pretty remarkable, given that (by definition) technical analysis is necessary to identify those irregularities and patterns.--Rgfolsom 17:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I've referenced the comment about arbitrage, and quoted Aronson on behavioral finance.
As for deleting "financial astrology," THF is welcome to dwell on the fact that I have worked to provide reliable and easy-to-verify sources (in the article and this talk page), references which are both favorable toward and critical of technical analysis. I've spelled out the academic research showing how even TA's strongest critics today acknowledge that markets are inefficient and patterned. I've shown that technical analysis is widely used on Wall Street and by investors -- which only confirmed what an experienced financial professional who has worked on Wall Street had already said on this page.
THF, however, has either ignored these facts or replied with frivolous contempt -- not a word of substance in his answers. His "contributions" to the article amount to deletions, reverts, tags, and now a link to "financial astrology" -- although even that idea wasn't his original thought.
If THF really wants to improve this article, shouldn't he find something useful or productive to contribute?--Rgfolsom 20:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Cite-checking and tagging problematic articles and passages as THF does is an important part of improving the encyclopedia. Cool Hand Luke 22:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Luke, tags and noting problems (etc.) clearly are important, if such efforts are accompanied by respect for and civility toward other contributors to the article. That’s the opposite of THF’s attitude here – his first appearance said TA was “quackery,” and that salvo has been followed by a steam of other insults and deprecations of editors and their contributions. Read [[]WP:Talk]]. The tags and ongoing trail of notes he leaves in the article look like edit warring by other means; note this diff, which called for citations but also removed the “See also [9]” link from the article, which sends readers to an excellent, non-commercial information site about technical analysis. THF offered no explanation for removing the link, and what he did would be easy to miss. All due respect, I do not understand how this pattern of behavior can be anything but obvious to you.--Rgfolsom 23:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Of course, the "quackery" statement was accompanied by reference to reliable sources espousing a far more aggressive point of view, and was in the context of a legitimate complaint that the article violates NPOV by failing to give adequate weight to that point of view. You may also wish to check WP:KETTLE in terms of respect and civility accusations. The "See also [link to personal website]" in the main text so clearly violates WP:MOS and WP:EL and WP:RS that I'm surprised that you're complaining that I improved the article by deleting it. And speaking of WP:TALK, please don't break up other editors' comments without reinserting a signature. THF 23:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Malkiel

I'll try to look at this more carefully, but a lot of work, including what you've quoted, more clearly suggests that fundamental analysis can beat the market by uncovering data that's inefficiently reflected in the current price. I don't think even the strongest EMF theorist would deny that markets may be temporarily out of balance. If they were not, there would be no profit/information/arbitrage opportunity to restore efficient prices. I think it's a significant leap to go from this to the idea that chart patterns alone can identify mispricing. I think this would seem bizarre to a reformed random walk theorist: trading on unreflected information or arbitrage helps restore efficiency, whereas trading on a "break out price" would push the security even further from equilibrium. In other words, I don’t see how your pro-TA reading of Malkiel is plausible. Cool Hand Luke 22:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
EMH-Random walkers used to talk in near-absolutes about market efficiency, with only an occasional acknowledgement of “anomalies,” which they claimed would appear and vanish before anyone could make a profit. Read the conclusion in Fama’s 1970 paper that I cited in the article. Above I quoted the Clarke, Jandik, Mandelker paper (which itself quoted Fama). Even though it’s fairly recent, that paper still said EMH means that the few investors who find inefficiencies make a profit more by chance.
I wasn’t arguing whether technical or fundamental analysis can “beat the market” – Malkiel in fact says neither method can beat the market. Perhaps I should have been more clear about what I did mean: Whether one is an academic or a trader, you must analyze past financial market data in order to identify “pricing irregularities” and “predictable patterns” – and that is precisely what technicians do, in order to forecast the trends that Malkiel himself said do appear (albeit for “short periods”). So I wasn’t suggesting that Malkiel was pro-TA, but instead saying that to acknowledge the presence of price patterns is to acknowledge the efficacy of the method that made the knowledge of those pattern possible: technical analysis.--Rgfolsom 19:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Chapter 6 from Malkiel's A Random Walk Down Wall Street: "Technical analysis is anathema to the academic world. We love to pick on it. Our bullying tactics are prompted by two considerations: (1) after paying transactions costs, the method does not do better than a buy-and-hold strategy for investors, and (2) it's easy to pick on. And while it may seem unfair to pick on such a sorry target, just remember: it's your money we are trying to save." (139) THF 00:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
"It seems very clear that under scientific scrutiny chart-reading must share a pedestal with alchemy." (158)
"Technical strategies are usually amusing, often comforting, but of no real value." (159)
Chapter 7 from Malkiel: "But even on Wall Street, technicians are considered a rather strange cult, and little faith is put in their recommendations." (165) THF 01:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Let's Please Be Clear on the Truth About "CMT"

Several posts above, someone asserted that: "the professional designation for technical analysts Chartered Market Technician CMT is now recognized by Wall Street's two primary self-governing bodies, and by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission."

This is simply not true. The self-governing bodies have ONLY recognized the CMT Level 1 and CMT Level 2 exams themselves. They have NOT recognized the CMT designation, which signifies completion of all 3 levels of CMT testing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Happytech (talk • contribs)

The poster may not be aware of the technicalities here, as he is not a member of the MTA. I am, and have corrected the statement. The MTA is required to protect the whole designation as that, along with the testing methodologies are among the requirements of the NYSE et al to the MTA in permitting technical analysts to replace CMT I&II for Series 86.Sposer 01:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying. What is perfectly clear, is that the SEC does not, repeat NOT, give a hoot about "CMT." The only thing the SEC recognizes, are the exams, level 1, and level 2. Nowhere in the rulings, has the SEC ever given recognition of the CMT designation itself.Happytech 21:47, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I deleted Happytech essay

for violations of the no original research policy; this edit shouldn't be controversial, but feel free to discuss here if there's any question about it. THF 22:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I guess I was wrong, because Happytech reverted without discussion on the talk page. I'll request some other editor to delete; I've already referred the editor to the WP:NOT#OR essay. THF 22:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nison and Homma

I've commented out the references to Nison, who doesn't say that Homma created candel-sticking, but rather laid the foundation that later became that system. Even if he were clearer, however, he isn't a reliable source. He is writing a book to teach the candlestick method, that does not make him an authority on the history of Japanese business. The only source that he cites in his introduction is a serious book about Japanese business, but it does not mention Homma at all. And the fact for which Nison quotes the book he misquotes (that is, Nison discusses how the number of rice certificates sold in Kobe was greater than the amount of rice in Japan; his source clearly says the amount of certificates sold in Kobe was greater than what was in local warehouses.) I think that we should leave this unreferenced and tagged until we find a better source. Ministry of random walks 18:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

What is your source for the quote? Nison is the person,through much research and time in Japan, who brought candlestick charting to our shores. I would be happy to ask him his source for the Homma-san info as well as how he came to the rice certificate sales comparison.Sposer 23:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
There are two problems here. First, Nison does not attribute candlesticks to Homma. He concludes ch. 2 (where he tells Homma's story) thus (p. 19): "He died in 1802. … His trading principles, as applied to rice markets, evolved into the candlestick methodology currently used in Japan." The misquote is in n. 4 of that page, Hirschmeier and Tsunehiko, The Development of Japanese Business (Harvard U.P. 1975). It's not a big deal, but he does not mention his sources for the Homma story, so it's difficult to follow up. Ministry of random walks 03:08, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
I’ve adjusted the mention of candlesticks in the text. Nison’s books were published by a reputable publishing house, and a search of Google book/scholar shows that the books have been cited by multiple other reliable sources. Our approval or disapproval as editors is irrelevant – please provide reliable citations that challenge Nison, or let the cite stand.--Rgfolsom 19:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
As editors, it's obviously our job to determine what is reliable and what not. Indeed, sometimes a work will be reliable for one thing and not for another. In this case, Nison is surely reliable for the candelstick methodology, but it is pretty clear (to me at any rate) that his history section is woefully inadequate. But even apart from that, we have in our text a statement that "Munehisa Homma, a successful rice trader in 18th century Japan, wrote the first book on technical analysis". This is not what Nison says. I will delete it and give some thought to what is left. Ministry of random walks 20:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Definitional ambiguity over the term "technical analysis" has never been publicly or officially addressed by the field's leaders, or by its professional organizations. One result of this, is that public perception often associates technical analysis with astrology. For example, a Google search turns up the following comparative results.

[edit] Definitional Ambiguity

Guys, guys. Listen. I did not make up this story about definitional ambiguity. Definitional ambiguity exists, in spades, with respect to technical analysis. You have chosen to supress and censor any reference to this fact, and the supporting evidence. Please advise what will make you happy, so that these facts can become part of the record. I am sick of playing your little cencorship games. You simply delete or move or hide any information which relates to definitional ambiguity, yet you can not escape the fact that it is a large part of technical analysis. So please tell us, what are the proper guidlines for introducing this fact into the article. What will satisfy you. I am not going away. Happytech 21:46, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

First of all, you can review the policies and guidelines listed at WP:WELCOME and at the top of the page and understand that your personal essays are going to be reverted unless you can provide reliable sources for the information you wish to add without violating synthesis guidelines. Second, you can abide by WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA and be thankful you haven't been banned from the site for your repeated violations of them. Third, if you insert material that is as badly spelled as your talk-page contributions, editors may prefer to delete it rather than try to clean up the resulting word soup, so you may wish to proofread your edits. THF 21:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
this is a discussion page, not the main article. surely no one is harmed, so lets please leave the spelling criticisms and focuss on more important matters. the most "reliable source" in existence for proof of definitional ambiguity, is the formal definition for "technical analysis" given by the largest organizing body of technical analysis in the United States. this definition permits and does not exclude the inclusion of subjects which normally fall under the purview of fundamental valuation analysis, financial astrology, and other phenomena such as cycles in nature. so there you have it. the proof and source. there is of course loads of other, factual evidence for definitional ambiguity with respect to technical analysis, which you have repeatedly labeled "research," even though i have not had one scrap of input in creating. but i think this one in particular fits your requirements in that it is not research, and its source is unassailable.Happytech 22:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Again, I urge you to read the WP:NOR policy, especially the synthesis part as your answer here indicates that you do not understand these policies. You're wasting your time until you do understand WP:RS and WP:NOR and WP:SYN. THF 22:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
I have read it, dont lecture me. Would you accept as a valid souce, the published testimony of a recognized expert in the field, as to whether or not there is any real agreement on what is or is not technical analysis? -- awaiting your response.

[edit] Defintion of technical analysis

According to the article "technical analysis is the study of past financial market data, primarily through the use of charts, to forecast price trends and make investment decisions" -- source, John J. Murphy.

However, Mr. Murphy's definition seems lacking and incomplete, compared to the official definition given by the largest organizing body of technical analysts in the United States, which defines technical analysis as "the study of data generated by the action of the markets and by the behavior and psychology of market participants and observers, for estimating the probabilities for the future course of prices for a market, investment or speculation."

http://www.mtaeducationalfoundation.org/New_Lecture_1.pdf

Since this second definition represents a merging of many inputs from many experts in the field, and from many countries not just the United States, it would seem more appropriate if the definition in the article reflected this more comprehensive view.

I would like to get the editors comments and feedback before I make the edit, since it seems there is much controversy over "sources."

