[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: [EquisMetaStock Group] Re: Synthetic cycles



PureBytes Links

Trading Reference Links

Sebastian, you’re dead right – this isn’t just meaningless academics for academic’s sake. But I’ve never been convinced by that argument that you can make something inherently random look like a stock price. I mean, sure, you can do it…but then how much else out there looks like a stock chart? A patient’s heart-beat? The soundwave-form of a Beatles song? The variation in birth-death rates over time? None of those are purely random…

 

And what does “look like” mean? Does it mean that you can model and design workable (consistently profitable) trading systems on charts created from just pure randomness?

 

Surely it’s undeniable that because there are so many people (crowds) out there trading/speculating (gambling?!) on the same thing then it sets up cycles? If we presume that most TA tools measure the same thing and that there is a huge element of commonality between various groups of trading strategies being used (e.g. volume-based, oscillator-based, trend-following, contrarian, etc) then one can assume that, for any given market, there are significant groups of traders that will get excited at roughly the same time, given a certain ‘set-up’. Then, when the price reaches a certain widely-perceived area of resistance/support many start to bail out. Then they bail back in again when the price has retraced 50% or some other Fibonacci level. That has to have some kind of cylical influence…the duration and magnitude of which is dependant on the degree of commonality between the traders (i.e. if everyone gets excited at the same time then the move will be short and sharp, wheras if there is some ‘lead/lag’ time for everyone to get the message then it will be less so). Add to that the fact that there are groups of traders acting on all kinds of different time scales and you certainly have the recipe for creating something like what Jose has represented in his “Synthetic Cycle Generator”. Only a minimal amount of noise there (i.e. the randomness in the cyclic variation)…and that looks like a stock chart!

 

Because it’s so widely followed these days, TA has become a self-fulfilling prophesy to a large extent. Therefore, (since most indicator-based strategies rely on cycles) the cyclical element in the marketplace has, I would argue, actually increased since Hurst wrote his book in 1970. That’s why there’s so much more apparent volatility and so much less ‘fundamental’ influence on prices. Unfortunately, that hasn’t necessarily meant that TA works better because the pure noise component has undoubtedly gone up with it, which also contributes to the volatility.

 

That just means that we need to constantly re-think our filters rather than ditch the very basic principle of TA – i.e. that history repeats itself.

 

By the way, that change in fundamental/cyclical /noise relationship over long periods of time is why I also do not believe that it’s helpful in back-testing systems over “massive historical data”. Markets change and so should the systems we use.

 

 


From: equismetastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:equismetastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of sebastiandanconia
Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2005 11:18 PM
To: equismetastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [EquisMetaStock Group] Re: Synthetic cycles

 

"...This is the sensational bit!  You can use random
noise, smooth it, and generate nice looking, systematic effects.  What
Slutzky did and what shocked the academic world at the time was to
mimic an actual trade cycle using only random noise..."

Burton Malkiel ("A Random Walk Down Wall Street") describes an
experiment where the outcome of coin flips (+1 for heads, -1 for
tails, and doing a running total) is displayed on a stock chart. 
After a few hundred coin-flips, the resulting pattern of numbers looks
just like the activity of a "real" stock.

These are not just meaningless egg-head, academic thought
experiments.  The implications are profound for traders/investors
using most kinds of TA, including moving averages.  If your favored TA
method can't distinguish between randomly-generated data and the real
thing, is it really measuring what's going on in the market or is it
just measuring the characteristics of a data-set?

Since we know that most stocks travel together ("the rising tide
raises all boats"), can any indicator that ignores the activity of the
overall market really be valid?  Stocks also rise and fall based on
earnings, dividends and valuations.  Can any indicator that ignores
these factors be considered valid?  What about economic factors? 
Liquidity?  Fed policy?  Float size?  Short interest?  Volume?

I stand by my original point that massive historical back-testing
using the arbitrary mathematical formulas of the vast majority of TA
methods only produces unimportant coincidental correlations, and I
would welcome any logical argument or proof that this isn't the case.


Luck,

Sebastian    






SPONSORED LINKS
Business finance course Business finance online course Business finance class
Small business finance Business finance schools Business finance small software


YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS