Do most of you agree with this statement?

Discussion in 'Trading' started by drukes1234, Aug 15, 2005.

  1. "Technicals (on the daily chart) can drive the market for weeks, a month maximum, but fundamentals take over after that"

    Given the above statement, it seems to me technical analysis is a great tool for short term timing and short term timing only.
  2. The word technical analysis covers a lot of territory.

    If you wanted to go long the spy and waited for the vxo to reach between 50 and 60, it might be an excellent long term play.

    On the other hand if you used canslim to picks stocks to play on fundamentals, you should remember that the m stands for market which strongly suggests that if a stock's fundamentals are great but the market is going down, then its a bad bet.
  3. Your statement is invalid as determined by simple reasoning.

    How you got to originating it is a mystery that you might want to unravel as soon as possible.
  4. DTK


    Tell that to the person who profits off a properly backtested system or setup that runs of weekly or monthly charts.

  5. In the "Central Banking Era" amend the statement to "Technicals (on the daily chart) can drive the market for weeks, a month maximum, but Central Banking liquidity injections take over after that". :D
  6. To me this statement says that fundamentals are completely useless. Fundamentals take over a month in the future? So in a month there will be a new set of technicals drving the markets currently, but fundamentals will take over in the future.

    Basically technicals drive the markets NOW and fundamentals drive the market sometime in the non-existent future. Does that make sense to anyone else?
  7. And ultimately fundamentals take a back seat to the liquidity cycle of the markets. After all, 25 years ago, there were more than likely plenty of stocks trading at such cheap multiples historically, yet the sentiment and the impetus for buying stocks was non-existent. At some point, it becomes near impossible to find almost any stocks that trade at attractive multiples as the liquidity is so enormous it chases prices further and further away from some perceived "fair value".
  8. I think a better way to state your premise is to say that the fundamentals provide a long-term directional pull or bias, but that in the short to intermediate term there are other factors (including technical, structural, and sentiment) which determine how prices move.
  9. I personally believe that technical analysis is acceptable for longer term investing. Fundamentals however are NEVER to be ignored since fundamentals tell the true story and technical only watches the story as it unfolds.
  10. Trading is like religion.

    Fundamental = whether god(s) exist or not

    TA = how ppl perceive

    I don't mean to say that all religions are fake. But at least some of them are not true otherwise there won't be so many religions...

    But no matter what the fundamental is, all major religions will remain or at least stay for a long time.

    Same case in trading, TA is itself is reality as long as ppl keep on believing.... no matter what the fundamental is...

    Unless human nature changes, TA will still stay a major force.... Don't expect TA to be shadowed by fundamental in the long run.... it is simply not the case....

    And some ppl go to the church not to worship God but for the church time... in the same manner some ppl trade not based on rational reasons but their own hopes/fears...
    #10     Aug 16, 2005