Taseko Mines Ltd T.TKO

Peer Reviewed Papers on TA?

[Cognition777]

Does anybody have access to some peer reviewed research papers on the topic of Technical Analysis, or even any particular type of Technical Ananlysis? Metalhead said that is 200 years of investing, somebody would have done research into the TA... I'd like to read those papers...
Sincerely,
Primate 777

[Cognition777]

Actually, I'd be interested in reading papers on Fundamental Analysis as well. Surely there are millions of those lying around...

[nofluff]

U got more time than me cog. I do not waste a second looking at others data whether ta or fa. That said I do evaluate both ta and fa. The big plus from peers is listen to the stuff. Reject the fluff. Such as when u corrected me on my wrong stu interview. That was big for me. nf

[Cognition777]

well, I'm taking my clues from you... trying to be open about metalheads assertion that research papers would have proven TA's validity if it had any. Since he said that in 200 years of investing there would have been lots of study into it, I'd like to read some papers that show it doesn't work... part of my primate therapy. Also, since research papers are his criteria for

[Cognition777]

https://digital.library.adelaide.edu.au/dspace/handle/2440/102306 Abstract: A combination of simple moving average trading strategies with several window lengths delivers a greater average return and skewness as well as a lower variance and kurtosis compared with buying and holding the underlying asset using daily returns of value-weighted US decile portfolios sorted by market size, book-to

[nofluff]

I know the bigs can lay claim to ta as a way to make coin. But I would defy anyone to come up with small that made money using only ta over a 20 year period. Those that use it as a small factor have benifited. For the most part, all lose on the sm. nf

[metalhead666]

Seen it, read it...it's the ONLY thing out there even remotely close to my challenge...and it's total garbage.  If there was ANY validity WHATSOEVER to ANY t/a lunacy there would be thousands of academic papers not this shoddy ancient worthless trash.

[metalhead666]

The fact that this is all you could find proves my point.  It is the ONLY thing that even comes close but it's still garbage. It's old, not peer reviewed, narrow and useless. It is not one of thousands of legitimate studies showing the validity of ANY SYSTEM at all.   I'd add...moving averages are determined by PRICE...they do not determine the price. If anything even

[metalhead666]

And this bears NO resemblance to anything you touted.  It's a hedging strategy bagging put profit in volatile markets that's good for nothing.  Throwing darts generated better than 2% to 16% returns.

[Cognition777]

hahaha ... confirmation bias once again. Did I say that was the only paper I could find on TA? I think the count was something like 7254 but I didn't want to read all of them.  Hey meathead, you didn't provide all those peer reviewed research papers on fundamentals that I was asking for ... since that is the criteria you tout. I'm with you NF, I use mostly fundamentals but TA has

[metalhead666]

You found over 7000 pieces of toilet paper, ads, sales pitches and garbage.  There are NO academic peer reviewed papers whatsoever demonstrating the truth of your or anyone's t/a voodoo superstitious claims.  Now I know you're not an honest truth seeker but a religious like individual desperate to find a reason to believe nonsense  T/A has added nothing to your investments.

[JCSunsfan]

There are hundreds, maybe thousands of articles.  Repeating the same thing over and over does not make it true.  

[metalhead666]

Articles are not academic scientific statistically valid studies that PROVE the "CLAIMS"  There are indeed thousands of idiots who CLAIM all kinds of tea leaf reading ability.....Show me a definitive scientific peer reviewed study that PROVES ANY CLAIM... Then tell me why everyone doesn't use it, why my smart phone doesn't have an app to auto trade my account to glory, why

[Cognition777]

ahem... you were the one who demanded such peer reviewed studies to validate the use of TA. Please explain why you use whatever method you use... and why you haven't subjected such a method to peer reviewed studies? You invalidate TA because it doesn't meet a certain standard; but you follow your own method without subjecting it to the same standard. Sorry, that sounds a lot like the blind

[metalhead666]

I have explained it to you....I embrace large macro themes and bet accordingly. I don't CLAIM to have a "system"  For example....LIthium is in deficit. That deficit could be permanent. At the rate of EV adoption and battery factory build out there is not enough lithium to supply the demand. This situation gets worse over time. World governments are mandating the abolition of

[JCSunsfan]

Thousands of articles in academic journals.  Listen. I have a doctorate. I teach masters and doctoral level courses.  I know what a peer reviewed paper is. You can mock all you want.  All you are doing is destroying your own reputation.   I expect almost all of us here are in this company based upon the fundamentals and what we know of the story abs prospects.  The

[nofluff]

Hey jc. I go by the theory. The best guesser wins:)) The older I get, the better I guess.  It is kind of like eating beans. When I was young, I could eat a whole can with confidence. Now things have changed. I just know not to eat many beans. So why am I a better guesser now than when I was young?? I guessed wrong a lot when I was young:)) nf

[metalhead666]

Produce one professor.  Waiting...

[Cognition777]

You don't follow a system, and then you explained your system. strange... It's like demanding that I prove TA using certain criteria; such criteria that you don't apply to your own system. Or like demanding exacititudes from me to prove TA, meanwhile excusing your own system with "likelihoods" (not "probabilities" mind you). Regarding your method and your criteria .

[dcjones4396]

Hey Cog, I'm sure you're a well intentioned person but it's about time to stop this back and forth. I'd rather not put you on ignore for that reason but it's becoming unreadable at this point.

[nofluff]

I benefited greatly by cogs correcting me a couple weeks ago but perhaps cog will benefit from dc correction now. I am sure cog is just enjoying an intallectual challenge. But he is falling into the trolls game plan by cluttering the board with silliness. I do have the troll on ignore.  It was a great copper day for me. nf

[Fishbillion]

This post has been removed in accordance with Community Policy

[Cognition777]

duly noted ... thanks.

[metalhead666]

What I do is NOT a "system" it is a process. A system has specific parameters, makes specific claims and in the case of the absurd t/a you're pathetically trying to defend...it projects PAST events/patterns into the future that NEVER repeats even if it sometimes rhymes.  What I claim is that large broad sweeping movements favor one class of investments over another while what

[JCSunsfan]

Hmm.  Argument by insult.  Duly noted.  

[metalhead666]

Jefferson, when commenting on the stupidity of religion, said the following...it clearly applies here in this conversation as well....“Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions.”

[JCSunsfan]

The only one ridiculing g people here is you.

[metalhead666]

Exactly duh!  You all post "unintelligible propositions" with nonsense t/a trash and like Jefferson I ridicule them as that is the only weapon that works.   Thank you Mr. Jefferson.

[nofluff]

I do know this. I gave known many high paid people that thought they could read charts and get rich. Every one lost there shirts. Had they been humble and used the charts as a small factor, they would have been fine. Also, believing in the chart mith totally killed them. That said. I have more aquantences that invested on fundamentals. They went in whole hog. When, stuff turtled, they could not

[BlueBee]

Just go to Google Scholar and enter your search topic. Perhaps the best way to find research papers.