stock market crash

[Whorty]

Scooty - I'd also suggest you read Taleb's Black Swan or Fooled by Randomness books. You may see what you're doing in a different light if you do.

[Whorty]

Never consider the chart as a 100% certain of an outcome. When charting you're drawing what is probable rather than what is possible.

If folks don't like TA, that's totally cool. Just ignore it.

Everything is 'probable', it's the confidence in the probability that is important. Your confidence in your graphs is towards the high end .... the rest of us on here are less sure

[Old Greg]

Scooty - I'd also suggest you read Taleb's Black Swan or Fooled by Randomness books. You may see what you're doing in a different light if you do.

Do you really believe that would make a difference?

[Whorty]

Do you really believe that would make a difference?

No, but it would keep him quiet for a few hours

[scooterscot]

take your latest chart, there are so many places you could have chosen but you went for 2001 and 2009 points to extrapolate to where your bias thinks the FTSE will land (soon!). You have chosen the dot.com bubble and the financial crisis as indicators of where the market might go during the pandemic (even though you say the pandemic isn't the reason the markets have dropped).

See why your applying your own bias?

Yo have ignore the trend in the market since 2009; that is, since new controls were forced on to banks to ensure that they have sufficient capital adequacy. Or the common sense (mostly) with investors since the dot.com where (most) investors now only buy into companies with some form of income.

By all means stick with your graphs, but just be mindful that whatever lines you draw, it is you drawing them, you choosing the points to connect, and hence your bias. Be very very careful when the graphs are constantly supporting your own view

What you've written above is the opposite of charting. Never once do I try to attach a news story or some world event to give reason why price action has done a certain thing. That's a slippery slop.


I've extended that line of confluence between 01 and 2009 on the 3-month chart below. Low and behold it has major confluence in 1993 - coincidence or something more?

This is not my bias - this is a line that is telling you buyers and sellers are very concerned on this area. I'm only being scientific. Those are facts, not my bias. Like any scientist, I study, observe the results, ask new questions - rinse and repeat.

Even more interesting, this line also interacts with the golden ratio at every reset - really interesting. Did not know that before today.

[scooterscot]

Everything is 'probable', it's the confidence in the probability that is important. Your confidence in your graphs is towards the high end .... the rest of us on here are less sure

That's deep

In math speak we say...

[BABABlackSheep]

What you've written above is the opposite of charting. Never once do I try to attach a news story or some world event to give reason why price action has done a certain thing. That's a slippery slop.

No, but you do attach news stories or world events to why a price action is likely to happen. That’s a lot worse.

If you're not into TA, there's always another way to measure the sentiment. Bad news. The responses on here are evident of that. Conversely look at the 'good news' stories for the tech companies right now, contrarian alarm bells



From Reuters in February 8th, 2009

Lloyds investors fear dark hole for Black Horse - price action was up 200% 12 months later.


This is Money, November 2011

Lloyds Banking Group in turmoil as Nathan Bostock backs out - price action was up 270% 24 months later.


Today:

Thousands of Britons living in EU told their UK bank accounts will be closed

[scooterscot]

The clue is in the post

'If you're not into TA, there's always another way to measure the sentiment. Bad news. The responses on here are evident of that. Conversely look at the 'good news' stories for the tech companies right now, contrarian alarm bells'


Find a publication on TV where I've used a 'news' story. You'll not succeed.

[Whorty]

What you've written above is the opposite of charting. Never once do I try to attach a news story or some world event to give reason why price action has done a certain thing. That's a slippery slop.


I've extended that line of confluence between 01 and 2009 on the 3-month chart below. Low and behold it has major confluence in 1993 - coincidence or something more?

This is not my bias - this is a line that is telling you buyers and sellers are very concerned on this area. I'm only being scientific. Those are facts, not my bias. Like any scientist, I study, observe the results, ask new questions - rinse and repeat.

Even more interesting, this line also interacts with the golden ratio at every reset - really interesting. Did not know that before today.

In this graph you have chosen to use two points only ... you could have just as easily used points from earlier in the graph, resulting in a steeper upwards direction of line thus predicting a different position. Your bias allowed you to only use the 2001 and 2009 points to show what you wanted to see.

I get you don't think you're adding bias, I mean, why would you? It's quite possible it's unconscious bias and you don't even realise you're doing it.

If the FTSE never reaches 4500, or at least not in the next 12 months, so you're then 36 months predicting something that hasn't happened, where will this leave you? Will you open a new narrative with a new 'low' for FTSE, or will you look at your technique and admit you're wrong? How many months do you have to go before you accept that you're wrong?

[BABABlackSheep]

The clue is in the post

'If you're not into TA, there's always another way to measure the sentiment. Bad news. The responses on here are evident of that. Conversely look at the 'good news' stories for the tech companies right now, contrarian alarm bells'


Find a publication on TV where I've used a 'news' story. You'll not succeed.

The clue is in my post. Did I mention TA?

You’ve linked news stories on bad events and shown how the price rose following the event, and then somehow linked it to tech stocks which have lots of positive news being due a fall, and sprouted this as being a contrarian approach.

Contrarian investing is a con anyway. What they actually do is look at shares which are out of favour, but are sound businesses, likely to recover. That’s called “fundamentals”.