Happytech 22:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe the present definition better describes the topic. Above you've argued that the MTA accepts financial astrology as a recognized TA discipline, but this is simply not how academics and practitioners understand the practice. TA refers primarily to chart reading: using market history to predict market future. This is sometimes perceived as a little disreputable, which is why I suspect the MTA uses a vague definition incorporating "behavior and psychology." These are proposed as explanations for how TA supposedly works, but the MTA definition utterly fails to describe what TA is. Cool Hand Luke 01:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
"As a recognized TA discipline" ????? Those are your own words, not mine. I've never said anything remotely similar to that. Please, mr. editor, please refrain from making false and unsupportable accusations. I have only argued that the MTA's definition of technical analysis, permits and does not exclude subjects such as financial astrology and fundamentals et al. How else would it be possible, for the most prestigous technical analysis award, the MTA's Dow Award, to be given to a paper which is based on lunar cycles and moon phases? https://www.mta.org/eweb/docs/1998DowAward.pdf How else would it be possible for the largest US based organizing body for technical analysts, to include "valuation" under its "list of indicators." How else is it possible that candidates studying for the CMT exam program, the only technical analysis exam recognized by the SEC, are expected to know and understand the book "Irrational Exuberance" by Robert Shiller, which deals specifically with the subject of fundamental market valuation.
What you are suggesting here, mr. editor, is that technical analysis DOES NOT include the study of financial astrology and fundamentals et al. If this is truly the case, and if the matter is truly this cut and dry, then please let's please make it part of the article. That's all I ask, and I will never bother you again or post here again.
I will warn you however, if you take this stance, you will be in conflict with a number of very well known and respected, as you say, "practitioners" such as the Mr John Bollinger, who believe fundamental valuation is a technical subject, and Mr. Arch Crawford, who believes that financial astrology is technical analysis, and tens of thousands of others, who follow these noted experts. A quick, objective, purely unbiased Google search will statistically verify this last point beyond a shadow of a doubt. You will aslo be in conflict with the MTA's definition of technical analysis. Are you suggesting, mr. editor, that you know more about technical analysis, than the combined wisdom of the MTA? 72.153.201.71 02:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
First, please preview your edits before submitting. This keeps the edit history from getting cluttered up.
Second, this article covers what technical analysis is by covering what technical analysis is. I doubt there's a technician who isn't familiar with fundamental analysis. Nobody says that TA can't be supplemented with fundamental analysis, astrology, or prayers to the Flying Spaghetti Monster. We could discus the intersection between these practices if you had reliable sources discussing their relationship. Since you apparently have nothing but your original conclusions, I think you should strongly consider a forum besides wikipedia to present your views. Cool Hand Luke 03:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
This would be fine if you were sincerely covering what "technical analysis is." But you are not. You refuse to include highly relevant facts. Why for example, does this article fail to mention the fact that the largest organizing body for technical analysts in the US, does not forbade and even rewards the study of astrological data? This is a fact, not an opinion or a "view." Certainly the position of the largest organization, is relevant to "what technical analysis is." Yet you refuse to let this information be a part of the record. By the way, would you accept as a valid souce, the published testimony of a recognized expert in this field, as to whether or not there is any real agreement on what is or is not technical analysis? -- 04:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reference sought, please

This article asserts that "In its purest form, technical analysis considers only the actual price behavior of the market or instrument.." Where is the supporting reference for this assertion? Does this come from the Murphy book? If so, then it should be noted. If not, then the correct reference should be attached. Thank you. 03:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Technicalanalysis.co.uk

Personal websites do not meet the standard for WP:RS unless they are administered by a reliable source. I'm deleting the link per WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided #11. THF 23:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The link is to one of Martin Sewell’s pages, who has worked in London as an FX trader and is a Ph.D candidate working on financial time series. His site is non-commercial and meets wp:el#what should be linked, 3 & 4.--Rgfolsom 23:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I'll ask RFC. But it any event, your addition of the sentence violates WP:MOS. The link should be a footnote. THF 23:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I saw the RFC. If it's reliable source, should be footnoted. --Ceas webmaster 12:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Financial astrology see also link

Financial astrologers call themselves technical analysts, so it is appropriate as a See also section at a minimum, and perhaps even as a subsection with a main tag, but I leave that to others. It is not the case that only the MTA viewpoint should be reflected in this article. I disagree with financial astrology, but their point of view is at least as valid as the MTA's for purposes of this article. Hey, this guy even uses Elliott waves! THF 23:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

You’ve progressed from sophistry to flippant nonsense: why not put this on your user page? It is irrelevant what financial astrologers consider themselves, and you have not cited a reliable source for your claim.--Rgfolsom 23:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
It's your point of view that it's irrelevant. Financial astrologers would consider it relevant. You should feel free to add sources and references explaining why financial astrology is not technical analysis; I don't see much difference, myself. THF 23:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
You want the link on the page, so the burden is on you to feel free to add sources and references explaining why it belongs. The Securities & Exchange Commission recognizes the CMT exams and the MTA's administrative role -- when financial astrologers are similarly okay with regulators, I'll personally write a Wikipedia article all about it.--Rgfolsom 00:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
There's actually a similar debate about a derogatory "see also" going on in another page I watch. Because this does have some sources supporting the relationship, perhaps we could include it as a note like this: "Financial astrologers believe their practice is a form of technical analysis." This way it's clear that the two are not necessarily related. Cool Hand Luke 00:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Rgfolsom once again misstates the SEC's opinion, but that would seem to be irrelevant in any event: even if the SEC did give some sort of special endorsement, that would only be one POV, and doesn't mean that everything that disagrees with the SEC is to be excluded. (Moreover: doesn't the SEC require disclaimers of "past market performance is not a guarantee of future results"? What is the difference between saying "past performance" is a predictor of future prices and "the zodiac" is a predictor of future prices?) I am fine with Luke's suggestion, which is consistent with WP:MOS. THF 00:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
And THF engages once again in his pattern MO: making accusations without evidence.
The arguments on this page become more ironic by the day. In order to address the “pseudoscience” charges, I have to jump through hoops of every shape and size to produce examples of substantial academic research that treats technical analysis seriously. But now, THF and Luke suggest putting financial astrology in the article, and apparently feel no burden to require the standards of it that have been demanded of me – a simple “not necessarily related” clause will do. Right-o, gentlemen. Very neutral, no one could see a POV logic in this.--Rgfolsom 00:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Financial astrologers do consider themselves technical analysts, as any financial astrology guide will tell you; I provided plenty of evidence. You clearly don't agree with your fellow flag-carriers for technical analysis, and it obviously upsets you that they use the same arguments you do, but that's no reason to personally attack other editors. WP:CIVIL and WP:COOL, please. THF 00:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, there isn't very much official policy on "see also", but the section for related topics, and these topics are related according to financial astrologers. However, I would strongly oppose discussion of financial astrology in the body of the article. Scholarly critics know very well that TA doesn't normally refer to planetary alignment, even if they think the underlying theory is just as silly. Cool Hand Luke 00:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
There is no precedent for including financial astrologers as technical analysts. The astroecon website actually says that you must include technicals and fundamentals in addition to astrology to come up with a forecast. That means the person is combining all three methods. If you think financial astrology belongs on the TA page, by that arguement, it also belongs on the economics page.
As far as the Martin Sewell page goes, if THF knew Sewell, he would not have a problem including the link. Sewell includes pro and con research on TA (I am not familiar with this page, but he has one that includes negative work). He absolutely does not agree with simplistic chart patterns (but he does if they can be modeled and proven to work), and he definitely is not a believer in Elliott Wave. However, he looks at TA from a mathematical perspective and seeks out market inefficiencies that can be exploited. I honestly do not know what his success has been, but that page is merely there to help people understand, as far as I know. Consider this, rgfolsom is linking a page that denigrates Elliott! Do you think he would do that lightly?
That financial astrologers call themselves technical analysts does not make them a technical analyst any more than astrologers calling themselves astronomers would make them so.
Nobody is saying that financial astrology is TA. One editor claims that nobody has defined TA well enough, which allows astrologers to claim TA as well. He also is saying, which I disagree with, that the professional organizations have not specifically said financial astro is part of TA, so maybe they do accept it (even though they do not include it in any of their exams or Body of Knowledge). I know THF rejects that reasoning, as that is one of his arguments for there not being more papers saying TA does not work from the academic world.Sposer 00:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't really think that there should be a financial astrology see also link. We wouldn't want to put a KKK link in the Republican party article. I think, however, Luke offered a reasonable compromise above. Allow the link, but clarify that financial astrologers believe themselves to be technical analysts. shotwell 08:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
THERE DEFINATELY SHOULD BE A "SEE ALSO" LINK. Given the widespread and impossible to deny (statistically or any other way) public perception which connects technical analysis and Financial astrology, shouldn't any Wiki article which attempts to be "all inclusive" and "factual" mention this point?
According to Arch Crawford, perhaps the most noted Financial astrology practitioner of the modern era: "So, it seems to me from our own definitions, that if one is running statistical comparisons on Stars, or Solar Flux, or SuperBowl Games, with stock market trading & price output data, it's still technical analysis of markets." [Thursday, March 06, 2003 7:37 PM, MTList Archives, http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/MTList/message/3785].
http://img159.imageshack.us/img159/2764/snap1rk8.png
The most prestigous technical analysis award, the MTA's Dow Award, was given to a paper which is based on lunar cycles and moon phases -- https://www.mta.org/eweb/docs/1998DowAward.pdf
Moreover, a Google search turns up the following, highly relevant, STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT results.
  • 28,700 for -- "technical analysis" and "planets"
  • 29,600 for -- "technical analysis" and "astro"
  • 72,200 for -- "technical analysis" and "astrology"
These results contrast markedly when the same test is run against technical analysis's closest rival, fundamental analysis:
  • 522 for -- "fundamental analysis" and "planets"
  • 620 for -- "fundamental analysis" and "astro"
  • 766 for -- "fundamental analysis" and "astrology"
70.156.182.52 14:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Flagrant POV violation with quote in the lead

  1. THF can claim no consensus for a quotation that inflammatory, least of all in the lead. Even the way the quotes are couched -- "Generally, however..." is shameless editorializing.
  2. Malkiel’s comments are offensive and deliberately insulting.
  3. The insults have nothing to do with research – it’s sordid name-calling hearsay, with no sources provided by Malkiel.
  4. THF edits Andrew Lo’s comment down to the boorish “argues,” while raising Malkiel’s to the academically sophisticated and reasonable “states.” The contrast is a lesson in the use of weasel words.

