Does Technical Analysis work or is it just a pointless attempt to “time the market”?
Technical Analysis in general is something to be cognizant of, I don't use a majority of studies and consider them a waste of time.  I also use quantitative analysis more so than technical analysis, and prefer the insight it gives into the market. The markets are more about predicting other people's behavior, psychology. So if you are trading an equity that you know retail traders love, retail traders use technical analysis and you can use their fabled channel reversals and support levels against them, as examples. Technical analysis is an extremely broad subject. So I suggest getting familiar, but if your historical pricing charts are covered in various studies, I would say you are doing it wrong. A more objective criticism of technical analysis is that many of the studies were created in the 1980s or earlier. Edges in the market do not typically last more than a few weeks. On the other side of that realization, some technical analysis works if everyone also thinks it will work, if everyone's charts say buy when the stock reaches the $90 price level and everyone does, the then stock will go higher. But the market makers and the actions of the futures markets and the actions of options traders, can undermine the collective decisions of retail traders using technical analysis. 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. A simple strategy for this is shown in the chart below:  I would be buying this stock when the price hits or gets very close to the trendline and then it bounces back above it. I would then have sold this stock once it has broken through below the trendline. This may also be an appropriate time if you were looking to short this stock. Other indicators could also be used in combination for additional confirmation of what is happening to the price. Another type of trader is called a bottom fisher. A bottom fisher would wait until a break above the downtrend line (second chart) and buy after confirmation of a higher high and possibly a higher low (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, whether you prefer short term trading or longer term investing, and your appetite for risk. You can develop strategies using various indicators and then paper trade or backtest these strategies. You can also manually backtest a strategy in most charting packages. You can go back in time on the chart so that the right side of the chart shows a date in the past (say one year ago or 10 years ago), then you can click forward one day at a time (or one week at a time if using weekly charts). With your indicators on the chart you can do virtual trades to buy or sell whenever a signal is given as you move forward in time. This way you may be able to check years of data in a day to see if your strategy works. Whatever you do, you need to document your strategies in writing in a written trading or investment plan together with a risk management strategy. You should always follow the rules in your written plan to avoid you making decisions based on emotions. By backtesting or paper trading your strategies it will give you confidence that they will work over the long term.  There is a lot of work involved at the start, but once you have developed a documented strategy that has been thoroughly backtested, it will take you minimal time to successfully manage your investments. In my shorter term trading (positions held from a couple of days to a few weeks) I spend about half an hour per night to manage my trades and am up about 50% over the last 7 months. For my longer term investing (positions held from months to years) I spend about an hour per week and have been averaging over 25% over the last 4 years. Technical Analysis does work for those who have a documented plan, have approached it in a systematic way and use risk management to protect their existing and future capital. Most people who say that is doesn't work either have not used it themselves or have used it ad-hock without putting in the initial time and work to develop a documented and systematic approach to their trading or investing.
"There are stocks that have held 100% of the exact same trend (bull or bear) on a date or date range for years. While  history of course doesn't guarantee that the trend will hold for the current year, that fact itself is distinct from the question of whether history is an *indicator* worth building a thesis off of.  The problem is if and when someone thinks ""indicator"" is equivalent to ""definitive answer"".   Answer 2: A dozen big algo traders have disproven this notion.  Answer 3: Price is not only price action itself. It's calendar, evens, binaries, cyclical psychology, etc." The 'standard' in such moving average crossover systems is 50/200. The numbers are essentially arbitrary as long as the long term average is greater than the short term and there is some different between the averages in terms of the smoothing they provide (i.e. comparing a 74 day MA to a 75 day MA isn't what the system is intended for) There are plenty of software programs that will let you run through many possible values for the system over historical data. I concur with the other answers in that this system/indicator alone isn't very good. However, I disagree with their blanket brushing off of technical analysis. There are many successful traders out there. The moving average cross over system is perhaps the second most primitive example of