Talk:Technical analysis/Archive 1

message: I removed Stage Chart Investing as it gets only two google hits, and is obviously not popular enough to warrant a mention. DJ Clayworth 21:02, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Stage Chart Investing

message: Personally I think technical analysis is just technology to aid in decsion making. Generally people want as much information as possible when making a decision. Imagine a world with two day traders, one has indicators, and charts, the other has nothing. Which is more likely to choose better entry and exit points?  Take this a step futher, imagine one has a ticker and one has no idea what the price is. Yet both have to buy and sell a stock within a defined time frame. It would be hard to argue that the person without even a ticker would make a better decision than a person with a ticker. To me a ticker is where technical analysis first started, I don't think any trader anywhere would think about abandoning it.
I am bring this up as just another view point on technical analysis. I don't think it is so much about "predicting" where a price will go, perse, as it is about giving you an idea of what is likely to happen. Science tends to deal more with 99% confidence, technical analysis, IMHO deals with much wider probabilities, and is there more as a guide as opposed to a definite statement.
Masparasol  Oct 22, 2005
===A way forward?===
I agree with the view above.  I see it as a method of analysis.  "Beliefs" don't need to come into it, and would be generalisations anyway.  I would like to see the article focus on the method, less on the criticisms, less on the beliefs.   A suggestion of article layout is:
*a general description of the method
*some of tools used (with links to a comprehensive list of tools)
*the history of the method
*users of the method today
*comparison with other analysis methods (include alternative/similar theories here.  Don't think in terms of criticism anymore, as it's not working for this article clearly!)
How does that sound for a NPOV article?  
CrazyGoldy 06:14, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Technical Analysis as a Technology

message: I agree with the view above.  I see it as a method of analysis.  "Beliefs" don't need to come into it, and would be generalisations anyway.  I would like to see the article focus on the method, less on the criticisms, less on the beliefs.   A suggestion of article layout is:
*a general description of the method
*some of tools used (with links to a comprehensive list of tools)
*the history of the method
*users of the method today
*comparison with other analysis methods (include alternative/similar theories here.  Don't think in terms of criticism anymore, as it's not working for this article clearly!)
How does that sound for a NPOV article?  
CrazyGoldy 06:14, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: A way forward?

message: I notice that someone edited the criticism section regarding Random Walk theory.   Reference is given to an MIT professor and that he disproved Random Walk theory.   Does this belong in an article on technical analysis?   Moreover, I do not know if this person's work has been peer reviewed and is considered factual.  I.e., does the academic community now discredit Random Walk?      I am not sure if this portion belongs in this article.    I do not think it is too wise to go into too much detail regarding RW in this article.
Could someone please either provide a citation that validates this statement, or delete it (in Criticism section):  "Many large financial institution employ technical analysts to aid them in making investments."  I suspect this to be anecdotal only.  And use of singular ("institution") where the plural should apply.203.103.221.41 22:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 2006 Comments!