Twelve widely believed forex myths | Page 5 | Forex Factory

Options

Go to
Permalinks
Print Thread

Similar Threads

Twelve stepping stones for rookies 21 replies

Trading Myths and Some Forex Math 337 replies

10k (0.1) Position $300 to $64k In Twelve Weeks 17 replies

Forex Myths 29 replies

Anyone know most widely used EA? 1 reply

Attachments: Twelve widely believed forex myths
Exit Attachments

Twelve widely believed forex myths

  • #81
  • Edited 3:54am Dec 18, 2015 1:20am | Edited 3:54am
Quoting tibovwh
I'm a bit confused as to whether I should be doing research or whether I should be looking at charts and look at price action / patterns.
People see things differently. It's possible to be a profitable trader without thinking in terms of 'edges', 'inefficiencies', or other esoteric terms that textbooks frequently use. At the end of the day, if you're making money, why should it matter?

Traders who use FA, or are otherwise aware of the factors that drive prices, i.e. that operate 'behind' the candles, are possibly more likely to think in these terms. Myth #22 lists some potentially exploitable inefficiencies. However, traders who use TA profitably might simply trade the price patterns that the inefficiencies create, without knowing why these patterns occur. For example, climax volume candles that close in or around supply/demand areas (as seen by the technical trader) frequently signpost the accumulation of orders by heavyweight (or "professional") traders (as seen by the trader who understands orderflow).

Another example might be something as simple as turncoat or flipover S/R (that's when support becomes resistance, or vice versa). A technical trader might simply look at this pattern, and perhaps wait for some confirmation before entering. The fundamentalist understands this in terms of trapped trader behavior and (if the breakaway is fast) cascading stoplosses, i.e. in terms of where (large volumes of) buy and sell orders are.

One more example: extreme overbought or oversoldness. The technical trader's indicators inform him of this, while the fundamentalist understands that the subsequent retracement as an inefficiency that's caused by profit taking, and some counter trend traders entering the market.

I suppose it goes something like this: the fundamentalist understands how a car's engine works, but the technical trader can still drive the 'car' perfectly well.

You might also enjoy this well-known and controversial post by Joel Rensink, especially the part where he talks about professional traders understanding the nature of their edges.
  • #82
  • Dec 18, 2015 2:21am Dec 18, 2015 2:21am
Quoting hanover
{quote} People see things differently. It's possible to be a profitable trader without thinking in terms of 'edges', 'inefficiencies', or other esoteric terms that textbooks frequently use. At the end of the day, if you're making money, why should it matter? Traders who use FA, or are otherwise aware of the factors that drive prices, i.e. that operate 'behind' the candles, are possibly more likely to think in these terms. Myth #22 lists some potentially exploitable inefficiencies. However, traders who use TA profitably might simply trade the...
I'm shocked to be reading this. I have not heard of a single profitable trader who just trades tech. At least not profitable in any manner that I regard as significant or worth paying attention towards. I'm sure there are people out there slapping a few tech trades a year who have a positive trend in their account, but how much should anyone care about a handful of trades. All of the profitable traders that come to mind have a clear understanding of the fundamentals happening off the charts. Holy shit this forum loves itself some tech, and I'm not seeing any of them being legit profitable past the first 20 trades.

Your example of tech and driving a car isn't anywhere near correct IMHO. It's more like, the fundamentalist understands how the car functions, while the tech trader fucks with the aircon and pumps the clutch claiming their impotent bunny-hopping is going to get them somewhere before the car dies on them.

TRT's very last line in the very post you linked refers to, at that time, the upcoming NFP. Join the dots between his talk of breakouts and his final remark mentioning NFP.

Everyone chases an edge in tech because it appeals to the lazy in people. It's easier to set a buy stop above some perceived "tech level" than to understand when that level actually matters. Squiggly lines and flashing lights isn't what any market is ever about.
Congratulations ScalaFX for coming out of the closet!
  • #83
  • Edited 3:51am Dec 18, 2015 3:35am | Edited 3:51am
Quoting nubcake
I have not heard of a single profitable trader who just trades tech.
I do know at least three traders who use TA successfully, or perhaps I should say TA plus some discretion. One of them posts infrequently here, and his business partner is a fund manager who trades a small part of my investment portfolio (so I hope he knows what he's doing!). They trade other markets as well as forex. I also have a friend who uses TA plus some S/W analysis. He's been trading for several years, and when I last visited him he had a couple of 6 figure accounts (not demo!) running. I assume that he's still profitable.

