Tag: Fundamental or Technical Analysis Page 2 of 3

Intro to Indicators – A look behind the curtain

Active portfolio management is not a new concept but tends to be more mysterious to investors regarding what the wizards do behind the curtain. Even if it is not used exclusively, technical analysis tends to play a greater role in active management as compared to fundamental analysis.  Prior blog posts have covered some of the differences between the two.  Today we will be running through a rather quick history lesson about technical analysis including the evolution and role of indicators.  As the tools of the trade are understood, the fog of mystery should begin to disperse.

Technical analysis did not have one specific starting point. The benefits of plotting prices for the sake of extracting clues of future direction occurred in the 1600’s as lottery prices were plotted in England.  Accounts by Joseph de la Vega reported prices in the Dutch markets also in the 1600’s and Homma Munehisa of the rice markets in 17th century Japan.

bank-englandBank of London

In the U.S., Charles H. Dow created his famous index to visualize the collective changes in a group of industrial companies.  In the early 1900’s, traders and authors such as Richard Schabacker, Harold Gartley, William Gann, R.N. Elliot, and Richard Wyckoff developed and published methods to interpret the price action of stocks and commodities.  “Technical Analysis of Stock Trends” by Edwards and Magee, is commonly cited as the most comprehensive book on early technical analysis.  Most of these works center around identification and interpretation of trends, price patterns, and volume analysis.  This was the era in which concepts such as, Head and Shoulders tops and bottoms, double tops and bottoms, triangles, support and resistance, and trend lines were introduced.

Fast forward to the late 1960’s and early 1970’s, which brings us to the early stages of the meat of our topic – indicators. In 1969, Sherman McClellan and his mathematician wife Marian developed the oscillator and summation bearing their last name.  Amazingly, the complex math was calculated daily, originally by hand, prior to the aid of computers.

 One of my life’s greatest thrills was eating lunch at a Taco Bell with Mr. McClellan many years ago, but that’s a story for another time.

In 1978, J. Welles Wilder Jr. published, “New Concepts in Technical Trading Systems”.  Similar to the McClellan indicators, Wilder’s indicators were described to readers exactly how to calculate by hand the formulas behind indicators using daily worksheets.  Wilder’s book introduced indicators such as the Relative Strength Index (RSI), Directional Movement (ADX and DMI), Parabolic SAR, Average True Range (ATR), and others.  These indicators are early examples of going beyond looking at basic price action.  In other words, math formulas were introduced that can create plots on the same page or chart as the price action to serve as a companion to the traditional forms of price and volume analysis.

red-green-candle-pricesExample of early charting software displaying candlesticks

As a brief but important aside, 1970 was the beginning of the Market Technicians Association (MTA). This organization was established by a group of professional technical analysts that sought to raise the level of acceptance of the craft to beyond what had been deemed by many as a “voodoo” form of analysis.  Many of the MTA members are well-known, having extensive authorship and media appearances regarding chart-based methods.  In 1949, the Securities and Exchange Commission displayed a strong bias against chart-based methods when the organization stated “all Wall Street research must be rooted in sound fundamental principles”.  Through ongoing efforts by the MTA, in 2005, the Securities and Exchange Commission amended Rule 344.  “There are officially two different categories of Wall Street research analysts: a fundamental analyst follows companies and has a CFA diploma; a technical analyst follows stocks and has a CMT diploma”.

In the decades that followed, computers and technology have played significant roles in the expansion of technical analysis and its impact to portfolio management. Already mentioned were trailblazers such as the McClellans and J. Welles Wilder Jr., but many others developed indicators that received notoriety.  An indicator by Dick Arms was seen scrolling along the tickers on the financial programs noted as the TRIN or Trading Index, though many call the indicator the Arms Index in honor of the originator.  Joe Granville’s On Balance Volume, John Bollinger’s Bollinger Bands, Gerald Appel’s Moving Average Convergence Divergence (MACD), and many others became staples among chartists as early versions of charting software incorporated these tools.

bloomberg-terminalsIndicators can fit into various categories and similar to a chef reaching for specific ingredients, can be combined and incorporated with different weightings in order for a portfolio to take on a particular flavor or have a particular personality. Low volatility funds may use specific indicators while aggressive portfolios may choose to use others.  In future blogs, we will take a look at these different categories, covering some indicator examples and why a portfolio manager may or may not use them in the recipe.

So why spend time with the history lesson? A building’s foundation must be strong in order for it to stand the tests of time.  Before the building blocks form the foundation, architects, engineers, and contractors must understand the nature of the building materials and how they work together for the common goal.  If we want to understand how a portfolio is constructed and managed, we have to establish a basis upon why portfolio management has confidence in the methods.  From a broader sense, some chart-based analysis used by portfolio managers may be relatively simple but many can be very complex, based on decades of supporting research and development by many wizards of the craft.

