Much has been made of the issue of transparency. If a substantive change is made to a post, it is only fair that a note is put to that effect. Anyway, we'll take it that you are capable of forming an opinion in this instance, but the unnamed academic is more qualified to do so.
In the text, many assertioned are made. Commonly, in scholarly papers these are backed up with footnotes. The footnotes used must show statisitcal significance levels for the assertions. None of this happened in the paper anywhere. Where footnotes to be used to back the assertions. I'm sure all assertions could be refuted by other scholarly works of statisitical significance. I wish the authors well and I hope they can do deeper analysis in the future.
Why is it a substantive change if it is my opinion, one of my group, or a specific unnamed academic? I personally find the paper to be extremely naive and lacking in basic testing rigor. But I thought I would give it another chance with those who are more learned than myself. I'll be happy not to participate in this discussion, if that is what you are attempting to accomplish by the above frankly bizzare nitpicking and transparency allegations due to an edit. surf
justrading, There's many academic works as this that shows proof in favor of TA and many academic works that shows proof against TA. I've read so many in favor of TA and so many against TA...its a little scary that so much academic works is out there that shows such a difference from one to the other. That's why I say, there's something powerful about the human mind when two discretionary traders using the exact same objective trade strategy will get different results. Does that imply the strategy is flawed or that the users are flawed. Should it matter to someone that's profitable or should it matter to someone that's not profitable ? Anyways, I have not met any profitable trader that uses automated TA. Yet, I have met profitable discretionary traders that uses TA as one of their trading tools. On a construction project there are many types of tools...some know how to use a particular tool while others do not but are only qualified to use a different tool. TA works for some and doesn't work for others. Its as simple as that. P.S. Most academic works in favor of TA and against TA had their own "problematic" approach to using TA. Some so off the mark, I really couldn't imagine a trader using such an approach.
This is very true, and as I have said in the past, there is no way I can prove succesful SUBJECTIVE TA users dont' exist. However, I have never seen one and have seen many who claim success fail whenever put to the test. I would venture that you could remove TA from the succesful traders tool box, that you know, and the success would continue. One example is my old firm had literally 100's of traders, all with good proven track records as this was part of the screening process, tryout to gain a position as a hedge fund trader. only 1 made the cut, and his edge had nothing to do with TA. surf
Jeez Surf, spare us the drama. Your first post effectively stated you are not qualified to offer an opinion, but you would pass it on to an academic who is. In your edit, you now offer yourself as qualified to offer an opinion. So by your own admission, we should ignore any opinion you offer as that of an unqualified person? Do you see the point now? Just asking for consistency, you can't have it both ways. As to the absence of scientific rigour, JH made that point, no need to seize on it. Agree or disagree with the conclusions and state why if you can. JH saying if there had been footnotes to back the assertions, he is sure there would be other scholarly works to refute them simply invites the retort that there would then be yet other scholarly works to refute those. We wind up with a chicken and egg situation that gets us nowhere.