Evidence for timing market in the short run?
"The time horizon for your IRA is years or decades, therefore there is little evidence that there is a benefit to waiting for the ""perfect time"" to invest.  Unless you plan on making only one or 2 years of investments now and then waiting till retirement; the other deposits you will make over the decades will have a greater influence on returns.  If you are going to search for the perfect time to invest in your index fund, pick a deadline. ""I will take the first sign better than X but will not wait beyond Y""." The study of technical analysis is generally used (sometimes successfully) to time the markets. There are many aspects to technical analysis, but the simplest form is to look for uptrends and downtrends in the charts. Generally higher highs and higher lows is considered an uptrend.  And lower lows and lower highs is considered a downtrend.  A trend follower would go with the trend, for example see a dip to the trend-line and buy on the rebound. Whilst a bottom fisher would wait until a break in the downtrend line and buy after confirmation of a higher high (as this could be the start of a new uptrend). There are many more strategies dealing with the study of technical analysis, and if you are interested you would need to find and learn about ones that suit your investment styles and your appetite for risk. This is the S&P a bit over 20 years. If you've discovered a way to sell at 1400 in 2000, buy at 800 or so in 2003, sell again, well, you get the idea.  There's strong evidence the typical investor hears the S&P is making new highs and rushes in. It's this influx that may send stocks higher from here, until the smart money senses 'overbought' and bails.  I am not the smart money, but my ability to ignore emotion, and use asset allocation naturally had me selling a bit into each run up, and of course buying during downturns. Not all or none, and not with any perfect timing, just at year end when I'm rebalancing.  I am not a fan of short term timing, although I do respect Victor's observations and excellent example of when it's been shown to work. Timing the market and by extension the efficient market hypothesis is one of the most hotly debated subjects in finance academia. If you are to believe the majority of finance professors and PHD's out there chances of timing a market like the NYSE, NASDAQ or LSE is not possible. If you are to take into account the huge amount of hedge funds and money managers who make it their job to prove the efficient market hypothesis wrong then you may have a chance. My opinion is that the EMH is true and that timing a highly efficient market like the NYSE is very difficult or impossible even for those who spend their whole lives trying to beat it. For someone whose primary job isn’t in investments I would put the idea of timing the markets out of your head.
"Some people believe that inflation is caused by an increase in the money supply when the banks engage in fractional reserve lending. Is this correct? You are referring to the Austrian school of thought. The Austrians define inflation in terms of money supply. In other words, inflation is defined as an increase in the aggregate money supply, even if prices stay the same of fall. This is not the only definition of inflation. The mainstream defines inflation as a general increase in the prices of consumer goods. Based on the first definition, then your supposition is correct by definition. Based on the second definition, you can make a case that money supply affects prices. But keep in mind, it's just one factor affecting prices. Furthermore, economics is resistant to experimentation, so it is difficult to establish causality. Austrian economists tend to approach the problem of ""proof"" using a 2-pronged tactic: establish plausibility by explaining the mechanism, then look for historical evidence to back up that explanation. As I understand it, when there is more available money in the market, the price of goods will increase. But will a normal merchant acknowledge the increase of money supply and raise prices immediately? I posit that, in the short run, merchants won't increase prices in response to increased money supply. So, why does increased money supply lead to price inflation? The simple answer, in the Austrian school of thought, is that you have more money chasing the same amount of goods. In other words, printing money doesn't actually increase the number of widgets made. I believe the Austrian school is consistent with your supposition that prices don't increase in the short run. In other words, producers don't increase prices immediately after observing an increase in the money supply. Specifically, after the banks print more notes, where will the money be distributed first?  The Austrian story goes as follows: Imagine that the first borrower is a home constructor, and he is borrowing freshly ""printed"" money to build new homes. This constructor will need to buy materials and hire labor to build homes, and in doing so he will bid against other home constructors. The increased demand for lumber, nails, tools, carpentry, etc. will ever so slightly increase the market prices for these goods and services. So the money goes first to the borrower, but then flows also to the people selling to the borrower, and the people selling to the sellers, etc. It has a ripple effect. Who will be the first one to have a need to rise their price? These producers won't need to increase their price, but they will choose to do so if the believe that demand outstrips supply. In other words if you have more orders than you can fill, then you may post higher prices because you think consumers will tolerate the higher price.  You might object that competition deters any one producer from unilaterally raising prices, but in fact if all producers are failing to keep up with demand, then you can unilaterally raise prices because other producers don't have any excess inventory to undercut you with." No such evidence exists, because many people do beat the market. And many people fail to earn market rate of return. The way you achieve the former is generally to take risks that also increase the likelihood of the latter. The amount of time and effort you invest may bias that result, but generally risk and potential reward tend to track pretty closely since everyone else is making the same evaluations. You can't prove a negative. We can't prove unicorns don't exist either. We can advise you that hunting for one is probably not productive; many others have been trying, and if there was one we'd probably have seen at least something that encourages us to continue looking. Not impossible, but the evidence is far from encouraging. Market-rate-of-return can be achieved fairy reliably with minimal risk and minimal effort, and at mostly long-term tax rates. I consider that sufficient for my needs. Others will feel otherwise. Yes, from the point-of-view to the end speculator/investor in stocks, it is ludicrous to take on liabilities when you don't have to.  