technical strategies categorized as trend following systems (buying new recent highs and selling new recent lows being the most simple). This particular system isn't very powerful because of its poor use of simple moving averages. A simple moving average is intended to smooth out data, but smoothing comes at the cost of lagging from the present. A simple moving average essentially gives you an idealized smoothing of price action for the day at that is one half of their period ago. So your 200 day simple moving average shows you an idealized smoothing of price action 100 days ago. A lot can happen in 100 days and that is why this system is far from ideal. "Assuming that you accept the premise that technical analysis is legitimate and useful, it makes sense that it might not work for a small market, or at the very least that it wouldn't be the same for a small market as it is for a large market.  The reason for this is that a large stock market like the U.S. stock market is as close to a perfect market as you will find: Compare this to a small market in a small country. Market information is harder to get, because there are not as many media outlets covering the news. There aren't as many participants. And possibly it might be more expensive to participate in, and there might be more regulatory intervention than with the large market.  All of these things can affect the prices. The closer you get to a perfect market, the closer you get to a point where the prices of the stocks reflect the ""true value"" of the companies, without external forces affecting prices." "Trying to ""time the market"" is usually a bad idea. People who do this every day for a living have a hard time doing that, and I'm guessing you don't have that kind of time and knowledge.  So that leaves you with your first and third options, commonly called lump-sum and dollar cost averaging respectively.   Which one to use depends on where your preferences lie on the risk/reward scpectrum. Dollar cost averaging (DCA) has lower risk and lower reward than lump sum investing. In my opinion, I don't like it. DCA only works better than lump sum investing if the price drops. But if you think the price is going to drop, why are you buying the stock in the first place? Example: Your uncle wins the lottery and gives you $50,000. Do you buy $50,000 worth of Apple now, or do you buy $10,000 now and $10,000 a quarter for the next four quarters? If the stock goes up, you will make more with lump-sum(LS) than you will with DCA. If the stock goes down, you will lose more with LS than you will with DCA. If the stock goes up then down, you will lose more with DCA than you will with LS. If the stock goes down then up, you will make more with DCA than you will with LS. So it's a trade-off. But, like I said, the whole point of you buying the stock is that you think it's going to go up, which is especially true with an index fund! So why pick the strategy that performs worse in that scenario?" There is a difference between trading which is short term focussed and investing which is longterm focussed. On the long term what drives stock prices is still the overall economy and the performance of the underlying business aspects. I do not think that any trading algorithms will change this. These are more concerned with short term profits regardless of the underlying business economics. Therefore I think that longterm investing using index funds is still a viable strategy for most private investors. If I knew a surefire way to make money in FOREX (or any market for that matter) I would not be sharing it with you.  If you find an indicator that makes sense to you and you think you can make money, use it.  For what it's worth, I think technical analysis is nonsense. If you're just now wading in to the FOREX markets because of the Brexit vote I suggest you set up a play-money account first.  The contracts and trades can be complicated, losses can be very large and you can lose big -- quickly. I suspect FOREX brokers have been laughing to the bank the last couple weeks with all the guppies jumping in to play with the sharks. Technical analysis is based more on psychology than anything else. As an example, if an analyst estimates or believes that a stock is undervalued, or simply wants to re-balance their portfolio, then they will buy some amount, moving the price up. Others in the market see the upwards move as the start of an upwards trend, an indication that the stock is undervalued or perhaps even that an insider is trading ahead of better than expected data from the firm. They then buy the stock creating a self-fulfilling prophecy and pulling more traders in as they see an upward trend being confirmed. This is even more pronounced in a bear market as fear is an even stronger driver. When a trader sees a stock is falling they are more likely to jump to the conclusion that it is due to expected poor performance of the firm and that the firm and the economy are both in trouble and going down than to think that it is simply a retrenching or a large investor re-balancing etc. To quote Credit Suisse [1]  A chart is a mirror   of the mood of the crowd and not of the fundamental factors. Thus, technical analysis is the   analysis of human mass psychology. Therefore, it is also called behavioral finance. The underlying truth that makes technical analysis work is that people are predictably irrational, at least in the short run and tend to follow the same patterns of thought. references: [1] https://www.credit-suisse.com/pwp/pb/pb_research/technical_tutorial_de.pdf [2] http://www.amazon.com/The-Psychology-Technical-Analysis-Profiting/dp/1557385432 [3] CFA level 1 syllabus You can't tell for sure.  