|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
I have not done this recently but did do this long ago ... You don't
really need to adjust per se but you do need to have historical
fundamentals that you can OBJECTIVELY evaluate in order to decide
what the higher ranking or scoring tradables are. These are not easy
to come by even in todays world. I may have missed or may still be
missing something but I long ago concluded that price & volume are
where it's at as they reflect the sum total of knowledge or
perception of knowledge that's out there.
--- In amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "seneca_kw" <seneca_kw@xxxx> wrote:
>
> Fred,
>
> You're probably right, I just haven't seen anyone put forward hard
> numbers to support it. The details of the testing would be a
little
> tricky. Off the top of my head, I guess I would create a watchlist
> of stocks with top-rated fundamentals and one with bottom-rated
> fundamentals. Then I'd run various types of trading setups with
each
> watchlist and see if the differences in the results were
> statistically significant.
>
> One of the problems, though, is that you would need to test over at
> least several years of data, and since fundamentals are constantly
> changing, you'd have to adjust for that somehow.
>
> Wayne
>
>
> --- In amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Fred" <ftonetti@xxxx> wrote:
> >
> > You're right ... It does SOUND good ... If you have earnings data
> for
> > a few years I suggest you test your theory of buying good
> fundamental
> > candidates on dips .vs. buying candidates based on price action
> > leading up to the dip, preferably from at least the previous
dip.
> In
> > ten words or less I think you'll find that stocks with better
price
> > action perform better ... Why ? because not only is everyone
aware
> of
> > the published fundamentals and already factored that into current
> > price, but SOME are more aware then that and that is factored
into
> > price as well.
> >
> > --- In amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "seneca_kw" <seneca_kw@xxxx>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > To my mind, this is one of the biggest questions in trading.
> Does
> > > including fundamentals provide an additional edge? It
certainly
> > > seems plausible. If you're buying pullbacks, it makes sense
that
> a
> > > company with strong fundamentals is more likely to reverse to
the
> > > upside than a company with weak fundamentals.
> > >
> > > The fact that something is plausible doesn't make it true.
Like
> > > everything, it needs to be tested, and that's what I'd be very
> > > interested in hearing about. Even if someone doesn't have
> results
> > to
> > > share, I'd be interested in discussing ideas about HOW to do
the
> > > testing.
> > >
> > > Wayne
> > >
> > > --- In amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Claude Caruana"
> > > <claudecaruana@xxxx> wrote:
> > > > Hi all,
> > > >
> > > > I am an Amibroker user for a few weeks now and I must say it
is
> > > about to
> > > > turn my trading method 180%.
> > > >
> > > > I initially purchased Amibroker to be able to generate
optimal
> > > signals for a
> > > > watchlist of around 100 stocks which I have selected for
their
> > > fundumentals,
> > > > however I am finding that my results work much better and
more
> > > consistently
> > > > on the entire stock universe (The 7000 tickers I have loaded
in
> > my
> > > db) than
> > > > if I try running it on any watchlists containing less that
200
> > > tickers.
> > > >
> > > > I find that, in general, the most reliable entry signals
occur
> > very
> > > > infrequently, and hence, signals are too few and far apart to
> > create
> > > > consistent results when the basis is my 100 stock watchlist.
If
> I
> > > try to
> > > > "loosen the parameters" and get an optimal number of signals
> for
> > my
> > > 100
> > > > stocks, then the system will not be as reliable as the one
> > > with "tighter
> > > > parameters" scanning the entire stock universe.
> > > >
> > > > Before I ditch my fundumental approach (which quite franky
has
> > yet
> > > to give
> > > > me positve results!) altogether and start using a technical-
> only
> > > system, I
> > > > would be very grateful if anybody could confirm whether my
> > > observation about
> > > > entry signals is normal, or whether I am missing something.
> > > Finally, are
> > > > there any of you out there who trade using technicals only?
> > > >
> > > > thanks for any feedback!
> > > >
> > > > Claude
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Has someone you know been affected by illness or disease?
Network for Good is THE place to support health awareness efforts!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/Rcy2bD/UOnJAA/cosFAA/GHeqlB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
Check AmiBroker web page at:
http://www.amibroker.com/
Check group FAQ at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/amibroker/files/groupfaq.html
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/amibroker/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
amibroker-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|