IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/jfinec/v3y2005i4p606-628.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Reexamining the Profitability of Technical Analysis with Data Snooping Checks

Author

Listed:
  • Po-Hsuan Hsu
  • Chung-Ming Kuan

Abstract

In this article we reexamine the profitability of technical analysis using White's reality check and Hansen's SPA test that correct the data snooping bias. Compared to previous studies, we study a more complete "universe" of trading techniques, including not only simple rules but also complex trading strategies, and we test the profitability of these rules and strategies with four main indices. It is found that significantly profitable simple rules and complex trading strategies do exist in the data from relatively "young" markets (NASDAQ Composite and Russell 2000) but not in the data from relatively "mature" markets [Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) and S&P 500]. Moreover, after taking transaction costs into account, we find that the best rules for NASDAQ Composite and Russell 2000 outperform the buy-and-hold strategy in most in- and out-of-sample periods. It is also found that complex trading strategies are able to improve on the profits of simple rules and may even generate significant profits from unprofitable simple rules. Copyright 2005, Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation

  • Po-Hsuan Hsu & Chung-Ming Kuan, 2005. "Reexamining the Profitability of Technical Analysis with Data Snooping Checks," Journal of Financial Econometrics, Oxford University Press, vol. 3(4), pages 606-628.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:jfinec:v:3:y:2005:i:4:p:606-628
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/jjfinec/nbi026
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:jfinec:v:3:y:2005:i:4:p:606-628. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/sofieea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.