Technical Analysis - Smoke & Mirrors?

[Trembling Hand]

I have found that it isn't for me as I stated in my post.

So is the world against you or is it that your favourable setups are actually rubbish?

 

[Wysiwyg]

Wyzi

What is for you?

I don't know anymore. I am going to sit on my stock holdings for a while and let this market go.

 

[tech/a]

I don't know anymore. I am going to sit on my stock holdings for a while and let this market go.

That's a fair enough comment.

But do you agree it's a numbers game----in general terms.

Either.

More wins than losses where accumulated wins out value accumulated losses.
Or
Bigger wins than losses
Or
A combination of both.

Personally I find that when I'm pushing against the wrong side of the market my aim is (2)
When I find myself on the right side of t market my aim is (3). More opportunities arise when I'm on the right side----whether that be stock or futures. With Futures I have more opportunity in a shorter time frame to get on the right side.

Again personally --- I've embraced that I'll be wrong more often than I'm right over a very long time.
I'll have long strings of losses and I'll get the same in wins at times---but if I keep in mind my objective
(1),(2), and (3) Then it doesn't become a constant battle when I'm on the wrong side. I can identify it because of my results. Then not doing the same thing time and again expecting a different result!!

Either change or Wait
All the while minimizing loss.

 

[sinner]

I don't know anymore. I am going to sit on my stock holdings for a while and let this market go.

To me this post sounds like exhaustion. Now, no reason for you to listen to anything I say over any other InternetJoe, but here are some quotes from Hussmans most recent weekly market comment:

http://hussmanfunds.com/wmc/wmc150727.htm

Put simply, valuation drives long-term returns, and investor risk-preferences drive returns over shorter portions of the market cycle. When measures of both are hard-negative, as they are now, investors should think carefully about their own risk-tolerance and their ability to sustain losses without abandoning their discipline, making sure to align their investments with the actual horizon over which they will need to spend the funds.

Every share of stock that has been issued has to be held by someone at every moment in time, so there is no sense in encouraging investors – generally – to sell. What matters is that your own portfolio is carefully aligned with your own tolerance for risk and spending plans. If you follow a carefully considered buy-and-hold strategy, and you don’t believe that market returns can be anticipated regardless of valuations, market action, or other considerations, then by all means stick to your discipline. Our own approach generally aligns our investment outlook with the expected return/risk profile we identify at any given time, so our outlook is hard negative here.

In any event, this is no time to be on autopilot.

 

[howardbandy]

Greetings --

Regarding John Hussman's advice that "investors should think carefully about their own risk-tolerance and their ability to sustain losses without abandoning their discipline"

-------------

While Mr. Hussman and I probably have different risk parameters, I agree with his advice. I recently gave a presentation on risk that addresses personal risk tolerance and the risk associated with several aspects of trading. It is entitled "The Four Faces of Risk" and is on YouTube:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vw7mseQ_Tmc&feature=youtu.be

Among other points, it demonstrates how to quantify, and even plot, a personal risk tolerance. Then measure the risk associated with recent trades and adjust position size during trading to manage risk so that drawdown does not exceed those limits.

---------------

With regard to the title of this thread -- "Technical Analysis -- Smoke and Mirrors?"

Are there alternatives other than technical analysis and fundamental analysis?

Fundamental analysis has the flaws of infrequent granularity, delayed reporting, revision to previously reported data, bias of the reporter, bias of probably non-repeatable post-WWII expansion, inability to validate results on not-previously-used data, etc, that render it not useful.

If not technical analysis, then what?

--------------------

Best regards,
Howard

 

[tech/a]

Put simply, valuation drives long-term returns, and investor risk-preferences drive returns over shorter portions of the market cycle. When measures of both are hard-negative, as they are now, investors should think carefully about their own risk-tolerance and their ability to sustain losses without abandoning their discipline, making sure to align their investments with the actual horizon over which they will need to spend the funds.

Understand the statement.

Every share of stock that has been issued has to be held by someone at every moment in time, so there is no sense in encouraging investors – generally – to sell. What matters is that your own portfolio is carefully aligned with your own tolerance for risk and spending plans. If you follow a carefully considered buy-and-hold strategy, and you don’t believe that market returns can be anticipated regardless of valuations, market action, or other considerations, then by all means stick to your discipline. Our own approach generally aligns our investment outlook with the expected return/risk profile we identify at any given time, so our outlook is hard negative here.

In any event, this is no time to be on autopilot.

Don't understand what a Carefully considered buy hold strategy is if it has no of those components mentioned in black. What is it you would have carefully considered to buy and hold those in a portfolio?
Continuing to hold looks a lot like Hope.

