Maybe making money isn't the best priority to have; it could be that understanding is more valuable.

I come to this realization while reflecting on 19 years of adventuring, trying to understand the trading markets. When I started out, my sole criterion for success was whether a technique worked in practice -- and I never dabbled in theory. I specifically foreswore theory in favor of practicality, but now the two are coming closer, in that the academic and governmental worlds, their attention focused on obvious inefficiencies in market pricing, are making genuine headway on the nature of market dynamics.
 
In STOCKS & COMMODITIES, we've featured the field of behavioral finance with the interviews of Hersh Shefrin and Hank Pruden, but number-crunchers are beginning to put flesh to many suppositions about market mannerisms. Avoiding eighths? See the work of John Cooney and the van Nesses, Bonnie and Robert. Psychological barriers? See Paul De Grauwe and Danny Decupere. Inefficient portfolio management? Check out Philip Dybvig's take. Order flow impact? Martin Evans and Richard Lyons. Support and resistance? Take up the subject of microstructure (Charles Goodhard, T. Ito, and Richard Payne). Or check "clustering" work by Lawrence Harris, Gary Gottlieb, and Avner Kalay. Technical analysis? Andrew Lo (another S&C interview subject), Harry Mamaysky, and Jing Wang.

You get the expanding picture. In my case, 19 years of experimentation didn't produce a fraction of the ideas all this firepower is generating, though it must be said that precious little of this impressive work has been turned into money-making ventures as yet. We're entering a golden age for the study of the markets, and I doubt it will do to simply be familiar with the relative strength index (RSI) or stochastics.
 
Traders, besides surviving day to day, will need to study up on the literature, now that there actually is literature. Some careful thinking will be necessary to translate the valid features of market behavior discerned by researchers into daily tactics. Some uncomfortable thinking will be needed to discard old practices that turn out to be unfeasible in the research. Many will want to go back to school to learn the statistical discipline and academic rigor that the field is beginning to require. It's that or be outclassed by more informed minds.
 
The industry will change too. The hot-stock touts and the quick-answer artists will need to bone up or go away. Though the free flow of ideas will always continue, it will be satisfying to firmly identify the bogus and gain some firm ground for traders. I suspect that successful practice will be confirmed, for the most part by research, since in practice bogus work generates losses quickly.
 
There's a long road ahead for researchers, analysts, and traders, but the new partnership holds great hope.

Good Fortune!

John Sweeney, Interim Editor 

---

Return to May 2001 Contents

---