Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : C-Cube -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Black-Scholes who wrote (44306)	8/31/1999 10:26:00 AM
From: Stoctrash	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 50808

BS....you're so hilarious!!! You shouldn't be so close minded fella, you must use FA, TA, and CS-common sense in combination. Wall Street is anything but random, there are plenty of books written on that as well. I'm still on a sell signal from 29 5/8 on 8/25, call it just a random toss.... & while your tossing off over the FA,, I'm tossing the losers and letting the winners run and run :-)

To: Black-Scholes who wrote (44306)	8/31/1999 11:00:00 AM
From: Richard Estes	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 50808

I challenge you to name one (just one) person from finance in the academic world who has published ANYTHING worth one thin dime on the market. Anyone that excludes TA does take a random walk. I have been strictly TA for over 30 years and I am still here alive and well. The academic world is made up of people educated beyond their capacity. You never go to them, to find reality. Their mission is promote themselves to the sheep. By your nickname, they did a good job.

To: Black-Scholes who wrote (44306)	8/31/1999 11:05:00 AM
From: Steve Fancy	Respond to of 50808

BS, regarding TA...FWIW in theory I agree. Problem is that many many people do believe in it, therefore making it something that cannot be ignored. Especially with the basic indicators such as support/resistance points and moving averages. sf

To: Black-Scholes who wrote (44306)	8/31/1999 11:08:00 PM
From: Helios	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 50808

Malkiel also wrote that fundamental as well as technical analysis is of little use in selecting stocks since the fundamentals are already priced in. If you take Malkiel as correct, BS, why are you even bothering with C-Cube. You should buy an index fund and stop wasting time worrying about whether the market is correctly pricing any particular issue. My own view is that the simple technical analysis that people often expound on on these boards are easily coded and checked by a computer and they don't work. Professionals have gone much further with advanced mathematical techniques such as neural nets and linear predictive filter and who knows what else and their edge barely covers the cost of equipment and the salaries of the quants that they employ. Nevertheless if Malkiel and his friends are correct then while we may not be able to help ourselves by selecting our own stocks we can't hurt ourselves either so it's ok to be agnostic on the whole issue, do our best to select stocks that we think are going to go up and recognize that by selecting just a few stocks we're flipping a larger coin (increasing volatility).

To: Black-Scholes who wrote (44306)	9/5/1999 9:06:00 AM
From: Don Pueblo	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 50808

Yo. Flake here. Mr. The Flake Chicken Brains to you. I have no intention of arguing with you, I want to let you know right up front, OK? You're wrong. Sorry to have to tell you. I'm not going to bother trying to defend "Technical Analysis" to you, because you have made up your mind, and that's you, and that's your right, and I certainly won't dispute your right to have an opinion or a viewpoint or whatever you want to call it. A good technical analyst (stress "good") can predict the future on a regular basis. The percentage of "correct" can be shown to be much greater than "random". We would have to get into a discussion about what is a "good" technical analyst to explore this further, and I'm not going to do that. Your post gives a strong implication that someone who "thinks" Technical Analysis "works" is mentally flawed in some way; that he or she is in some way insane, or hallucinating, or is at least neurotic. As I said, that is your right. The fact remains that you are, how should I put this...uh...wrong. Your assumption is based on an incorrect evaluation of faulty data. The test of anything is: "Does it work?" This a a VERY simple test. If, for example, I can find ONE SINGLE PERSON on this planet that can PROVE EMPIRICALLY that his application of his "brand" of Technical Analysis works, that it predicts price movement to a degree that can be mathematically correlated to percentages greater than random data is correlated; can show it on paper, for anyone to see, can do it consistently, over and over, every day...and can show this "brand" of Technical Analysis to someone who has never seen it, and does not know who wrote it or created it, but can simply read it, apply it, and obtain the exact same higher than average results using the data or method or theory or whatever you choose to call it, [Technical Analysis, the study of price action on a chart to predict future price action on that same chart], then I win, and you lose. That person is me, so I win. You lose. Sorry. Not only that, if you are randomly investing in random companies at random times, and you randomly happen to randomly invest in a company that I am trading with my brand of technical analysis, there is a MUCH better than 50% chance that I will take your money away from you. I don't need to prove anything to you, I'll just take your money. I actually enjoy taking money from people who think I am insane. It gives me a certain...how can I say this...metaphysical 'inner glow'. And I don't mean that in a bad way. Bigfoot and Elvis say "Hi!". See ya on Level Two, dude.