February 3, 2010

Simplistic Criticism of Simplistic Technical Analysis


This post from Kim Zussman, quant extraordinaire from the Daily Speculations Blog...:

SPY's Friday close was the second consecutive below the simple 100DMA, after a long period above the moving average.

Going back to 1993, checked for instances when SPY closed <> 100DMA. Here are the mean returns for the next 5d, 10d, and 20d:

One-Sample T: 5d, 10d, 20d

Test of mu = 0 vs not = 0

Variable N Mean StDev SE Mean 95% CI T P
5d 18 0.010 0.021 0.005 (-0.00057, 0.02114) 2.00 0.062
10d 18 0.007 0.023 0.005 (-0.00447, 0.01933) 1.32 0.205
20d 18 0.004 0.040 0.009 (-0.01570, 0.02430) 0.45 0.656

All up, if not significantly. If only it were that easy…

...got this response from me:

Yes indeed, Kim, if only it were that easy.
Your observation, while true, might be just as incomplete and misleading as the blanket statement you are implicitly deriding, namely: "the market closed under its 100-day SMA, therefore it's bearish".

It is also useless to a short-term trader since you're not saying anything about 6-hour, 12-hour, 1-day…4-day returns. You will probably find that a system that gets short after 2 consecutive closes under the 100-day SMA following 20 consecutive closes above the 100-day SMA and covers after a close above the 10-day SMA (or something along those lines: it's my turn to be incomplete and potentially misleading but I believe I'm right - If I find the time to run the numbers I'll be sure to post them here and/or on my blog) has made money since 1993.

No comments: