Forum Archive Index - September 2003

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

There are overseas Universities which , I believe, have graduate courses.
Speaking from hearsay - Upsala University and one in Chicago.    Also Great
Britain has a very intensive course for which we can study here and sit
under scrutiny at the Auckland Uni.    Bruce Barnard I am fairly sure sat
that degree course.

Cheers   Phyllis.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Dave Missen" <d.tackle@xtra.co.nz>
To: <sharechat@sharechat.co.nz>
Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 8:53 AM
Subject: Re: [sharechat] On-balance-volume


> Phyllis
>
> Further to my earlier response
>
> I don't believe that there is a single institution that teaches Technical
> Analysis as a stand alone topic, it is usually included as a component of
a
> much wider course.
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Phyllis Bergquist" <phyl@clear.net.nz>
> To: <sharechat@sharechat.co.nz>
> Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 6:11 AM
> Subject: Re: [sharechat] On-balance-volume
>
>
> > 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/
> >
> >
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
> 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/