Forum Archive Index - November 2001

[jerrold poh <jerm@musician.org>]

Ok, just going to hit on two points here where funtamental (and
technical) writers always hammer down on why "their" method of investing
is better than the others.  Feel free to disagree :).


> "However complete and recent statistical information may be, it always
> remains information about the past, and does not assert anything about
> the future." 

Note how the author here just put down both fundamental, and technical
investing (and maybe even himself) with this one simple statement.  

Isn't all information attained, whether it be fundamental or technical,
all past information?  How are you able to predict the future
performance of a company, with the information attained the _last_ 4
years worth of annual reports.

Same with TA, how are you able to predict the future shareprice with
just price and volume information from the last 4 years?

<tongue in = cheek> The only way I can see around this is by getting
information from the future, that's what he means isn't it </tongue>


> But that didn't matter, the seminar presenters said. "All you need to
> know is that when this number is above this line, and that number is
> below that line, you should buy," or words to that effect. 

LOL, that's kind of like fundamental investing isn't it?  See this
number, it's the increase in net profit for each year, if it goes
below 25%, sell, and see this, it's the p/e multiple, if the multiple
drops from one term to the next, buy. 

I think that's the reason they're called _indicators_ in technical
analysis, and same with fundamentals.  They're only indicators, and not
direct orders.


 
Jerrold.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To remove yourself from this list, please use the form at
http://www.sharechat.co.nz/chat/forum/