If there was such a technique then everyone would use it and the price would instantly change to reflect the future price value. However, trade volume does say something.  If you have a lemonade stand and offer a large glass of ice cold lemonade for 1c on a hot summer day I'm pretty sure you'll have high trading volume.  If you offer it for $5000 the trading volume is going to be around zero. Since the supply of lemonade is presumably limited at some point dropping the price further isn't going to increase the number of transactions.   Trade volumes reflect to some degree the difference of valuations between buyers and sellers and the supply and demand.  It's another piece of information that you can try looking at and interpreting.  If you can be more successful at this than the majority of others on the market (not very likely) you may get a small edge.  I'm willing to bet that high frequency trading algorithms factor volume into their trading decisions among multiple other factors. To answer your original question: There is proof out there. Here is a paper from the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis that might be worth a read.  It has a lot of references to other publications that might help answer your question(s) about TA.  You can probably read the whole article then research some of the other ones listed there to come up with a conclusion.  Below are some excerpts:  Abstract: This article introduces the subject of technical analysis in the foreign exchange market, with emphasis on its importance for questions of market efficiency.  “Technicians” view their craft, the study of price patterns, as exploiting traders’ psychological regularities.  The literature on technical analysis has established that simple technical trading rules on dollar exchange rates provided 15 years of positive, risk-adjusted returns during the 1970s and 80s before those returns were extinguished.  More recently, more complex and less studied rules have produced    more modest returns for a similar length of time.  Conventional explanations that rely on risk adjustment and/or central bank intervention do not plausibly justify the observed excess returns from following simple technical trading rules.  Psychological biases, however, could contribute to the profitability of these rules. We view the observed pattern of excess returns to technical trading rules as being consistent with an adaptive markets view of the world.    and  The widespread use of technical analysis in foreign exchange (and   other) markets is puzzling because it implies  that either traders are   irrationally making decisions on useless information or that past   prices contain useful  information for trading.  The latter   possibility would contradict the “efficient markets hypothesis,”   which holds that  no trading strategy should be able to generate   unusual profits on publicly available information—such as past    prices—except by bearing unusual risk. And the observed  level of   risk-adjusted profitability measures market  (in)efficiency. Therefore   much research effort has been directed toward determining whether   technical analysis is  indeed profitable or not. One of the earliest   studies, by Fama and Blume (1966), found no evidence that a particular   class of TTRs could earn abnormal profits in the stock market.   However, more recent research by Brock,  Lakonishok and LeBaron (1992)   and Sullivan, Timmermann an d White (1999) has provided contrary   evidence. And  many studies of the foreign exchange market have found   evidence that TTRs can generate persistent profits (Poole  6  (1967),   Dooley and Shafer (1984), Sweeney (1986), Levich and Thomas (1993),   Neely, Weller and Dittmar (1997),  Gençay (1999), Lee, Gleason and   Mathur (2001) and Martin (2001)). The stock market's principal justification is matching investors with investment opportunities.  That's only reasonably feasible with long-term investments.  High frequency traders are not interested in investments, they are interested in buying cheap and selling expensive.  Holding reasonably robust shares for longer binds their capital which is one reason the faster-paced business of dealing with options is popular instead.  So their main manner of operation is leeching off actually occuring investments by letting the investors pay more than the recipients of the investments receive. By now, the majority of stock market business is indirect and tries guessing where the money goes rather than where the business goes. For one thing, this leads to the stock market's evaluations being largely inflated over the actual underlying committed deals happening.  And as the commitment to an investment becomes rare, the market becomes more volatile and instable: it's money running in circles. Fast trading is about running in front of where the money goes, anticipating the market.  But if there is no actual market to anticipate, only people running before the imagination of other people running before money, the net payout converges to zero as the ratio of serious actual investments in tangible targets declines. By and large, high frequency trading converges to a Ponzi scheme, and you try being among the winners of such a scheme.  