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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Stock Attack -- A Complete Analysis -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Chris who wrote (8828)	5/22/1998 2:03:00 PM
From: Electric	Respond to of 42787

Chris, I doubt it is.. Over 1 M have been subsribed. thats not a huge number, although every single person counts.. ~e~

To: Chris who wrote (8828)	5/22/1998 2:07:00 PM
From: Lee	Respond to of 42787

Hi Chris,..Re:<<TA vs Voodoo>> I wouldn't be too disheartened by the negative opinion of TA on the Dell thread. Enclosing a note recently posted on the Omega list which we have been receiving since '94. Subject: Re: CFTC decision on technical analysis Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 16:23:10 -0400 From: Bob Fulks <bfulks@alum.mit.edu> To: <omega-list@eskimo.com> CC: "Manning Stoller" <mstoller@ix.netcom.com>, "Andy" <adle@castle.net> At 12:03 PM -0400 5/14/98, Manning Stoller wrote: >How much evidence do the academics need to acknowledge that technical analysis has its place? >It will never happen, random walk is what they said 50 years ago and it will never change. You can trace it back to their college days when their teachers said it. At 10:47 AM -0400 5/14/98, Andy wrote: >>There are some prestigious academics who do acknowledge the importance of technical analysis. I'm thinking in particular of MIT's prestigious Dr. Andrew Lo. I was just reading an excellent new book by said Dr. Lo, "The Econometrics of Financial Markets", 1997, It is actually by three authors: John Campbell, Otto Eckstein Professor of Applied Economics at Harvard Un., Andrew Lo, Harris & Harris Group Professor at the Sloan School of Management at MIT, and Craig MacKinlay, Professor of Finance at the Wharton School, Un. of Pennsylvania. Chapter 2 spends over 50 pages summarizing dozens of technical papers published in prestigious economic journals that addressed predicability of the markets and tests of the Random Walk Hypothesis. In the conclusion of the chapter, Section 2.9, they state: "Recent econometric advances and empirical evidence seem to suggest that financial asset returns are predictable to some degree. Thirty years ago this would have been tantamount to an outright rejection of market efficiency. However, modern financial economics teaches us that other, perfectly rational factors may account for such predictability. The fine structure of securities markets and frictions in the trading process can generate predictability. Time-varying expected returns due to changing business conditions can generate predictability. A certain degree of predictability may be necessary to reward investors for bearing certain dynamic risks. Motivated by these considerations, we shall develop many models and techniques to address these and other related issues in the coming chapters." Looks as if these teachers are finally getting the right idea! Bob Fulks I haven't read tbe book yet but am looking forward to doing so this summer. Regards, Lee