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: stock bull who wrote (56571)	8/6/1998 11:08:00 AM
From: Zoltar	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 176387

whats driving the naz up 21pts today? all the big boys are either down or marginally up.

To: stock bull who wrote (56571)	8/6/1998 12:06:00 PM
From: Moominoid	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 176387

How accurate has your analysis method been? What percentage of your decisions are correct? I haven't done a proper analysis. I just know that on my US portfolio I'm making more money since taking on board these TA methods. Of the various stocks in US and Aus I have held roughly 2 out of 3 have made money and those that do made on average more than twice as much as those that lost. But that's a mixture of methods. I did do some estimates of the correlations between my autocorrelation indicator and stock price movements and they were significant for some stocks. I also have looked for some stocks what the outcome of buy and hold would be against using some of my TA methods. My TA methods came out ahead. Using moving average TA did not. The Bollinger Bands, in my opinion, are really nothing more than a control chart...used widely in Quality Control situations. (That is, the Bollinger Bands are a mean with +/-2 sigma limits. The purpose of the Bands is to tell the difference between random variation in the data, and situations that have assignable causes. (If my memory serves me correct.) However, the market is not a "manufacturing, machining process, etc." The human factors in the market, among others factors, would seem to make the Bollinger Bands almost useless in this type of environment. That's not really my concept of them. One day I should work out the theory and write an academic paper on it maybe. There are two ideas - 1. When the current observation is statistically far from the trend in some sense it's not likely to stay there for long but "revert to mean". 2. Stock price series aren't actually random walks. They tend to move between different behaviors. For some reason Bollinger Bands make a nice familar graphic that is in some way related to this finding. To really explain all these ideas would take a few pages and I don't want to give too much away at this stage. David

To: stock bull who wrote (56571)	8/6/1998 12:29:00 PM
From: Chuzzlewit	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 176387

Stock Bull, Bollinger bands are surrogates for confidence intervals. But they are not confidence intervals because the underlying assumption is that an econometric model exists for predicting future price movements. That is arrant nonsense. No such model exists. TAers wrap their ideas up in statistical jargon to try to impart a semblance of mathematical rigor to it, but it is all smoke and mirrors. A good analogy would be a psychic talking about the standard deviation of correct predictions. Sophisticated time series analysis of price and volume data have yet to show any predictive power to generated ad hoc models. TTFN, CTC