A synthesis of technical analysis and fractal geometry:

Evidence from the Dow Jones Industrial Average components

Camillo Lento1
Lakehead University, Faculty of Business Administration
Thunder Bay, Ontario, Canada, P7B 5E1

Abstract
The profitability of technical analysis has been investigated extensively, with
inconsistent results. This paper seeks to develop new insights into the profitability
of technical trading rules through a synthesis of fractal geometry and technical
analysis. The Hurst exponent (H) emerged from fractal geometry as a means to
detect long-term dependencies in a time series; the same dependencies that
technical analysis should be able to identify and exploit to earn profits. Two tests
of the synthesis are conducted using the thirty Dow Jones Industrial Average
components. Firstly, the financial series are classified into three groups based on
their H to determine if a higher (lower) H results in higher returns to trending
(contrarian) trading rules. Secondly, the relationship between H and profits to
technical analysis are estimated through OLS regression. Both tests suggest that
the fractal nature of a time series explains a significant portion of the profits
generated by technical analysis.
Keywords: Technical analysis; Rescaled range analysis; Hurst exponent; Longterm dependencies; Market efficiency.
JEL Classification: C4; C22; G14

1. Introduction
The fractal nature of financial data has been investigated throughout economic literature. Fractal
geometry provides a technique to identify a time series long-term dependencies; dependencies that
technical analysis should be able to exploit to earn profits. Technical analysis is one of the earliest
forms of investment analysis, mainly because stock prices were among the first types of publicly
available information. Technical analysis uses past prices to identify patterns that predict future
prices. Technical analysis is popular among academics and traders; however, the extant body of
literature is inconsistent as many studies signify the informational content of technical analysis
(Brock, Lakonishok and LeBaron (1992), Genay (1999), Lento and Gradojevic (2007), and Lento,

Author email: Clento@lakeheadu.ca; telephone: 1-807-343-8387; fax: 1-807-343-8023

-1-

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1263615

Gradojevic and Wright (2007)), while other studies support the opposite (Allen and Karjalainen
(1999), Lo, Mamaysky and Wang (2000), and Bokhardi et. al. (2005)).
Recently, Hursts exponent (H) (Hurst, 1951) has emerged from fractal geometry into economics
research as a means of classifying a time series based on its long-term dependencies (Peters, 1991 and
Peters, 1994). A H of 0.50 indicates a series exhibits Brownian motion. A 0<H<0.5 indicates an antipersistent series, suggesting the data set exhibits mean reverting tendencies. A 0.5<H<1 indicates a
persistent series, suggesting the data is trend reinforcing. The strength of the trend increases as H
approaches 1. The H thus provides a method of classifying time series, which can be beneficial in
identifying which markets have greater predictability.
The purpose of this paper is to develop new insights through a synthesis of technical analysis and
fractal geometry to help explain the inconsistent empirical results in the extant body of literature.
The synthesis posits the following: fractal geometry provides a technique (H) that detects the longterm dependencies (reinforcing or revering trends) in the historical price data of a time series; the
same trends that technical analysis purports to identify and utilize to predict future price movements.
Therefore, trending trading rules should be more profitable in markets that exhibit trend reinforcing
characteristics, while contrarian trading rules should be more profitable in markets that exhibit antipersistent, or mean reverting, tendencies. Two empirical tests are conducted to evaluate the synthesis
and the resulting relationship between the H and profits to technical analysis. Firstly, the financial
series are classified into three groups based on their H (H<0.5; 0.5<H>0.55; H >0.55) to determine if
time series with a higher (lower) H results in higher returns to trending (contrarian) trading rules.
Secondly, OLS regression is used to estimate the relationship between the H and profits to technical
analysis. The thirty Dow Jones Industrial Average components provide the sample data.
The results suggest that the H is able to identify long-term dependencies in a time series and these
time series result in higher profits to technical analysis. The classification analysis reveals that profits
from trending trading rules are higher (average of 11%) for time series that exhibit long-term
dependencies (high H) and lower (average negative return of 16.8%) for time series that exhibit antipersistent trends. The regression analysis results in a significant R2 of 0.31, revealing that the fractal
nature of a time series explains a significant portion of the returns to technical analysis. The moving
averages and trading range break-out rules were the best at exploiting the dependencies (R2 of 0.37
and 0.372 respectively) while the filter rule was inconsistent. The results are consistent with the

-2-

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1263615

synthesis theory. Sub-period analysis confirms the robustness of the results. The results from the
contrarian trading rules are similar to the trending trading rules.
This paper offers a significant contribution by expanding the current literature. This study develops
new insights and theories of technical analysis through a synthesis with concepts from fractal
geometry. The vast majority of the literature investigating the fractal nature of financial data seeks
to determine market predictability (Peters, 1991; Qian and Rasheed, 2004; and Corazza and Mlliaris,
2002); however, the literature does not utilize technical analysis to build on the identification of
market predictability to determine if abnormal returns can be generated after accounting for
transaction costs. This paper extends the literature by developing a synthesis that seeks to determine
if technical trading rules are more profitable in markets that exhibit long-term dependencies. The
synthesis provides new insight into the inconsistent empirical results on technical analysis.
Furthermore, this study provides an additional examination of moving average, filter, Bollinger
Band, and trading ranges break-out rules on the DJIA components that is unique as it assesses the
trading rule profits as calculated at various scales.
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows: Section 2 provides a review of the literature, and
develops the synthesis and hypotheses; Section 3 describes the data; Section 4 discusses the
methodology; Section 5 presents the results; and Section 6 offers a summary and concluding thoughts.

2. Theory and Hypothesis Development

Fractal geometry has been making inroads into economic theory due to the pioneering work of
researchers such as Beniot Mandelbrot. Fractal geometry questions, and provides alternatives to,
many fundamental assumptions in economic and finance theory and therefore can permeate through
many areas of economics, including technical analysis and technical trading rules. Currently, the
extant body of research on technical analysis is inconsistent as many studies support its profitability
(Brock, Lakonishok, and LeBaron, 1992), while others suggest the opposite (Lo, Mamaysky and
Wang, 2000).
A synthesis of technical analysis and fractal geometry can provide fertile grounds for new theory
development and insights, along with novel empirical tests, to enhance our understanding of the
profitability technical trading rules. The following literature review develops this synthesis and

-3-

proceeds as follows: Section 2.1 provides a brief discussion of the technical analysis literature; Section
2.2 provides a discussion of fractal geometry, including its history, the time series dynamic process,
and its application to capital markets; and Section 2.3 develops the synthesis and hypotheses.

2.1 Technical trading rules

Since its inception, research on technical analysis has generally been inconsistent. The first studies
were conducted by Alexander (1961 and 1964) and Fama and Blume (1966) who suggest that excess
returns cannot be realized by making investment decisions based on filter rules. However, Sweeney
(1988) later re-examined the data used by Fama and Blume (1966) and found that filter rules applied
to fifteen of the thirty Dow Jones stocks earned excess returns over buy-and-hold alternatives. The
excess returns existed for a number of years following the end of the Fama and Blume sample.
Technical trading rules have also been extensively tested in the foreign exchange market, beginning
with Dooley and Shafer (1983) who tested filter rules for nine currencies. After accounting for the bid
and ask spread, their results suggest that smaller filters were profitable during the period studied for
all currencies, while larger filters were also profitable in over half of the sample periods. Sweeney
(1986) conducted a similar test that yielded similar results. Schulmeister (1988) analyzed the US/DM
spot rate over the periods of 1973 1986 by using not only filter rules, but also moving average
models and momentum models. Even after adjusting for interest expense and transaction costs, the
result indicate that trading rules would have generated profits over the period studied.
The number of studies on technical trading rules significantly increased during the 1990s, along with
the methods used to test trading rules. However, the extant body of research was unable to conclude
on the profitability of technical analysis. Some of the most influential studies that provide indirect
support for trading rules includes Jegadeesh and Titman (1993), Blume, Easley, and OHara (1994),
Chan, Jagadeesh, and Lakonishok (1996), Lo and MacKinlay (1997), Grundy and Martin (1998), and
Rouwenhorst (1998). Stronger evidence can be found in the research of Neftci (1991), Neely, Weller,
and Dittman (1997), Chang and Osler (1994), Osler and Chang (1995), Lo and MacKinlay (1997), and
Neely and Weller (1998). One of the most influential studies on technical analysis was prepared by
Brock, Lakonishok, and LeBaron (1992) who used bootstrapping techniques and two simple, yet
popular, trading rules to reveal strong evidence in support of technical analysiss predictive nature.

-4-

The results suggest that patterns uncovered by technical rules cannot be explained by first order
correlations or by the potential for changing expected returns caused by changes in volatility.
However, not all studies support the efficacy of technical analysis.

