Showing posts with label behind. Show all posts
Showing posts with label behind. Show all posts

Monday, August 19

The new science behind stock charts

The new science behind stock charts
| By Richard Satran, U.S. News & World Report

Behavioral finance research is unearthing evidence that a visual plotting of stock values leads to better investment decisions.

Those crazy-sounding chart formations like "death cross," "cup and handle," "dragonfly dojo" and "falling knife" that stock traders wave about on graph paper sometimes sound as scientific as divining rods or wishbones. But behavioral finance is unearthing growing evidence that shows those wild-eyed technical analysts are not just reading astrological charts and have one thing scientifically right: Plotting stock prices visually leads to better investing decision-making.

The stock market has been gaining this year with help from one important chart signal -- the level of market "exuberance" as seen in buy and sell patterns and market volume. "It has been a market rally that has been avoiding excesses," says longtime technical analyst Philip Roth. This behavior points to more gains, he adds, but a lack of enthusiasm -- a healthy sign for now -- could eventually derail the rally.

Purging passion from market decision-making is one of the basic rules chart followers live by. They see the market as a virtual animal whose moves can be read through the emotional extremes of fear and greed, which comprise market sentiment at a given point in time. They point to the work of MIT finance professor Andrew Lo, whose behavioral psychology experiments and long-range studies have shown the impact of these animal spirits.

Studies of such market dynamics have "already demonstrated an ability to understand many aspects of financial markets," wrote Lo in a recent paper on efficient markets, although he adds that the science is "in its infancy." He studied day traders and hedge fund managers in depth, using tools of neuroscience and behavioral studies to show that markets are ruled primarily by emotions, challenging the long-held view that they price stocks based on information alone.

But other researchers warn against basing your next stock market purchase on what today's "pitchfork" or "ascending triangle" might say, because charts alone don't inoculate against the risks of emotional decision-making.

Other behavioral science studies find the limits of such tools. Duke neuroscience and psychology professor Scott Huettel has done research that shows people often see patterns that are not there, or that others do not see in the same way that would produce a meaningful buy or sell signal. "People are very good at thinking they see trends that don't mean anything in just a random sequence of numbers," Huettel says. "You really cannot predict things that way."

So what has behavioral science shown that those charts are good for? This, at least: Information presented visually is a lot better than a bunch of numbers, behavioral scientists have found.

Anya Samak, now an assistant professor at the University of Wisconsin School of Consumer Science, ran an experiment while doing research at the University of Chicago in which she gave theoretical cash amounts to students to invest in the market. Those with access to visual data ended up with significantly more cash in their portfolios.

The use of visual tools helps counteract information overload and complexity, she says, and "enables users to interactively discover information from large information sets to improve the financial decision-making process." Her work also suggests people gain confidence and base decisions on a wider range of choices when using visual data.

Behavioral psychology studies suggest the value of presenting data visually, but only as a tool in making an informed decision. Indeed, David Littlejohn, chief technical analyst at BigFoot Investments, says charts are extremely valuable in making investment choices, but technical analysis alone does not work. It's just one tool to use along with a full view of a company's earnings and business fundamentals.

He offers the following tips for people who want to incorporate "chartistry" into their investing decisions:

1. Start with a fundamental look at the company based on its earnings and dividend potential. "Don't start by looking at charts," Littlejohn says.

2. Use the same metrics consistently. The process of charting stocks aims to provide consistent benchmarks and measurements that remove emotion and replace it with specific buy and sell targets.

3. Watch moving averages. This is the basic concept of charting. When a stock moves out of its trading range, it suggests movement, up or down.

4. Question your emotions. "Most of the time when you base a decision on emotions, you will be wrong," Littlejohn says.

He reaffirms the first point: Don't get carried away with charts. "Before you even start doing that, evaluate the fundamentals because they are what supports everything. Otherwise, you are just running with the lemmings," he says.

Technical analyst Roth puts less stock in those fundamentals, and still argues that emotions will always trump "information-based" decisions. After working for nearly 50 years on Wall Street at firms such as Morgan Stanley and Miller Tabak, Roth has dealt with his share of skeptics. Now in retirement, but still an active market-watcher, he feels vindicated by the work of behavioral scientists. "It's a huge confirmation from academia when they say there is information in those chart patterns," he says. "We've known it for 100 years. We called it market psychology. Now it's behavioral finance."

Sunday, March 18

US lags way behind in science, math grads

US lags way behind in science, math grads
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development


When it comes to churning out young workers with college degrees in math and science, the United States lags well behind other advanced democracies, ranking just behind Turkey and Spain, according to a new analysis.


The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development analyzed education rates in its member countries and found that the U.S. is below average in the relative number of 25- to 34-year-old workers who have a degree in so-called STEM fields such as science, engineering, computing and statistics.


That’s a potential problem because research has shown that innovation in any economy depends on how many workers have such degrees, said Ronald Ehrenberg, director of the Cornell Higher Education Research Institute.


“It is something that we should be concerned about,” Ehrenberg said


There are about 1,472 math and science grads for every 100,000 employed 25- to 34-year-olds in the United States, according to the data. The compares to more than 3,555 in Korea, which leads the chart, according to the OECD figures based on 2009 data.


The United States falls between Spain and Iceland on the chart, and is noticeably lower than the OECD average. The figures do not reflect how many people with STEM degrees are actually employed in their field or using the skills they learned.


Jobs available for graduates with degrees in math, science and engineering tend to pay well, said Anthony Carnevale, director of Georgetown’s Center on Education and the Workforce. But there are plenty of ways in which American culture dissuades its most promising kids from going into those fields.


For starters, many young Americans believe they can make more money with a degree in a business, finance or a related field, Carnevale said. Americans also seem to place more value on jobs in those fields.


“(If you’re) a smart high school kid, doing well, your image of what you want to do is not to wear a white smock every day and sit on a stool with a beaker,” Carnevale said. “You’re in a culture that drives you toward more convivial and more social kinds of work, and it pays better.”


Young Americans may also not be getting enough exposure to math and science, said Cornell’s Ehrenberg.


At the K-12 level, he said, it can be tough to recruit great math and science teachers because college graduates who specialize in those areas can probably find better-paying work outside teaching.


In addition, some students may have a hard time finding the right role models in college math and science departments, said Ehrenberg, who noted that many science and math faculties are dominated by white and Asian men.


Ehrenberg said many colleges and universities have tried to recruit faculty from more diverse backgrounds and to develop more family-friendly policies to retain women and non-traditional students in the fields.


“I think role models do matter,” Ehrenberg said.


For now, at least, Carnevale said many companies are simply poaching talented young science and math graduates from other countries. But as those countries ramp up their own businesses, that may be tougher to do.


Still, he said it also may be hard to fight the biases that have come to value lucrative non-scientific fields such as finance and law.


“A labor market is a social institution as well as an economic one,” he said.

Site Search