I feel like I've progressed considerably since I started learning FA around 12 months ago. Having said that, I know a couple of technical setups that work due to the orderflow that frequently underlies them. I'm not going to disclose these publicly, for obvious reasons.

Yeah, perhaps the car analogy wasn't that good. I've never been good with analogies.

I wasn't suggesting that Joel was a technical trader. I had a friend (I say "had" because I haven't communicated with him for a few years) who attended one of Joel's workshops, and he told me that Joel uses several different systems, many of whose edge is based around statistical measures. But anyway, I was referring primarily to Joel's comment about how pro traders know exactly what their edge is.
  • #84
  • Dec 18, 2015 4:41am Dec 18, 2015 4:41am
Quote
or perhaps I should say TA plus some discretion

You should.

Quote
S/W analysis

I can't work-out what S/W stands for.

Quote
I know a couple of technical setups that work due to the orderflow that frequently underlies them.

Which is to say that it's more than a tech setup. And if it was heavily orderflow influenced I dare say there's some fundamental frosting on that tech cake.
Congratulations ScalaFX for coming out of the closet!
  • #85
  • Dec 18, 2015 5:05am Dec 18, 2015 5:05am
Quoting nubcake
{quote} You should. {quote} I can't work-out what S/W stands for. {quote} Which is to say that it's more than a tech setup. And if it was heavily orderflow influenced I dare say there's some fundamental frosting on that tech cake.
Fair enough. With the 3 traders that I mentioned, AFAIK they do employ a lot of discretion in their entries, but it's mainly to do with things like which instruments to trade, and which setups to take, as opposed to looking at economic stuff like central bank agendas, sentiment etc. Hence I guess it depends what is meant by "fundamental".

Charts can provide a footprint of things like orderflow. So what I was saying (clumsily, perhaps) is that some techie could potentially see a pattern that delivers some kind of directional bias, without knowing the underlying reason (orderflow) why. I gave a couple of possible examples in my original post.

S/W = currency strength/weakness.

There are hundreds of debates on the merits of TA on this forum. I don't want to get into another one, especially as it's midnight here in NZ and I need some sleep. The last word is yours, if you want it.
  • #86
  • Dec 18, 2015 5:16am Dec 18, 2015 5:16am
Quote
if you want it.

I want, because I'm greedy like that.
Congratulations ScalaFX for coming out of the closet!
  • #87
  • Dec 18, 2015 7:22am Dec 18, 2015 7:22am
Quoting tibovwh
Myth#1: Exploiting a market inefficiency I agree with your point. How much % of profitable traders, do you think, does not truly know what market inefficiency they are exploiting? I'm a bit confused as to whether I should be doing research or whether I should be looking at charts and look at price action / patterns... Best,
Speculative trading has nothing to do with exploiting inefficiencies. That is within the realm of arbitrage.

Speculators prefer free markets that are highly efficient and actively traded.

I would agree that most people don't have a clue as to what they are doing. Including the ones that think they are exploiting some inefficiency in the currency market.
Quoting nubcake
I'm shocked to be reading this. I have not heard of a single profitable trader who just trades tech. At least not profitable in any manner that I regard as significant or worth paying attention towards. I'm sure there are people out there slapping a few tech trades a year who have a positive trend in their account, but how much should anyone care about a handful of trades. All of the profitable traders that come to mind have a clear understanding of the fundamentals happening off the charts. Holy shit this forum loves itself some tech, and I'm not...
lol.
  • #88
  • Dec 18, 2015 8:12am Dec 18, 2015 8:12am
Quoting nubcake
{quote} I'm shocked to be reading this. I have not heard of a single profitable trader who just trades tech. At least not profitable in any manner that I regard as significant or worth paying attention towards. I'm sure there are people out there slapping a few tech trades a year who have a positive trend in their account, but how much should anyone care about a handful of trades. All of the profitable traders that come to mind have a clear understanding of the fundamentals happening off the charts. Holy shit this forum loves itself some tech, and...
Oh crap. Something unthinkable has happened. I agree with something Nubcake has said.
  • #89
  • Edited 6:12pm Dec 18, 2015 11:10am | Edited 6:12pm
Quote
Speculative trading has nothing to do with exploiting inefficiencies. That is within the realm of arbitrage. Speculators prefer free markets that are highly efficient and actively traded. I would agree that most people don't have a clue as to what they are doing. Including the ones that think they are exploiting some inefficiency in the currency market.
Efficient Market Hypothesis is a theory that beating the market is impossible because assets are already accurately priced and reflect all available information. In which case it is theoretically impossible to gain a profitable advantage from any trading strategy. If EMH is true, investors should place their money in index funds to earn the same returns as the overall market. [Source: Investopedia]

