Do you have any estimate on what levels such a strategy may run into significant headwinds in terms of slippage?
I imagine that the effect is progressive and slowly eliminates more potential opportunities as your size outweighs your required liquidity. For a while the trader can potentially move to more thickly traded stocks without losing much in potential return as their focus can only manage a handful of positions anyway - thus the opportunity cost of foregone positions is low. But as size gets to a certain point, the tradeable universe is now so small that the strategy cannot find enough candidates to fill a portfolio, or at best - has a less preferential selection.
... technical funds don't exist because slippage kills it when trading any large sum of money...
You don't suppose the fact that there are no pure TA managers of large funds might have something to do with the possibility that the returns of funds managed by guys who base their investment decisions solely on technical analysis are just not very good?
Anyhow, getting back on topic
Except there's no figures out there to compare - technical funds don't exist because slippage kills it when trading any large sum of money. It also depends on how narrow you define TA. Bunch of futs trading shops (and individuals) making bank, and they're definitely not FA traders.
I'll use our very own Peter2's momentum book as an example. Its pure TA and he's done very well but that doesnt mean what he's doing now is possible with $100m under management.
Well, you attribute the fact that there are no managers of large funds who are pure technical analysts to "slippage" - as if, were one to do away with the slippage, we'd suddenly see a proliferation of high-returning funds being managed by guys who base their investment decisions solely on technical analysis.
You don't suppose the fact that there are no pure TA managers of large funds might have something to do with the possibility that the returns of funds managed by guys who base their investment decisions solely on technical analysis are just not very good?
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2202060Based on a study of more than 10,000 actively managed equity and balanced funds, including about one-third of which employ technical analysis, the authors compared the investment performance of funds that use technical analysis versus those that do not using five metrics. They found that funds using technical analysis provided a meaningful advantage to their investors.
Have you traded breakouts on sub asx 300 stocks before?
To take an extreme example, everyday there are 5+ news alerts on stocks who merely hint at lithium exposure.
If I was managing a mighty portfolio of $500 I could have made 1000%+ returns in the past few months.
Then there's also those TA guys that backtest instead of squiggly lines. They're called Quants and some of them run pretty darn successful funds. A few of them that I know have no idea how to read a financial statement
Also, found a study that compares pure FA funds to those that use TA
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2202060
So tell me again why you'd rather have 1 less trick in your toolbox?
Well I'm not trading 100 million
I'm not trying to be a billionair.
But there are a few here who actually know me and have met .
Not slumming it
Have a great trip BOGGO
Must be a South Australian thing.
Off myself for 8 weeks on 12/7
Canada/Alaska/USA
once you've lied down long haul you'll never travel
Another way.
All analysis has it's place.
But few know how to be consistently profitable in either discipline.
I agree that the larger majority of technical traders have no idea
How to turn a profit-----consistently.
What to look for and how to implement their analysis and
Most importantly if the strategy they implement will have any
Chance of being consistently profitable over the long term.
A quote by an old sage comes to mind:
“Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.”
― Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough for Love
tomorrow morning I am taking my wife to Europe and the the USA for a month, business class courtesy of TA
... there are a few here who actually know me and have met .
Not slumming it... Off myself for 8 weeks on 12/7
Canada/Alaska/USA
once you've lied down long haul you'll never travel
Another way.
.
Anyone with internet can find the answer to that.
... If I was managing a mighty portfolio of $500 I could have made 1000%+ returns in the past few months.
... Also, found a study that compares pure FA funds to those that use TA
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2202060
Also, found a study that compares pure FA funds to those that use TA
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2202060
After wading further through the pompous verbosity of the paper that you've linked to, the only conclusion that it seems to make directly in relation to FA funds is this on page 20:
"A comparison of the results in Panels A and B reveals that [TA] managers are much better able to beat their benchmarks when the market declines than when it is rising. When the benchmark return is positive, [TA] portfolio managers find it comparatively difficult to keep pace. One possible reason for the enhanced outperformance in negative months is that [TA] managers can increase cash holdings and thus buoy net returns. Even so, both the technical analysis user and nonuser beat the market index. Panel B of Table 8 contains the lone statistically significant result for average performance. On the basis of BAR, managers who consider technical analysis to be very important outperform those who do not use it by an average of 19 basis points per month, which is different from zero at the 5% significance level. Although this result is not confirmed by a nonparametric difference-of-medians test, there is directional consistency. Thus, the data provide some evidence that technical analysis conveys an advantage when market prices decline".
In other words, TA managers, if they outperform FA managers at all, do so only in down markets and do so only as a result of increasing their cash holdings and keeping the returns that they may have already made.
That is a pretty weak endorsement of the superiority of TA over FA.
Coulda, woulda, shoulda... It's an old story.
Did you read the paper that you provide the link to above? If so, where in the paper did you get the notion that the study compares "pure FA funds to those that use TA"?
There is no such comparison. The hypothesis that the authors set out to prove in the paper is that "Technical Analysis confers a risk-adjusted performance advantage to funds which use it more intensely".
But the "performance advantage" that the authors refer to is that in relation to established market indices or benchmarks. It is not against the performance of a representative pool of FA fund managers.
The contrast appears more salient during down markets, and when performance is measured
relative to a primary benchmark.
On average, FA managers couldn't beat any major Index. So much for them using FA.
An investor could make just as much money with FA managers as simply buying an index. And they won't have to the pleasure of paying those fees and stationeries.
Also, did you even look at the comparison graphs?
Unlike you, I have read the whole paper.
You cite this sentence: "The contrast appears more salient during down markets, and when performance is measured relative to a primary benchmark".
But this is precisely the issue. The paper found that TA funds only outperformed FA funds during down markets and only as a result of going to cash and reducing market exposure. When "the benchmark return is positive, [TA] portfolio managers find it comparatively difficult to keep pace...": [p.20].
Where in any of this do you find support for your contention that TA funds consistently outperform FA funds?
Unlike you, I have read the whole paper.
You cite this sentence: "The contrast appears more salient during down markets, and when performance is measured relative to a primary benchmark".
But this is precisely the issue. The paper found that TA funds only outperformed FA funds during down markets and only as a result of going to cash and reducing market exposure. When "the benchmark return is positive, [TA] portfolio managers find it comparatively difficult to keep pace...": [p.20].
Where in any of this do you find support for your contention that TA funds consistently outperform FA funds?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?