Jason,
>>>
>>>Thank you for maintaining some objectivity and not falling prey to >>>the primitive fight or flight response
>> that can so easily manifest itself in "others" when their
>>>viewpoints are directly threatened.
No prob. Actually, I love these 'arguments' as long as they are not personal, and they don't annoy others looking for substantive CLE info.
>>>Strictly speaking, it is certainly not "empirical evidence",
>>>however, when one learns that all NBA
>>>players practice shooting, it may be advisable for NBA aspirants to >>>start practicing themselves.
There are plenty of 'traders" that rely on other things besides TA per say. Since you like reading try Victor Niederhoffer's "The Education of a Speculator". He loved looking for backetested systems that beat the "deviations" of luck. However, he would also be the first to point out that the TA you speak of was well absorbed into the market long ago. Any system that works will not work for long because of market efficiencies...like those mentioned in "Random Walk"...a book which you would be mistaken to dismiss.
>>> One cannot hold this thought without believing that it is merely >>>coincidence that the stock of Microsoft and Intel has appreciated >>>>so significantly and are essentially "random events".
In hindsight it seems obvious. However what we are speaking of is the predictive value of a system. COuld you Predict their success. I so, you should have bought 10 grand of MSFT in 87 and retired. Also, Stock prices ARE thought to be random within their upward bias, so to speak. What the 'predictive value' means is whether or not a given system can beat THE MARKET AVERAGES in a consistent way. If it is possible then the number of people that do will fall well above the number of so called dart throwing monkeys who pick stocks throwing darts at the newspaper. The numbers are out, and they do not. Your statement about Jordan only substantiates that you do not understand the problem we are supposedly talking about.
What the 'science' of stock market study concludes...essentially concretely..is that to have the best chances of being successful at investing, you shouldn't be looking at 'great traders' at all, but rather long term investing on the order suggested by Lynch. You get eaten alive by trading costs by trading, which is also shown nicely in "Small stocks, Big Profits" by Perritt. This does not man you *can't* succeed by trading any more than it means I can't win in Vegas. I might, but its not as likely.
Finally, What I read of Paul's posts make since. I think we are basically in the same camp. Since we have read the books you suggested perhaps now you should read the one's we suggested. Start with Random Walk and let me know what you think.
..Which brings me to why I like CLE. They have great management and a solid balance sheet. In a market downturn they have staying power...lots of cash...no debt. I may not win, but I believe in playing the odds, here OR in Vegas.
B. |
