I would not say it helped me improve my trading but yes, it helped explore and test different tactics and strategies. It is not the certification that improved my trading but the years of watching prices move, and that unexplained connection you build with price behavior. Recognizing tops, bottoms, reversals and ranges. Trading them is another story!! Nothing beats learning it the hard way. Big difference between theory and practice, i would say the certification is only half the work. Without a certification, you can still get much of the theory from books like (Magee, Pring & Murphy). It all depends what you want to do, trading or analysis.
AHL, Winton, Aspect, Bluetrend, Cantab, Transtrend, Graham, ISAM. "Which companies do they work for?" Don't understand the question. Their core trend following is mostly built on evolutions of moving average crossover; slightly improved but still highly correlated to that. The reason for that these firms, and the people they employ, grew out of the AHL / Mint 'DNA'. GAT
Yes, I think it's perfectly valid if they have the credentials and have worked in the industry. Just as valid as your credentials may be. You do realize correlation trading and dispersions involve looking at historical price charts that bear no outcome on the future? This is why I said what funds do now is based on TA and is like TA on steroids. It's got a fancier name, "quantitative analysis", but is still rooted in TA. Seems you haven't carefully read my post, or understood it. You really think support/resistance levels aren't watched by the professionals? You really think they don't use fibs or MA's at all? You're really telling me all global macro funds will just randomly enter based on fundamentals? Because I can find many of them saying they use TA concepts for entries, even ones managing billions. Do I really need to prove this? Just because YOU or YOUR FIRMS don't use TA, doesn't mean other professionals don't. And sorry, but QA is based on original TA concepts and therefore by looking at past price and analyzing what it's done, you are using a form of TA whether you want to admit it or not. Just because you add math into the calculations doesn't mean you're not analyzing historical charts anymore. Of course it's not how TA has become in the retail crowd nowadays. I mean astronomy in markets, really? But TA was once used in a professional manner to read order flow in price action, that is the professional way of using it and is still used to this day by many professionals.
Acting on price is a part of TA. Volume, hmm sounds like Wyckoff. HFT firms can call what they do whatever they want, that doesn't negate the fact that analyzing historical price came from TA and what they do now is related to TA.
another one who has never worked in financial markets yet pretends to know it all. Just because correlation or dispersion studies make use of time series does not mean anyone drools over charts, Fibonacci series or whatever they are called, or moving averages. If you claim such then you only give testimony to your own lack of understanding.
Pretends to know it all? Really? If you want to make such bold statements please back them up rather than just making dumbfounded statements. I could do the same for you. Correlation and dispersion make use of price over time data (time series). So do MA's and other indicators. Although both have different purposes, both depend on what price has done over time historically, which is a tenant of TA. Like I said, quants may give it a fancier name but as much as they hate to say it, they are trading a form of TA with just heavier math calculations and testing. Please disprove how QA is not based on historical data over time and then maybe I can call you the oh so wise mr. Market genius. Btw, I never said quants use technical studies. I said what they do is based on TA. However, not all traders are quants. There are small funds and money managers who trade with fundamentals AND TA. I hope that's simple enough to understand because you are either not reading or properly understanding what I post.
That's your opinion not a fact. Otherwise you'd be able to back up such a claim with proof, something you are failing to do.
One of the major components of mortgage products are interest rates. The value of a treasury bond largely depends on interest rates. Ergo a treasury bond is a mortgage. Welcome to the idiotic world of common ET logic.
http://www.montypython.net/scripts/argument.php I hear the youtube video is better but it is no longer available. Too bad.