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 : Dell Technologies Inc. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Walt Corey who wrote (45150)	5/28/1998 11:40:00 AM
From: jimleon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 176387

Hi Walt, I guess I am amazed that a so called high quality paper such as Barron's and others have definitions for TA terms. I know many people use TA and its terms, but for the 700th time, where are documented studies showing the benefit to investors of using charts to predict future performance? A good trade or two or three doesn't show me nothing. Why do so many investors use TA and how come no chartist is as rich as Gates or Dell ? Isn't this obvious to bright investors out there?

To: Walt Corey who wrote (45150)	5/28/1998 11:52:00 AM
From: Lee	Respond to of 176387

Hi Walt,..Re:<<TA vs Voodoo>> This doesn't say much except that people who are not stupid are seriously considering the benefits of TA. We received this which I copied from our Omega list mailing discussing trading strategies for TradeStation users. 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 predictability 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 Just another viewpoint. Regards, Lee