Hence an inefficiency implies inaccurate pricing, i.e. that an asset is temporarily over or undervalued, and will consequently adjust to its 'fair' value. Different methods of analysis seek to forecast fair value in different ways, allowing the trader to take advantage of any 'mispricing'. Hence, by this definition, the trader/speculator would prefer a market that contains inefficiencies, that is if his analysis is capable of ascertaining whether the current price is above or below the 'fair' price, allowing him to trade it back toward the latter, on a better than 50/50 basis. That is what is meant by an 'edge'.

According to Investopedia, inefficiencies in markets may occur because:
1. All investors view information differently and will therefore value the asset differently.
2. Assets take time to respond to new information. Investors who receive or act on this information first can take advantage of it.
3. Asset prices can be affected by human error and emotional decision making.
4. Investors have proven that they can profit from market anomalies/inefficiencies.

Arbitrage refers to "the simultaneous purchase and sale of an asset, in order to profit from the difference in price. It is a trade that profits by exploiting price differences of identical or similar financial instruments, on different markets or in different forms". Because both the purchase and sale prices are known, there is no speculation involved: the return is guaranteed at no risk.

As I've already indicated, I personally know traders who've been consistently successful for many years. Hence it's reasonable to assume that their profits are not merely fortuitous, thereby justifying their assertion that their analysis gives them a a genuine 'edge'. And one that is completely unrelated to arbitrage.
  • #90
  • Dec 18, 2015 4:37pm Dec 18, 2015 4:37pm
Quoting GEfx
{quote} Oh crap. Something unthinkable has happened. I agree with something Nubcake has said.
It's happened before bae. Don't be like that.
Congratulations ScalaFX for coming out of the closet!
  • #91
  • Dec 18, 2015 6:59pm Dec 18, 2015 6:59pm
Quoting hanover
Efficient Market Hypothesis is a theory that beating the market is impossible because assets are already accurately priced and reflect all available information. In which case it is theoretically impossible to gain a profitable advantage from any trading strategy.
Yes, thats the definition. Though the statement that it is impossible to beat doesn't follow. If we accept the premise then its still possible to win by being the lucky survivor of a random process.

There isn't anything other than luck to explain it if you wish to demonstrate cause and effect.
Quote
Hence an inefficiency implies inaccurate pricing, i.e. that an asset is temporarily over or undervalued, and will consequently adjust to its 'fair' value. Different methods of analysis seek to forecast fair value in different ways, allowing the trader to take advantage of any 'mispricing'. Hence, by this definition, the trader/speculator would prefer a market that contains inefficiencies, that is if his analysis is capable of ascertaining whether the current price is above or below the 'fair' price, allowing him to trade it back toward the latter,...
I have no reason to believe that liquid and actively traded markets contain such mispricings. Mispricings get ironed out in seconds. Even large mispricings. Consider the SNB spectacle. Buyers and sellers will take advantage of any available objective fundamental information before the public even becomes aware.

I would only want to speculate in markets that are highly efficient in reflecting perfectly all fundamental conditions.
Quote
Arbitrage refers to "the simultaneous purchase and sale of an asset, in order to profit from the difference in price. It is a trade that profits by exploiting price differences of identical or similar financial instruments, on different markets or in different forms". Because both the purchase and sale prices are known, there is no speculation involved: the return is guaranteed at no risk. As I've already indicated, I personally know traders who've been consistently successful for many years. Hence it's reasonable to assume that their profits are...
That is the definition, and arbitrage certainly exploits market inefficiencies.
  • #92
  • Edited Dec 19, 2015 4:21am Dec 18, 2015 9:57pm | Edited Dec 19, 2015 4:21am
One of the issues I have with the contrasting views of whether the markets are efficient or not is that they are diametrically opposed theoretical viewpoints with no middle ground and significantly material to your trading philosophy.