That's why single-stock options are far more liquid than single-stock futures. However, if you are a farmer with a huge mortgage depending upon the chaos of agricultural markets which are extremely volatile, a different structure might appeal to you.  You could long your inputs while shorting your outputs, locking in a profit.  That profit is probably lower than what one could expect over the long run without hedging, but it will surely be less volatile. Here's where the advantage of futures come in for that kind of structure: the margin on the longs and shorts can offset each other, forcing the farmer to have to put up much less of one's own money to hedge.  With options, this is not the case. Also, the gross margin between the inputs rarely fluctuate to an unmanageable degree, so if your shorts rise faster than your longs, you'll only have to post margin in the amount of the change in the net of the longs and shorts. This is why while options on commodities exist to satisfy speculators, futures are the most liquid. "Compare the first part of the statement, ""constant growth can only make most of us poorer"" with what is supposed to be evidence of that (ridiculous) claim.  Just because people are worse off (which isn't actually true if you aren't measuring things only in money) doesn't mean it *has to* work that way.  This is such a short run analysis and it is just so ridiculous my head is seriously about to explode.  Why not say, ""Since 1914 we have had consistent growth and everyone is better off for it"".  I hope that people this stupid never get any sort of political power because they are truly the destroyer of things." "Yes, there is a very good Return vs Risk graph put out at riskgrades.com.  Look at it soon, because it will be unavailable after 6-30-11.  The RA (return analysis) graph is what I think you are looking for. The first graph shown is an ""Average Return"", which I was told was for a 3 year period.  Three period returns of 3, 6 and 12 months, are also available.  You can specify the ticker symbols of funds or stocks you want a display of.  For funds, the return includes price and distributions (total return), but only price movement for stocks - per site webmaster. I've used the graphs for a few years, since Forbes identified it as a ""Best of the Web"" site.  Initially, I found numerous problems with some of the data and was able to work with the webmaster to correct them.  Lately though, they have NOT been correcting problems that I bring to their attention.  For example, try the symbols MUTHX, EDITX, AWSHX and you'll see that the Risk Grades on the graphs are seriously in error, and compress the graph results and cause overwriting and poor readability. If anyone knows of a similar product, I'd like to know about it.  Thanks,  George" "SECTION | CONTENT :--|:-- Title | ""High Profit Trades found with Candlestick Breakout Patterns"" - Stephen Bigalow Description | Originally presented on July 10, 2012.    For more information on Steve Bigalow's Candle Profit System for MetaStock visit http://www.metastock.com/products/thirdparty/?3PC-ADD-CPS  Everyone wishes they got into the fast moving stock that jumped up $25 in a month. Candlestick Signals not only identify these potential movers -- they help you identify if there is still time to participate in the move!  In this live webinar Steve will show you: Which signals produce the Breakout Patterns How to per... Length | 1:23:12           ****   ^(I am a bot, this is an auto-generated reply | )^[Info](https://www.reddit.com/u/video_descriptionbot) ^| ^[Feedback](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=video_descriptionbot&amp;subject=Feedback) ^| ^(Reply STOP to opt out permanently)" "Your questions In the world of technical analysis, is candlestick charting an effective trading tool in timing the markets? It depends on how you define effective. But as a standalone and systematic strategy, it tends not to be profitable. See for example Market Timing with Candlestick Technical Analysis: Using robust statistical techniques, we find that candlestick trading rules are not profitable when applied to DJIA component stocks over 1/1/1992 – 31/12/2002 period. Neither bullish or bearish candlestick single lines or patterns provide market timing signals that are any better than what would be expected by chance. Basing ones trading decisions solely on these techniques does not seem sensible but we cannot rule out the possibility that they compliment some other market timing techniques. There are many other papers that come to the same conclusion. If used correctly, how accurate can they be in picking turning points in the market? Technical analysts generally fall into two camps: (i) those that argue that TA can't be fully automated and that interpretation is part of the game; (ii) those that use TA as part of a systematic investment model (automatically executed by a machine) but generally use a combination of indicators to build a working model. Both groups would argue (for different reasons) that the conclusions of the paper I quoted above should be disregarded and that TA can be applied profitably with the proper framework. Psychological biases It is very easy to get impressed by technical analysis because we all suffer from ""confirmation bias"" whereby we tend to acknowledge things that confirm our beliefs more than those that contradict them. When looking at a chart, it is very easy to see all the occurences when a certain pattern worked and ""miss"" the occurences when it did not work (and not missing those is much harder than it sounds). Conclusions" "Of course, which is why you need to have a scoring function / utility function for the ""filters"", i.e. Are you going to value it by rate of accuracy hor by a metric where wins = +2, losses = -1, such that it uses a criteria like that to decide whether or not a filter adds value, (some even use a compound effect i.e. wins = 2+e^(1+w) where w is the consecutive wins).  A metric like the above would capture the trade off between predictive power and profit. Also some traders watch their Max DD very carefully so they may be very risk averse."