Talk:Market timing

Spock

Am I the only one who questions the spock link?159.140.254.105 (talk) 15:43, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Suggested Link

I'd like to suggesting linking to the following working paper on this topic:

Cotton, Benjamin L., On Turning to Market Timing: A Binomial Approximation (February 27, 2008). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1078626

Im biased as the writer of this WP so wont add it myself.

Bcotton2 (talk) 14:11, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Brent's Market Surfing

I put a link here earlier to Brent's Market Surfing Report. It was deleted as a salespitch, which at best can be considered a violation of NPOV, since it is a reference site that doesn't sell or even advocate anything. The man just publishes his interpretation of current signals, and his system has averaged 30% per year for over 25 years, with little to possibly no exceptions. So while Market Timing is "dangerous", one can't argue but that, at least in this case, it's doubled the market for decades. So I vote we put a link back up to his site (www.marketsurfing.com). Mrcolj 16:18, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

This website address is no longer valid ----Keithbob (talk) 13:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)Keith bob

EMH and Popper

The statement about EMH being un-Popperian is nonsense as it is written now. EMH is falsifiable after all, which is exactly what Popper thought neccessary. Just show statistically valdily that a particular strategy can outperform the market and it is falsified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.27.133 (talk) 16:45, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

You need an asset pricing model to go with EMH. Therefore, anomalous market returns may reflect market inefficiency, an inaccurate asset pricing model or both. Google the "joint hypothesis problem". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1C00:F20:8100:C881:AA84:CC66:D65A (talk) 18:15, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Market timing illegal?

I'm a little confused. The article makes it sound like market timing is dangerous but legal; this refers to market timing as if it's something you're not supposed to do at all legally. what's up? -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:06, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I think the key is in the fraudulent activity, as there is nothing illegal about timing per se. It would appear that some mutual funds try to deter market timing, but that by creating large numbers of false identities, a large corporate entity was able to successfully engage in behaviour it wouldn't otherwise have been able to. It would appear that mutual funds have limits on the size and frequency of trading, so by having hundreds of 'apparent' investors, Millennium was able to trade more frequently and in greater volume. It's also possible they may have avoided some capital gains tax as well on some of the longer positions.Limegreen 10:24, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

The statement about Bob Brinker's timing being reliable for the entire thirty year period was incorrect, largely because of his having gone bearish after the crash of '87, and because of a recommendation to significantly increase equity allocation in a volatile segment of the market in October of 2000. Sources: back issues of his investment letter and bulletin. 71.131.214.58 09:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Market timing is being grossly misrepresented in this article. MT is a speculation strategy, and is the opposite of the "buy-and-hold" strategy. It's simple... Buy 5000 shares of "X" stock at $10.00, and sell it at 10.20 an hour later. As opposed to buying 5000 of "X" at $10.00 and selling at $16.50 a year from then. MT:BH as Short term:Long term. Market rigging and unethical practices regarding hedge funds are a totally different deal. King of Corsairs (talk) 20:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi King, Thanks for your comment. I believe that the article is valid. It is not a how to article and there is no mention of short term trading. It simply outlines an investment strategy that is used (or attempted) by many investors. Yes market timing may be dangerous but that depends on the context. Market timing can be used by both long term and short term investors. No one buys a stock if they think it is about to go down. Every investor attempts to buy low and sell high. How else will they have a profit? Whether they succeed or not is a different story. So in buying low they are in effect 'timing' their investment. To what degree they are timing and how important it is to their overall investment strategy is up for discussion. What method(s) they use to arrive at their conclusion that this is a good (low price or good value) time to buy can be either technical or fundamental, it doesn't matter. In either case they buy because they believe the stock or market is about to go up ie. market timing. So there is some element of market timing in most investors thinking. However. the article does need some work and I will address this in a seperate post. Keithbob —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keithbob (talk • contribs) 13:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Mutual Fund Timing

I'm certainly not an expert on this issue, but I get the impression this article is a little misleading; particularly the reference to the 2003 incident. I have read in an investopedia article that the 2003 incident is referred to as Mutual Fund Timing not Market Timing. In fact its stress that the two should not be confused. Overall, this is a poor article.

I agree, the reference to the mutual fund, late trading, scandal is not relevant to an article on market timing and should be removed.Keithbob--Keithbob (talk) 12:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Evidence of Market Timing Section

I believe this title does not represent the content and should be amended or removed. The section content mostly talks about efficient market theory and how it disputes market timing. I don't see any evidence here. In fact the whole article could be a subset of the article on Market Trends in my opinion. Keithbob--Keithbob (talk) 13:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Keithbob, all--- I added a simple strategy for "market timing" to this section (50/200 moving average crossover system) as "evidence". I also added a couple paragraphs in the main section discussing the market timing proponents' view. BTW, I do market timing for a living (I'm an investment advisor) and have successfully "timed" the market for years.....Markettimer —Preceding unsigned comment added by Markettimer (talk • contribs) 17:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that unless you begin sourcing your edits quickly per WP:RS (i.e. published articles in mainstream, respected publications), your additions are not going to last long, no matter what your personal/professional expertise is. Not being a jerk, just following WP:V, as other editors will be, especially on such a sensitive subject. If you need help with sourcing, please ask...there are plenty of editors who will help. Flowanda | Talk 22:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Flowanda, I got no dog in this fight. If others want to edit out what I write, no problem....Markettimer —Preceding unsigned comment added by Markettimer (talk • contribs) 02:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Controversial

The "Brokerages may favor institutional investors at the expense of smaller retail investors" section is questionable. Cause it has no cites. It's just, 'some people say this'. Other than that, i think the article is pretty good.

You can't seriously cite Jim Cramer

The man is practically a performance artist, not an authoritative source. You might as well be citing Sarah Silverman in an article on Jesus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.249.180.90 (talk) 02:48, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Nah, I think it's good. That one Jim Cramer quote just gutted the weak, semi-strong, and strong efficient market hypotheses. What more do you need?!50.132.207.101 (talk) 06:38, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:57, 26 June 2013 (UTC)