So what happens if you merge the principles that liquid markets are BOTH efficient given the plethora of it's participants and their various agendas AND at times prone to subtle price biases associated with price action amplification associated with slight market inefficiencies such as time lags or other inefficient feature. In wave dynamics we are used to collective interference effects and principles of constructive or deconstructive intereference. Why is the market any different? Are we simply being blinded by our theory and modelling assumptions? It doesn't have to be an either or argument. Occams razor whilst a general valid principle and applicable to simple linear physical systems sucks in the land of the physics of complex systems and modelling reality and in particular in the field of cognitive neurosciences where that troublesome brain or its algorithmic manifestations enters the equation.

A very slight time lag can have a significant impact in complex systems. The miniscule time lag for example between a buy and sell in say a perfect hedged trade can create large dissipative structures in a supposedly perfectly efficient system. If we assume that markets are efficient, then what does that mean about our stance on correlation for example?

Inserted Video



Welcome to the World of Chaos

Inserted Video
  • #93
  • Edited 11:57pm Dec 18, 2015 11:35pm | Edited 11:57pm
SOME THOUGHTS ON THE RANDOM WALK AND EFFICIENT MARKET THEORIES
There are a select few who regularly profit from their involvement in organized markets, and there is the great majority of people who do not. Among the points which distinguish successful traders and investors on one hand from the vast majority of market participants and most of the academic community on the other, are the acceptance by the latter group of the notion of organized markets as a random walk, and the ability to distinguish organized from unorganized markets because of the so-called efficient market theory.

The most important yet simplistic implication of market logic is that anyone can now locate value in an organized (or in fact any) market. Thus, one can determine when price is below value, at value or above it. Armed with this information, so long as one has the other requisite characteristics, one can join the ranks of the few who make money consistently in the organized markets. A secondary implication of market logic must therefore be that it refutes both the random walk and efficient market theories currently in vogue among the majority of the academic community. Consider each of these long-accepted theories regarding market activity.

Random Walk
The theory of price fluctuation as a random walk (and the term itself) has been used for centuries. There are numerous definitions of random walk, and each definition varies in shades depending on who is doing the defining. According to Robert Hagins Dow Jones-Irwin Guide to Modern Portfolio Theory, random walk is a term used in mathematics and statistics to describe a process in which successive changes are statistically independent. A random walk implies (that the market's price displays) no discernible pattern of travel. The size and direction of the next step cannot be predicted from the size and direction of the last or even from all previous steps. The serial correlation is (functionally) zero. In other words, the random walk theory holds that it is impossible to predict tomorrow's price changes based on what has occurred today.

Every market is an auction market, either passive or active. In a passive auction, the individual does not take part in an active negotiation process but selects from products offered at different prices which make up the range. In an active auction, participants negotiate the range. Whether the auction is passive or active, all markets auction or trend up and down in order to fulfill their purpose, to facilitate trade. In an auction, prices do not develop randomly, but rather to fulfill the purpose of the auction.

The purpose of any market is to facilitate trade. Lack of trade facilitation inevitably causes price to move. This price movement behavior is as true in the organized markets as it is in a grocery store or any other everyday market. Thus, price changes to satisfy the condition of the market and every price is a result of the condition of the market. The fact that price moves for a specific reason further precludes price from developing in a random manner.

Furthermore, prices are not statistically independent of each other. Price, in moving to satisfy the condition of the market, provides an informational flow. In other words markets must generate trade, and in doing so, prices fluctuate, generating information about where trade is being conducted and where it is not. This information is valuable to the market participant. But true randomness does not generate valuable information. In other words, in statistically random situations, knowledge of the present is not important for it conveys no advantage. If knowledge of the present structure of a market is important and does convey an advantage - a market cannot be a random walk. Price moves because of the degree of each timeframe's participation at various levels of price.

Efficient Markets
According to Robert Hagin, The efficient market theory is the assertion that in a market with numerous investors who prefer high returns over low returns and low risk over high risk, information is of no value. An investor can attain no more or less than a fair return for the risks undertaken.

In the semi-strong form, the efficient market theory hypothesizes a market in which all publicly available information is efficiently impounded on the price of a stock, and hence a market in or item of publicly available information that can be used to predict future price changes.