--Rgfolsom 04:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

We're not in a position to judge Malkiel's quote. If it was offensive, then so be it. So long as it's attributed to him, I see no problem. Perhaps the sentence could clarify he is a leading proponent of the Efficient Market Hypothesis. The back and forth quotes in the lead, however, make for broken prose. I think a lot of these problems could be resolved if there was a focus on integrating the criticisms section into the rest of the article. I also think there is too much emphasis on trying to explain the controversy in the lead. One or two sentences in the lead, with supporting text in the article, would do the trick. shotwell 08:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Shotwell, I understand free speech and all, but there is no need to quote somebody like Malkiel and include comments he makes just to get headlines. When some studies show greater technical use on the Street in FX than fundamental, such negative and inflammatory statements by a hardcore person like Malkiel have no place, especially in the lede. His book is old, and out of date as it is. I disagree on the academia statement as well, but am willing to let it stand until we can get a valid view from an academic on TA's tanding there. To quote an old source and represent as current regarding usage on Wall Street, when I know Central Banks regularly speak to technical analysts, is just plain wrong. One Central Bank told me, "You are the only person who ever gets our currency right."Sposer 14:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
So it's old and made by someone with an agenda? Then how about. "Malkiel, Princeton economist and leading proponent of the EMH, wrote in 1973 that..." (poor prose, but the idea is clear). shotwell 19:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
The reason(s) to include a quote needs to be more than “because [an authority] said it.” Technical analysis is plainly NOT so anathema to academia that scholars refuse to study it. For Malkiel to speak this way on behalf of all of academia is exceptional, and exceptional claims require exceptional sources. “Just because he said it” is also an appeal to authority, when in this case Malkiel’s claim should include an appeal to evidence – it doesn’t, and the quote doesn’t belong.--Rgfolsom 20:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
The appeal to authority is appropriate in this case. Before we had bald assertions about the supposed controversy generated by TA. This is a quote from a respected economist that speaks about the controversy. Moreover, since we're sourcing the claim "He said it is anathema..." rather than "it is anathema", the citation to his book is fine. You are free to write him a letter and tell him about exceptional claims needing exceptional sources, but the claim we're making is decidedly mundane. shotwell 22:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree with shotwell about the back-and-forth prose. I doubt we can do it in one sentence, but all the criticsm would probably be best in one place at the end. Cool Hand Luke 05:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I've corrected the "states" v. "argues" mistake, the one point of Wikipedia policy Rgfolsom was correct about. Please WP:AGF. We're just trying to make a better encyclopedia here. THF 22:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Shotwell, The appeal to authority is NOT appropriate, and to say that we should use Malkiel for no reason apart from his “respected” status is exactly why the appeal to authority is a logical fallacy – “the validity of a claim does not follow from the credibility of the source.” And because his claim is exceptional, our job as Wikipedia editors is not to write the guy a letter but instead to make certain that his claim is backed by exceptional sources. Did you even read the link I provided? “Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple high quality reliable sources” is what it says, and on that count Malkiel fails, period.--Rgfolsom 14:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] QUestion seeking answer

Different people attach different and usually imprecise meanings to the term "technical analysis." Even some of today's most prominent and visible ambassadors of technical analysis, have vastly different definitions for technical analysis. The well known and respected John Bollinger for example, considers dividends to be within the purview of technical analysis. In addition, those organizations whos missions include education of the public have used the term technical analysis to refer to a wide variety of phenomena, including, but not limited to: the study of fundamental data, the study of astronomical data, the study of cycles and patterns in nature, and others.

The editors of this article have decided to strike any reference to these facts, due violations of various wiki policies. Fair enough.

Would the editors accept as a valid souce, the published testimony of a recognized expert in this field, as to whether or not there is any real agreement on what is or is not technical analysis? Would such testimony, in writing, be acceptable for inclusion within this article?

Thank you. 70.156.182.52 16:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Sources please

This article asserts that "In its purest form, technical analysis considers only the actual price behavior of the market or instrument.." Where is the supporting reference for this assertion? Does this come from the Murphy book? If so, then it should be noted. If not, then the correct reference should be attached. Thank you. 70.156.182.52 16:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WSJ Europe Article

This quote adds nothing to the criticism section. Stating that at the same time, different technicians can offer the opposite recommendation is frivolous. Different fundamental analysts might have a buy or sell on a stock at the same time. Some economists might call for an expansion at the same time as others call for a recession. Saying that investors moving in and out of stocks leads them to losing money does not say anything negative about TA either. It means that investors aren't listening to technical analysts. :-) The quote does state that "some" think that you cannot predict prices, which is a fairly weak criticism anyway. I see no value added to the criticism section for anti-TA folks and no reason to put it in for those that know that TA works. Sposer 19:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the quote introduces the section very well. It's not the "definitive" word, but it's far from frivolous. It sets the stage, introduces the more detailed paragraphs below. The WSJ is an excellent source, and "Whether technical analysis is really useful" is probably the major question of the article. Knowing that it " ... is a matter of some dispute on Wall Street," is something that the reader should know. Smallbones 13:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
The statement there is disagreement over whether it can be used is what the whole criticism section is about. The first two sentences may be worth noting, but it is not a headline. The reference to the academic paper actually weakens the assertion since it has nothing to do with TA. Also weakening the argument is the ridculous quote about technicians disagreeing with each other on buys and sells. So do fundamental analysts.I actually think it would make more sense to add, in the lede section as the last paragraph something like: "There is disagreement among investors and academics as to the usefulness of technical analysis. A Wall Street Journal Europe Article recently noted, "..." and include the first two sentences (assuming that is not a copyright violation). Sposer 14:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] David Chapman CMT candidate -- "There are numerous branches.. INCLUDING astrology."

David brings over 30 years of experience as an authority on finance and investment, through his range of work experience and in-depth market knowledge. David is a director of Bullion Management Services Incorporated, the manager of the Millennium Bullion Fund, a Canadian mutual fund trust investing equally in gold, silver and platinum.

Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (CIBC) 1982-89, Assistant General Manager and Chief Dealer, International Money Markets Banque Nationale de Paris (Canada) Limited (BNP) 1990, Assistant Vice President, Derivatives "During his years at CIBC and CTSL, David managed more than $25 billion in money-market and derivatives portfolios." Member of the Canadian Society of Technical Analysts Chartered Market Technician (CMT) Parts 1 and 2

"Within the field of technical analysis there are numerous branches, from people who use simple support/resistance, trend lines and breakouts to the esoterics of quantitative analysis, astrology and neural systems."

TECHNICAL SCOOP FOR JUNE 23, 2006 http://www.gold-eagle.com/editorials_05/chapmand062506.html 70.156.182.52 14:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "It is completely reasonable to suggest that there is no real agreement on what is or is not technical analysis."

Direct quote from noted Technical Analysis expert, by Steven W. Poser, Board of Directors, Market Technicians Association (MTA).

Steven W. Poser is author of "Applying Elliott Wave Theory Profitably" (John Wiley and Sons, August 2003). Mr. Poser was accorded the high honor of being a judge in the annual MTA Charles H. Dow Award presented to the top technical analysis paper. His articles have appeared in the MTA Journal of Technical Analysis.

Since you were paraphrasing my web site bio, you might want to add the following (the company is no longer active, but I never took down the web site): "His clear writing style and combination of fundamental, technical and sentiment analysis provide traders with actionable ideas and sales teams with talking points to contact their clients." So, as you can see, I certainly separated TA from sentiment and fundamentals. I also managed to call myself a "financial markets forecaster" as opposed to technical analyst, because I didn't just use TA.
Yes, I said that there is no real agreement on what is TA, but there is general, if not 100% (as per the quote from Chapman) agreement that astrology is not TA. When I refer to lack of agreement on what TA is, that extends to things like P/E ratio, where the volatile part of the number is the P, which is TA, or dividend yields (again, there's a P in there), or sentiment indicators derived from things like put/call ratio and open interest. I will admit that in the past, I thought that other sentiment indicators were TA, but then I became more educated and read more books on the subject and realized that things like bullish and bearish polls are not TA (although they do fit into the field of behavioral finance). I have also argued in the past, before those sources are dug up, that we should include astrology or allow its discussion in the MTA, since there are people that use it in conjunction with TA. That does not make it TA.Sposer 23:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Chapman clearly states that ASTRO is a part of TECHNICAL ANALYSIS. And from your own admissions, you also consider Astro as a worthwhile topic for technical analysts. If Dave Chapman, Arch Crawford and apparently 1,000s of others, view subjects such as astro and valuations as "branchs" of technical analysis, then why pray tell is this information being steadfastly PREVENTED from inclusion in this article??? Just a short response is good enuff. I don't need to know how to calculate p/e ratios. Thank you. 70.156.182.52 00:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
You are very good at twisting words. I specifically said that astro is not part of TA in any way shape or form. It is not a branch. It is not a tributary. It is not even related. If there are correlations between lunar cycles and the market, cool, but that is not TA. That is something called astro-finance. I admit there might be some who do call astro part of TA. Obviously Chapman and Crawford make two. I can probably give you a couple of thousand who say no. I suspect there are more people that think President Bush is a member of MENSA and think Michael Moore is a great man at the same tme, than there are who think astro is part of TA. It makes absolutely no sense, given any definition of TA. The Market Technicians Association (MTA) certainly does not consider astro part of TA. It is not in its Body of Knowledge and the MTA has attempted to include all of TA in the Body of Knowledge. The MTA has no reason to state astro is not part of TA, because it has identified what is part of TA. Should the MTA also say that the study of the mating patterns of flies is not part of TA, because somebody might find a correlation in that? I said that it is reasonable for a technical analyst or any other analyst for that matter to look at astro, if they think it would help them get the market right. Personally, I have no faith in it, but you can try. Please stop twisting my words and making things up as you go along. Chapman is entitled to his own opinion. That is his opinion and it is one held by him, and astro guys that want to legitimize their analysis. This is my last comment on this. If you put my name to anything that says otherwise, I will revert it.Sposer 01:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
I have made nothing up. Everything, top to bottom, is verifiable 1000%. The problem Steve is that you are running out of rope, and what little rope you do have, you are hanging yourself with. You want it both ways. You want astro to be a part of technical analysis, but also not be a part of technical analysis. Sorry my friend but that's not possible.
It is an empty, patently absurd analogy to compare the intersection of the "mating patterns of flies" and technical analysis, to the intersection of astrology and technical analysis.
  • Results for "mating patterns" and "flies" and "technical analysis" - 2
  • Results for "technical analysis" and "astrology" -- 72,000
Whether astro is in the MTA's BOK is only one sliver of the completey story. The MTA can amend its BOK at any time it wants. Currently the CMT program, which presumably is just as significant to "what is and what is not" technical analysis, contains fundemental analysis (Shiller). So if they choose, they can certainly include astro in the CMT exam, too. That option is available, and there is nothing, absolutely nothing, preventing them from doing so if they choose. The MTA has dozens if not more books on the subject of Astro finance in its library. The MTA granted its most prestigous award to a paper dealing with astrological topics. You, as a member of the Board, have argued that Astro should be a permissable topic for technical analysts (remind me again Steve, why haven't you also made the same argument about the mating patterns of flies?). But let's forget about the MTA. Leave them out of it. There is STILL a clear and unmistakable connection in the minds of thousands of people, both in the public and in the profession, between technical analysis and astro. The Google results are NOT an accident. For you to suggest, as you just did above, that there is "general, or 100% agreement that astrology is not TA," is propoganda of the highest and most disturbing order. Nothing could be further from the truth, and there is ample, ample evidence to suggest the exact opposite. 70.156.182.52 14:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the definition of technical analysis, isn't this the one you consider valid?[10]

What is technical market analysis?

Technical analysis is the forecasting of markets through the study and analysis of data generated exclusively from the buying and selling of financial instruments. It is part science and part formalization of trader intuition and experience. Any market for which there is a regular, transparent transaction history is a candidate for technical analysis. Planetary cycles, opinion polls, fundamental, monetary and economic data as well as any data not specifically generated from the buying and selling process, are not a part of orthodox technical analysis.