But there are a whole lot of people competing here, and essentially the net payoff is close to zero due to the large volumes in circulation as opposed to what ends up in actual tangible investments. It's a completely different game with different rules riding on the original idea of a stock market.  So you have to figure out what your money should be doing according to your plans. Your question is a bit odd in that you are mixing long-term fundamental analysis signals which are generally meant to work on longer time frames with medium term trading where these fundamental signals are mostly irrelevant.  Generally you would buy-and-hold on a fundamental signal and ride the short-term fluctuations if you believe you have done good analysis. If you would like to trade on the 2-6 month time scale you would need a signal that works on that sort of time scale.  Some people believe that technical analysis can give you those kind of signals, but there are many, many, many different technical signals and how you would trade using them is highly dependent on which one you believe works. Some people do mix fundamental and technical signals, but that can be very complicated.  Learning a good amount about technical analysis could get you started.  I will note, though, that studies of non-professionals continuously show that the more frequently people trade the more on they underperform on average in the long term when compared with people that buy-and-hold. An aside on technical analysis: michael's comment is generally correct though not well explained.  Say Bob found a technical signal that works and he believes that a stock that costs $10 dollars should be $11.  He buys it and makes money two months later when the rest of the market figures out the right price is $11 and he sells at that price.  This works a bunch of times and he now publishes how the signal works on Stack Exchange to show everyone how awesome he is.  Next time, Bob's signal finds a different stock at $10 that should be $11, but Anna just wrote a computer program that checks that signal Bob published faster than he ever could.  The computer program buys as much as it can in milliseconds until the price is $11.  Bob goes to buy, but now it is too late the price is already $11 and he can't make any money. Eventually, people learn to anticipate/adjust for this signal and even Anna's algorithms don't even work anymore and the hunt for new signals starts again. "The June 2014 issue of Barclays Wealth's Compass magazine had a very nice succinct article on this topic: ""Value investing – does a rules-based approach work?"".  It examines the performance of value and growth styles of investment in the MSCI World and S&P500 arenas for a few decades back, and reveals a surprisingly complicated picture, depending on sector, region and time-period. Their summary is basically: A closer look however shows that the overall success of value   strategies derives mainly from the 1970s and 1980s. ... in the US, value has underperformed growth for over 25 years   since peaking in July 1988. Globally, value experienced a 30% setback   in the late 1990s so that there are now periods with a length of   nearly 13 years over which growth has outperformed. So the answer to ""does it beat the market?"" is  ""it depends..."". Update in response to comment below: the question of risk adjusted returns is interesting.  To quote another couple of fragments from the piece: Since December 1974, [MSCI world] value has outperformed growth by   2.6% annually, with lower risk. This outperformance on a risk-adjusted   basis is the so-called value premium that Eugene Fama and Kenneth   French first identified in 1992... and That outperformance has, however, come with more risk. Historical   volatility of the pure style indices has been 21-22% compared to 16%   for the market. ... From a maximum drawdown perspective, the 69% drop   of pure value during the financial crisis exceeded the 51% drop of the   overall market." Forecasting prices to the level of accuracy they purport is a fool's errand. Sell side analysts are there to get you to buy something, not to make you money.  If they truly believed their analysis was significantly better than anyone else's in the market, they would trade on their own analysis.  No one ever got rich by following analyst recommendations.  Don't believe me? Track the buy/sell recommendations in a spreadsheet for 50+ stocks. I would be shocked if you significantly outperformed the market. I'm talking about day trading here. Automated day trading never worked for me. But I will also admit I am terrible at automated day trading. I'm sorry if the premise of my post sounds off. I know it sounds like I'm being an idiot by not going the automated route, but it works for me and that's why I'm going to stick with my own techniques. Why change it if it's working? Nothing is wrong and it should be profitable - but it sounds too good to be true. The devil is in the details and you have not described how you found those stocks. For example, you may have scanned the 500 stocks in the S&P 500, and you may have found a few that exhibit that pattern over a given time window. But it doesn't mean that they will continue to do so. In other words they may just be random outliers. This is generically called overfitting. A more robust test would be to use a period, say 2000-2005 to find those stocks and check over a future period, say 2006-2014 if the strategy you describe is profitable. My guess is that it won't.