Content deleted Content added
Scoulondre (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
|||
Line 254:
:::::'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)
:::::::Thanks for the comment. The point I was making is that it is not pseudoscience and it is misleading to describe it as such. Lo's work mentions that some in academia suggest it is, but it is far from unanimous. Others in academia have written articles showing profits that are economically significant if I remember correct. Look for some older work from the London School of Economics, the Fed, Blake LeBaron and Didier Sornette amongst others. Much of electronic market making and quant is really just TA on steroids (I know since I've done both), although the quants don't like to admit it. Bottom line is I do neither quant nor TA anymore and have no skin in the game any longer and do not have the time to really edit this piece, but pseudoscience is an incorrect and misleading lie.[[User:Sposer|Sposer]] ([[User talk:Sposer|talk]]) 20:19, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
== Sourcing ==
| |||