EconPapers    
Economics at your fingertips  
 

Evaluating the Effectiveness of Common Technical Trading Models

Joseph Attia

Papers from arXiv.org

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.

New Economics Papers: this item is included in nep-big, nep-cmp, nep-fle and nep-rmg
Date: 2019-07
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations: Track citations by RSS feed

Downloads: (external link)
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.10407 Latest version (application/pdf)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:arx:papers:1907.10407

Access Statistics for this paper

More papers in Papers from arXiv.org
Bibliographic data for series maintained by arXiv administrators ().

 
Page updated 2019-08-28
Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:1907.10407