Content deleted Content added
Tyler wood (talk | contribs) →Proposed edits to this page: new section |
Anachronist (talk | contribs) Undid revision 1303383846 by 106.219.142.111 (talk) - no context, not an edit request, and this isn't a forum |
||
| (21 intermediate revisions by 12 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|1=
{{WikiProject Finance
{{WikiProject Economics
}}
{{Archive box|search=yes|
Line 60 ⟶ 59:
[http://stockcharts.com/school/doku.php?id=chart_school:technical_indicators:introduction_to_tech#oscillator_types Introduction to Technical Indicators and Oscillators] on StockCharts.com
I do not understand why links should not be added. I feel that links serve as verifiable references even though it has not been used for a reference to a particular instance of information.
<
:The issue is that this is a commercial web site and that is not permitted. I am removing for now, but let's see what some other editors say in response to your link. If we get a great hue and cry, we can think about it.[[User:Sposer|Sposer]] ([[User talk:Sposer|talk]])` <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|undated]] comment added 11:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC).</span><!--Template:Undated-->
Line 213 ⟶ 212:
(2) In the world of mathematical modeling, the approach followed by technical analysis falls under the category of Empirical Modeling. There is nothing wrong in using empirical models to predict future outcomes (and I am not interested in a debate of whether empirical modeling is the correct way to predict future stock prices -- To Each His Own!). Models incorporating behavioral economics tend to fall under the category of explicative or simulation modeling. Yes, volume and price generated from the markets are used -- not as inputs to the model, but to validate the model. The use of market generated volume and price in such manner does not make it technical analysis (if it does, then the sections "Description" and "Principles" in the the article are invalid). In other words, models based on behavioral economics try to EXPLAIN a market phenomenon and use market generated information to VERIFY the validity of the model. In comparison, technical analysis DOES NOT explain anything but tries to predict future outcomes. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/59.161.191.227|59.161.191.227]] ([[User talk:59.161.191.227|talk]]) 20:39, 19 November 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Please read [[WP:AGF]]. Nobody's abusing anything. The whole point of Wikipedia is that you can edit it for any good reason. In your case, editing to correct errors and misunderstandings and using [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] (as opposed to [[WP:OR|original research]]) is what it's all about. "''I will wait for a week before I take out the second line.''" Why a week? If it's wrong, be [[WP:BOLD|bold]] and go for it now. ''[[User talk:CityOfSilver|<
::Point taken. Thank you. I have edited my previous entry to reflect your point.
Line 227 ⟶ 226:
]
::I will provide references in the next couple of weeks, but I have spoken to many academics in Behavioral Finance, and many openly acknowledge the connection. Was at a conference yesterday, and multiple quants there agreed that the statement: "much of your work is built on more sophiscated usage of technical analysis tools and methods." Obviously, that is not a reliable source, but not one disagreed.[[User:Sposer|Sposer]] ([[User talk:Sposer|talk]]) 22:15, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
::*This content has been removed. While we value and welcome [[subject-matter expert]]s to participate in editing articles, we do not base encyclopedic content on word-of-mouth, assumptions, or personal convictions outside of reliable and independent sourcing. Additionally, we do not allow [[WP:OWN|ownership of articles]] by individuals who wish to assert their preferred version of an article bypassing policy, guidelines, and consensus. To this point, you may want to consider a [[WP:RFC|Request for Comment]], [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard|content dispute resolution]], or the [[Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard|Fringe theory noticeboard]]. In either point, do not restore this questionable content outside of established consensus. Best regards, [[User:Cindamuse|<
:::*Further to the edit summary, I clearly stated that I was not using my anecdotal notes as reason to revert. The reason for the revert (beyond the fact that there were grammatical errors, which obviously I could have corrected), is because there are papers and books that state these points as facts. I can point to academics who use TA to prove BF. If you ever looked at quantitative tools, they use rich/cheap analysis (overbought/oversold), moving averages to determine how rich or cheap things are, etc. I know this, because I also worked as a quant and an economist before I was a technical analyst. The tools are the same in many many cases. I will provide the required cites, but do not have the time to search right now, but will in about a week. As for fringe theories, TA is accepted by a large and growing number of academics. And, just to be clear, I have not worked as a technical analyst in many years.[[User:Sposer|Sposer]] ([[User talk:Sposer|talk]]) 22:29, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
::::*I've gone ahead and offered a list of policies and guidelines on your talk page. It doesn't appear as though you have been properly introduced to the community. Please spend some time reviewing the policies, particularly in regards to reliable sources, edit wars, and adding unsourced or poorly sourced content. It is clear from the dialogue on this page that consensus has not been met. Do not continue to revert the work of others. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Further information has been provided on your user talk page. Options are available to you. Continued disruptive editing is not one of those options. Best regards, [[User:Cindamuse|<
:::::*You should read the policies, not me. I reverted and added a cite, that clearly stated that quants use technical analysis. I have a further cite now, with a WHOLE book that ties behavioral finance to technical analysis. And, if you are going to revert, it would have helped if you corrected the grammar at least. I am following the rules. You are just trying to force your opinion. I am providing sources while you are just saying that you disagree. That is edit warring.[[User:Sposer|Sposer]] ([[User talk:Sposer|talk]]) 00:12, 19 February 2012 (UTC) There was never any consensus that the tie-in between TA and Behavioral and/or Quant was wrong. There were editors that felt it was all out wrong, but there was more a disagreement about the wording, which was substantially altered. What was there earlier was not correct. Somebody then reverted what was there without achieving consensus, which I reverted. Then, I added a reference on quants using TA tools, and that was reverted. That link is here: <ref>http://seekingalpha.com/article/114523-beating-the-quants-at-their-own-game</ref>. Further, here is an academic paper that directly states the ties between behavioral finance/economics and TA <ref>http://www.eurojournals.com/irjfe%2014%20dimitrios.pdf</ref>. And there is a whole book on the role of Behavioral Finance in Technical Analysis called "Behavioral Technical Analysis". The two subjects are intertwined and inextricably linked. I understand the points made earlier that TA is predictive, but you will not find a TA book that does not point out that TA works due to psychology and human emotion. The tools Behavior Finance depends on, includes the same tools TA uses. One is not a part of the other, but the basis for both - human emotion and irrationality are one and the same. As for Quants, read any book on quantitative analysis. It is about measuring supply and demand changes via information from the markets. That is technical analysis. Except quants tend to use far more complex statistical and analytical tools, in addition to the ones that they borrowed from TA (such as moving averages, momentum, trend detection, etc.). I know the Wiki rules. I have been editing here for years. Cindamuse is clearly even more experienced than I am, but I suspect she did not read through the whole thread. I have followed all the rules and I am not in any way, shape or form, edit warring. I should also add that it is ironic that the sentence from the Lo book is being used to question the validity of TA. [[Andrew Lo]] is a supporter of technical analysis and wrote the book, "A Non-Random Walk Down Wall Street". [[User:Sposer|Sposer]] ([[User talk:Sposer|talk]]) 03:16, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
{{reflist-talk}}
::::::*The issue here is that there is a current lack of consensus in this article. Rather than engage with the editor, you have chosen to continue reverting content. You additionally add unsourced content stating, '''''"I will provide the required cites, but do not have the time to search right now, but will in about a week."''''' This is inappropriate. Please respond fully to the concerns over article content with the editor above, [[User:Nexus501|Nexus501]] to discuss reliable and independent sourcing for disputed claims to reach consensus. Once consensus is met, that would be the time to edit the article, '''''as well as providing the citations to support all claims'''''. Pointing to academics and knowledge gleaned from attended conferences and personal background does not meet our guidelines for reliability. Best regards, [[User:Cindamuse|<
::The text that is there now is not grammatically correct. I had changed the text previously and I see now it said before Nexus altered without discussing that Behavioral Finance and Quants incorporate TA. What it should say is that BF and QA incorportate and are built on many of the same tools and theories that TA is built on. The cite that Cindamuze reverted showed that for QA and the ones I noted above shows that for BF. I will put that in next week when I have time. Sorry for posting under an IP, but I am not on my PC. This is sposer. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/24.238.127.242|24.238.127.242]] ([[User talk:24.238.127.242|talk]]) 15:55, 20 February 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:::As promised, I have altered the text to more correctly state that TA, QA and BF all use many of the same tools and techniques. I've provided cites, including a full book on the relationship between behavioral finance and TA, as well as a paper describing same. Given that every pattern used by TA is always described based on the psychological and behavioral reason for why it should work, and given that other types of TA, such as Elliott and Dow Theory are 100% described behaviorally and psychologically, it is 100% irrefutable that both TA and behavioral economics and finance are based on the same thing. And, given that quants use many of the same exact measures as technical analysts (and many more complex ones, but still using the same underlying reasoning), it boggles the mind that anybody could question these relationships. I fully understand how a person who incorrectly believes in the validity of random walk or EMH would consider TA, QA or behavioral finance as being invalid, but questioning the noted relationship is illogical.[[User:Sposer|Sposer]] ([[User talk:Sposer|talk]]) 23:04, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Line 282:
Second, and more importantly, even if you can find a source or two which makes the claim above that does not imply that this view is well established. Essentially, while some technical analysts may believe that the behavioral economics are building upon their work, they're not. Even the converse statement - that technical analysts are building upon the work of behavioral economists is not really true. Basically, behavioral economists for the most part regard technical analysis as the same kind of mumbo-jumbo that the more traditional "efficient market hypothesis" see it as (in fact Becon is not necessarily conflict with some forms of EMH). The sentence which is being included is a very strong (and essentially false) claim and hence really needs some very high quality sources to back it up. Right now it has no sources which really back it up.