For example, Allen and

Karjalainen (1999) used genetic programming to develop optimal ex ante trading rules for the S&P
500 index. They found no evidence that the rules were able to earn economically significant excess
returns over a buy-and-hold strategy during the period of 1970 1989. Furthermore, Lo, Mamaysky
and Wang (2000), using a smoothing techniques based on nonparametric kernel regression, found that
certain technical patterns can provide information when applied to a large number stocks ranging
over a vast number of time periods. However, the results do not imply that technical analysis can be
used to generate excess trading profits. Rather, the results indicate the possibility that technical
trading rules can add value to the investment process and compliment fundamental analysis.
Bokhardi et. al. (2005) investigated the effectiveness of simple trading rules in relation to the size of
the firm. Bokhardi segregated a number of companies based on their size and applied trading rules on
their past prices for a sample period of 1987 2002. The results indicate that trading rules are more
effective at predicting the future price movements of firms with smaller capitalization. However,
Bokhardi concluded that trading rules cannot be used profitably after adjusting for transaction costs.

2.2 Fractal Geometry

2.2.1 Historical Perspective
Fractal geometry has recently emerged into the world of Mathematics as a compliment to Euclidean
geometry as an attempt to better explain and describe the objects and shapes of the real world. The
term fractal was coined by Benoit Mandelbrot, who is largely responsible for the present day interest
in fractal geometry and chaos theory. Chaos theory attempts to use nonlinear dynamic systems to
provide order to what is perceived to be random.
During the 1960s Benoit Mandelbrot believed that securities returns followed a fractal time series
and that Brownian motion was not an adequate statistical description of the true stochastic process
generating securities returns. In order to resolve this inadequacy, Mandelbrot worked in two
perpendicular directions to expand the class of fractal time series. One direction involved relaxing an
assumption of finite variance, which introduces what Mandelbrot termed the Noah Effect. The
other direction entailed relaxing an independence assumption, thereby allowing for a Joseph

-5-

Effect. (Mandelbrot, 1972). The Noah Effect (recalling the Biblical account of the great deluge)
refers to the tendency of various time series with presumably independent increments, especially
speculative time series, to exhibit abrupt and discontinuous changes. The Joseph Effect is named
after the biblical story in which Joseph prophesied that the residents of Egypt would face seven years
of feast followed by seven year of famine2.
The Joseph effect denotes the property of certain time series to exhibit persistent behavior (such as
years of flooding followed by years of drought along the Nile River basin) more frequently than
would be expected if the series were completely random, but without exhibiting any significant shortterm (Markovian) dependence. To describe such processes, Mandelbrot broadened the idea of
Brownian motion into the class of stochastic processes called fractional Brownian motion (fBm).
2.2.2 Chaotic dynamical process
A white noise process is the statistical paradigm against which the sequence of increments from a
chaotic dynamical process is typically contrasted. White noise traditionally refers to a sequence
whose increments are independently and identically distributed with zero mean and finite variance.
Brownian motion is a well-known paradigm in finance that can be described as a white noise process
for which the independent increments are identically normally distributed. Brownian motion
underlies most of modern finance theorys most important contributions.
A fractal time series is statistically self-similar regardless of the time frame over which the increments
of the series are observed, aside from its scale. For example, a time series of daily, weekly, monthly,
or yearly observations would exhibit similar statistical characteristics. Schroeder (1991) notes that
the paradigm of random fractals can be described as Brownian motion, as a white noise process, that
exhibits these scaling time series properties.
Fractional Brownian motions exhibit complicated long-term dependencies that can be characterized
by the Hurst exponent (H). The H denotes the level of long-range dependence in data and generally
ranges from 0 to 1 (Hurst, 1965). Additionally, the power spectrum of the increments of fractional
Brownian motion is proportional to f, where = 2H-1, so that Brownian motion as a white noise
paradigm has a flat spectrum (Feder, 1988).

Mandelbrot (2004) provides a detailed history and discussion of the Hurst exponent, the Joseph effect, and Noah effect.

-6-

If 0.5<H<1, then the series will exhibit persistence, with fewer reversals and longer trends than the
increments of Brownian motion. In this case, the graph would appear smoother than that of a
random walk. Figure 1 Panel A presents a graph of McDonalds weekly price time series which has a
H of 0.629. In addition, the power spectrum for such a series would be proportional to f, where >0,
so that the series would be subject to long-range dependence. On the other hand, if 0<H<0.5, then
the series will exhibit anti-persistence, as evidenced by a greater number of reversals and fewer and
shorter trends than in a white noise series. Visually, a graph of such a series would appear more
jagged than a random walk. Figure 1 Panel B presents a graph of J&Js weekly price time series
which has a H of 0.464. Figure 1 Panel C presents a graph of Alcoas weekly price time series which
has a H of 0.498, closely resembling what would be expected from Brownian motion.

Insert Figure 1 about here

In order to measure the dependencies that a time series most closely resembles, Mandelbrot developed
a statistical technique called rescaled range analysis that yields a measure of Hursts exponent. This
involves comparing a linear measure of the spread of the time series (a variation of its sample range)
to a quadratic measure (its sample standard deviation). Using the rescaled range analysis, Greene
and Fielitz (1977) found considerable evidence of temporal dependence in daily stock returns for the
period December 23, 1963 to November 29, 1968, after accounting for short-term linear dependencies
(autocorrelation) within the data.
2.2.2 Capital market research
Fractal geometry has not been researched in the capital markets as extensively as the theories of
modern finance. There are no known studies that investigate the relationship between technical
analysis and fractal geometry. The vast majority of the literature investigates the Hurst exponents
ability to identify financial market predictability; however, the literature does not use technical
analysis to build on the identification of financial market predictability to determine if abnormal
returns can be generated after accounting for transaction costs.
The most popular example is by Peters (1991) who estimates the Hurst exponent to be 0.778 for
monthly returns on the S&P 500 from January 1950 to July 1988. For a sample of individual stocks,

-7-

Peters found Hurst exponents ranging from 0.75 for Apple Computer down to 0.54 for Consolidated
Edison. All of these values are greater than 0.5, indicating a greater persistence among stock returns
than would be expected if stock prices followed a geometric Brownian motion process.
The H was investigated in the foreign exchange market for the British Pound, the Canadian Dollar,
the German Mark, the Swiss Franc, and the Japanese Yen by Corazza and Malliaris (2002). They
found that in the majority of the samples studied, the foreign currency markets exhibit a H that is
statistically different from 0.5. Furthermore, they also found that the H is not fixed but it changes
dynamically over time. The interpretation of these results is that the foreign currency returns follow
either a fractional Brownian motion or a Pareto- Levy stable distribution.
Qian and Rasheed (2004) classified various series of financial data representing different periods of
time and experimented with backpropagation neural networks to show that series with large H can be
predicted more accurately than those with H close to 0.50. The authors concluded that the H
provides a measure for predictability.
More recently, Hodges (2006) and Bender et al. (2006) began investigating the possibility of
developing portfolios based on identifiable long-term dependencies. Hodges (2006), for example,
examines an investors ability to form arbitrage portfolios under realistic transactions costs for values
of H very different from .5. Bender et al. also seek to develop a general theory of arbitrage portfolio
building based on a long term dependent processes. However, both these papers do not specifically
focus on investigating the efficacy of technical analysis in light of long-term dependencies.
Glenn (2007) also investigated the Hurst exponent and long term dependency on the NASDAQ.
Using the rescaled range analysis, a H of 0.59 was calculated for 1-day returns on the NASDAQ. It is
interesting to note that the H increased monotonically to a value of 0.87 for 250-day (annual) returns.
Most of this increase was also observed in simulated returns derived via a Gaussian random walk.
There are various scholars who rebut the H ability to identify long term dependencies by arguing that
the rescaled range analysis is skewed. Specifically, issues with the sensitivity of the H to short term
memory, the effects of the pre-asymptotic behaviour on the significance of the H estimate and the
problems with structural changes (see, Lo (1991), Ambrose et al. (1993), or Chueng (1993)) have be
raised. The most significant rebuttal was offered by Lo (1991), who published a paper refuting

-8-

Mandelbrots claims for H. Lo reported that the rescaled range analysis could confuse long-term
memory with the effects of short term memory. Along these lines, Jacobsen (1996) investigated the
return series of five European countries, the United States and Japan using the modified rescaled
range statistics, as introduced by Lo (1991) and concludes that no long-term dependence exists.
However, since Los publication, many economists have reported that his tests were potentially
flawed (Mandelbrot, 2004). Additionally, a number of new contributions suggested alternative
techniques for the estimation of a pathwise version of H eliminate the lack of reliability in the H
(Bianci, 2005 and Carbone et al., 2004).

2.3 A synthesis of technical analysis and fractal geometry

The extant body of literature provides inconclusive evidence on the profitability of technical trading
rules. Furthermore, the literature on the fractal nature of financial markets appears to stop once
dependencies have been identified or refuted. New insights into technical analysis can be obtained by
extending the literature through a synthesis of fractal geometry and technical analysis.
Technical trading rules are based on the premise that time series exhibit certain patterns in its past
data that can be used to predict future movements. It can therefore be deducted that trending
technical trading rules (e.g., filter rule, trading-range break-out, and moving average rules) should be
more profitable on time series that exhibit long-term persistence or dependencies, as postulated by
Mandelbrot with the level of the Nile River. Conversely, time series that are anti-persistent should
not provide fruitful results to trending technical trading rules as there are no continuing patterns in
the time series to identify and exploit. The H can be used to identify the dynamic processes of a time
series. Therefore, based on this synthesis, identifying the dependencies in a time series motion should
be able to partially explain the inconsistent and conflicting results evident in the extant body of
literature. The synthesis of fractal geometry and technical analysis provides the first hypothesis:
H1: The profitability of trending technical trading rules should be higher on time series that have higher
Hurst exponents and lower on time series that have lower Hurst exponents.
As opposed to trending technical trading rules, investors may employ a contrarian trading rule. A
contrarian rule attempts to exploit a reversal pattern in a time series and essentially sells into

-9-

strength (expectation of price decline after an increase) and buys into weakness (expectation of a price
increase after a decrease). It can therefore be deducted that contrarian technical trading rules (e.g.,
Bollinger Bands) should be more profitable on time series that exhibit anti-persistence. Conversely,
time series that are persistent should not provide as profitable results to contrarian technical trading
rules as there are no continuing reversal patterns in the time series to identify and exploit. This
reasoning leads to the second hypothesis:
H2: The profitability of contrarian trading rules should be higher on time series that have lower Hurst
exponents and higher on time series that have lower Hurst exponents.
Hypotheses one and two investigate the relationship between the H and the profits from trending and
contrarian technical trading rules; however, accepting the hypotheses does not suggest that investors
can successfully utilize technical analysis to earn abnormal profits by understanding a time series
fractal nature because both the H and the profits will be calculated on the same dataset. Therefore,
an additional hypothesis, with a different test, is required to understand whether traders can
successfully employ a trading strategy that uses an observed H to correctly employ a trading rule.
H3: The lagged H (Ht-1) can predict whether a contrarian or trending trading rule will be profitable for a
time-series.
Testing the first three hypotheses will make a significant contribute as there are no other known
studies that test the relationship between profits from technical analysis and long-term dependencies.
Aside from the main hypotheses, an ancillary hypothesis will be tested with the intent of better
understanding the fractal nature of technical analysis. A fourth hypothesis will be tested regarding
the scale of the time series used to generate the trading signals.
There is very little empirical evidence on the effectiveness of the trading rules at various scales (e.g.
daily, weekly, monthly). Brownian motion suggests that independent increments are identically
normally distributed, whereas pure fractal Brownian motion suggests that a time series is statistically
self-similar (apart from scale) regardless of the time frame over which the increments of the series
are observed. There is a vast amount of literature that discusses the non-normality and lack of
Brownian motion of stock returns (Cootner 1964, Fama 1965, Officer 1972). If the stock returns
exhibit the characteristics of a fractal time series, rather than Browian motion, there should be no

- 10 -

difference in the effectiveness of technical trading rules with data at different scales. This leads to the
development of the third hypothesis:
H4: There is no difference between the profitability of technical trading rules on the same data set when
calculated with different time scales.

3. The data
The H and the trading rule profits are calculated on all thirty stocks that compose the DJIA (as at
July 2008) for the ten year period of July 1998 to July 2008. Trading rules can be calculated at
various data frequencies. The data frequency selected depends on different factors and preferences.
Investors can use high-frequency data or longer horizons. This study utilizes daily and weekly data.
Daily data will be used because a typical off floor trader will most likely use daily data (Kaastra and
Boyd, 1996). Furthermore, intraday time series can be extremely noisy. Along these lines, weekly
data will also be used as it is readily available to all traders. The number of daily and weekly
observations in each data set provides a sufficient number of observations to allow for the formation,
recurrence and investigation of the trade rule signals and for the estimation of the H.
The use of raw daily price data in the stock market has many problems as movements are generally
non-stationary (Mehta, 1995), which interferes with the estimation of the H. The market index series
are transformed into rates of return to overcome these problems. Given the price level P 1, P2, Pt,
the rate of return at time t is transformed by:
(1)

rt = log(pt) log(pt -1)

where pt denotes the spot price (stock market indices or the exchange rate). The descriptive statistics
for the thirty DJIA components are presented in Table 1.
Insert TABLE 1 Here

4. Methodology
The individual and average profits from twelve trading rules, along with the H are calculated for all
thirty stocks. Profitability is defined as the returns from the trading rules less the buy-and-hold
strategy returns, adjusted for transaction costs. Therefore, by definition, profits can also be negative.

- 11 -

4.1 Trading rules

The trending trading rules are the moving-average cross-over rule (MACO), filter rule, and trading
range break-out rule (TRBO), while the contrarian trading rule will be the Bollinger Band.
A MACO rule tries to identify a trend by comparing a short moving average to a long moving
average. The MACO generates a buy (sell) signal whenever the short moving average is above (below)
the long moving average. This study tests the MACO rule based on the following signals:

(2)

S
s 1

Ri ,t

>

l 1

(3)

S
s 1

Ri ,t 1

=Buy

L
Ri ,t

<

l 1

Ri ,t 1

=Sell

where Ri,t is the log return given the short period of S, and Ri,t-1 is the log return over the long period
L. The following short, long combinations will be tested: (1, 50), (1, 200) and (5, 150).
Filter rules generate signals based on the following logic: Buy when the price rises by percent above
the most recent trough and sell when the price falls percent below its most recent peak. This study
tests the filter rule based on three parameters: 1%, 2%, and 5%.
The TRBO generates a buy signal when the price breaks-out above the resistance level and a sell
signal when the price breaks below the support level. The resistance/support level is defined as the
local maximum/minimum. The TRBO rule is examined by calculating the local maximum and
minimum based on 50, 150 and 200 days as defined as follows:
(4)

Post+1 = Buy, if Pt > Max {Pt-1, Pt-2, , Pt-n}

Post+1 = Post, if Pt > Min {Pt-1, Pt-2, , Pt-n} Pt Max {Pt-1, Pt-2, , Pt-n}
Post+1 = Sell,

if Pt < Min {Pt-1, Pt-2, , Pt-n}

where Pt is the stock price at time t.

- 12 -

Creating Bollinger Bands (BB) requires two parameters: the 20-day moving average (MA20) and the
standard deviation () of the 20-day moving average line ( MA20). The BB is a contrarian trading
rule because a sell signal is generated if the price of the security exceeds the 20-day moving average
plus two standard deviations (i.e. the market is said to be overextended). A buy signal is generated if
the price of the security is less than the 20-day moving average minus two standard deviations. In
this case, the market is said to be oversold.

BB are traditionally calculated based on a 20-day

moving average, +/- 2; denoted by BB(20,2). This traditional definition is tested along with two
variants: 30-day moving average, +/- 2 and 20-day moving average, +/- 1. A 30-days average is
used to determine whether a longer time frame can generate more informative signals. Conversely, +/1, as opposed to 2, is used to determine whether a narrower band can generate more precise signals.
Statistical significance of the trading rules is determined through a bootstrapping methodology as
developed by Levich and Thomas (1993). The bootstrap approach does not make any assumptions
regarding the distribution of the generating function. Rather, the distribution of the generating
function is determined empirically through numerical simulations. The data sets of raw closing
prices, with the length N + 1, correspond to a set of log price changes of length N. M = N! separate
sequences can be arranged from the log price changes with a length of N. Each of the sequence (m =
1, , M) will corresponding to a unique profit measure (X [m, r]) for each variant trading rule (r for r
= 1, , R.) used in this study. Therefore a new series can be generated by randomly rearranging the
log price changes of the original data set.
By utilizing the sequence of price changes, the starting and ending price points of the randomly
generated time series are forced to be exactly the same as the their values in the original data set.
Furthermore, by rearranging the original log price changes, the randomly generated data sets are
forced to maintain the identical distributional properties as the original data set. However, the time
series properties are random. This simulation can generate one of the various notional paths that the
security could have taken from time t (original level) until time t + n (ending day), while maintaining
the original distribution of price changes.
The simulation process of randomly mixing the log price returns is repeated 10,000 times for each
data set, resulting in 10,000 identically and independently distributed (i.i.d.) representations from the
m = 1 , , M possible sequences. All of the randomly generated data sets have the identical

- 13 -

distributional properties as the original data set; however, the time series properties are random for
each data set and are independently drawn from any other notional path.
Each technical trading rule (MACO, filter rule, and TRBO) is then applied to each of the 10,000
random series and the profits X[m, r] are measured. This process generates an empirical distribution
of the profits. The profits calculated on the original data set are then compared to the profits from the
randomly generated data sets.
The null hypothesis states that if the trading rules provide no useful information, then the profits
resulting from trading in the original data sets should not be significantly different from the profits
resulting from the randomly generated data sets. If the profits resulting from the original data set are
greater than percent threshold level of the empirical distribution, then the null hypothesis will be
rejected at the percent level (Levich and Thomas 1993).

4.2 The Hurst Exponent (H)

The basis of the rescaled range analysis was laid by Hurst et al. (1965). Mandelbrot and Wallis (1968,
1969a, 1969b, and 1971) examined and further elaborated the method. The following is a brief
discussion of the rescaled range analysis and the Hurst exponent calculation. The stochastic process
of fractional Brownian motion (fBm) occurs when the second order moments of the increments scale
as follows:
5

= { 2 1 )2 2 1

with H [0, 1]. The Brownian motion is then the particular case where H = 0.5. The exponent H is
called the Hurst exponent.
The H measures dependencies in time series non-stochastic motion and is calculated through rescaled
range analysis (R/S analysis). For a time series where X = X1, X2, , Xn, R/S analysis can be
calculated by firstly determining the mean value m, followed by the mean adjusted series Y:
6

(7)

1
=

=1

Yt = Xt m,

t= 1, 2, , n

- 14 -

Thirdly, the cumulative deviate series Z is calculated:

= 1, 2, ,

=1

Fourthly, the range series R is calculated:

(9)

Rt = max(Z1, Z2, , Zt) min(Z1, Z2, , Zt)

t= 1, 2, , n

Fifthly, the standard deviation series S is calculated:

10

( )2

= 1, 2, ,

=1

where u is the mean from X1 to Xt

Finally, the rescaled range series (R/S) can be estimated:
(11)

(R/S)t = Rt / St

t= 1, 2, , n

Figure 1 graphically presents the rescaled range analysis that is used to estimate the Hurst exponent
on the Dow Jones Industrial Average time series.

Insert Figure 2 about here

4.3 Testing the synthesis

Two empirical tests are conducted to evaluate the synthesis. A classification test will group each
DJIA component based on its estimated H. Three groups will be developed as follows: (1) 0.5 > H;
(2) 0.5 < H > 0.55; and (3) 0.55 < H. The synthesis postulates that technical analysis should generate
higher profits for group three, and lower profits for group one. A quasi- contingency table will
present the average profits for each group.

- 15 -

The second test uses OLS regression to estimate the statistical relation between profits from technical
analysis and the H. To test whether data sets that exhibit higher H result in higher profits from
technical analysis, the following equation is estimated:
(12) Profitsi = ao + a1Hi + 1
where Profitsi represents the returns in excess of the buy-and-hold trading strategy for DJIA
component i, and Hi represents the Hurst exponent for DJIA component i. The intercept is expected
to be positive for Hypothesis 1 and negative for Hypothesis 2.

5. Results
5.1 Profits from technical analysis on the DJIA components
The profits from the technical trading rules and the H for each DJIA component are presented in
Table 2 with daily data (Panel A trending rules and Panel B contrarian rules) and Table 3 with
weekly data (Panel A trending rules and Panel B contrarian rules). Calculated with daily data,
the H ranges from a low of 0.452 (Pfizer) to a high 0.587 (Citigroup). Weekly data results in a wider
range of H (0.431 to 0.629) as Pfizer remains the data sets with the least dependencies, while
McDonalds stock exhibits the most persistency.

Insert Table 2 and 3 about here

On average, the trending trading rules were profitable on seven of the thirty components when
calculated with daily data (AIG, C, GM, HD, HPQ, INTC, and MRK). The trending trading rules
were the most profitable for GMs stock, as all nine variants calculated with daily data were able to
beat a buy-and-hold strategy. The average profit from all trending trading rules is 15.91% for GMs
stock. AIG and Intels stocks were the second and third most profitable time series with average
profits of 8.20% and 4.30% respectively generated by the trending trading rules. Trending trading
rules were the least profitable for the Exxon Mobile, earning negative 16.84%, followed by the stocks
of Wal-Mart and Chevron Corporation (average negative profit of 15.12% and 14.48% respectively).
Calculating the trending trading rules with weekly data resulted in average profits on thirteen of the
thirty components (AIG, BAC, C, GE, GM, HD, HPQ, INTC, MCD, MRK, MSFT, PFE, and T).

- 16 -

Again, the trending trading rules were the most profitable for General Motors stock when calculated
with weekly data, as all nine variants tested were able to out-perform the buy-and-hold trading
strategy. The average profit from the trending trading rules is 41.9% for GMs stock. Citigroup and
AIGs stocks were the second and third most profitable time series with average profits of 28.4% and
27.3% respectively generated by the trading rules. Conversely, weekly data tests were the least
profitable for the Exxon Mobile stock, earning negative returns of 52%. Exxon Mobile was also the
least profitable with daily data. Caterpillar and Wal-Mart resulted in the second and third least
profitable generation (49.7% and 41.5% respectively).
The trending technical trading rules were profitable on seven DJIA components (AIG, C, GM, HD,
HPQ, INTL, and MRK) with both daily and weekly data. Therefore, all seven stocks that were
profitable with daily data were also profitable when calculated with weekly data. Profits were
generated on five additional stocks (BAC, GE, MCD, MSFT, and T) with weekly data.
It is interesting to note that the MAC-O and TRB-O were much more effective than the filter rules.
The filter rules generated an average negative profit of 10.59% (daily) and 22.6% (weekly). The filter
rules were highly profitable for GM, with the 5% filter earning profits in excess of 78.3%; however,
the filter rules performed very poorly on most other DJIA components.

The filter rules poor

performance is consistent with prior studies (Szakmary, Davidson, and Schwarz, 1999; Wong, C.,
1997; Nelly and Weller, 1998).
The contrarian trading rules (BBs) generated average profits of 2.19%, 3.37%, and 2.52% for all
thirty stocks with daily data. The BBs generated profits on 23 of the 30 stocks with daily data, with
the most profitable being American Express (AXP), and the least profitable being IBM. The results
with weekly data are more volatile with average profits of 15.5%, 15.2%, and 17.0% from the trading
rules, with only 21 of the 30 stocks being profitable.
5.2 Hurst exponent and profits from trending trading rules (Hypotheses 1)
Hypothesis 1 postulates that stocks with higher H should yielder high profits from trending trading
rules. To test this relation, each DJIA component was grouped according to its H. The first group
includes stocks with a H less than 0.5. The second group includes stocks with a H that is greater than
0.5 but less than 0.55. The final group includes all stocks with a H that is greater than 0.55.

- 17 -

Table 4 presents the results of the classification analysis in the form of a contingency table. Panel A
presents the results for the combined weekly and daily data, while Panel B and Panel C present the
results for daily and weekly data, respectively.

Insert Table 4 about here

The results provide strong evidence that profits from trending trading rules are partially explained by
the long-term dependencies, as identified by the H estimation. All three Panels reveal that profits are
lowest for stocks with H that are less than 0.5 and increase in association with an increasing H. The
trading rules earned returns of 11.5% in excess of the buy-and-hold strategy for stocks with a H
greater than 0.55, while technical analysis underperformed by 16.7% for stocks with H less than 0.5.
The robustness of the results is tested though sub-period analysis. Table 5 presents the estimation of
the H over three sub-periods (n.b. the sub-periods divide the data set into three equal periods). The
profits from the technical trading rules are also calculated on the same sub periods (untabulated).

Insert Table 5 about here

The results of the sub-period analysis for the association between the H and the profits to technical
analysis are presented in Table 6. The sub-period analysis confirms the robustness of the results in
Table 4 as profits are higher on the stocks that exhibit long-term dependencies as identified by the H.
Sub-period 1 and 3 exhibit consistent patterns of increasing returns in conjunction with increasing H;
however, the weekly data on sub-period 2 does not reflect the synthesis.

Insert Table 6 about here

These results are consistent with the synthesis and tend to corroborate the proposition that H less
than 0.5 exhibit anti-persistent trends that limit trending trading rules ability to identify patterns,
whereas time series with a H greater than 0.55 exhibit persistent trends that are identified by the
trending trading rules to earn profits. However, the results partially explain, as opposed to
completely explain, the profits from the trading rules because there are anomalies. For example,
Pfizers weekly time series exhibited an anti-persistent nature (H of 0.431), yet technical analysis was
able to earn an average profit of 14.2%.

- 18 -

The tests in Table 4 and Table 6 provide evidence to support hypothesis one; however, the
classification system does not offer the precision of statistical rigour. Therefore, additional tests of
the relationship between the H and profits from technical analysis are provided through regression
analysis. The results of the regression of Equation 12 are presented in Table 7. Panel A presents the
estimation using average returns for all three trading rules as a proxy for Profit i, while Panel B
presents the results of the estimation using the average of each trading rule (MACO, filter, and
TRBO) as a proxy for Profiti.

Insert Table 7 about here

The results are consistent with, and corroborate, the results presented in Tables 3 and 5, and further
support the synthesis in hypothesis one: the H is able to identify long-term dependencies in time
series data that are exploited by technical trading rules to generate profits. The estimation has an R2
of 31%, with virtually all of the explanatory power resulting from the H variable. Panel B presents
additional insight, revealing the resulting R2 of 37% when using the MACO and TRBO proxies for
profits. The estimation with the filter rule as a proxy for profits do not yield strong results. This is a
function of the aforementioned lack of profitability for filter rules. The sub-period analysis conducted
in Section 5.3 provides further data to test the robustness of the estimation in Equation 12. The
results of the estimation with the sub-period data are presented in Table 8.

Insert Table 8 about here

The sub-period estimation, with the daily data, results in an R2 of 0.334 to corroborate the estimation
results of equation 12. The estimation results with weekly data reveal a weaker relationship (R2 of
0.084). Overall, the empirical evidence provides strong support for the acceptance of Hypothesis 1 as
trending trading rules are more profitable on stock with higher long-term dependencies.
5.3 Hurst exponent and profits from contrarian trading rules (Hypotheses 2)
Hypotheses 2 postulates that stocks with lower H should yielder high profits from contrarian trading
rules. To test this relation between the H and profits from the contrarian trading rules, each DJIA
component was grouped according to its H. The groupings are the same as in the test of Hypothesis

- 19 -

1. Table 9 presents the results of the classification analysis for the contrarian trading rules. Panel A
presents the results for the combined weekly and daily data, while Panel B and Panel C present the
results for daily and weekly data, respectively.

Insert Table 9 about here

The results provide evidence that profits from contrarian trading rules are partially explained by the
long-term anti-dependencies in a time series. Panel A reveals that profits are highest for stocks with
H that are less than 0.5 and decrease in association with an increasing H. Contrarian trading rules
were able to earn returns of 11.3% in excess of the buy-and-hold trading strategy for stocks with a H
less than 0.5. The results from Panel B (daily data) and Panel C (weekly data) are not as consistent.
Again, regression analysis between the H and profits from contrarian rules is conducted. The results
of the regression of Equation 12 are presented in Table 10. The results are consistent with Tables 9 as
the regression provides some evidence of the synthesis in hypothesis two. The estimation has a low R2
of 5%, however, the intercept for the H variable is negative and significant at the 10% level.

Insert Table 10 about here

Overall, the empirical evidence provide some support for the acceptance of Hypothesis 2 as
contrarian trading rules appear to be more profitable on stock with lower H.
5.4 Lagged H and the profits from technical analysis (Hypothesis 3)
Hypothesis 3 was proposed to determine if investors can use the H in one-period to predict which
stocks will provide the most profits from technical analysis in the following period. A test is
conducted through OLS regression between the profits from the trending trading rules in sub-period 2
and 3 and the lagged H (sub period 1 and 2, respectively). For example, can Caterpillars H of 0.587 in
the first sub-period be used to forecast profits through a trending trading rule for Caterpillar in the
second period? If so, then investors can use information about a time series dependencies to earn
profit. The results of the regression estimation are presented in Table 11 (Panel A).

Insert Table 11

- 20 -

The estimation results suggest that the lagged H is not able to forecast future profits on a time series.
These results are influence by the H instability across sub-periods. This has important implications
for investors. If the H is constantly changing for a time series, investor will be required to make
subjective decisions and forecasts to develop expectation of a time series long-term dependencies to
earn profits from technical analysis. Corazza and Malliaris (2002) also note that the H is not fixed but
changes dynamically over time.
In order to mitigate the impacts that instable an H can have on forecasting profits in future periods,
an additional exploratory test is proposed. The same OLS regression proposed regarding the lagged H
was conducted with the daily and weekly time series that exhibit the lowest standard deviation of the
H across the sub-period. The low standard deviation is used as a proxy for a stable H. The results are
presented in Table 11 Panel B.

The estimation results with both weekly and daily data are

consistent with Table 11 Panel A, rejecting Hypothesis 3 by suggesting that the lagged H is not able
to forecast future profits on a time series. However, there does appear to be some predictive ability
for traders as the estimation that utilizes only the daily data result in an R2 of 0.213, suggesting that
there may be profit potential with daily data.
To obtain additional insight into the nature of the H across sub-periods, regression estimation is
performed on the standard deviation of the H (regressant) across sub periods for a given time series
with the standard deviation (regressar) of the corresponding time series to investigate any such
relationship. The results of the regression are presented in Table 12.

Insert Table 12 about here

The results reveal that there is a strong, negative relationship between the standard deviation of a
data set and the resulting standard deviation of the H calculated on sub-periods of the data set.
Stated differently, the estimated H on sub-periods of a time series appears to be more stable with
time series that have higher variance. However, these empirical results must also consider that the
variance of a data set increases with its scale (i.e. weekly data has a higher than daily data).
Therefore, the results can also be interpreted to suggest that the H is less volatile on the weekly data.
5.5 Profits from technical analysis on different scales (Hypothesis 4)

- 21 -

Table 13 presents comparative summary statistics between profits from the trading rules calculated
at different scales (daily and weekly). Overall, the average excess return for all trading rules is
negative 2.58%. Moving averages results in negative 2.24% profits, while filter rules, Bollinger Bands
and trading range break-out rules resulted in negative 10.59%, 2.7% and negative 0.22% profit,
respectively. Calculating the trading signals with weekly data resulted in an average profit for all
trading rules of 0.25%. Moving averages results in negative 3.10% profits, while filter rules, Bollinger
Bands and trading range break-out rules resulted in negative 22.6%, positive 15.9% and positive
10.8% profits, respectively.

Insert Table 13 about here

Table 13 reveals that the trading rules were more profitable when calculated with weekly data as 201
of the 360 variants (30 stocks x 4 trading rules x 3 variants of each rule) were profitable, or 55.8%,
while only 161, or 44.7%, variants were profitable with daily data. As discussed earlier, all stocks
that resulted in profits from technical analysis when calculated with daily data are also profitable
with weekly data. However, the weekly data resulted in much more variation in the profits made
evident by wider ranges and higher standard deviations.
The empirical evidence reveals that technical trading rules result in different profit levels when
calculated at different scales, and therefore rejects the Hypothesis 4.

6. Conclusion
This paper works towards a synthesis between technical analysis and fractal geometry. The Hurst
exponent (H) was developed from the field of fractal geometry and provides a statistical technique to
identify the nature of any dependencies in a time series. Technical analysis has developed various
trading rules that are premised on the belief that past price data reveals patterns that can be used to
predict future prices. Based on this logic, there is a natural synthesis that suggests that time series
with high H should result in higher profits trending trading rules and time series with low H should
result in higher profits from contrarian trading rules. This paper develops and empirically tests this
synthesis.

- 22 -

Currently, much research is being conducted on capital markets and technical analysis. Research on
the application of fractal geometry to capital markets has been much more limited. More specifically,
there are no known studies that investigate the relationship between technical analysis and fractal
geometry. The extant literature solely investigates the Hs ability to identify financial market
predictability. This paper makes a significant contribution by extending the literature to determine
if technical analysis is able generate abnormal returns (after accounting for transaction costs) on time
series that exhibit long term dependencies or anti-dependence. The paper also provides a
comprehensive examination of moving averages cross-over, filter, Bollinger Band and trading ranges
break-out rules on the DJIA components at different scales.
Two tests are conducted to evaluate the relationship between the H and profits to technical analysis.
Firstly, the financial series are classified into three groups based on their H (H<0.5; 0.5<H>0.55; H
>0.55) to determine if time series with a higher (lower) H results in higher returns to trending
(contrarian) trading rules. Secondly, statistical tests of the relationship between the H and profits to
technical analysis are estimated through OLS regression. Both tests provide evidence that the H is
able to identify long-term dependencies and anti-dependence that result in higher (lower) profits to
trending (contrarian) trading rules. Therefore, profits from trending (contrarian) trading rules are
higher for time series that exhibit long-term dependencies (anti-dependence). This is consistent with
the main postulate of the synthesis (Hypotheses 1 and 2).
The substantial data requirements skew the sample towards the larger Dow Jones component firms.
Therefore, the results may not necessarily be generalizable to a broader population that includes
smaller firms. Additional testing should be conducted using a more diverse sample of firms (e.g. all
500 stocks of the S&P 500) and for a longer period of time. The data sets limitation may also impact
the empirical test for determining whether investors can use the H in one-period to predict which
stocks will provide the most profits from technical analysis in the next period (Hypothesis 3).
There are a many future research opportunities to further develop the synthesis between fractal
geometry and technical analysis. The first priority is to further test the relationship between profits
and H with a more robust data, likely making use of global equity markets and various firm sizes.
Utilizing time series from the global equity market will provide future researchers with a larger range
of H in their sample and also provide access to a larger pool of securities. Researchers should also
seek to understand what causes anomalies in the synthesis. For example, Pfizers weekly time series

- 23 -

exhibited an anti-persistent nature (H of 0.431), yet technical analysis was able to earn an average
profit of 14.2%. Researchers should investigate whether this, and other anomalies, is the result of
technical analysis ability utilize past price data to develop a trading signal that is more powerful than
the data alone.
Finally, and most importantly for investors, researchers should continue to investigate how the H in
one sub period can be used, ex ante, to identify which time series will yield the most fruitful results
from technical analysis. This paper has made a contribution in this area by suggesting that the subperiods with daily data are able to predict future sub-period profits from technical trading rules.
Researchers are encouraged to continue research in this area to provide a significant impact to traders
and investors.

References
Alexander, S. 1961. Price Movements in Speculative Markets: Trends or Random Walks, Industrial
Management Review, 2, 7 26.
Alexander, S. 1964. Price Movements in Speculative Markets: Trends or Random Walks, No. 2 in
P. Cootnered (ed.), The Random Character of Stock Market Prices, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Allen, F., and Karjalainen R. 1999. Using genetic algorithms to find technical trading rules,
Journal of Financial Economics, 51, 245-271.
Ambrose, B. W., Weinstock, E., and Griffiths, M. D. 1993. Fractal Structure in the Capital Markets
Revisited, Financial Analysts Journal, May/June, 49(3), 73-76.
Bender, C., Sottinen, T., and Valkeila, E. 2006. "Arbitrage with fractional Brownian motion," Theory
of Stochastic Processes, 12(28), pp. 3-4.
Bianchi, S. 2005. Pathwise Identification of the Memory Function of Multifractional Brownian
Motion with Application to Finance, International Journal of Theoretical and Applied Finance,
8(2), 255281.
Blume, L., Easley, D., and OHara, M. 1994. Market Statistics and Technical Analysis: The role of
Volume, Journal of Finance, 49, 153181.
Bokhari, J., Cai, C., Hudson, R., and Keasey, K. 2005. The Predictive Ability and Profitability of
Technical Trading Rules: Does Company Size Matter? Economics Letters, 86, 21 27.

- 24 -

Brock, W., Lakonishok, J., LeBaron, B. 1992 Simple technical trading rules and the stochastic
properties of stock returns, Journal of Finance, 47, 19311764.
Carbone, A., Castelli G., and Stanley, H. E. 2004. Time-Dependent Hurst Exponent in Financial
Time Series Physica A, 344267.
Chan, L., Jegadeesh, N. and Lakonishok, J. 1996. Momentum Strategies Journal of Finance, 51,
16811713.
Chang, K, and Osler, C. 1994. Evaluating Chart-based Technical Analysis: The Head-and Shoulders
Pattern in Foreign Exchange Markets Working paper, Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
Cheung, Y. W. 1993. Test for Fractional Integration: A Monte Carlo Investigation, Journal of Time
Series Analysis, 14, 331-345.
Cootner, P. 1964. The Random Character of Stock Market Prices, Cambridge, Mass.: The M.I.T. Press.
Corazza, M. and Malliaris, A.G. 2002. Multifractality in Foreign Currency Markets, Multinational
Finance Journal, 6, 387-401.
Dooley, M. P. and Shaler, J.R. 1983. Analysis of Short-Run Exchange Rate Behaviour: March 1973
to November 1981, in Exchange Rate and Trade Instability: Causes, Consequences, and Remedies,
Cambridge, MA: Hallinger.
Fama, E. F. 1965. The Behavior of Stock Prices, Journal of Business, 37(January), 34-105.
Fama, E. and Blume, M. 1966. Filter Tests and Stock Market Trading Journal of Business, 39, 226
241.
Feder, J. 1988. Fractals. Plenum Press, New York and London.
Genay, R. 1999. Linear, non-linear and essential foreign exchange rate prediction with simple
technical trading rules, Journal of International Economics, 47, 91-107.
Glenn, L. A. 2007. On Randomness and the NASDAQ Composite, Working Paper, available at
SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1124991
Green, M. T. and Fielitz, B. D. 1977. "Long-Term Dependence in Common Stock Returns," Journal of
Financial Economy, 4, 339-349

- 25 -

Grundy, B., and Martin, S. 1998. Understanding the Nature of the Risks and the Source of the
Rewards to Momentum Investing Working paper, Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania.
Hodges, S, 2006. "Arbitrage in a fractional Brownian motion market," Financial Options Research
Center, University of Warwick, Working Paper #95-57.
Hurst, H., 1951, Long-term Storage of Reservoirs: An Experimental Study, Transactions of the
American Society of Civil Engineers, 116, 770 799.
Hurst, H., Black, R.P. and Simaika, Y.M. 1965, Long-Term Storage: An Experimental Study.
Constable, London.
Jacobsen, B. 1996. Long Term Dependence in Stock Returns, Journal of Empirical Finance, 3(4).
Jegadeesh, N. and Titman, S. 1993. Returns to Buying Winners and Selling Losers: Implications for
Stock Market Efficiency, Journal of Finance, 48, 6591.
Kaastra, I. and Boyd, M. 1996. "Designing a neural network for forecasting financial and economic
time series," Neurocomputing, 10(3), 215-236.
Lento, C., and Gradojevic, N. 2007. The profitability of technical trading rules: a combined signal
approach, Journal of Applied Business Research, 23(1), 13-27.
Lento, C., Gradojevic, N. and Wright, C. 2007. Investment Information Content in Bollinger
Bands?, Applied Financial Economics Letters, 3(4), 263 - 267.
Lento, C. 2008. Forecasting Security Returns with Simple Moving Averages, International Business
and Economics Research Journal, forthcoming.
Levich, R., and Thomas, L. 1993. The Significance of Technical Trading Rules Profits in the Foreign
Exchange Market: A Bootstrap Approach, Journal of International Money and Finance, 12, 451
474.
Lo, A. 1991. Long-term Memory in stock market prices, Econometrica, 59(5), 1279 1313.
Lo, A. W., and MacKinlay, A.C., 1997. Maximizing Predictability in the Stock and Bond Markets
Macroeconomic Dynamics, 1, 102134.
Lo, A., Mamaysky, H., and Wang, J. 2000. Foundations of technical analysis: computational
algorithms, statistical inference, and empirical implementation, Journal of Finance, 55(4), 17051765.

- 26 -

Mandelbrot, B.B. and Wallis, J.R. 1968. Noah, Joseph, and Operational Hydrology. In: Water
Resources Research, 4(3), p 909-918.
Mandelbrot, B.B. and Wallis, J.R. 1969a. Computer Experiments with Fractional Gaussian Noises.
Part 1, Averages and Variances. In: Water Resources Research, 5(1), p 228-241.
Mandelbrot, B.B. and Wallis, J.R. 1969e. Robustness of the Rescaled Range R/S in the Measurement
of Noncyclic Long Run Statistical Dependence. In: Water Resources Research, 5(5), p 967-988.
Mandelbrot, B.B. and Wallis, J.R. 1971. A Fast Fractional Gaussian Noise Generator. In: Water
Resources Research, 7(3), p 543-533.
Mandelbrot, B. B. 1972. Possible Refinements of the Lognormal Hypothesis Concerning the
Distribution of Energy Dissipation in Intermittent Turbulence, i M. Rosenblatt and C. Van Atts
eds., Statistical Models and Turbulence, New York: Springer Verlag.
Mandelbrot, B. B. 2004. The (Mis)Behavior of Markets: A Fractal View of Risk, Ruin, and Reward,
Basic Books.
Mehta, M. 1995. Foreign Exchange Markets, 176-198, in A. N. Refenes [ed.], Neural Networks in the
Capital Markets, John Wiley, Chichester.
Neely, C., Weller, P., and Dittmar, R. 1997. Is Technical Analysis in the Foreign Exchange Market
Profitable? A Genetic Programming Approach, Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis,
32, 405426.
Neely, C., and Weller, P. 1998. Technical Trading Rules in the European Monetary System
Working paper, Federal Bank of St. Louis.
Neely, C. J. and Weller, P. A. 1998. Technical Trading Rules in the European Monetary System,
Working Paper No. 97-015c. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=141609 or DOI:
10.2139/ssrn.10.2139/ssrn.141609
Neftci, S., 1991. Naive Trading Rules in Financial Markets and WienerKolmogorov Prediction
Theory: A Study of Technical Analysis, Journal of Business, 64, 549571.
Officer, R. R. (1972). The Distribution of Stock Returns, Journal of the American Statistical
Association, 67, 807-812.

- 27 -

Osler, C., and Chang, K. 1995. Head and Shoulders: Not Just a Flaky Pattern Staff Report No. 4,
Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
Peters, E. 1991. Chaos and Order in the Capital Markets: A new view of cycles, prices, and market
volatility. New York: Wiley.
Peters, E. 1994. Fractal Market Analysis: applying chaos theory to investment and economics. New York:
Wiley.
Qian, B. and Rasheed, K. 2004. Hurst Exponent and Financial Market Predictability, Proceeds of
the Financial Engineering and Applications, FEA 2004, MIT, Cambridge, USA
Rouwenhorst, G. 1998. International Momentum Strategies, Journal of Finance, 53, 267284.
Schulmeister, S. 1988. Currency Speculation and Dollar Fluctuations, Quarterly Review, Banca
Nazionale del Lavoro, 167, 343 365.
Schroeder, A. 1991. Fractals, Chaos, Power Laws. W.H. Freeman and Company, New York.
Sweeney, R. J. 1988. Some New Filter Rule Tests: Methods and Results, Journal of Financial
Quantitative Analysis, 23, 87 92.
Szakmary, A., Davidson, W. N. and Schwarz, T. V. 1999. Filter Tests in Nasdaq Stocks, Financial
Review.
Wong, C. 1997. The Performance of Trading Rules on Four Asian Currency Exchange Rates,
Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=4259.

- 28 -

Tables
Table 1 - Sample data and descriptive statistics (July 22, 1998 to July 22, 2008)

Company

symbol

Daily series (n = 2,514)

skew

Weekly series (n = 520)

skew

kur

Alcoa
American International
Group
American Express
Boeing
Bank of America
Citigroup
Caterpillar
Chevron Corporation
DuPont

AA
AIG

.014%
-.010%

1.02%
0.88%

.189
.032

2.189
3.950

.070%
-.056%

2.19%
1.94%

-.012
.179

1.057
2.686

AXP
BA
BAC
C
CAT
CVX
DD

.006%
.009%
.000%
-.004%
.022%
.018%
-.001%

0.97%
0.91%
0.89%
0.97%
0.90%
0.67%
0.79%

-.057
-.707
.512
.056
-.173
-.057
.112

3.138
7.998
7.752
4.746
3.994
1.415
3.117

.033%
.057%
.001%
-.017%
.108%
.087%
-.001%

2.00%
2.08%
1.95%
2.10%
2.02%
1.34%
1.74%

-.486
-1.438
.297
.050
.376
-.367
-.137

3.914
11.56
4.104
2.505
2.552
.225
1.757

Walt Disney
General Electric
General Motors
Home Depot
Hewlett-Packard
IBM
Intel
Johnson & Johnson
JPMorgan Chase
Coca-Cola
McDonalds

DIS
GE
GM
HD
HPQ
IBM
INTC
JNJ
JPM
KO
MCD

-.002%
.002%
-.019%
-.003%
.014%
.014%
.003%
.013%
.002%
-.006%
.013%

0.94%
0.80%
1.08%
1.02%
1.18%
0.86%
1.26%
0.62%
1.04%
0.69%
0.79%

-.179
-.081
.071
-1.169
-.085
-.178
-.457
-.634
.352
-.238
-.082

7.735
4.906
4.276
19.46
5.236
7.691
6.207
11.64
5.790
5.581
4.820

-.007%
.012%
-.091%
-.012%
.079%
.069%
.012%
.063%
.012%
-.027%
.062%

1.92%
1.67%
2.40%
2.29%
2.43%
1.81%
2.53%
1.34%
2.25%
1.53%
1.61%

-.466
-.194
-.119
-.794
.027
-.026
-.621
.148
.165
-.519
-.151

4.833
4.376
2.705
5.615
1.437
2.519
3.014
5.312
2.243
5.723
1.172

3M
Merck
Microsoft
Pfizer
Proctor & Gamble
AT&T
United Technologies
Corporation
Verizon Communication
Wal-Mart
ExxonMobil

MMM
MRK
MSFT
PFE
PG
T
UTX

.013%
-.004%
.001%
-.009%
.010%
.002%
.019%

0.68%
0.84%
0.96%
0.81%
0.73%
0.86%
0.84%

.136
-2.026
-.176
-.324
-4.200
-.070
-1.628

3.817
31.19
6.789
3.785
89.08
3.205
26.18

.067%
-.014%
.006%
-.042%
.048%
.009%
.096%

1.47%
1.84%
1.98%
1.71%
1.69%
1.81%
1.84%

.051
-.760
.081
-.243
-4.411
.315
-2.298

2.360
4.481
2.970
2.084
53.05
2.920
23.02

VZ
WMT
XOM

.003%
.011%
.018%

0.82%
0.83%
0.68%

0.059
2.919
-.055

3.799
.106
2.106

.015%
.058%
.008%

1.62%
1.75%
1.35%

.098
.179
-.289

2.130
2.067
1.117

r the mean log daily return

- the standard deviation of the log daily returns
skew skewness of the raw price data
kur kurtosis of the raw price data

- 29 -

Kur

Table 2: Hurst exponent and technical trading rule profits with daily data.
Panel A - Daily data results (in percentage) for trending trading rules
Symbol
AA
AIG
AXP
BA
BAC
C
CAT
CVX
DD
DIS

0.501
0.558
0.488
0.542
0.549
0.587
0.512
0.479
0.463
0.497

MACO
(1,50)
-3.4
8.9*
-13.8
1.5
-5.9
1.3
-19.9
-20.4
-7.6
-8.0

GE
GM
HD
HPQ
IBM
INTC
JNJ
JPM
KO
MCD

0.519
0.549
0.507
0.564
0.540
0.542
0.464
0.530
0.518
0.573

-1.8
17.0*
1.2
-4.7
3.1
4.6
-13.9
-2.0
-3.0
-4.1

7.2*
18.1*
10.3*
11.4*
-7.6
16.3*
-6.5
-5.4
-3.2
-2.2

4.1
21.3*
5.3
12.4*
-2.5
19.0*
-3.4
-6.8
-1.8
-1.6

-9.0
7.5
-3.4
-24.4
-17.6
-14.2
-12.3
-5.9
-5.4
-18.1

-13.8
21.9*
-13.9
-11.5
-19.6
-14.3
-24.1
-6.8
-7.3
-23.4

-3.6
15.6*
7.4
-5.0
-3.4
1.4
-7.6
-7.8
6.2*
-5.6

-8.4
17.4*
-0.6
12.8
-11.7
9.7
-8.8
-15.0
-0.4
-2.3

-14.2
15.7*
2.9
7.4
-8.7
13.4*
-4.9
4.0
3.6
0.9

9.1*
8.7
5.2
11.0*
-3.7
2.8
-7.9
5.2
0.8
6.2*

MMM
MRK
MSFT
PFE
PG
T
UTX
VZ
WMT
XOM

0.464
0.541
0.507
0.452
0.500
0.512
0.491
0.503
0.486
0.477

-14.0
-0.4
-2.3
-1.7
-7.6
-1.2
-13.9
-7.7
-16.1
-21.9

-12.1
8.8*
-1.2
-1.9
-6.6
3.1
-10.7
0.8
-16.4
-15.6

-12.3
9.7*
0.9
-1.2
0.9
-6.3
-7.1
1.3
-15.9
-12.1

-22.9
-9.6
-18.1
-7.1
-20.1
-22.5
-26.0
-25.0
-16.1
-33.9

-21.1
-10.8
-12.7
-19.3
-17.8
-7.7
-23.0
-8.6
-31.4
-29.3

-15.2
-9.8
-1.2
-5.0
1.8
0.3
-2.8
-1.4
-10.2
-10.5

-9.5
4.0
-4.2
3.2
-1.8
-1.7
-11.9
3.2
-14.2
-17.3

-10.8
6.1
-1.7
5.3
-6.9
4.1
-5.0
1.1
-7.8
-7.0

-9.4
13.5*
-0.6
10.1*
-4.6
6.0*
0.4
6.6*
-8.0
-4.0

-5.26

-1.31

-0.15

-14.17

-14.39

-3.21

-3.38

0.27

2.44

Average

MACO
(1,200)
-11.4
12.2*
-6.9
8.8*
-2.7
3.2
-11.0
-17.1
-6.4
5.5*

MACO
(5,150)
0.3
15.2*
-3.1
5.1
-2.9
0.2
-7.1
-13.1
-7.0
4.1

Filter
(1%)
-28.7
12.7*
-19.5
-14.7
0.9
1.7
-18.6
-33.8
-10.6
-10.3

Filter
(2%)
-20.1
-1.6
-17.4
-6.5
-6.7
-13.0
-21.2
-19.4
-13.6
-17.6

Filter
(5%)
-7.7
2.3
-12.0
-11.9
3.0
1.9
2.6
-10.3
-0.5
-7.3

TRBO
(50)
-4.9
10.5*
-4.8
0.7
-12.7
-3.7
-13.3
-13.0
-8.9
6.1

TRBO
(150)
-7.5
4.7
3.5
2.9
2.5
14.4*
-6.2
-5.6
-7.5
9.3*

TRBO
(200)
-8.0
8.9*
2.5
8.5*
2.4
14.1*
-2.9
2.4
-5.5
3.5

*bootstrap simulation p-value is significant at both the 5% and 10% level of significance
Row average is the average of all nine trading rule variants
Column average is the average profit for the individual trading rule variant
All positive profits are in bold

- 30 -

Average
-10.16
8.20
-7.94
-0.62
-2.46
2.23
-10.84
-14.48
-7.51
-1.63
-3.38
15.91
1.60
1.04
-7.97
4.30
-9.93
-4.50
-1.17
-5.58
-14.14
1.28
-4.57
-1.96
-6.97
-2.88
-11.11
-3.30
-15.12
-16.84

Table 2: Hurst exponent and technical trading rule profits with daily data.
Panel B - Daily data results (in percentage) for contrarian trading rules
Symbol
AA
AIG
AXP
BA
BAC
C

