Hello Ted,
I have a bone to pick with you folks.
It concerns what we all call Technical Analysis, or "TA". Almost everyone on CNBC mentions something about TA from time to time, and I wanted to let you know that it would be good if you guys could find out more about it.
I'll be specific with three examples. A few days ago, Bill Griffeth showed a chart of the COMP with three moving averages, and concluded on the air that "the trend [had] not broken". This was an incorrect statement. In December, Bob Pisani showed a chart of WMT on the air and said the stock looked "poised to go up" when in fact it was obvious that the stock had topped out and was poised to go down (and did, Bob called the top on the chart). On Tuesday of this week at around noon, Tom Costello showed an intraday chart of the COMP and reported on a "support level" which lasted about an hour before it was broken, since it was not an actual support level except for someone who was in a trade for less than 15 minutes. Tom implied that someone he has spoken to had given him this gem of TA wisdom...but you can't trust everyone who claims to understand TA.
These are errors that could very easily be corrected with an understanding of Technical Analysis.
Additionally, Alan Chernoff has recently spoken at length on the air about an obscure TA filter, the TRIN. While his explanation of it was accurate, it brings to light something about the way CNBC handles TA that could be improved.
Most 'ordinary people' that watch CNBC do not understand Technical Analysis. Most of them don't even know that when somebody shows a chart and draws lines of any kind on it, they are looking at Technical Analysis. Therefore, when someone on CNBC shows a chart and makes some sort of comment about it, we might conclude that most of your viewers would conclude that the comment is not totally misinformed. Many times, that is not the correct conclusion. Anyone who bought WMT on the day Bob said it was "poised to go up" found that out the hard way.
To make informed judgments about stock prices using TA, one must have a rudimentary understanding of what TA is. Trying to understand (and make accurate predictions from) obscure and sophisticated TA filters while not understanding or explaining the basics of TA does three things. First, and most important, it gives everyone who does not understand TA an inaccurate view of the benefits of Technical Analysis. Secondly, without the basics it is almost impossible, which makes whoever is doing it look like a bonehead to someone who does have a basic understanding of TA. Thirdly, not everyone believes that TA is useful. Many people think it is useless voodoo. Therefore, they are greatly entertained when someone who believes TA is useful makes an uninformed statement about a stock's price. (This is not a Good Thing for us TA people. We think the voodoo is working. <G>)
There are many different 'brands' of TA. My humble suggestion is to get someone who actually understands TA to give everyone at CNBC some basic lessons on it, so that if you guys mention TA on the air, you at least have a rudimentary understanding of what it is you are talking about. I don't mean to be harsh here; it is possible to understand basic Technical Analysis without a lot of work. While some professional technical analysts have taken TA to a point where the average investor could care less, it remains true that simple basic Technical Analysis is not hard to learn or understand.
I'll illustrate what I mean with one very simple example. I mentioned earlier about Bill talking about the trend on the COMP. He admitted that he did not know much about TA, but went on to use the fact that the COMP had not broken through a moving average to conclude that the "trend [had] not changed". Now, that is TA. That's what that statement is...Technical Analysis. Bill was talking some TA there.
The generally accepted definition of a "trend" is a straight line. "Traditional" trend lines are drawn using peaks (for a down trend) and dips (for an up trend) and connecting the successive peaks or dips to form a straight line. This is a very basic piece of information that can be used (we hope) to form opinions about very basic price movements. If Bill had looked at a one year daily bar chart of the COMP and connected the days where it dipped with a straight line, he would have seen that using the standard definition of the word "trend", the trend on the COMP has changed! It depends on how one reads the chart, and what chart he is looking at.
While a few "TA people" would agree with Bill that if a price chart does not break through a moving average, the trend has not changed, other TA people, using other TA methods, might have predicted the down move on the COMP two months ago, and some may have even predicted where the COMP would bottom out, before the trend line was even broken on the downside. The bottom line is that it doesn't really help somebody who is down 40% in less than a month to tell them that the trend has not changed. They don't believe it, the trend has obviously changed for them, so Bill's statement seems silly. If Bill was talking about the ten year chart, then that's a different thing, but we can't have Bill talking about the ten year chart and Tom talking about the ten minute chart without one or the other or both pointing out to the viewers that there is a big difference between the two charts. You get my point, I am sure.
Like I said, there are all different kinds of TA. There is no "right" or "wrong", there is IMHO, only what 'works for me' and what doesn't. This does not excuse professional television personalities for making goofy statements about TA simply because they don't know what it is or how to use it or describe it to the viewers. You have several regular guests on CNBC that I am sure would be more than happy to give you folks a primer on the basics.
If they won't, I would be more than happy to for free. You buy lunch. <G>
Thanks, and keep up the good work!
TLC |