[[User:Volunteer Marek|<
::I removed the "build and incorporate" portion as I believe that was too strong as well. The articles cited do not each validate all of the statements. However, they either support the statements about Behavioral Economics or Quants. They specifically refer to use of things like moving averages, or explaining TA terms, such as channels and support and resistance. There is certainly no attempt to state that behavioral economics makes any attempt to validate TA. I worked as a quant and later shifted to TA (and now am involved with neither). Quants do rich/cheap analysis often by measuring things like moving average of price expected price (i.e., something can remain rich or cheap for longer than you can afford to hold a position). These are exactly what technicians may use, but just on price. The lede is suggestive that there is an overlap, which there clearly is. You will not find a whole lot of academic work stating that, largely because there is no reason to do it. It is industry practice. Again, I don't mean for this to be meant as a cite, but just stating observations over the years. As for Seeking Alpha, blogs are okay, in some cases. SeekingAlpha is a widely read blog and is often used as a source in the financial press. I am just trying to get us back to a point where the lede is intelligible and largely correct. It might be that the info on quants and behavioral economics belong elsewhere in the article. But, they are valid points. I am happy to consider some movement around. We certainly should state that TA's validity is questioned by many academics, and that, like fundamental, quant and behavioral analysis, flies in the face of EMH. However, if you want balance, you need to point out that there are many academics that support it as well.[[User:Sposer|Sposer]] ([[User talk:Sposer|talk]]) 17:22, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
:::Ok, look, I don't know what "quantitative analysis" is supposed to mean here - the linked article mentions people like Merton, Black, Scholes, Engle and Fama, all of whom are very "mainstream" finance/econ dudes who don't do anything resembling TA, just use "quantities", i.e. math - but in regards to behavioral economics, the claim ''"Behavioral economics and quantitative analysis use many of the same tools of technical analysis"'' is simply false and NOT SUPPORTED by any of the source given. Yes, those sources discuss Becon, and TA but none of them say that they use the same tools. I am removing this claim until a source which actually supports it is provided.[[User:Volunteer Marek|<
::I don't understand what you are missing. The Capco paper directly states the cognitive explanation for technical channels. Cognitive/psychological = Behavioral: "It should be pointed out that certain market practitioners, the so-called technical analyst ornchartists, never paid any attention to the results of mathematical finance and EMH that are against the very grain of their work. These practitioners believe that certain price patterns repeat themselves and provide profit opportunities. Consequently, they pore over historical data and draw charts with acronyms such as “support,” “resistance,” “channel,” “head-and-shoulder,” and “momentum,” which according to EMH have no informational value whatsoever, in order to gain insight into market sentiment that hopefully will give them a trading edge. Justification of chartists for their approach to market is very intuitive and suffers from
a lack of quantification though they use certain statistical terms such as moving averages or ratios. To justify some of these approaches psychologists have joined the foray and tried to provide an explanation for the way market behaves using psychology. Figure 1 is a cognitive psychology explanation of oscillation of prices that fall into a rising or falling band called a “channel.” The Seeking Alpha story title: "Beating the Quants at Their Own Game" relates how both quants and technical analysts both use moving averages for investing/rich/cheap decisions: "Many quantitative investment strategies are based on some sort of trend following - very simply put they buy an uptrend and sell a downtrend. The “trend” is typically determined by a moving average. For the sake of this analysis I will be dealing with simple moving averages as opposed to exponential moving averages due to the fact that I was not prepared to spend my whole weekend creating the necessary calculations in Excel. The general take-away of this exercise will be the same for either. A simple moving average is the average price of the last “X” number of days. Popular moving averages used in technical analysis are the 50 day, 100 day, and 200 day. A technical investor wants a signal that is clear enough that they will not miss a big portion of the price move but also slow enough that they will not get whipsawed around from trading “noise”." The SSRN article points out that behavioral researchers and technical analysts focus on high and low prices: "Psychological, behavioral, survey and experimental evidence appears to support our choice of simple, widely reported, and graphically oriented rules like the n-day high and low." Graphically = Technical = Chartist. I am honestly confused what you are missing? I very much watered down the lede, and did not put it as same building blocks, although that is arguable, and rather said they use the same tools/indicators, as clearly stated with three different examples (highs and lows, moving averages, channels) in three cites.[[User:Sposer|Sposer]] ([[User talk:Sposer|talk]]) 03:07, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Line 293:
:::::There's no way to state it more clearly - the sources DO NOT support the claim the text is making. In all of the passage that you are quoting above there is NOTHING which would support the contention that Behavioral economics or quantitative analysis (whatever that is in this context) use many of the same tools of technical analysis. Moving averages are just averages, so this is basically like saying that because both TA and Be and quant use these magical things called "numbers", they both "use the same tools".
:::::And "cognitive" is a particular word, while "Behavioral finance" is a very specific discipline. The OR is in you jumping from one to the other.
:::::At this point this has become an instance of [[WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT]] which is turning into a slow moving edit war.[[User:Volunteer Marek|<
::::::Actually it is more like youdon't like. Cognitive relationships are part of behavioral finance. Moving averages and momentum are used by quants and technical analysts and are specifically mentioned either in the cites or in the additional materials I put in. A moving average is not just a number. You apparently do not understand what is meant by a tool (I do not mean this in a disparaging or argumentative way). Technical analysts and quants both use moving averages in the exact same ways. They use it to help identify a trend, or how far a price is from the norm. Again, not RS, but I started out as a quant, and used many of the same things I used later on as a technical analyst. The book noted also directly said that they use the same thing. I know what Behavioral Finance is. BF is based on the psychology of the markets. So is technical analysis.[[User:Sposer|Sposer]] ([[User talk:Sposer|talk]]) 16:33, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
:::::::Unsourced, so irrelevant. [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 17:45, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Line 300:
::::The Seeking Alpha source (which is of questionable value as WP:RS anyway) describes how some investors that primarily use other strategies ''may sometimes'' use the 'tools' of TA. It does not in any way support a definitive and unequivocal claim on the lede that "Behavioral economics and quantitative analysis use many of the same tools of technical analysis". Incidentally, there seems to be a little confusion in terminology here. By 'tool', do we mean the charts themselves, or algorithmically-based trading systems? The former is a means to visualise data, while the latter is a decision-making system. It is entirely possible to 'use' a chart in the sense of looking at it to get a better understanding of data, and then, based on other information, ignore its implications. Does this count as 'Using the tools of TA'? [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 04:32, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
:::Technical analysts look at charts. Their tools may include that visualization, but it is much more than that. They write indicators that measure momentum and price direction. Technical analysts also write trading systems as well. When I was one, I wrote systems that were purely technical, measuring momentum with cubic splines, and other mathematical tools. Regardless,here is more evidence: In "Behavioural Technical Analysis": "I examine the behavioural finance concepts supporting three strategies which technical analysts have utilised over the years. The three strategies are extreme prices, trend following, and support and resistance. I chose those strategies because they are well supported by the evidence and offer good prospects for profitable trading in securities." (page xiii) He also states that some put quants as part of fundamental analysis, though techncial analysts point out they quants are just using their tools. That is not good enough, because clearly that is what technicians have said (although, again not acceptable for the article, but I have worked as a quant, with quants, and with finance professors who have said exactly the same thing). Here is a blog that points out they use the same things: http://jflennon.wordpress.com/2010/01/07/quantitative-analysis-vs-technical-analysis/. Finally, this paper states: "it should be kept clear that technical analysis due to its visual and qualitative nature still plays a central role in professional trading and investment, and provides a main source of empirical inspirations to the development of quantitative analysis.", which is actually more in line with the stronger idea that TA is at the core of quant (and BF), and which I removed and have no intent of adding back. [[User:Sposer|Sposer]] ([[User talk:Sposer|talk]]) 05:29, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
