You think that the shocks to the capital markets, directly attributable to the stock market AND the debt market reacting to weakness in banks, doesn't feed back into the general weakness of the economy?
You think that the shocks to the capital markets, directly attributable to the stock market AND the debt market reacting to weakness in banks, doesn't feed back into the general weakness of the economy?
- Mar 20, 2000
- 102,414
- 8,356
- 126
if you have to write down a lot of assets, requiring that you sell more assets in a trough to cover your margin, rather than being able to hold until the assets are worth more (assuming you have positive cash flow and so you can pay liabilities as they come due in the ordinary course, which a lot of these 'insolvent' companies apparently do), and then having to post large losses because of it, it seems there is something wrong to me.
All the strategies that disprove it say that on a risk adjusted basis it is riskier. You can make stats say anything by saying that risk adjusted buy and hold outperforms.
I never said I believe in either strategy and there has been very few reviews of technical analysis since decimalization even though more and more traders are becoming ever technical.
senseamp
Lifer
- Feb 5, 2006
- 35,787
- 6,195
- 126
Do you think those very same banks will buy this argument if you have a margin account with them and get margin called due to market value of your assets? Try telling them you think your stocks are worth more than the market will pay for them so you shouldn't have to cover your margin, and see how long they laugh at you.
So you're saying that common stocks have a contractual payment stream? Interesting. Where do you get these?
Your connection to 401k is a silly point.
You can't short a stock without margin, what is wrong with margin accounts? Even in their hayday of the 90's only 2-3% of the volume of the exchange was on margin...
halik
Lifer
- Oct 10, 2000
- 25,696
- 1
- 0
Alpha and the whole CAPM was devised to account for risk-adjusted returns... you cannot compare returns without adjusting for the amount of you took on to get them.
Also you're categorically incorrect on the above, but also completely besides the point. Your technical strategies can be used on broad indices where the Beta will be ~1, which implies the systematic amount of risk is identical to buying and holding the index.
If you have a strategy that tells you when to buy and when to sell, you can compare that to buy and hold of the same instrument directly (if you go short on the sell signal). Even with that, no one has found a strategy that produces alpha >0
Originally posted by: Lothar
Originally posted by: Special K
I have read that there is absolutely no academic evidence supporting technical analysis.
That said, I see numerous posts in the stock market thread explaining decisions made based on technical principles.
"Charts are great for predicting the past."
-Peter Lynch
"I realized technical analysis didn't work when I turned the charts upside down and didn't get a different answer...If past history was all there was to the game, the richest people would be librarians."
-Warren Buffett
I'm more inclined to listen to them than some idiot bubblehead on CNBC spoting technical analysis data.
All this talk about "resistance", "support", etc... is moronic. I've seen no such evidence that their predictions always turn out to be correct.
Watch the march 4th daily show online if you want a good laugh about CNBC. They ripped them apart for a good 15 minutes.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/fu...jhtml?episodeId=220250
found it.
First
Lifer
- Jun 3, 2002
- 10,518
- 271
- 136
It's eventuality wasn't unexpected though, below 7000 in today's market is noticeably undervalued historically. Job market may be weak for a while (1-2 years), but equity doesn't necessarily follow the same trend line all the time. In this environment there are a boatload of non-financials with PEGs below 1. Citigroup going black is hopefully indicative of a recovery soon.
halik
Lifer
- Oct 10, 2000
- 25,696
- 1
- 0
Bob Schiller said the same today on CNBC, P/E ratios are at a historic low
http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=1059851041&play=1
what's your point? zebo is the moron who states everything as fact even though he doesn't know jack squat.
- Sep 29, 2000
- 70,150
- 5
- 0
I don't think he's short at the moment, I think he was day trading his multi-shorts. In any case, we can't know exactly what the market will do until the economy is clearly recovering and only then can there be any assurance at all that a bottom was hit.
I will readily admit the huge rallies we just have were unexpected by me (and I readily admit I also am just using hunches and guesses, which are based on no historical accuracy, personally
). I like the analogy I read about the market being a coiled spring, it was ready to explode up or down. Who knows if that's right, but I like to think so. The market sure is volatile. I still think it will go much lower but my confidence in that is shaken.TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 10K
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 7K
Facebook
Twitter