Singapore Entrepreneurs Network & Startup Organization

I guess we can continue our debate till the end of time, and it will never be conclusive. If it could, there will be no more debate on EMH or controversies about it. I've said all i could about the points against it, so i wouldn't post further. A few of my points remained unanswered, but its ok.

Note I never once said EMH is wrong, but it's not flawless.  It's just a method of the degree of efficiency. It can be near or almost efficient but not 100%. Heisenberg uncertainty principle state so. With human and computing error, along with other factors, 100% efficiency is impossible. Similarly in engineering, you can never find a machine that is 100% efficient, due to energy loss through heat and sound etc etc. Near 100% efficiency. Possible. Totally? No. Also you can say uncertainty contribute to randomness too. Again the issue is the degree of it. Sometimes it's very haphazard ( which is why i never place much emphasis on chart patterns ), sometimes it's strangely predictable (market fall during crisis. Happens almost all the time). That is why when i say using price/volume intepretation analysis, it is possible to time the market with a good probabilty of it happening. Similarly, Warrant Buffett has his own method of calculating the intrinsic value of his stock. High probability but not precise for sure, with room for error. Again i reiterate the quote by him, it's better to be approximately right than accurately wrong.

I think vision3001 and alfiee is not trying to reject EMH totally. The whole point of this debate is whether its either the market is efficient or not, which you state it is, and is a clear cut black and white issue, with no place for the shade of grey or in-between. That is what we are arguing against, for the presence of degreeness in market efficiency, which is in essense not refuting EMH totally. To us, it's not a world of 2 extremes, either black or white. That's my point.

I tend to agree with carrotcake about this. There are only two ways to see it (black & white):

BLACK = EMH says TA doesn't work. TA cannot be used to make profits.
WHITE = TA works and EMH is thus wrong. TA can be used to make profits.

Oh yes. Its not only TA camp who are against EMH, but FA camp too. No more from me.

Some tactics commonly lumped together with "FA" aren't really FA but TA.

For example "value investing" and running businesses like Buffet does is probability not really an "analysis" or any type but belongs to business skills. On the other hand, P/E ratios and other data may in fact be TA.

On top of that, some EMH efficiency forms DOES allow FA to work. Any FA that requires running the actual business or meeting with high level members will probably fall into the FA that is allowed.

Well, we have already established that their returns are allowed under EMH so there is no conflicts there.

So is that your only argument against EMH? That 2 person says it isn't true? Hmmm...kinda weak isn't it?

Eugene Fama was won Nobel Prize recognition because he actually proved EMH. Practical tests prove EMH. These two "legends" didn't prove EMH to be wrong.

In fact, we can proof the existence of these "legends" in a random market. EMH never denied that Buffett/Soros were successful in the first place. If you really want I can show you how billionaires can come about in a random market.

Practical, maybe. Empirical, a crystal clear no.

It's understandable that you do not understand what is the meaning of empirical as you are still doing your army and yet to even start yr 1st year in the university.

I challenge you to post your two 'practical empirical evidence' in moneytec. I predict that you will chicken out rather than face my challenge, just like what you did on this challenge. Instead of posting real empirical evidence on why TA fails, you ask people to use software like Tradestation to test it out for themselves, ha ha. That's not empirical evidence either.

Vision3001, as much as i try to stay neutral in this discussion, i now understand why people have advised me not to debate with people who argue for the sake of arguing. Many issuss are skirted and evidences conveniently forgotten, and stands changed to accomodate new stands. Guess lets not continue this further. I see no end to it.

Hey, I don't know what transpire between you guys before but why not you post your "empricial evidence that TA works" on Elitetraders and see the response?

Unlike carrotcake or vision3001 I don't support moneytec. I heard plenty of bad stories about them. ET forums seems to be fine though as even Buffett have been known to patronise them.

Vision3001, it is also wrong to assum backtesting using software like Tradestation is not empirical evidence. I found this like here that says it is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_method



Collection of large amount of data and testing it on Tradestation fits the bill just fine.

Just my 2 cents. Sorry if I entered an arugment I don't know anything about. Feel free to comment on my thread.