--Rgfolsom 19:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] From the Wiki Talk:Technical analysis/Archive #1

"Stage Chart Investing. I removed Stage Chart Investing as it gets only two google hits, and is obviously not popular enough to warrant a mention. DJ Clayworth 21:02, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)"

How is it, that the editors of this article deemed "Stage Chart Investing" not worthy for inclusion, due at least partially to the lack of Google results. Yet it was claimed, just a few days ago, that the SEVENTY TWO THOUSAND PLUS results for "technical analysis" and "astrology" were unimportant and therefore not worthy of inclusion?? Reminds me of that wonderful song by Cyndi Lauper. "You with the sad eyes. Don't be discouraged. Oh I realize It's hard to take courage. In a world full of people. You can lose sight of it all. And the darkness inside you. Can make you feel so small. But I see your true colors. Shining through I see your true colors. And that's why I love you." 207.195.247.132 15:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Google results are not a source andthey don't prove anything without further analysis. Give us actual secondary sources and we'll discuss the merits of them—we cannot cite to google results. Cool Hand Luke 19:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Connection between astrology and technical analysis

In other Wiki articles, we find that, lo and behold, it is perfectly acceptable to include reference to the fact that more than one definition exists for a particular Wiki topic. See for example "contested definition" --

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_culture

Despite whether one agrees or disagrees with the idea itself, there is an undisputed and very well established connection between astrology and technical analysis, both in the minds of the public, and in the minds and actions of professional technical analysts. Some but certainly not all of the reasons for this connection include:

Every major authority on William Gann accepts as fact, that Gann relied upon and was a proponent of astro-analysis, in some form. William Gann was also, coincidently, the recipient of the MTA's 1983 Annual Award for "outstanding contributions to the field of technical analysis."

There are many well known and respected analysts, such as Arch Crawford, Bill Meridian CMT, Chris Carolan (winner of the MTA Dow Award, David Chapman (CMT candidate), and many others, who firmly believe technical analysis to be part and parcel with astro analysis, and who frequently deliver this message to a wide public audience.

Arch Crawford, perhaps the most noted Financial astrology practitioner of the modern era, states: "So, it seems to me from our own definitions, that if one is running statistical comparisons on Stars, or Solar Flux, or SuperBowl Games, with stock market trading & price output data, it's still technical analysis of markets." [Thursday, March 06, 2003 7:37 PM, MTList Archives]

http://img159.imageshack.us/img159/2764/snap1rk8.png

Bill Meridian's research article: "Does a Lunar Cycle Affect Market Averages?" was awarded the Chartered Market Technicians (CMT) designation in 1996.

http://www.billmeridian.com/articles-files/lunar.htm

Moreover, within the covers of prominent and respected industry magazines and Journals, have featured numerous proponents of astro-analysis. For example, a discussion on the correlation between "lunar cycles" and the stock market appeared in this issue of "Technical Analysis of Stocks & Commodities":

http://www.billmeridian.com/BillMeridianSarrubiStocksandCommodiites.pdf

John Murphy has also acknowledged in his text, the connection between astro-effects and technical analysis. This is the same John Murphy text that is required reading for the CMT exam.

The comments in this discussion forum by SPoser should also be noted. SPoser asserts (but does not explain why) that astro/market correlations do not constitute technical analysis. Quoting SPoser directly: "If there are correlations between lunar cycles and the market, cool, but that is not technical analysis. That is something called astro-finance."

Yet, oddly enough, these comments do not reflect the facts on the ground. In fact, they directly contradict the very technical analysis organization he represents, the Market Technicians Association (MTA), which awarded its highest honor to a paper which specifically found correlations between lunar cycles and the market. See:

https://www.mta.org/eweb/docs/1998DowAward.pdf

I could go on, and on.

So what is the point of all this? "Definitional ambiguity" really does exist with respect to technical analysis. This fact needs be included in this article, just as it is included in other Wiki articles for subjects which suffer from multiple or unclear definitions. This article is not complete without mentioning the connection between technical analsysis and astrology. Nor is the article complete without referring to the fact that different people attach different and usually imprecise meanings to the term "technical analysis." Some of today's most prominent and visible ambassadors of technical analysis have very different definitions for technical analysis. Some believe technical analysis includes the study of fundamental valuations. Others believe technical analysis includes the study of astro factors. Some, like myself, have a more narrow definition of technical analysis. These very true and supportable facts need to be included in the article. Every attempt to include them, has been denied.

66.229.67.92 02:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Technical analysis and astrology

The previous comments regarding a connection between Technical Analysis and Astrology are spot on correct, particularly given the vast amount of material tying the two subjects together. Technical Analysis of Stocks & Commodities magazine is considered the premier US based publication on the subject of technical analysis. It is certainly the largest publication of its kind anywhere. And anyone reading Technical Analysis of Stocks & Commodities magazine, would certainly come away feeling that Astro is part and parcel with technical analysis. The same impression would not be gleaned however, about fundamental and technical analysis (I've checked). Here is a brief sampling from the magazine below.

SPoser person has stated that "there is general, if not 100% agreement that astrology is not TA." What an odd statement. The editors of Technical Analysis of Stocks & Commodoties magazine have a diametrically different view. Where does SPoser derive his opinion from one wonders?


  • Hannula, Hans, Ph.D., CTA [1992]. "Trading Planetary Eclipses," Technical Analysis of STOCKS & COMMODITIES, Volume 10: April.
  • _____ [1987]. "In Search Of The Cause Of Cycles," Technical Analysis of STOCKS & COMMODITIES, Volume 5: March.
  • Katz, Jeffrey Owen, Ph.D., with Donna McCormick [1997]. "Lunar Cycles and Trading," Technical Analysis of STOCKS & COMMODITIES, Volume 15: June.
  • Kimball, Robert S. [1987]. "Cyclical Analysis Of Stock Prices With Astrology," Technical Analysis of STOCKS & COMMODITIES, Volume 5: October.
  • Krausz, Robert, MH, Bche [1998]. "The New Gann Swing Chartist," Technical Analysis of STOCKS & COMMODITIES, Volume 16: February.
  • Marisch, Gerald [1998]. "Combining Gann's 50% Rule With Vidya," Technical Analysis of STOCKS & COMMODITIES, Volume 16: March.
  • Meridian, Bill [1988]. "Planetary Analysis," Technical Analysis of STOCKS & COMMODITIES, Volume 6: September.
  • Sathe, Jayant and Gopalakrishnan , Jayanthi [2001]. "At Mercy Of The Sun - Waiting For Market Time," Technical Analysis of STOCKS & COMMODITIES, March 2001
  • Technical Analysis of Stocks & Commodities V. 23:1 (102-113): Traders’ Resource: Trading Systems by Technical Analysis, Inc. "Trading systems ... can rely on one or more trading disciplines, such as artificial intelligence, Gann analysis, astrology, indicator sets, or custom rules."
  • Technical Analysis of Stocks & Commodities, April 2003 TRADE NEWS, News Releases & Products, "ASTROLOGY/ASTRONONY WORKSHOP TO PREDICT THE MARKET," Alphee Lavoie and Sergey Tarassov will give an all-day workshop showing how to use astrology/astronomy criteria to predict the stock market. They will utilize their Market Trader Millennium series software to demonstrate the power that the planets and celestial cycles have on any market.
  • Technical Analysis of Stocks & Commodities, V.15:14 (663-666), Product Review, The Galactic Trader. Market timing analysis via financial astrology and selective Gann methods. by Raymond A. Merriman
  • Technical Analysis of Stocks & Commodities, V.14:14 (607-609), Product Review: Elliott Wave Analyser, "Some investors consider Elliott wave analysis, like astrology, to be one of the more arcane areas of technical analysis."

74.225.164.188 14:46, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the main objection to including an astrology component to this article is that it would seem to smear TA as being completely unscientific, etc. Well... why not a)make a seperate section relating to TA and astrology, b) make it clear that all TA's are not astrologers, c) cite a couple of the sources above, d) keep it short and near the bottom of the article (say one paragraph), and d) get a username and sign your posts with it? Smallbones 14:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Smallbones, will do. You are correct. All TS's are not astrologers, any more than all TA's are ellioticians, or chartists, or any other of the many TA sub-categories. Jonkozer 17:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
I believe that Smallbones's suggestions are excellent. VisitorTalk 07:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Although Technical Analysis of Stocks and Commodities may include many articles on financial astrology, their definition of TA leaves no such room for interpretation. [[11]]. Furthermore, the description of the magazine, despite its name, says: " we provide serious traders with information on how to apply charting, numerical, and computer trading methods to trade stocks, bonds, mutual funds, options, forex and futures". In other words, they go beyond technical analysis. They combine TA with other methods, much as most analysts do, no matter what they call themselves.Sposer 02:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please give reference

This article says that: "In its purest form, technical analysis considers only the actual price behavior of the market or instrument.."

Who is the reference, book title, source, page, etc. Thank you. 72.153.156.101 06:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

How about the American Management Association's web page about its book on technical analysis? "Definition of Technical Analysis: The term “technical,” in its application to the stock market, has come to have a very special meaning, quite different from its ordinary dictionary definition. It refers to the study of the action of the market itself as opposed to the study of the goods in which the market deals. Technical Analysis is the science of recording, usually in graphic form, the actual history of trading (price changes, volume of transactions, etc.) in a certain stock or in “the Averages” and then deducing from that pictured history the probable future trend. EN: With the advent of the computer, many schools of technical analysis have arisen. Number-driven technical analysis, e.g., moving average studies oscillators, etc., attempts to completely objectify the analysis of the markets. The work of Edwards and Magee is the embodiment and definition of “classical technical analysis.” See Appendix C." http://www.amanet.org/books/catalog/0814408648_ch.htm

How about Warren Buffet deliberately contrasting his fundamental value based approach with technical analysis? "Walter did not go to business school, or for that matter, college. His office contained one file cabinet in 1956; the number mushroomed to four by 2002. Walter worked without a secretary, clerk or bookkeeper, his only associate being his son, Edwin, a graduate of the North Carolina School of the Arts. Walter and Edwin never came within a mile of inside information. Indeed, they used “outside” information only sparingly, generally selecting securities by certain simple statistical methods Walter learned while working for Ben Graham. When Walter and Edwin were asked in 1989 by Outstanding Investors Digest, “How would you summarize your approach?” Edwin replied, “We try to buy stocks cheap.” So much for Modern Portfolio Theory, technical analysis, macroeconomic thoughts and complex algorithms. " http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/letters/2006ltr.pdf

Are these authoritative enough citations for an anonymous critic? VisitorTalk 07:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I can't speak for anonymous critics. However, the correct answer would be a resounding "NO" to both the AMA and Buffet as authoritative sources about technical analysis. Edwards and Mcgee, on the other hand, would be very authoritative sources. Moreover, "the study of the action of the market itself" is quite a bit different and far more encompassing than "only the actual price behavior" -- since the former would presumably include all sources of market iformation, and not just prices, assuming such sources were generated from the buying and selling of securities. Jonkozer 13:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Authority of the MTA

The talk page makes frequent references to the MTA as an apparently authoritative definer of the scope and limits of technical analysis, according to some editors. However, I don't see anything in the article that would indicate that the MTA's official position should have higher weight of authority than other organizations that also specialize in technical analysis. Please either clarify why the MTA is authoritative, or else include counterbalancing arguments from equally authoritative organizations. VisitorTalk 07:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

One reason is because, being on the board, and not hiding my membership, seems to attract a lot of notice to the MTA, and comments about it.

The MTA is probably the largest of the professional technical analysis societies. It also created, though no longer has any control over the MTA Education Foundation, and publishes a peer-reviewed journal as well. There are two other decent-sized TA groups in the U.S., but apparently they do not have people terribly involved with Wiki, although one editor on this page belongs, I think, to AAPTA. Many non-U.S. technical societies use the MTA's CMT exams for their own certification, and others use IFTA's exam, but that is a new test with far fewer holders. I had added the MTA definiton to the article as an attempt to end earlier edit wars on what TA is, but found that became a lightening rod for more issues, so I removed it. Other people have been bringing the MTA up with regard to definitional ambiguity.

