|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Manning,
Interesting history. Thanks for sharing that with the list.
Neil Harrington
-----Original Message-----
From: Manning Stoller <mstoller@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: klkevin@xxxxxxx <klkevin@xxxxxxx>
Cc: omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx <omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thursday, May 14, 1998 9:49 AM
Subject: Re: CFTC decision on technical analysis
>You are correct in that.
>A little background first:
>I was one of the original advisors to the CFTC back in 1975 when it was
formed. The
>risk disclosure document was my baby and to this day, it has retained the
same
>language.
>At the same time in 1975, my committee recognized that hypothetical results
were being
>presented in the same way as real-time and resulted in unfair
representations. That is
>why we made the distinction between hypothetical and realtime. In fact, the
committee
>wanted to completely ban any hypothetical results but cooler heads
prevailed. The
>substance of our stand was - complete disclosure-.
>That said, I can understand the problem of RW. They failed to clearly
identify
>hypothetical with real.
>But, and this is a big but- Judge Levine stated in his opinion that the
claims of R&W
>could not be true because "generally accepted principles of economics, as
well as
>common sense, instruct us that such a happy discovery is not to be. In
>contradistinction to the hucksters of retail trading programs, respected
scholars are
>virtually unified in their recognition that even the most legitimate
technical
>systems...are incapable or providing the trader with any significant market
>advantage."
>This hearing was an administrative hearing, not a court trial.
>Of the 20 plus billion dollars in managed futures programs, the vast
majority is
>managed by technical analysis systems. One must wonder why the judge chose
only to
>give credit to the ivory tower academics and not the real world.
>
>Best to all,
>
>Manning Stoller
>
>Kevin wrote:
>
>> I believe the point is, they were representing actual gains of xxx% when
>> in fact there was no actual trading which took place. Or in other words,
>> they did not represent that these were hypothetical results and
>> apparently could not even show data which produced these results.
>>
>> > The comments made by Judge Levine, as I understand them, were part of
the
>> > record. I am trying to dig out the article. If you take it literally,
every
>> > technical analysts is committing fraud, including every technician who
works for
>> > a brokerage house, the fund groups, etc. It's the old random walk
theory and
>> > nothing will help anyone do better.
>> >
>
|