Talk:Technical analysis: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 14:35, 18 October 2021

Revision as of 15:23, 17 June 2022

Line 94:

==Random Walk Hypothesis==

For NPOV's sake I removed some extremely strong statements added recently such as the following (emphasis added):

<blockquote>''The random walk hypothesis - '''now refuted''' - may be derived from the weak-form efficient markets hypothesis''<br /><br />

'''''positively proving''' the random walk does not exist and never has. Several years passed before the acadmics '''finally and reluctantly admitted they were right'''.''<br /><br />

''It is '''patently obvious''' that prices mostly trend, which randomness would not support.''</blockquote>

The [[random walk hypothesis]] article does not seem to support such bold claims (although it does discuss Lo's paper as evidence against RWH), so I toned them down in this article. Can anyone provide some enlightenment on whether the RWH has been conclusively disproven as the author ([[User:JMcGoo]] I think) asserts? [[User:Destynova|Destynova]] ([[User talk:Destynova|talk]]) 10:47, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Line 229:

:::*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|<span style="color:navy; font-family:'Tahoma';">Cind.</span>]]<font color="purple" face="Tahoma">[[User talk:Cindamuse#top|amuse]] (Cindy)</font> 23:35, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

:::::*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 {{Bare URL PDF|date=June 2022}}</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|<span style="color:navy; font-family:'Tahoma';">Cind.</span>]]<font color="purple" face="Tahoma">[[User talk:Cindamuse#top|amuse]] (Cindy)</font> 09:19, 19 February 2012 (UTC)