I would argue that the MTA is as authoritative on the subject of TA as the CFAI is on fundamental analysis. If you are interested in professional use of technical analysis, MTA members are many of the best-known and well-respected technical analysts in the world. If you are interested in academic studies though, you will have to check with the universities themselves as the associations, until recently, have not wooed academia. That will probably change with the Kirkpatrick/Dahlquist TA book.

In all honesty, for things like definitions, I'd rather see academic definitions, or whatever is in the OED, than MTA. For how it is used in investing, go to the people that use it, whether it is the MTA, AAPTA, STA (UK), or other. One thing though is the heavy MTA weight is in the talk page, not the article. Sposer 03:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent Jonkozer edits

Thank-you for the edits jonkozer.

I was just quoting John Murphy's definition. He says nothing about other data in his book. Anything additional is original research. The name of the magazine is capitalized throughout properly. Professor Pruden's name should be his given name, which is how he has it entered in the MTA membership directory. Data that is not from the markets is not TA, according to the correct TA definition. Sentiment that does not come from buying and selling is not TA, although it is certainly used by market analysts, technicians included. But it is in no way, shape or form TA. Carolan's paper ties price cycles to lunar cycles. I was just making that clear. Furthermore, "Autumn" was not spelled correctly in the jonkozer edit. Please do not simply revert edits. I will clean up some of my original text.Sposer 00:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


1. Thank you I will spell Autumn correctly in my next edit.
2. Clearly the SFO article on setiment which quotes Phil Roth, a professional technician and President of the Market Technicians Association (MTA), suggests that sentiment that does not come from buying and selling is technical analysis in his opinion. Perhaps you need to find some other argument rather than merely asserting claims about the definition of technical analysis. Or at least give sources.
3. You are seriously mistaken about what John Murphy says, or maybe you just have not read John's book. John Murphy in his book "Technical Analysis of the Financial Markets" -- on page number 1 -- says, quote: "Technical analysis is the study of market action, primarily through the use of charts, for the purpose of forecasting future price trends. The term "market action" includes the three principle sources of information to the technician-price, volume and open interest." At no place in Mr. Murphy's excellent book, or in any other material, has Mr. Murphy ever stated that these are the ONLY sources of information used by technicians. In fact, in the same book, Murphy also discusses lunar cycles as a source of technical analysis information. So please, lets be accurate in our use of Mr. Murphy's written statements. Thank you. Jonkozer 02:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I checked with John Murphy on this, and he told me that by principal, he meant that price, volume and open interest are the ONLY primary data points we have to work with. He said all other data are secondary. That does fit with using sentiment polls that have something to do with trading supply and demand. So, in short, I agree here. However, his emphasis is the price and volume are by far the most important. Any attempt to suggest otherwise in the article is misleading.
I also checked with Mr. Murphy and he says he doesn't know you and has never heard of you.65.11.202.71 20:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Do you really think I would have posted that if I didn't have an email from him? You have now gone overboard. As soon as the ability to edit this article without your jonkozer and happytech id's was lifted, you started to hide behind URLs. Do not call me a liar!Sposer 00:19, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Heavan forbid. I would never dream of doing such a thing. Please keep in mind this important information however. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed!65.11.202.71 01:08, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


I asked Murphy. He told me he absolutely never uses anything related to lunar cycles, or astrology. He used the lunar cycle stuff in the book as a possible explanation, much as people use fundamentals to explain why prices change. Sposer 12:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
That's funny because Mr. Murphy just told me the exact opposite. Better have him put it in his next book to be sure.65.11.202.71 20:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Lying will get you blocked from Wikipedia. I have the email.Sposer 00:19, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Please keep in mind this important message Mr. MTA Board member. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed.65.11.202.71 01:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

(Removing indent) So you can verify that John Murphy said that he does not know me, and that he told you he uses things he does not, when I can prove otherwise? I have been truthful in my responses. He uses sentiment as a secondary source (so it is TA in his opinion). He does not use lunar anything. Roth uses sentiment as well. You only make up lies when it suits you. As far as truth goes in Wiki, that does not extend to accusing a person of lying or inventing communications with people when you did not have them.Sposer 01:22, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a chatroom. 65.11.202.71 02:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
In wikiland personal emails, conversations, original research and google results, are verboten i.e. hearsay i.e. not a source. 65.11.202.71 02:29, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I have cleaned up some of my original text, including the mispelling of Autumn, Hank's name and the magazine's name. Please do not simply revert edits. Jonkozer 02:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
This looks better than previous discussions. Turning down the tone a notch or two might result in further improvements. I'm going to take most of the tags off, but if anybody disagrees, please put them back. Smallbones 12:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I removed the comments about Bollinger not considering rational analysis to be either technical or fundamental analysis, since these comments are not germane to the section heading, nor are they properly sourced. I also removed the comment on behavioral finance, since it merely suggested a relationship, rather than provide an example of combining the two. Jonkozer 13:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Just to let you know, I checked with Mr. Roth, and he does consider bullish/bearish sentiment surveys as TA, since he considers it a measure of supply and demand. I did not realize he had such a wide view of technical analysis. I always used sentiment surveys when I practiced, but I did not necessarily consider it TA. I just considered it valuable information. Personally, I do not care what you call it. You are correct in that any discussion of what is or is not TA did not belong in that part of the article anyway.Sposer 02:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Too much focus of Astrology

It is not TA. A few people use it. There is absolutely no reason for the extremely deep coverage. In fact, I am thinking about removing it completely. Outside of Gann's work, which you need to pay one company for to learn it, there is no other accepted book in the field that even uses it. This article is about TA, not about a fringe group of people that like to usurp TA. Google results are meaningless and garbage. TASC Magazine is there to sell magazines. It does not define TA, and their definition talks about price and volume and numerical methods. The MTA did give the Dow Award to Carolan. But, as I write this, I am going to severely cut back my latest edit. The whole focus on this is bogus and an attempt to create a controversy that is not even there.Sposer 00:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The MTA Board has already spoken on this matter: "correlations between lunar cycles and the market [are] not technical analysis." Why not include this official position in the article? This would clear up the issue, while still allowing room for explaning how some combine technical analysis with astro. Geezlouise! why didn't anyone think of this earlier. 65.11.202.71 21:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
The MTA Board has not spoken. I have in my own capacity. Look at my user page. You are attempting to make a statement through your edits here and in other pages, to make it appear as if the MTA considers financial astrology as a part of TA. Just as economists find no need to say TA is not part of economics, although I know several economists who use TA, there is no reason for the MTA to say astrology is not TA. This is the last I will say on this matter.Sposer 00:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Steve, steve. When an MTA Board member who is also a recognized expert in technical analysis says, emphatically, and categorically -- "correlations between lunar cycles and the market [are] not technical analysis" -- what other conclusion should one reach, but to think that the MTA does NOT consider TA to be astro finance???? 65.11.202.71 01:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
And when will you use your real name, rather than an IP address, and the rather ironic recent user name you've chosen? Sposer 01:22, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a chatroom. 65.11.202.71 01:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] False Claims and/or Not Properly Sourced Claims

The first sentence of this article reads:

"Technical analysis is the study of past financial market data, primarily through the use of charts, to forecast price trends and make investment decisions.[1]"

Allegedly, the source reference for this statment is the Murphy text. However, at no place in the Murphy text is this definition found. Please provide the correct source for this first sentence. This would be a particularly egregious act, if it is an intentional insertion of editor bias. Let's hope that's not the case. 65.11.202.71 18:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually,this is a direct quote from Murphy's Technical Analysis of the Futures Market. I will fix the citationSposer 00:41, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
I have been following this tit for tat with amusement. It appears that the representative of the Market Technicians Association (MTA), along with Georgewilliamherbert, have intentionally foisted unsourced material into this article. Sources have to meet Wikipedia's reliable sources policy and be verifyable. If there is a source for the definition of technical analysis currently used in this article, then clearly it does not come from the Murphy book. At no place in Murphy's book does the definition -- "Technical analysis is the study of past financial market data, primarily through the use of charts, to forecast price trends and make investment decisions" -- exist. Would someone please either a) give the true source for this definition, or b) insert a definition with a proper, wiki-standard source. Trueta 23:45, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Trueta has been identified as another User:Jonkozer sockpuppet and indefinitely blocked. Georgewilliamherbert 23:52, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
The citation was not originally put there by me(at least I don't remember putting it there), nor was the definition. It is a paraphrase of what Murphy wrote and was not shown as a direct quote. I will put in the exact quote. The quote is: "Technical analysis is the study of market action, primarily through the use of charts, for the purpose of forecasting future price trends." I cid not look for a word-for-word definition, but will alter it to match the book exactly and then put it in quotes or other editors are free to as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sposer (talk • contribs) 01:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Please keep in mind..
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed.65.11.202.71 20:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia, and our Neutral Point of View policy, also requires that we not give undue weight to marginal or fringe claims in a particular field. So far, you have not legitimately established any basis for the degree of inclusion you're trying to do here for this material.
Continued edit-warring will not be tolerated. Discuss here with appropriate sources... Georgewilliamherbert 02:45, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Fortunately no undue weight has been given. Nor is the subject matter consider "fringe" by the standards of the Market Technicians Association, nor by the editors of the most popular and widely read journal on the subject of Technical Analysis in the world. The sum total of "weight" given in this article is less than one half of one percent. Flagrant pushing of a Non-Neutral Points of View will not be tolerated, either.65.11.202.71 02:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
You have been making and re-making wider changes than that, and you are not sourcing with sufficiently reliable and verifyable sources. If you continue this without providing sources we can review and agree are credible, you will be blocked. Georgewilliamherbert 02:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Everything has been sourced. If you will point out a single instance where this is not the case, then I will gladly provide the correct source. Please be specific. 65.11.202.71 03:02, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
What you are adding is insufficiently sourced to justify its addition. Discuss better sources on the article talk page. Sources have to meet Wikipedia's reliable sources policy and be verifyable, and have to sufficiently support the specific statements or claims made. Georgewilliamherbert 03:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
One editor (SPoser) has attempted to use personal email as a source, which is clearly against wiki policy. However, everything I have posted meets all requirments for reliable sources according to wiki policy. If you will point out a single instance where this is not the case, then I will gladly provide the correct source. Please be specific. 65.11.202.71 03:08, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
You can keep repeating that you sourced it well enough as much as you want, that doesn't make it true. All of the stuff that I've reverted is insufficiently reliably sourced. The nature of the statements and claims requires something like 10x better (not more, better) sourcing than this at a minimum. Georgewilliamherbert 03:13, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
You are very confident. So I am having trouble understanding: what is preventing you from gracefully pointing out one single instance? I have no trouble removing non or improperly souced material. I am on your side! Please point out the specific issue, and let's put this to rest. If it's not properly sourced it comes out! 65.11.202.71 03:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


I can't find the quotes attributed to Buffet under "Lack of evidence" at the page listed as source. Troed 11:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Truth About John Murphy Definition

Trueta is 100% correct. The definition of technical analysis attributed to John Murphy in the first sentence of this article, can not be verified. It does NOT come from the sources claimed, nor has John Murphy ever used this definition in any published material. Anyone with a copy of the book can read it for themself. The current definition is a personal definition belonging to and created by SPoser. Sources have to meet Wikipedia's reliable sources policy and be verifyable. The definition falsely attributed to Murphy not only fails on both counts, but is even worse, since it is a fabrication. Seemsso 00:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Seemsso is another User:Jonkozer sockpuppet and has also been indefinitely blocked. Georgewilliamherbert 01:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
my goodness georgy, you've been a busy blocker tonight. i guess this article will stay locked forever at this rate. block block block away till your heart is satisfied. at least the discussion section can not be blocked. happy labor day. Bigblocker 01:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the discussion section can be semi-protected, and if you send us one more sockpuppet will be. Please knock it off. (Bigblocker now indef'ed as well). If you have anything to say, go to User talk:Jonkozer. Georgewilliamherbert 01:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Verifiability of Source