An efficient market does not allow price to get away from value, since the theory holds that information is of no value since it is factored into the market, as every price must represent fair value. If price is always in equilibrium of value, then the theory presumes that prices are indistinguishable from one another in all but number. Thus, according to the efficient market hypothesis, all prices represent value, and the market is balanced at every moment: all the needs and concerns of the entire marketplace - participants in every known and unknown timeframe - are brought to the present by a price representing value for all. This seldom occurs and when it does, it is happenstance, and non-discernible except by the lack of activity.

Different participants have different timeframes for buying and/or selling; longer timeframe participants seek to buy low and sell high, and short timeframe participants must transact sooner and cannot be as discriminating. Thus, all markets including organized markets are inefficient from the standpoint that participants with differing time- frames view the most recent price with differing opinions and do not participate at the same time and at the same price. In other words, a given price is not viewed as an equal opportunity for all. The market cannot at any one moment balance all the needs and concerns of the entire marketplace participants in every known and unknown timeframe since the most recent price does not represent the same thing to all participants. In other words, no single price represents fair value for everyone.

Rather than being efficient, all organized markets are effective. They are effective from the standpoint that they produce and regulate trade, bringing into play all participants over time. In other words, the market facilitates trade from all participants, not with each individual price, but over a large sample size. The fact that participants with different timeframes exist precludes a price dominated by one time-frame from being fair value for all. The efficient market hypothesis overlooks the existence of participant timeframes.

The assumption of "randomness and the efficient market hypothesis" assumes that the market - price movement over time -conveys no knowledge or information. Instead, it assumes that if a trader profits from a market, he has resorted to predicting, and his luck will sooner or later run out. However, one need not predict the future in a market of uncertainty. It is impossible to always accurately predict future events. But we can monitor the market, understand its present condition and how current price relates to the market's current assessed value, and from this, we can logically deduce probable behavior, and adjust our assessment from the new information the market provides as it unfolds. And by extracting bits of market-generated information, we can deduce and change.

The Academic Community's Ball and Chain
One rule that most successful individuals and businesses have incorporated into their operating procedure is not to pursue any endeavor in which they face a disadvantage before correcting those things that create their disadvantage. In other words, it is important to continually assess and reassess what is producing successful results, discarding what does not yield success.

Yet, the academic community continues to pursue the refinement or studies based on fallacious assumptions about the market, particularly the random walk and efficient market theories. Gaining knowledge from experience has not been practiced by the academic community, not out of malfeasance, but because in modem society knowledge can more easily be gained from a formal classroom teaching environment. Instead of examining reality, rethinking fundamental market assumptions and seeking a new course of thought. The academic community continues to pursue the disadvantage as taught in the classroom.

This is not meant to be a pedantic indictment of the academic mindset. Clearly, it is difficult in most institutions to gain a true evaluation of reality. It is even more difficult within an institutional setting for the status quo to change, regardless of whether what is accepted is correct or not. The academic community is not guilty of anything worse than not taking a leadership role in thinking logically about markets. But times have changed.

Those who understand the condition of the market (where price over time is building value) are conveyed an advantage from which they can profit whereas those who focus on prices against each other must assume randomness and no understanding

J.Peter.Steidlmayer Markets and Market logic
Markets are not efficient, rather they are effective - Jones
  • #94
  • Edited 12:54am Dec 19, 2015 12:17am | Edited 12:54am
Nice post mzvega

Quoting mzvega
According to Robert Hagins Dow Jones-Irwin Guide to Modern Portfolio Theory, random walk is a term used in mathematics and statistics to describe a process in which successive changes are statistically independent. A random walk implies (that the market's price displays) no discernible pattern of travel. The size and direction of the next step cannot be predicted from the size and direction of the last or even from all previous steps. The serial correlation is (functionally) zero.
Of course the reality of this statement is based on an assumption relating to past price behaviour. For example at a particular moment in time, the price of an instrument according to no serial correlation would be any value ranging from 0 to potential infinity. When for example we determine a random number sequence, we implicitly define a range for that randomness and the price at (t-1) is typically the initial condition from which we then produce our random number. This fact alone infers at least a price correlation to the preceding time interval.

Quoting mzvega
Furthermore, prices are not statistically independent of each other. Price, in moving to satisfy the condition of the market, provides an informational flow.
I totally agree with this. The market IS information in the form of price stamped into it from it's participants.


Quoting mzvega
But true randomness does not generate valuable information.
Exactly.

