Paper by Ben Marshall, Rochester Cahan and Jared Cahan
Abstract:
Technical analysis is not consistently profitable in the 49 countries that comprise the Morgan Stanley Capital Index once data snooping bias is accounted for. There is some evidence that technical trading rules perform better in emerging markets than developed markets, which is consistent with the finding of previous studies that these markets are less efficient, but this result is not strong. While we cannot rule out the possibility that technical analysis compliments other market timing techniques or that trading rules we do not test are profitable, we do show that over 5,000 trading rules do not add value beyond what may be expected by chance when used in isolation.
Related:
Technical Trading Revisited: False Discoveries, Persistence Tests, and Transaction Costs
I didn’t test anything, this is an academic paper and the authors tested 5806 trading rules on 49 indices, not stocks.
so basically you’re saying that you backtested 6000 TA rules on 10000s of stocks?
right….
There is a lack of academic talent in market technicians today, but that’s not going to be the case tomorrow.
And then it will be not difficult to prove the degree of junk in the such published papers.
the default rss feed doesn’t validate but works with google reader, if you have a problem try to use:
http://www.aleablog.com/feed/atom/
that one validates fine.
thx, i will check.
your rss isnt working