Forum Archive Index - September 2003

[Phyllis Bergquist <phyl@clear.net.nz>]

Which NZ Universities teach Technical Analysis????    Phyllis.
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Dave Missen" <d.tackle@xtra.co.nz>
To: <sharechat@sharechat.co.nz>
Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2003 10:19 PM
Subject: Re: [sharechat] On-balance-volume


> With regards to TA, I have noted that a number of the academics that teach
> the topic at masters levels in NZ universities don't appear to be
> multi-millionaires, and in fact have been heard to comment that they have
> taken severe hidings over the years relying on the traditional statistical
> approaches to TA.
>
> In saying this I don't discount the benefits of TA, I do agree with the
> comment that the model needs to be reconsidered, but as with all things in
> economics the model that is being used is attempting to quantify
> market/human behaviour which is often at best irrational.
>
> As such, I believe that TA should only be relied upon as yet another
> ingredient in the decision making process regarding investment analysis.
>
> Some excellent material has been written on the topic and some techniques
> actually perform in accordance with the models put forward for short
periods
> but general evidence tends to show that Mr Market is far more random than
> statistical approaches suggest.
>
> Each to their own but my view is that good old fashioned fundamentals will
> out perform TA everytime when longer time horizons are being considered.
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Stephen Judd" <sljudd@paradise.net.nz>
> To: <sharechat@sharechat.co.nz>
> Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2003 8:34 PM
> Subject: RE: [sharechat] On-balance-volume
>
>
> > On Thu, 2003-09-18 at 17:31, david.gibson wrote:
> > > I have been thinking about the point you raised in you email:
> > >          Dow Jones stocks have huge capitalisation trading volumes. I
> > >         could be argued that small-mid cap stocks have different
> > >         characteristics to Dow Jones stocks. Any comments?
> > >
> > > The predominant acedemic view in the 80's and early 90's was that the
> > > stockmarket obeyed "the law of large numbers" and that stock time
> > > series were a "random walk" phenomenon based on the "efficient market"
> > > theories.
> > >
> > > My personal view is that these assumptions are false.
> > >
> > > Conventional models based on the assumption of zero autocorrelation of
> > > stock trajectories  are clearly false - yet this is the dominant view
> > > in the acedemic literature.
> >
> > That's not an assumption. If you read Malkiel's "Random Walk Down Wall
> > St", you'll see that he and his students tested TA empirically - and
> > found that it performed no better than buy and hold, or after brokerage,
> > even worse. You can argue that their choice of signal might have been
> > wrong, or that the state of the art has improved since the 80s, but
> > their criticism was based in actual evidence, not just reasoning from
> > first principles.
> >
> > Stephen
> >
> >
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> > To remove yourself from this list, please use the form at
> > http://www.sharechat.co.nz/chat/forum/
> >
> >
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
> To remove yourself from this list, please use the form at
> http://www.sharechat.co.nz/chat/forum/
>


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