PS The only consideration I would include is that exploitation of the market can not only come from convergent trading strategies assuming price reverts to an intrinsic value but also for the the possibility of divergent trading strategies that relate to a feature of auto-correlation existing in current price.
  • #95
  • Dec 19, 2015 2:05am Dec 19, 2015 2:05am
Quotes from a genius:

Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality.
- Nikola Tesla

The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.
- Nikola Tesla

It is paradoxical, yet true, to say, that the more we know, the more ignorant we become in the absolute sense, for it is only through enlightenment that we become conscious of our limitations. Precisely one of the most gratifying results of intellectual evolution is the continuous opening up of new and greater prospects.
- Nikola Tesla
-------------------------------------

Here is what I think:
Most scientific theories we have today are obviously wrong. We tend to make assumptions based on insufficient information often even without real experiments. And then from this assumptions we create theories about everything. And finally based on the theories we assume we know and understand the world. Hopeless we are as human beings! Time and new more advanced understanding always prove us wrong. What we think as correct and advanced science today will be completely laughable in the future after 500 or 1000 years. And this process of improvement over old theories will continue indefinitely. We do not have the capacity to achieve perfect and complete understanding of the world.

I think that there is nothing impossible in this world. (just look at where we are today in comparison to just 2 centuries ago)
There is only inability and ignorance in us because we are humans. With time and continuous effort we improve our understanding. But we also open the door for infinitely more new problems and possibilities.
  • #96
  • Dec 19, 2015 2:39am Dec 19, 2015 2:39am
Many thanks, everybody, for your replies and contributions to this thread. I've enjoyed reading them all.
  • #97
  • Feb 22, 2016 1:50am Feb 22, 2016 1:50am
Quoting mzvega
SOME THOUGHTS ON THE RANDOM WALK AND EFFICIENT MARKET THEORIES
I think this theory was created by angry math professors who thought since they understand math and probability on a deeper level could easly get rich. Did not work, so they created a hate speech on market speculation. Similar to forum posts where people claim forex dont work.
Price-Action Extremist
  • #98
  • Feb 22, 2016 1:52am Feb 22, 2016 1:52am
Quoting alphaomega
Quotes from a genius: Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality. - Nikola Tesla The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane. - Nikola Tesla It is paradoxical, yet true, to say, that the more we know, the more ignorant we become in the absolute sense, for it is only through enlightenment that we become conscious of...
Flying cars will be impossible, faster than light travel and traveling to other stars, hoverboards that actually use anti-gravity.

Quote
Most scientific theories we have today are obviously wrong.
I dont think you know how science works. It is about creating theories then testing them. Checking if something is wrong or not is part of it.
Price-Action Extremist
  • #99
  • Feb 22, 2016 7:56am Feb 22, 2016 7:56am
Quoting bagman
I think this theory was created by angry math professors who thought since they understand math and probability on a deeper level could easly get rich. Did not work, so they created a hate speech on market speculation. Similar to forum posts where people claim forex dont work.
The random walk hypothesis is soundly disproven by the continued profitability of purely technical trading systems.

Market efficiency is not antithetical to profitable speculation. It only becomes incompatible if you hold the belief that there exists some 'actual' valuation of an asset that is not reflected in current supply and demand. Why a retail speculator would put his opinion of fundamental factors above the captains of a particular industry is beyond me. Sometimes your opinion plays out, sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes you are right but the market doesn't concur with you and sometimes you are completely wrong in your analysis but you get helped out by a lucky accident. Sound familiar?
Quoting nubcake
I have not heard of a single profitable trader who just trades tech. At least not profitable in any manner that I regard as significant or worth paying attention towards.
Myth number 25. Thank you for your contribution.
  • #100
  • Feb 22, 2016 8:10am Feb 22, 2016 8:10am
Quoting Atokys
{quote} The random walk hypothesis is soundly disproven by the continued profitability of purely technical trading systems. Market efficiency is not antithetical to profitable speculation. It only becomes incompatible if you hold the belief that there exists some 'actual' valuation of an asset that is not reflected in current supply and demand. Why a retail speculator would put his opinion of fundamental factors above the captains of a particular industry is beyond me. Sometimes your opinion plays out, sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes you are right...

Everything is worth as much as the buyer wants to pay for it, or is desperate enough to pay for it.
Price-Action Extremist
0 traders viewing now