Disclosures

This writing is for informational purposes only and does not constitute an offer to sell, a solicitation to buy, or a recommendation regarding any securities transaction, or as an offer to provide advisory or other services by Spectrum Financial, Inc. in any jurisdiction in which such offer, solicitation, purchase or sale would be unlawful under the securities laws of such jurisdiction. The information contained in this writing should not be construed as financial or investment advice on any subject matter. Spectrum Financial, Inc. expressly disclaims all liability in respect to actions taken based on any or all of the information on this writing.  For full disclosure please see disclosures page here.

Fundamental vs Technical Part II

In an earlier blog post, I asked the question, “Do you use fundamental or technical analysis?” If you recall, it was somewhat a trick question because the topic covered how technical analysis principles could be applied to fundamentals such as economic data.  Today, we will circle back around and cover a more traditional comparison of the two disciplines with the purpose of showing how technical analysis is a major input to many actively managed mutual funds.

To borrow a paragraph from the earlier blog; fundamental analysis attempts to uncover the driving forces or reasons for either a current or future investment theme. They may be based on actual results from corporate or economic releases such as sales numbers, employment statistics, new product launches, and countless other data series.  Technical analysis attempts to study the results of investor actions, based on the concept that certain actions imply continuation or reversal in direction of the underlying investment or theme.  Technical analysis based traders often employ tools such as moving averages, pattern analysis, and volume studies.  One could say that “cause and effect” are both assessed when incorporating fundamental and technical analysis.

The two approaches are often seen set against each other. But like the movie Batman v Superman, it is just a matter of perspective and misunderstanding.  The two can be friends – even super friends.

In addition to the differences already noted, let’s contrast other characteristics but do so through the lens of their potential shortcomings. Fundamental analysis seems very rational.  It mostly takes facts and figures that are assessed in order to gauge business conditions in the economy, sector, or individual company.  How is that a shortcoming?  Investment markets can act irrationally.  In fact, they tend to do so more often than not and can do so not only for short-periods of time but for extended periods.  There is an old Wall Street saying, “the markets can remain irrational for longer than you can remain solvent”.  If that statement makes sense to you, then it should be logical to incorporate methods that assess human behavior’s impact to prices which is a key benefit to incorporating technical analysis.  Fundamental analysis relies on public information.  The shortcomings here are related to garbage in, garbage out as well as the reality that not all relevant information can be known to all those using this discipline.  Now let’s be fair, technical analysis also has its share of shortcomings.  A common complaint is it does not explain why the bullish or bearish bias exists.  If one were to know why, then perhaps greater conviction and position size could be maintained as short-term aberrations away from the “true fundamentals”  can be filtered out.  That leads to another shortcoming in that technical analysis has a tendency toward a greater number of whipsaws and false conclusions.  Notice what we just did – the shortcomings helped to define the two disciplines but the shortcomings were also counter-balanced by the strengths of the other.  This sort of synergy is the reason why many investors and portfolio managers incorporate both to some degree even if there is a leaning to one side or the other.

In using technical analysis, we are attempting to measure people’s thinking by looking at their buying and selling actions. Garfield Drew, a well-known trader from early last century once said, “Stocks do not sell for what they are worth, but for what people think they are worth.”  Those two ideas sum what technical analysis is all about.

I believe technical analysis is, and should be, the heavier weighting behind investment decisions, especially in regards to active portfolio management

Author and trader, Stan Weinstein once said, “The chart is the ultimate reality”. My interpretation is he means whether or not a movement is justified by the underlying fundamentals, the gain or loss impacts the net worth of the investor.  The goal of investing is to increase our net worth, plain and simple.  If the fundamentals are generally deemed to be positive but the stock goes down 20%, then what good did that investment do for the investor?  We have all witnessed declines of that magnitude or thereabouts without true changes in the underlying fundamentals.  “The fundamentals will eventually be recognized and my stock will go back up”.  I’ve heard that one too many times to count.  Even if that were to be true, can we really absorb such potentially large losses including the opportunity costs while waiting?  Technical analysis is not a crystal ball or silver bullet but it can act as a thermometer for investors to gauge the health of the market or individual investments.  As we all know, a person may look healthy on the outside while their body holds a sickness yet to display external symptoms.

In coming weeks, we will cover topics that outline tools and techniques that interpret the message of thermometers put in the mouth of the market. “Buy low and sell high” has been a Wall Street creed for decades.  Fundamental analysis may be able to identify undervalued and overvalued investments but technical analysis more efficiently identifies trends and potential trend changes that serve as the basis of why active portfolio management funds seek to rotate investments and adjust to rational and irrationally-based risks.

Disclosures

This writing is for informational purposes only and does not constitute an offer to sell, a solicitation to buy, or a recommendation regarding any securities transaction, or as an offer to provide advisory or other services by Spectrum Financial, Inc. in any jurisdiction in which such offer, solicitation, purchase or sale would be unlawful under the securities laws of such jurisdiction. The information contained in this writing should not be construed as financial or investment advice on any subject matter. Spectrum Financial, Inc. expressly disclaims all liability in respect to actions taken based on any or all of the information on this writing.  For full disclosure please see disclosures page here.

 

Page 2 of 3

Spectrum Financial, Inc 2023