Spoiler I agree with you. The reason 50 day and 200 day moving averages, bollinger bands and mean average convergence/divergence are popular is because they measure "relative highs and lows". The best an investor can do is to lose less in a down market and make more in an up market.
That would suggest that a good investment strategy would be to pick a stock that you thought would out-perform the market. Buy at relative lows and sell at relative highs. Keep a core position until you lose confidence that your pick will out-perform the market.
I don't mean to imply that diversification isn't important. Given a single stock portfolio, Spoiler is right.
Picking a stock you think will outperform, is not a strategy. ITS CALLED "WINGING IT". I hope to god your not managing your own money! Please leave it to the professionals. Market theorists and market hypothesis says that all forms of technical analysis are worthless to achieve outperformance.
Stever you leave out one critical element in your comment, which is systematic risk (non-diversifiable risk). If the market goes down, the stock will follow. Basically youre looking at Beta times the market decline. Since Garmins Beta is greater than one, it will fall faster than the market. You can then throw all that technical bullshit out the window.
Stever, you missed the whole point in the first place. Warren Buffett is an investor. The majority of his money is always working in the stock market. IT'S NOT IN CASH! (Very similar to an Institutional Money Manager) They don't time the market, they invest with the intention of falling less when the market goes down, and keeping pace or outperforming when the market goes up.
I bought Pan Am in 1967. I think it was in the high 20's at the time. Bad buy! Snce then I have done pretty well. I am not sure I understand your aversion to cash. I don't pay much attention to major brokerage houses recommendations - but in the last 40 years I don't ever remember hearing a rec for 0% in cash. Why do you suppose that is?
As far as your diatribe on Beta - it is guilty of falling within the realm of TA. It is just another historical measure which as you point out have proven to be unrelaible predictors of the future
Professional Money Mangers get that title because they get paid for managing money , not necessarily for making it. It's a statistical fact that some managers will outperform the market in both the short and longer term. I choose to believe that those on the right tail are just lucky. I might be swayed to let a "professional" manage some money if they would guarantee future performance will be based on past results.