User:Johnymurphyman has been id'ed as another User:Jonkozer sock and indefinitely blocked. In addition, this page is now semi-protected. Georgewilliamherbert 02:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
As noted above, the quote was apparently put in as a paraphrase by a prior editor. It is now an exact quote from the book (unless I missed a comma or a word somewhere). Anybody is free to correct any missing words. Sposer 01:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism Section

Hi all. I'd like to add this quote to the criticism section, from above:

"Business television shows trot out one technical analyst after another to tell you how to invest, based on resistance levels, moving averages, momentum and buy/sell signals. Don’t listen to them. Technical analysis is an oxymoron. It sounds technical, but it is not analysis. It is rubbish, plain and simple. There is not a single money manager or mutual fund who has generated an impressive long-term record using technical analysis. Nor a single academic study that indicates technical analysis offers any utility to investors. It is the stock market’s version of snake oil. Columns touting investment strategies based on technical analysis belong in the horoscope section of the newspaper, not in the business section." It's quite scathing, but I feel that the Financial Times is a very notable source. I'd also like to make mention of the results from this study[12] as it's acknowledged as a reliable sourceTicklemygrits 00:05, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, do the criticisms need to be responded to in the criticism section?Ticklemygrits 00:21, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] help for inept edit.

while attempting to edit article, books, i inadvertently edited "notes". and can't seem to unedit it. duh. perhaps some one else can just delete the mistake i made```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeninubasho (talk • contribs) 23:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Headandsholderswrong.PNG

Image:Headandsholderswrong.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 23:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The picture should be removed without permission from Reuters. Additionally, there are some technical analysts that would argue that a continuation head-and-shoulders is valid. Those analysts would say that it still predicts lower prices (in this example). To call it wrong would therefore be incorrect, especially without an explanation of why it is wrong (i.e., most technical analysts consider a head and shoulder patterns an indication of a price reversal. Usage here would suggest a continuation of an already existing down trend).Sposer 01:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 16:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments please, possible merge with Currency correlation

A debate is in progress about what to do with article Currency correlation and one of the proposals is to merge it into either Currency pair, Technical analysis or Exchange rate. We'd appreciate any suggestions of where the best place for it is. To keep the conversation in one place, please respond in Talk:Currency_correlation#Fallout_of_Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FCurrency_correlation. Thanks -- John (Daytona2 · talk) 19:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, I've requested a deletion review - Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Currency_correlation -- John (Daytona2 · talk) 18:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:AOLTIMEWARNERCHART2001.png

Image:AOLTIMEWARNERCHART2001.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Books

This section looks as if it has unnotable entries. Could someone more knowledgeable than me clear it up using some non subjective criteria ? Why isn't Technical Analysis of the Financial Markets: A Comprehensive Guide to Trading Methods and Applications (New York Institute of Finance) by John J. Murphy listed ? -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 10:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Daytona2 - The Murphy book you noted is probably the best selling current general technical analysis book and is the updated edition of the also noted "Technical Analysis of the Futures Markets". Until recently, it was used in most university-level technical analysis classes. Most of the other books could easily be removed in my opinion, outside of Lefevre, Kirkpatrick and Edwards/Magee and possibly Hurst. The Wilder book is of note, but specific to certain types of TA. The same goes for the Ichimoku book. There are other classics missing as well (Schabacker, Wyckoff). Sposer (talk) 20:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Random Walk Section Removal

Although I am a technical analyst and I am a big fan of Professor Lo's work, and I agree with the idea that he has proven random walk wrong, that is still not the view in academia. Academia is wrong IMO, and in the author's, but this is an encylopedia, and we cannot say it is definitively proven. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sposer (talk • contribs) 20:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A question on definitions and principles of Technical Analysis?

Dear Users, I would like to edit some useful contributions about Technical Analysis (definitions and principles), but I could fall in a Conflict of interest (COI).

Last 3 may 2007 I defended my graduation thesis called “Technical Analysis on S&P500: from long term to intra-day” at University “Tor Vergata” of Rome. In my research I studied, selected and integrated the contributions of several international Authors (i.e. Achelis S.B., Caparrelli F., Fornasini A., Murphy J.J., Pring M.J).

So, among others, I realized that the best way to describe Technical Analysis is to say:

A) It doesn't exist an unique definition of Technical Analysis:

- For Murphy J.J. “Technical analysis is................... - For Pring M.J. “Technical analysis is ............ - ....................

B) Technical analysis, in the strict sense, means the study of a market (financial o real) based only on the examination of data captured from itself. (You can find this smart and appropriate definition in “Analisi Tecnica e Fondamentale di Borsa”, Fornasini A., Ed. Etas Libri, 1991, pag. 22).

C) Technical analysis, in the wide sense, is the theory of analysis (that is, a mix of principles and instruments) through which is possible to forecast the future behavior of a listed good (real or financial), studying its past history. (This is a general definition that I have create - as a synthesis - by various sources)

D) the principles of Technical analysis are not three, but five:

  1) the "Inefficient Market Hypothesis" (or "asymmetric information" among investors). This is the "base philosophic premise" of Technical and 
     fundamental analysis in alternative to E.M.H. and Modern Theory of portfolio (you can find this explaination in “Economia dei mercati 
     Finanziari. Il mercato azionario", Caparrelli F., Ed. McGraw-Hill Libri Italia, 1998, pp. 511 and 385-394); 
  2) the "Market Action Discounts Everything";
  3) the "Prices Move in trends";
  4) the "History Tends to Repeat itself"; 
  5) the "Irrational Investors Hypothesis”, This philosophic premise serves to have clear the difference with fundamental analysis (you can find   
     this explaination in “Economia dei mercati finanziari. Il mercato azionario", Caparrelli F., Ed.McGraw-Hill Libri Italia, 1998, pp.392-393,note7).

For more information, you can also free download the first chapter of my thesis at www.analisitecnicafinanziaria.it/libro3.htm.

In order to favour the knowledge of Technical Analysis and improve Wikipedia's article, I think, we have to edit above-mentioned concepts. Please help me to get through!

Thank you.IgorLaurelli (talk) 22:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC).

Igor,
Thanks for talking on the talk page. I might have violated 1 important principle WP:Bite, but there are a couple of things you need to know. WP:NOR No original reaseach - strange as it seems - you can't quote yourself, even if you are an expert. WP:COI (conflict of interest) comes in, but it's mostly NOR.Somebody else has to do it. (I'll assume yours was a PhD dissertation - is it published, on the web, in English? If not nobody is going to notice that writes here, but ...
You also need some work on presenting your ideas in English - a lot of the stuff you've put up looks like just terminology, in which case ... Non-English speakers are encouraged to edit, but if you are just putting in your own terminology and definitions, I don't think most people will go along.
Happy editing,
Smallbones (talk) 23:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC). Thanks Smallbones, I would like to speak with you. Igor.
Igor,

I second Smallbones comments. I did not remove your work because I was not 100% sure of policy regarding a thesis. As far as your definition of TA goes, I would suggest that it is not all that different from what the article already states. Some people only permit real trading data and derivatives of it (i.e., price, volume, functions of price and volume, open interest, put/call ratios). Though the most restrictive, that is the best definition. One thing I would point out, is that some technicians say that TA and efficient markets are actually in agreement. I agree with you, they are not, but there are books out there, that say otherwise.

Sposer (talk) 03:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC).

Dear Sposer, EMH is a thing, TA is an other one. From every book, we have to understand (and then to refer/write) the true things, not the mistakes. About your first observation, please, I would like to have a constructive discussion/debate in order to favour the knowledge of Technical Analysis and improve Wikipedia's article. Awaiting other users' opinions, If you agree we can pull a proof on my talk page.IgorLaurelli (talk) 23:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Links of Mention:

[13] http://www.stockchartgrabber.com - Technical Analysis Tools —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bberry1232 (talk • contribs) 17:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I think this article is ridiculous

Hello

Have been a local at liffe since, well, put it this way, was on the floor. (Guess why I'm here tonight... hoping for massive liquidation in euribor by someone given that bund trade earlier today)

And never heard of any technical analyst that wasn't on the sell side of somewhere or other.

Ridiculously pro technical analyst this article.

What to do?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.250.228 (talk • contribs) 19:39, 28 March 2008

Drink. Cheers -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 21:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Although I have been a TA in the past (no longer work as one, but still believe it works), the article is probably moderately pro-TA. Most of the recent changes were positive, although it is misleading to quote Lo's paper in a negative light, since he is an academic proponent of TA. As far as the statement about being on the floor of LIFFE, I find that surprising, since so many floor traders in the pits do seem to use it (I could not tell you if it was the profitable ones though). Personally, I do not think TA is useful for such short-term trading, as there is too much noise, but it is a different story for position trading. The statement about sell-side is untrue. I consulted to multiple hedge funds when I left the sell side, and many successful hedge funds seek out and hire TAs. Same for mutual fund companies. Admittedly most funds do not beat the market, but imo, it is because they probably underweight the opinions of their TAs. :-)

Sposer (talk) 15:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't want to quote Lo as saying that he thought it was astrology, but that the quoted paper said that in the profession it was generally considered akin to it. I hope that came through in the wording. Lo is, of course, if not a "defender" of TA as practiced, definitely someone who thinks that stock prices are predictably autocorrelated. Relata refero (talk) 15:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Relata. He is not a defender as practiced, because many TAs unfortunately do not have the requisite mathematical background. There is a strong movement to change that in the field. He is certainly a defender that there is something to TA. He is far from alone. I made a small change to your excellent revision of what I put in on random walk. The whole point of his book is to provide evidence that random walk does not work. The articles that don't focus on that set up studies that permit setting up research that does not fail according to data snooping guidelines.Sposer (talk) 15:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
One last thing: It is not considered akin to astrology by most. It might by some people ardent anti-TA people, but most people who do not think it works, that I know, are not quite in the voodoo and astrology camp.Sposer (talk) 15:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I put the Jimbo Wales section back in, though Sposer removed it saying it was from a "blog." The section is a perfect discussion of what is alluded to above and I believe that Jimbo is a reliable source on this (ABD in finance, sucessful trader). I've checked - it is the same Jimbo Wales and it does still represent his views. Please check WP:RS before claiming that this is from an unreliable source! I'll include the section here and ask for comments: Smallbones (talk) 10:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales considers the term "technical analysis" to be a misnomer, since it is not based upon scientific or technical knowledge, and states "most technical analysis belongs in the dustbin of history, along with witchcraft, astrology, and biorhythms." [1]
  1. ^ Jimbo Wales, May 8, 1993
I've removed it. There is not enough evidence that Wales is a respected expert on the subject. If your point was to balance other low credibility sources, then remove those other sources. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 11:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I asked for comment - not for removal. There are lot's of people who say the same things, but Jimbo seems to say it most succinctly. How about I put it back in a more general form with additional sources that say the same thing? Is it the idea or the source that you object to? It's hard to say anybody is an expert in this area - anymore than anybody is an expert in witchcraft, astrology, or biorythms. Smallbones (talk) 13:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Smallbones, You are pushing your own bias. The article, as it stands now, explains what TA is, and then spends a lot of the rest of the article saying TA is garbage. An article should spend most of its time explaining what TA is about, and should clearly discuss the academic underpinnings, or lack thereof. Since the majority (a shrinking one according to academics I have spoken too), believe that TA is probably not of much, if any, value, there is now correctly a slightly negative leaning against TA in this article. However, there is already the "over-the-top" voodoo statement. TA is none of what you say. It is over simplified quantitative analysis in many cases. If you include Mr. Wales' statements, people could include statements that say the opposite from equally reliable sources. Let's not allow this to turn into an edit war. I've already (sadly) let the misleading "voodoo" quote even though it is from a paper that supports TA, and have gladly seen intelligent negative comments on TA. The article should not be an attack on TA, which is what it is starting to look like.
Again, for disclosure, I was a former TA, have a degree in economics and mathematics, and am a soon to be former member of the board of the Market Technicians Association. But, as you can see, as an economist and mathematics major, I saw the light.Sposer (talk) 00:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I didn't see you request. I saw your edit. Please read and understand theWikipedia:Verifiability policy which, amoungst other things says - "In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is." -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 18:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lede

