Content deleted Content added
Scoulondre (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
|||
Line 253:
::::I am not looking for you to accept that as a cite, because it is not. I am just trying to teach here. I did mention multiple sources though, but listing me is of no value anyway. I am just letting you know what the industry says and does.[[User:Sposer|Sposer]] ([[User talk:Sposer|talk]]) 00:53, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
:::::'What the industry does' has no bearing on whether ''academics'' describe TA as pseudoscience. [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 02:21, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
::::::(non-english native speaker writing) Sposer&Andythegrump, I read with great interest your arguments and It seems to me that you do not disagree so much. While it is true that Andrew Lo's paper states that "several technical indicators do provide incremental information and may have some practical value", it also says that "informativeness does not guarantee a profitable trading strategy". As an academic myself I conducted some (randomized) tests with simple TA indicators and my conclusion is compatible with that: a fair ROI is indeed attainable under some strong constraints on the fractional Brownian motion generator. BUT these results do NOT include broker fees, which practically make these gains disappear. To summarize, TA MIGHT bring some usable information theoretically, but practically the profitability is not proved. As a matter of fact, TA perfectly meets the definition of a heuristic (see the related article), but not of a science as used in the academic vocabulary. Anyway its sensibility to (too) many parameters makes its (best) profitability very low even for skilled people, thus obviously negative for the others. --[[User:Scoulondre|Scoulondre]] ([[User talk:Scoulondre|talk]]) 16:19, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
== Sourcing ==
| |||