After the last market crash, portfolio managers and strategists proclaimed that the old "buy and hold" philosophy of investing is no longer viable. They said, "the market is simply too volatile for that kind of approach. Even well-established companies can go bankrupt. The slightest bad news can cause a stock to plummet." Lately, some managers are once again investing with the prior intent of holding all positions for several years (though some do say they will sell if the fundamentals change). It is as if they have learned nothing from their recent experience. Such an attitude tends to lock an investor or advisor into a pattern of thinking that all losses are only temporary, and everything will be fine five years from now anyway.

The problem with this mentality is that it reduces vigilance. Why bother to watch a portfolio closely or even to think about strategy issues if everything will work out in the long run? What are these advisors being paid to do? We know from past experience that everything may not turn out okay in five years. We can recite a very long list of stocks that have dropped over 60% from what they were five years ago and they still have not come close to recovering (I actually named a number of these companies in another article). Many of these stocks no longer exist or are now virtually worthless.

The point is that all these stocks looked good to many of the analysts who studied the fundamentals of these businesses. There were, after all, some honest analysts who joined the dishonest ones in repeatedly recommending their purchase and who gave glowing reports about their prospects. These stocks were touted as great investments at prices that later proved to be much too high (they did not seem particularly high at the time because they had been much higher before that). Nevertheless, some of the analysts who studied these companies really believed that they were very good picks. They kept recommending these stocks even though they kept falling. Why? They did so because they concluded that these stocks ought to go higher. Technicians who study price, volume, and various other stock behavior patterns, on the other hand, sold when their stop-losses were triggered or when technical sell signals were registered. They did not argue with themselves that these stocks ought to go higher. They acted on what was, not on what ought to be. They were the smart ones.

Yes, some day these stocks may recover. However, an investor who ejected himself from these situations could have been accumulating profits during the following years rather than watching his stocks decline or hoping for a recovery some day. Those who merely hang on through "thick and thin" are the real gamblers. Contrary to their own opinions of themselves, they are not really investors but speculators guided by hopes and dreams. They have no real sell disciplines. They merely buy "good companies" and blindly hold on with no plans for selling except "someday, at a profit." It is far better to get rid of losers and to keep the winners. If you do not "weed your garden," you will end up with nothing but "weeds." If you keep pulling the weeds, your garden will have only flowers. The same is true of your portfolio. It is the percentage of time that most of a portfolio is invested in rising stocks that determines how good performance will be. Eject the losers and the winners will lift the portfolio.

ositive technical signals tend to precede good financial reports from a company. That is, the technical patterns precede and anticipate the fundamental reports. Stock price patterns reflect the buying and selling of all the people who have intimate knowledge about the company. The rest of the investment world creates the noise in stock behavior that accompanies the pattern created by those with knowledge. That is why sell strategies based on fundamentals are too slow in a volatile market.

Before the crash in 2000, many investment managers had relied on "fundamentals" to tell them when to sell. However, as the market crash approached it was often the case that by the time the company announced that earnings were going to be "soft," the stock had already declined. Sell strategies based on fundamentals (earnings, cash flow, order backlog, etc.) turned out to be much too "sluggish" in relation to market action and in comparison with sell signals based on technical analysis (volume & price patterns of the stock). The problem was compounded by the fact that analysts were often far from accurate in their forecasts regarding the financial prospects of companies. Some of the shortcomings of fundamental analysis are addressed by technical analysis.

Technical analysis offers its proponents the opportunity of responding in "real-time" to a stock's behavior. Technicians do not have to wait for the next quarterly report from the company. In other words, technicians can quickly respond to what is (current stock behavior) rather than wait to see if what ought to be (projections by fundamental analysts) actually happens (if the company actually generates the earnings expected by analysts). Each company has links with suppliers, competitors, officers, and employees. These in turn have families and friends. Many of these people are investors. There are also outside investors, thinkers, reporters, and others who are watchers of these people and their companies. The total knowledge of all these people is reflected in stock behavior. The cumulative effect of all the buying and selling activity of these people, and of those who watch these people, defines the regions of supply and demand (resistance and support) evident in the market activity of the stock and consequently in the patterns evident in the stock's behavior.