 

[sinner]

Don't understand what a Carefully considered buy hold strategy is if it has no of those components mentioned in black. What is it you would have carefully considered to buy and hold those in a portfolio?
Continuing to hold looks a lot like Hope.

Carefully considered buy and hold strategy would take into account the maximum drawdown, the duration of the investment, and so on.

Perhaps (for example) an investor has decided they are ok with 80% drawdowns and plans to hold for 35 years. Some people are. And it is fine, so long as those considerations align with their risk preferences and spending horizon. Hussman is not, which is why his strategy accounts for both valuations and short term risk preferences (breadth, credit spreads, etc). But he is not trying to sell his strategy.

 

[Joules MM1]

there's a distinction between a vague philosophical (or even an on-point philosophical) visualization
and that is that the visualizer anticipates the person receiving the message understands the details and subtle nuances within

of course, puting aside the idea that the message may merely be posturing or grand-standing

in the instance the receiver understands what is being said then the receiver is unlikely to need to receive anything at all
and while affirmative banter is one thing, education, especially a thoroughly investigative education, that takes into account
not just the financial cost but the emotional risk of the reciever,
that's the area most people tip their
hats to but never have follow-thru and this is extremely dangerous

so, first, how do we dissect what is being said and what the motivation for saying whatever it is
not like a psychobabble way, i mean, in a useful and practical way, to build a series of tools
given the platform of text and pictures and the immediacy of this.....

if you look at the quotes, what is it that is really being said?

one cannot in any measure build an accountable way, or method of trading,
when one is in limbo-land from
mid-stream moments of other ideas from other posters .....no matter what great intentions are coming most of the time the people
who need the most help are hindered with cloudy pseudo stuff in parcels wrapped in further mystery...

you have one poster on this thread who asked hard and straight questions

So is the world against you or is it that your favorable setups are actually rubbish?

the response was

I have found that it isn't for me

these two quotes clearly dictate two states of being

not two states of opinion; two states of being

asking incisive question to arrive at concise answers to arrive at new ideas
that are useable that can create realizable results and personal accountability

the second person has responded with an answer that is fine in itself, in that,
that is the place the poster is emotively given to
....it is not a place to be judged, rather to be vigorously
probed to see if the reason with that disposition
is merely based on a lack of knowledge .....many people simply screw up their accounts because they fear looking dumb or do not know what
questions to ask or how to ask them...there's always discomfort when the original basis of the journey is not based on itself but some other motive.

to get to points of recognition at speed, one must ask direct questions and further, I say, must rigorously dissect anything that washes over the very things that require inspection,
this, I think, is true of all forums...a bit of this a bit of that, everything becomes a bit of a wash

that is, of course, my humble opinion ....and may i offer that i have traded for at least as long as I have been a member of this forum

also an opinion, just an opinion, that quitting is the point of outward action of an inner recognition arrived at long before the act
of quitting occurred, that a return must be based on a new set of personal accountable
rules or guidelines, that the real drivers of involvement be clear and concise...that quitting is the recognition of a new path,
opens a new doorway.....

your success is not for someone else to recognize as much as it is not theirs to enact for you,
that success can be framed in two words; responsibility and accountability
when one decides to give up one of those to an emotive disposition
the probabilities are that the original journey is fulfilled.

and responsibility toward other people is often under-weighted, in that, you post with an idea that posting it carries implied knowledge,
yet fail to ask reasonable questions, without knowing the scope of the recipients education or experience, so, how can one really take on
another persons ideas when so many underlying questions need clarity first before any type of dialogue ensues....

be clear about this: your words carry weight

as has always been true, piece-meal posts are the least helpful, including this one in many respects, in that, again, for the recipient to
fully grasp all the concepts (text form) the recipient must already have a clear understanding of the mechanics, constraints, avenues and
maliable ideas involved ...in other words, that person need already be fully educated to then go on and grasp the finer parts that are still
unknown (and i'm not saying experience, as that is itself a different thing)

clearly, when there is no conversation that uncovers either posters depth of knowledge and experience then the ensuing conversation is a cobblestone bikeride

in the quotes, one is reaching for clarity, the other is reaching for a pillow

this forum is a trading forum

I say, there are several effective traders who come here to read this forum and rarely speak, I'll tell you why,
it's nothing to do with you stealing their ideas or how effective they are as traders
it is that they understand the power of their own words and the energy required to have a full and clear conversation that not only takes you
forward, that missing parts are far more dangerous than the known parts are an advantage, that they accept responsibility for their words
that they know many people are not here to learn in its' essence, rather, confuse rigorous debate and knowledge with coffee and biscuits
and that incisive debate is not about posturing or looking good


you may need to re-read some parts due to the language I have used here

much work needs to be done before any "technical analysis" and a conversation for another thread, probably