IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/1907.10407.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Evaluating the Effectiveness of Common Technical Trading Models

Author

Listed:
  • Joseph Attia

Abstract

How effective are the most common trading models? The answer may help investors realize upsides to using each model, act as a segue for investors into more complex financial analysis and machine learning, and to increase financial literacy amongst students. Creating original versions of popular models, like linear regression, K-Nearest Neighbor, and moving average crossovers, we can test how each model performs on the most popular stocks and largest indexes. With the results for each, we can compare the models, and understand which model reliably increases performance. The trials showed that while all three models reduced losses on stocks with strong overall downward trends, the two machine learning models did not work as well to increase profits. Moving averages crossovers outperformed a continuous investment every time, although did result in a more volatile investment as well. Furthermore, once finished creating the program that implements moving average crossover, what are the optimal periods to use? A massive test consisting of 169,880 trials, showed the best periods to use to increase investment performance (5,10) and to decrease volatility (33,44). In addition, the data showed numerous trends such as a smaller short SMA period is accompanied by higher performance. Plotting volatility against performance shows that the high risk, high reward saying holds true and shows that for investments, as the volatility increases so does its performance.

Suggested Citation

  • Joseph Attia, 2019. "Evaluating the Effectiveness of Common Technical Trading Models," Papers 1907.10407, arXiv.org.
  • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:1907.10407
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.10407
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:arx:papers:1907.10407. 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: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://arxiv.org/ .

    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.