. First you say something is a zero-sum game, and then you agree it isn't.
You won't find anything here where I said something inconsistent with trading being a zero sum game.
Remember, all one needs is a single counter-example to show that something you claim is true doesn't work.
Very true but unfortunately the logic works for me as well it does with you. I can point to an endless list of companies where fundamental analysis failed just as fast as you can point to charts that did not break out. The astute trader understands the importance of both worlds while the closed minded one places one above the other.
Yes, a trending indicator works when a stock is trending but, what exactly is a statistic (an indicator) without error-bounds buying you? There is no statement of error associated with the statistic. I'm sure you wouldn't want to board a plane if the only assurance you got was "if the plane takes off then there is no need to worry!". Surely, you would want to know that the probability of failure is very, very low.
Why is it Mr. Silent that you don't apply the same standards to yourself that you hold Technical Analysis to? Please show me documented proof where fundamental analysis comes with probability errors, standard deviations, and expected value. Please enlighten those of us who are not as savvy as you are and point to the material that shows fundamental analysis has a statement of error associated with it.
You see the problem you're in? It's all easy to say that Technical Analysis has this but lacks that (especially since it rests a great deal on mathematics) but then if you choose to employ special pleading (which is a fallacy in logic where one does not reveal facts damaging to one's case), you'll always come out with your strategy as being the best. The truth is, you aren't looking objectively.
If one of the two arts or sciences employed error statistics, it would be Technical Analysis eons before Fundamental Analysis. Unless you choose to define "beta" as risk.
In any case, the public should be educated, or else they rely on TA specialists at their peril.
I don't suppose you've heard of the Motley Fool have you? (Oh dear God! I've made another plug! How silly of me) Here's a site dedicated to educating the public about the truth of fundamental analysis, not of technical analysis. If the public is getting scammed by relying on specialists, I assure you its occurring much more frequently in "your" realm than in mine.
Conservatively Yours,
Raymond J. Norris |
