Scott, it's not clever...actually it is redundant! It comes up over and over. TA seems to fail, whenever it is relied on the most.
Turn your argument on its head: If all drivers were infallible, no one would die in a traffic accident. Yet we allow people to drive, knowing they are =not= infallible. Why? Because we know "successful" driving can accomplished in a high percentage of events, without accidents. Unforeseen events, such as stuff on the highway, occur all the time and cause accidents. However, driving has such a high percentage of success, it is embraced, even allowing for bad drivers.
Inherently, TA cannot succeed, because past events cannot recur with the same investors with the same money buying or selling with the same motivations, with the same alternatives available for stock purchase that were available in the past. Ever. Where was Enron in the investing landscape in Jan 2001? Where is it now? Where was IBM stock versus Microsoft stock in 1985? In 1995? Multiply this by the thousands of equities emerging and disappearing, all with different percentages of the total shares outstanding, all with varying prices, and you see why a simple dartboard in the Wall Street Journal often outdid all the "learned" speculation. Ironically, TA works best when a given narrow situation is followed by a majority of purchasers/sellers using TA!
Also, you may use the word "re" without a colon. |
