|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
The activities of the Fed in the currencies in the early to mid 1990s were
often very technically oriented.
Our own Reserve Bank is technical to some extent and seems (by its
accounting books) to make money from its trading activities so they must
think Technical is worth while.
Maybe the Monetary authorities are misguided?
Should we have academics and judges trading our markets and testing and
smoothing!!!
David Hunt
http://adest.com.au
----------
| From: Andy <adle@xxxxxxxxxx>
| To: Manning Stoller <mstoller@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; sptradr@xxxxxxxxx;
omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx; Allan Kaminsky <allank@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
| Subject: Re: CFTC decision on technical analysis
| Date: Friday, May 15, 1998 12:47 AM
|
| Subject: Re: CFTC decision on technical analysis
|
|
| >There are some prestigious academics who do acknowledge the importance
of
| >technical analysis. I'm thinking in particular of MIT's prestigious Dr.
| >Andrew Lo.
|
|
| <Snip>
|
| Wasn't there an article in Futures Magazine in either 1996 or 1997 that
| stated that 2 economists from either the Fedreal Reserve or the Treasury
| Dept. found that there was some validity to the "Head and Shoulders"
| pattern's preditive powers about 60% of the time? If is so, that
technical
| analysis works. Logically, then that the efficient market THEORY (sorry
for
| the big caps but I want to state that it is just a theory, not a rule or
a
| law) and the random walk theory has been debunked?
|
|