::::This is all irrelevant OR. The given sources simply do not support the claim.[[User:Volunteer Marek|<
== Latest Lede Change Sections and Forecasting ==
Line 376:
:::::::[[Special:Contributions/177.33.179.94|177.33.179.94]] ([[User talk:177.33.179.94|talk]]) 19:11, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
==So?==
More than 3 months have passed, more than enough time to both evaluate necessary changes as its bibliography, so I put down my amendment about the definition of the term:
Line 450:
== Proposed edits to this page ==
{{edit COI|answered=yes}}
Here are some proposed minor edits for this page:
▲• Change the “Industry” section so it does not say “Market Technicians Association” but “CMT Association” as the company has gone through a name change.
▲• Fix any incorrect links at the bottom. The new company website for information is cmtassociation.org
[[User:Tyler wood|Tyler wood]] ([[User talk:Tyler wood|talk]]) 13:38, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
:{{done}}. ~[[User:Anachronist|Anachronist]] <small>([[User talk:Anachronist|talk]])</small> 16:43, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
== The introduction to this article is clearly negatively biased ==
This article is clearly biased. The introduction has a single sentence concerning what technical analysis is actually about, and then three sentences concerning objecting and competing methods. Furthermore, these other methods are presented as being more factual or reliable, despite the fact that the efficient-market hypothesis and active management theory are both unproven. I don't understand why there is such a concerted push to give this article a negative slant considering that trading would essentially be impossible without technical analysis, and it influences every single market considering that most price-action these days is driven by bots which act almost entirely upon TA signals. High-frequency trading, which makes the majority of trading volume in the US stock market and certainly in the crypto market, is entirely driven by TA.
The claim that TA is 'pseudoscience' is written by someone who lost a large amount of money in the dot-com bubble and according to this talk page has been up for, what, a decade now, and nobody is allowed to alter or remove it? Or even give it some context, or perhaps a differing perspective? In the introduction for the topic!? The defining aspect anyone who reads this article will be the implication that this is pseudoscience and therefore nonsense, and this all hangs upon one book written by somebody who is clearly going to be personally biased against the concept of trading itself.
I have tried to give that quote some further context considering that studies done on TA have been done in the abstract and do not actually reflect applied circumstances but it has been reverted twice. TA in the real world is not done in isolation, as the studies are conducted, but TA signals are used in conjunction with one another to construct a heuristic understanding of -price action-, which traders, and bots, then act upon if the risk to reward ratio is favourable. You cannot gain an accurate understanding of TA by running statistical analyses on individual signals without any context for how entities act upon those signals and then conclude that the method is nonsense. This article's introduction, the thing most people will read when looking up TA for the first time, is terribly biased and needs to be reconsidered. It should be rewritten with an emphasis on what TA actually is and how it is applied in markets rather than a emphasis on how other theories disagree with it. [[User:Hueycookafew|Hueycookafew]] ([[User talk:Hueycookafew|talk]]) 09:37, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
:We can't use [[WP:SYNTHESIS]] to undercut the reliable sources (I use the plural because although we cite only one in the read, others are references further down in the article). Lots of things are widely used and studied but are still pseudoscience - [[Homeopathy]], for example. This 'TA in the real world' stuff is a red herring. If the signals don't work, and you combine with something else that does work (for example, the overall upward trend of the stock market), you'll still see some benefit overall. But that does not mean that TA actually contributed anything. There is some legitimate work that gets done in studying behaviors in the stock market, but that work doesn't justify the large volume of pseudo scientific techniques in the field, just like the fact that counting calories works doesn't justify fad diets. [[User:MrOllie|MrOllie]] ([[User talk:MrOllie|talk]]) 11:08, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
| |||