Did anybody else notice that the "pro-tech" quotes in the lede are all positive quotes which make it specifically and obviously clear that they're posed against economic consensus? What would be the point of remarking that there are a few Fed studies supporting technical analysis, unless there were a great many studies refuting it? 64.231.60.239 (talk) 01:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Neural Networks

Are we sure that this is strictly relevant to this article? --Relata refero (disp.) 19:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello. Yes, I think relevant. Although rubbish (in my view) I have come across many attempts to apply neural networks to forecasting. ItosLemma (talk) 18:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
OK then. --Relata refero (disp.) 05:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Malkiel Quote on chartist giving buy signal

Just because a randomly generated pattern appears to give a signal, does not mean that TA is wrong. You get enough monkeys at typewriters, and sooner or later, one of them will write Romeo and Juliet. Malkiel plays a game of logic, which is bereft of logic. On top of that, although weak-form EMH is still largely accepted, random walk is much less so. Behavioral finance is largely accepted, and TA's prinicples are based on the same principles.

Besides, this whole article is degenerating into (a) A summary of Malkiel's opinion of TA, (b) An attack on TA. Calling TA a pseudoscience is also a matter of opinion and should not be a link either. Even the Lo quote, which is misleading, since he is using it as an intro to a paper that supports TA, is more or less mocking the academics whose opinions are that TA has no value. There have been papers for years supporting TA, but everybody falls back on Malkiel's quotes. Sposer (talk) 11:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I see no reason why the Malkiel quote shouldnt come out, it isn't really that notable or informative by itself. --Relata refero (disp.) 14:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


The pseudoscience tag should stay unless someone can give good reasons why it is not pseudoscience. You say "although weak-form EMH is still largely accepted, random walk is much less so. Behavioral finance is largely accepted, and TA's prinicples are based on the same principles."

What are you saying. Look up 'weak form' of the Efficient Market hypothesis, then come back! The Malkiel quote is good and persuasive. The logic of it is, the 'signs' of market direction are not properly signs at all, since they are present even in genuinely random series. So it should stay. ItosLemma (talk) 18:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Ito, I know what weak form EMH means. Understand that weak form EMH is possible even if the markets do not move in a random walk. Your logic says that the presence of antibodies to a disease means the disease is present. That logic is illogical. Sposer (talk) 20:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps you can offer a definition of weak form EMH. The definition I use is that that weak form EMH stipulates that current asset prices already reflect past price movements. TA requires that current asset prices do not already reflect past price movements. Thus, logically, the two are not consistent. If you want to offer another definition of these two things that makes them consistent, go ahead. ItosLemma (talk) 06:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that is the definition of EMH. But, while random walk requires EMH, EMH does not require random walk, and that is what I was talking about. Just because a randomly generated chart creates a pattern that a technician might recognize, doesn't mean that TA does not work. Chart patterns have a probability of being correct. Nothing is 100% deterministic. There is a probability that Malkiel, if he added color and paint, could have randomly generated the Mona Lisa. Does that mean that there is no such thing as art? Or that an art forgery expert is of no use (let's assume that the Mona Lisa was just painted for a moment, so they could not do aging, patina tests, etc.) I am merely arguing that example has no logic.

Also, I was not arguing about whether TA works. My opinion is that it does, but that is irrelevant. In fact, whether TA works or not is irrelvant to your particular edit. Malkiel's example is senseless. Beyond the Mona Lisa argument, showing a chart to one technical analyst and getting an opinion is meaningless.

I can provide a list a mile long of academic papers that question random walk. Most do not question EMH, admittedly, though some do. Remember, TA is not just patterns, but it is also functions and derivations of price, volume and open interest. Many papers have said there is a non-random and predictive component to prices. Some have said that it is large enough, even after transaction costs, though many did not test and many said after transaction costs, there was no profitability. I agree that the majority of academia believe that TA does not work, but it is far from 100%. I am not arguing against having criticism in here, but it should not be to the point of it being an attack article on TA, which it has become. Sposer (talk) 12:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

  • "Just because a randomly generated chart creates a pattern that a technician might recognize, doesn't mean that TA does not work. " Incorrect. If the pattern is supposed to be a 'buy' or 'sell' signal, then the market that follows the pattern cannot be random.
I must not be explaining myself well. Let's say for a moment that TA works, and that the head and shoulders pattern is correct. It would not invalidate that fact if a random number generator creates that pattern by chance. Sposer (talk)
I don't see this. Suppose A (a pattern, if you like) implies B, so that A is never found without B. Then how can anything which generates A and B be a 'random generator'? To be random, the generator would have to include not-B. But then A would not imply B, as supposed. ItosLemma (talk) 07:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
TA does not say that any pattern always works, so the supposition that given pattern A implies B is incorrect. There is no way to exactly define a pattern, and position in trend matters too. Technicians speak of "overbought" and "oversold", for example (not a pattern, but a measure of market momentum and trend). These levels have different meanings depending on where you are in a trend. Also, all price patterns require certain volume signatures as well (this is why the Fed paper on FX head and shoulders is flawed, and why FX TA should go light on the classic patterns and heavy on indicators, IMO). I do not know if that was shown to the chartist. Sposer (talk) 13:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  • You are also incorrect on your point about the consistency of weak form EMH and Technical analysis. If you accept the definition of weak form EMH, which you appear to, and the definition of TA, the two are not consistent. I.e. the weak form and TA cannot both be true, under those definitions. Logic. ItosLemma (talk) 15:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I personally do not believe EMH is correct, largely from my past practice as a technical analyst. I have a degree in economics too, but found too often to find that TA added value. All I am suggest that the market is not a random walk. I disagree with some technicians that claim that TA can be correct if EMH is correct. Some markets have been shown to not move in a random walk, and to not be efficient. These tend to be less developed markets. There is very strong academic evidence for this (nothing to do with TA, just that random walk fails). I did a search for "random walk" in SSRN yesterday, and found many papers that supported, and many that did not support random walk (some in developed markets, albeit not as many as in small-cap stocks or developing economies). I honestly don't know what papers can be trusted and what cannot as I am not in academia.Sposer (talk) 19:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
You misunderstand my point, which is that weak form EMH and TA cannot both be true, i.e. they are 'not consistent'. This holds regardless of whether either is true. ItosLemma (talk) 07:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I understand your point. But, the quote from Malkiel is with respect to the market being in a random walk.
  • "Remember, TA is not just patterns, but it is also functions and derivations of price, volume and open interest." I thought the article says that TA is about patterns. Should that bit be changed, then? ItosLemma (talk) 15:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
The term "patterns" is rather loose. Technicians use the same things that quants use. In fact, IMO, quantitative analysis is technical analysis done by people with PhD's in math or physics. We use transformations of prices, such as moving averages. We look at Fourier transformations, cycles, correlations, build models, etc. In other words, there are identifiable inconsistencies, according to technicians, that will allow discovery of non-random and forecastable price movement, by studying the relationship between current and past prices, prices and volume, open interest, short interest, put/call ratios, ratios between returns in various sectors, implied volatility, etc. These are all things that a technical analyst looks at. In my work, I rarely used the "patterns" in the books. I used trading models, where I looked at error terms of regressions. I also used Elliott Wave, which is pattern-oriented. Elliott is a whole other discussion though. Sposer (talk) 19:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
  • "Understand that weak form EMH is possible even if the markets do not move in a random walk. " Under most definitions of randomness, this is simply wrong. What is your definition of randomness? My definition is that it is impossible to devise any algorithm using past price data, that predicts future price movements. That is precisely what weak form EMH says. What definition of randomness are you using? ItosLemma (talk) 15:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Simply, if A then B does not imply if B then A. So, if stocks move in a random walk, then prices are efficient. However, it does not also follow that if markets are efficient, they must move in a random walk. It just means that there are not recognizable patterns that can be used to forecast future prices after allowing for money, unless you have inside info (i.e., no strong form EMH). The quote I put in and took out from Malkiel even suggests that the markets are not always random. It does not mean you can take advantage of the lack of efficiency or randomness. From my experience, I find that you can. Despite claims by the LIFFE trader otherwise, many mutual fund companies have technical analysts on staff, and technical analysts are also portfolio managers of successful funds. That of course, does not prove that TA works either. They can be lucky, and they might use other methods too. I am pretty reasonable. I just want that Malkiel quote on random patterns out, mostly because the logic is faulty. Sposer (talk) 19:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
From the definitions given of weak form efficiency, it does follow that if efficient, they must move in a 'random walk'. The definition of weak form efficiency includes a definition of one sort of randomness. You still haven't given your definition of randomness. ItosLemma (talk) 07:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Multiple well-known economists have shown markets to be weak-form efficient and non-random. See the work of Stiglitz, LeRoy and others from the 1970s and 1980s. EHowever, what I (or you) believe is irrelevant. We just need to be correct, and the Malkiel quote makes no logical sense. A random walk is merely a certain model of stock market prices, and multiple papers have shown markets to be non-random, but cannot reject EMH. Lo and MacKinlay in their work, for example, although questioning EMH, refute Random Walk, but do not refute EMH. The book is a good read. You should try it. Sposer (talk) 13:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I need therefore to check the work of Stiglitz and the others that you cite. On turning the talk page into a chatroom, that's what talk pages are for, so long as relevant to the article. I need as I say to check what you say, in the meantime as a gesture of good faith I have no problem with you reverting to a form more acceptable to yourself (on the understanding that it could be reverted back if the sources dictate). Would that all disagreements here were so easy. (As I read the definition of weak form EMH, I read it as a definition of one kind of randomness - but I will check). Best ItosLemma (talk) 14:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

OK that didn't take long. here is an authoritative looking work (see p35) according to which the weak form EMH and the 'random walk' hypothesis are one and the same. Indeed, that is what I have been saying. The definition of weak-form EMH is a definition of randomness, hence it is logically impossible for a weak-form market to be non-random. The question is, exactly what did Stiglitz et al say? What were their actual words? ItosLemma (talk) 15:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Here is another paper. The test for the weak-form is simply a test for randomness. ItosLemma (talk) 15:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Here is Eugene Fama stating outright that random walk and EMH are not the same. Prices do not need to follow a random walk for the markets to be efficient. In fact, prices can be predictable under EMH, if I am reading what he says correctly, as long as you cannot "beat the market". Here is the interview from the Minneapolis Fed web site: [14]. So, in summary, my main issue is that Malkiel's quote is incongruous, EMH is a necessary condition for randomness, but not a sufficient condition. That, and because I still feel the statement makes no sense (Malkiel's). A non-financial agent (random number generator), drawing a pretty picture, that matches something that a technical analyst would say has a certain probability of being predictive (but not 100%), is no proof that TA does not work.
Since we have had a very respectful conversation here, I will not just remove the quote. I ask that you review the Fama interview, and I will assume that if you do not find another issue, that you do not mind my removing it by some time tomorrow.Sposer (talk) 21:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Fama says "Basically, what [weak] market efficiency says is that the deviation of the realized price from the equilibrium expected value is unpredictable based on any past information, so I don't think you are correct (if by 'random' one means 'unpredictable based on any past information', which is how I would define it. Fama says some other things in the interview which you may have confused it with. On the 'Pseudoscience' bit I didn't put that it in (except when I reverted, thus including someone else's edit). I'm not sure I agree - pseudoscience has to pretend to be science, and I'm not sure TA pretends to be a science. I use from time to time, as a means of grasping what is happening in the market - visualising it - and in this way I don't pretend it is a science. It is simply a way of grasping what is going on. Best wishes ItosLemma (talk) 18:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I see where you are coming from. I think somewhere in that interview, Fama does address what you are getting at. He specifically speaks to "random walk" as a particular model of how prices move. You are using a definition that equates random with unpredictable. I am referring to random as the more restrictive random walk -- more or less Brownian Motion -- that Malkiel uses, I believe. So, according to Fama, since random walk is one model for price movement, which is not necessarily correct, then showing the market has a random walk would prove that it is efficient, but showing that it is not random, does not prove inefficient. All I have been saying, is that it isn't random. Proving not random is a lot easier than proving not efficient. Although I personally do not believe the market to be efficient, using citations from papers discussing EMH as a reason for TA to be incorrect, rather than random walk, to me is fair game here, but I honestly do see a growing rejection of the random walk model of stock prices.Sposer (talk) 19:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pseudoscience

There are multiple problems with calling TA a pseudoscience. One is that it does not particularly claim to be a science. Technicians believe that they can forecasts price direction within a degree of probability. To many, it is an application of behavioral finance, which is not considered a pseudoscience. To other technical analysts, TA is an art (I am not in that camp). Those technicians, admittedly, a decreasing number, would never consider TA a science, but rather an art.

Additionally, there is moderate support for TA in the academic community. Not high; it is a small minority, which I am told is growing, but I cannot back that up.

Not that all regulators are economists, but the first two tests of the Chartered Market Technician program have the same standing according to FINRA, SEC et al, as the first two parts of the CFA with regard to the Series 86 exam (they are exempt from taking it). This exam is part of the requirement for writing research for brokerage clients in the U.S. Sposer (talk) 01:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll put the category psuedoscience back in. I think that there is a COI problem with the president of the MTA taking it out. Also - over a couple of years watching this article, this has come up time and again, with the same small group of people refusing to accept that this is how scientists look at the matter. As far as the tiny amount of academic support - if you were to ask the academic community whether TA as currently practiced (as compared to some possible future form) is a pseudoscience, I'd guess that it would be about 99 yeses to 1 no. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Smallbones (talk) 21:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I am not the President of the Market Technicians Association. I am a member of the Board of Directors until the end of June.
Pseudoscience requires that technical analysts cloak themselves in science. I've left the tag up on Elliott Wave (even though I wrote a book on it), because Prechter has tried to build a science around it, and that is probably not accepted as a science by many. I tend to be very fair that way in my edits. But, you could not even get agreement from technicians that TA is not an art, and if it is art, it certainly is not (pseudo)science (although that is the direction the leaders are promoting, because we believe it is academically and scientifically sound).
I see nothing in the Wiki definition of pseudoscience that makes TA qualify. It states, "Pseudoscience is defined as a body of knowledge, methodology, belief, or practice that is claimed to be scientific or made to appear scientific, but does not adhere to the scientific method,lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, or otherwise lacks scientific status." TA does not claim to be scientific, although technical analysts are finding more and more friends in academia. Those that are more "mathematical", do follow scientific method, and use advanced testing for their models. There is some supporting evidence, which appears to be growing. (I do understand that there is a bias in published papers since it is quite boring to write that, "yes, we agree, EMH works.)TA sure isn't made to "appear" scientific, or we would have come up with better names for patterns than "head and shoulders", "double tops" and "rounded bottoms".
Regarding "future form", you are not a technical analyst, so you would not be all that aware, but what do you think quantitative analysis is? It is TA with Greek letters. More and more technicians are becoming expert in mathematics and statistics. We will be adding statistical requirements to the Chartered Market Technicians exam soon I hope. That future form is here. You don't hear about it so much, because the people doing this work are employed by or running profitable hedge funds and mutual funds, instead of writing analysis for the sell side.
As far as COI, I have none. I make no money from TA, and have a degree in Economics and Mathematics, but I am smart enough to know what works, which is why I support TA. I do not at all reject having points that are negative to TA in the article (at least not until it is finally proven to be valid), as long as they are correct. Correct does not mean agreeing with TA, but it does need to be congruous with the article and make logical sense.
As far as 99:1, I have no idea, but I doubt it is anything close to that. Majority, yes. Vast majority, very possibly, but 99:1, never. The trend is towards greater and greater acceptance of TA. All these wonderful PhD economists building hedge funds could not be making money (and wouldn't bother trying) if they really believed the markets were efficient. Sposer (talk) 22:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
While I disagree, the problem is I can't find an academic citation or even more than a one or two specifically calling TA pseudoscience. Perhaps Sposer is right, this is because it doesn't drape itself in scientific jargon. In any case, given the paucity of specific statements to that effect, I don't think we can push it. --Relata refero (disp.) 08:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I tend to agree with Sposer that if TA doesn't pretend to be a science (see my remarks above) then it's wrong to call it pseudoscience. My problem with the article is that it doesn't clearly separate the old-fashioned 'head & shoulders' stuff from more modern methods which use computationally powerful algorithms to mine inefficiencies out of markets. E.g. it's pretty clear there were huge inefficiencies in the credit derivatives markets in the pre-crunch era and a lot of people exploited this very profitably. Is that TA? What does Sposer think? ItosLemma (talk) 18:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
That is an interesting point. I just got back from a conference where Andrew Lo and Robert Schiller both spoke. Schiller, by the way, said that behavioral finance is a huge advance in understanding how financial markets work. Many technical analysts consider TA to be the application of behavior finance to the markets. But, I digress... With regard to the exploitation of inefficienies in the credit derivatives market, if you were able to exploit the mispricing via transformations of price, volume, open-interest, etc., that would be pure technical analysis, yes. If you found it also by looking at observed price versus theoretical price, and then looked to see whether the differential was at an extreme or not that had reason to be mean-reverting, that would be TA, with a little help from non-TA quantitative analysis. (I asked a couple of people at the conference, who were quants, if they thought, with regard to analysis of price and volume, if quant was more or less graduate-level TA, and they agreed that one could make that argument.)
After reading your edits and comments and mine, I agree that the TA article needs much more work. I have been loathe to work too much on it, because if I spend a lot of time explaining what it is, it will probably get reverted either by people that think TA is something else, or will result in complaints that I am pushing a POV, by suggesting that it can predict prices. Of course, I am sure I can count on others to add the negative TA stuff anyway. Sposer (talk) 19:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm really shocked that RR can't find citations saying that TA is pseudoscience - they are all over the place. Of course it might be difficult to find the sentence "Technical Analysis is pseudoscience" in an academic journal, but I doubt that you could find the sentence "Astrology is a pseudoscience" in an academic journal as well. But reasonable approximations to that - the idea being conveyed - are everywhere if you care to see it. (e.g. see the quote from grad student Jimbo Wales above). Given that this is an item of dispute, would it be reasonable to have a section in the article on it, with lots of citations?

BTW, the above is about TA as currently practiced. I have no problem with what might be called new TA being put in this article, except 1) there is not much published on it; 2) there's no track record on whether it works; and 3) all the nonsense about the old TA gets in the way, e.g. approx from above "it doesn't claim to be a science, it just predicts prices by quantitative analysis." Please stop that nonsense. 1) and 2) might be overcome by knowledgable editors editing in good faith.

Just please remember - The fact that financial markets aren't perfectly efficient does not imply that we now (or will ever) have a technical analysis system that will allow us to profitably predict the market.

Smallbones (talk) 19:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Smallbones, what do you think half of quant is? It is TA pure and simple, except done with much larger computers and by people with PhDs. Ask them how they decide when to buy and sell. They'll tell you when some moving average crosses another moving average. Straight out of the TA toolbox. What is different about quant is that they sometimes apply (a non-efficient market) model first to how to price a security, and then use TA to figure out if it is rich or cheap. One favorite quant strategy is to sell the stocks that rose the most and buy the ones that fell the most (called stat/arb to keep Wikipedia editors from saying it is voodoo I guess). Classic TA relative strength analysis on a larger scale. Sometimes multi-factor models are used to help selections, sometimes they're not. It would be 100% correct to say TA is part of the quant's toolbox. I actually spoke to a couple of quants last night at the JOIM conference I was at, and the guys laughed when I said that people think TA does not work. Quant models include technical factors in their models (along with fundamental factors too).
To be honest, this is not the "new" TA. People have been writing trading systems, using indicators (price, volume, open interest transformations) since the 1960s, and I would guess that is a huge (maybe the largest) part of TA now. Anybody worth their salt focuses on this more than the patterns IMO (if I was hiring technicians, they'd need to be programmers, understand statistics, Monte Carlo simulations, multi-factor models, etc). The only way I would care about the patterns is if they could program pattern recognition software (others have and claim to find value in some patterns, but I am not convinced that we are good enough at computer-recognition of complex patterns for that to work). I started in TA in the 1980s. I don't think I even could recognize a pattern for a while after I started, because I never looked at them. All I did was write trading systems -- at least until I discovered Elliott Wave (which is a whole other story).Sposer (talk) 20:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Technical analysis trading vrs Buy and Hold

If technical analysis actually works and is not a pseudoscience then it should be possible for someone who is familiar with it to consistantly beat a buy and hold investor. This website has a product that lets you try to do just that by applying technical analysis skills to virtually trade historical stock charts and compare your results against a guy who is just buying and holding. 69.73.235.237 (talk) 01:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I removed the spam product link from the above. It is a pretty good example of what's wrong with technical analysis, e.g. backcasting. Smallbones (talk) 12:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Have you read "The Black Swan"? It is what is "wrong" with almost all types of analysis. Econometricians do the same thing with their models. Same goes for quants. All I hear right now is that the market has bottomed because it usually bottoms n-months into a recession, and we probably have a recession now. I don't know if it has bottomed or not, but that kind of statement is based on an observation or model. As for backcasting, if the technical model is tested in sample and out of sample, and if we don't make silly assumptions, like a normal distribution of returns, and we don't over optimize, there is nothing wrong with TA. The only difference between TA and quant, in many cases, is quants add things like earnings and cash flow, in addition to price, momentum and other technical indicators to their models. However, at least as of a few years ago, the classic buy/sell the Dow with crossover of the 200-day moving average, easily beat buy-and-hold. Admittedly, in years gone by, there was no way to cheaply do that, so I couldn't tell you if one would have beaten buy-and-hold if you actually bought and sold the Dow stocks, but as I recall, the differential was substantial. Anti-TA types always love to say, "If you followed that rule (choose your rule), you would have missed n of the biggest m percentage gains on average every year, and those days account for xy% (some large number) of the year's gains." Of course, they fail to mention the opposite side of the statement: you miss a similar proportion of the big losing days. And ultimately, you come out ahead (at least with the 200-day on the Dow). Sposer (talk) 13:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)