Re: Which one do you use? Technical or fundamental analysis
BSD said:
Out of interest Bunyip, on how many years outperformance are you basing your assumption that you can outperform the market?
2 years, 5 years, 20 years?
Also, what is the extent of the outperformance?
2%, 5%, 20%
What is the annualised volatility of your returns?
5%, 10%, 20%
I am not being critical.
I am making the point that you need to have such data to be able to have a level of confidence that it is your strategy and not the effect of randomness creating the outperformance.
Another barrage of questions eh....the underlying message of your post is that you want me to supply facts and figures to convince you of the validity of my approach.
I'll tell you the same as I told you in a previous post....I have no interest in trying to convince you. I don't really care what you think, in fact I hope you go on doing exactly what you're already doing.
To supply you with figures would be meaningless. You many never achieve the same figures yourself, even if you made a conscientious effort to learn and implement my approach. You might perform a lot better than me, or a lot worse.
When I sent in my original post to this thread and outlined my approach, you replied with a post that was scornfully dismissive. That one post showed me that you're one of those people with a closed mind who has difficulty thinking outside the square. You dismiss other people's ideas even though you've never tried them. You want others to supply you with answers but I doubt if you have what it takes to put in the hard yards and discover the answers for yourself.
You regard something as impossible to achieve, simply on the basis that you've never managed to achieve it yourself. If you can't outperform the market, then in your mind nobody else can do it either. You stick with the outdated theory that if it could be done, everyone would be doing it. Your attitude is very naive, to say the least.
No offence intended, but I really don't feel inclined to lift a finger to help someone like you.
But maybe I'm wrong - maybe you really do have what it takes. Maybe you really are prepared to put in the hard yards to learn a different way of investment that could boost your returns. Maybe you really are worth helping. If so, then I suggest you start with Weinstein's book which does an excellent job of explaining in clear language how to apply the concept of relative strength to find the outperforming sectors and the outperforming stocks in those sectors. Then you could read Frank Watkins book - he's another educator with the ability to explain simple, effective concepts and setups and show you how to incorporate them in your trading.
After that, you could spend a few quid and buy yourself some decent technical analysis software that can scan for the setups outlined by Weinstein and Watkins. Then you can spend the next 18 months looking at thousands of charts of stocks, futures and currencies going back 15 or 20 years, or preferably longer, and learning how to reconnise the setups, just like I did. Then you can spend another 6 to 12 months paper trading to see if you can make these concepts work for you.
And after you've done all that, then and only then might you be qualified to comment on whether or not the market can be beaten by using the approach I've outlined.
Do you have enough 'get up and go' to do all that? Most people don't. Judging from your attitude so far, I doubt if you're any exception.
Bunyip