H
0.501
0.558
0.488
0.542
0.549
0.587

BB (20,2)
-1.0
7.7
12.9
-8.5
5.4
4.2

BB (20,1)
1.9
14.0
16.9
-2.7
2.4
0.0

BB (30,2)
7.5
-1.8
10.2
-9.6
5.1
1.3

Average

CAT
CVX
DD
DIS
GE
GM
HD
HPQ
IBM
INTC
JNJ

0.512
0.479
0.463
0.497
0.519
0.549
0.507
0.564
0.540
0.542
0.464

-0.3
-0.4
12.6
7.7
3.4
-0.6
2.2
3.9
-11.8
-3.8
5.7

5.1
-8.2
10.5
13.7
5.3
-6.5
8.5
9.7
-15.4
2.8
2.0

-1.7
4.9
5.5
6.0
-1.2
0.2
4.4
0.6
-2.0
2.4
4.3

1.03
-1.23

JPM
KO
MCD
MMM
MRK
MSFT
PFE
PG
T
UTX

0.530
0.518
0.573
0.464
0.541
0.507
0.452
0.500
0.512
0.491

-1.6
8.2
-2.5
0.7
0.9
4.4
10.7
-5.6
2.0
-4.2

2.0
3.9
-5.0
2.5
2.7
0.2
9.8
0.7
3.5
2.3

0.7
7.9
-2.1
0.9
2.4
6.3
10.7
-2.0
6.6
-8.9

0.37
6.67
-3.20

VZ
WMT
XOM

0.503
0.486
0.477

6.1
2.7
4.7

2.4
15.5
0.5

6.4
6.2
4.4

2.19

3.37

2.52

Average

2.80
6.63
13.33
-6.93
4.30
1.83

9.53
9.13
2.50
-2.30
5.03
4.73
-9.73
0.47
4.00

1.37
2.00
3.63
10.40
-2.30
4.03
-3.60
4.97
8.13
3.20

*bootstrap simulation p-value is significant at both the 5% and 10% level of significance
Row average is the average of all three trading rule variants
Column average is the average profit for the individual trading rule variant
All positive profits are in bold

- 31 -

Table 3: Hurst exponent and technical trading rule profits with weekly data.
Panel A - Weekly Data results (in percentage) for trending trading rules
Symbol
AA
AIG
AXP
BA

0.498
0.597
0.497
0.543

MACO
(1,50)
-46.3
47.2*
-4.1
42.8*

BAC
C
CAT
CVX
DD
DIS
GE
GM
HD
HPQ

0.562
0.603
0.522
0.488
0.463
0.503
0.556
0.554
0.524
0.564

-7.5
17.2
-54.0
-69.3
-33.0
16.2*
19.1
36.7*
11.9
46.2*

39.7*
67.7*
-51.4
-12.2
-31.5
-38.3
1.9
24.8
25.8*
9.2

63.4*
40.2*
-42.1
-38.8
-25.0
47.7*
23.5*
23.2
6.7
58.3*

-9.2
-24.3
-99
-90.0
-24.0
-23.1
-35.3
38.6*
-16.6
-56.2

6.3
24.8*
-64.9
-43.2
-27.2
-22.2
-1.3
41.1*
-8.2
-21.8

12.5
4.6
-82.7
-82.9
-17.9
-15.0
-24.4
78.3*
13.4
-55.7

56.0*
48.7*
16.4
18.6
-35.3
0.0
39.9*
18.0
35.8*
27.3*

21.6
48.7*
-15.1
9.9
6.1
34.1*
28.6*
25.8*
35.8*
50.0*

25.4
28.0*
-54.6
-11.9
2.6
-14.5
-17.5
90.4*
61.8*
-29.2

IBM
INTC
JNJ
JPM
KO
MCD
MMM
MRK
MSFT
PFE

0.566
0.570
0.451
0.523
0.518
0.629
0.445
0.566
0.506
0.431

-31.0
64.5*
-34.8
-17.2
-22.7
33.5*
-61.8
15.2
3.0
-5.4

-28.4
-24.6
-45.9
-27.8
2.2
38.4*
-21.7
10.5
-11.5
18.1

-24.2
5.1
-14.2
17.7
-26.4
64.6*
-24.5
34.1*
13.7
9.2

-33.6
-12.7
-77.3
-7.2
-8.8
-26.6
-80.6
-8.2
22.7*
-20.4

34.9*
20.0
-62.4
-3.7
-17.9
-63.3
-12.3
-11.4
13.9
-9.5

19.1
46.7*
-55.5
-1.6
7.8
-60.6
-44.3
-6.0
-6.8
2.6

-14.6
-6.6
-38.7
27.4*
7.2
27.2*
-31.1
23.8
12.5
17.9

36.7*
30.9*
-3.6
14.5
-6.2
15.9
1.0
33.6*
25.0*
61.0*

-12.9
46.7*
5.1
-10.7
13.7
6.6
-4.3
8.3
-10.5
54.2*

PG
T
UTX
VZ
WMT
XOM

0.484
0.532
0.478
0.514
0.505
0.474

-23.9
12.8
-46.6
-7.5
-59.5
-74.4

-20.2
28.2
-47.9
3.1
-42.8
-32.8

-36.1
52.8*
-47.4
15.8
-44.8
-36.1

-55.6
-49.0
89.1
-20.7
-91.2
-146.5

-5.8
-23.5
-55.7
-6.1
-50.7
-70.9

-13.6
-26.8
-24.8
-47.3
-77.1
-86.6

-36.9
13.2
-20.2
-12.2
-28.2
-11.0

-59.9
46.9*
22.0
23.2*
11.9
12.8

-17.1
20.1
-34.7
5.8
8.8
-22.4

-7.8

-6.1

4.4

-32.7

-14.7

-20.3

6.1

21.0

5.3

Average

MACO
(1,200)
-41.3
30.7*
27.1*
-31.6

MACO
(5,150)
-18.5
22.9*
34.1*
-23.1

Filter
(1%)
-17.3
-15.0
-50.2
-33.4

Filter
(2%)
-57.4
19.5
32.8*
5.2

Filter
(5%)
-4.3
3.2
-52.6
-10.6

TRBO
(50)
-24.7
20.6
-0.9
31.4*

TRBO
(150)
30.6
38.8*
4.8
45.7*

TRBO
(200)
10.6
77.8*
-26.8
-38.9

Average

23.1
28.4
-49.7
-35.5
-20.6
-1.7

*bootstrap simulation p-value is significant at both the 5% and 10% level of significance
Row average is the average of all nine trading rule variants
Column average is the average profit for the individual trading rule variant
All positive profits are in bold

- 32 -

-18.7
27.3
-4.0
-1.4

3.8
41.9
18.5
3.1
-6.0
18.9
-36.4
-1.0
-5.7
4.0
-31.1
11.1
6.9
14.2
-29.9
8.3
-18.5
-5.1
-41.5
-52.0

Panel B - Weekly Data results (in percentage) for contrarian trading rules
Symbol
AA
AIG
AXP
BA
BAC
C
CAT
CVX

H
0.498
0.597
0.497
0.543
0.562
0.603
0.522
0.488

BB (20,2)
9.5
8.0
4.9
-34.0
24.4
15.1
-51.9
-8.8

BB (20,1)
3.8
26.7
23.2
-45.3
32.2
29.0
-62.3
-1.6

BB (30,2)
22.0
4.1
4.9
-54.1
16.5
-6.3
-22.2
-9.2

Average

DD
DIS
GE
GM
HD
HPQ
IBM
INTC
JNJ
JPM

0.463
0.503
0.556
0.554
0.524
0.564
0.566
0.570
0.451
0.523

67.0
-9.0
-16.8
15.7
11.5
-26.3
52.6
-1.7
28.5
47.5

61.1
-6.2
7.0
12.8
36.5
-31.3
19.7
7.3
7.2
71.0

97.4
-8.4
-3.2
8.4
22.3
-13.2
71.9
22.0
56.2
47.2

75.17
-7.87
-4.33

KO
MCD
MMM
MRK
MSFT
PFE
PG
T
UTX
VZ

0.518
0.629
0.445
0.566
0.506
0.431
0.484
0.532
0.478
0.514

30.5
-19.6
15.7
2.3
71.5
46.0
11.1
65.6
-8.1
25.9

25.1
-13.0
26.2
1.4
42.4
37.5
-20.8
11.3
35.4
19.1

2.8
-38.0
43.8
-2.0
71.4
48.3
4.4
27.7
-26.2
37.7

19.47
-23.53

WMT
XOM

0.505
0.474

95.2
-8.6

117.1
-17.6

122.5
-36.9

111.60
-21.03

15.46

15.16

17.06

Average

11.77
12.93
11.00
-44.47
24.37
12.60
-45.47
-6.53

12.30
23.43
-23.60
48.07
9.20
30.63
55.23

28.57
0.57
61.77
43.93
-1.77
34.87
0.37
27.57

*bootstrap simulation p-value is significant at both the 5% and 10% level of significance
Row average is the average of all three trading rule variants
Column average is the average profit for the individual trading rule variant
All positive profits are in bold

- 33 -

Table 4 - Returns to trending trading rules classified by H

Panel A Profits from the average of all trading rules (daily and weekly)
H
grouping
0.5 > H
0.5 < H > 0.55
0.55 < H

Total
(%)
-16.791
-4.529
11.535

MACO
(%)
-18.549
-2.490
18.436

Filter
(%)
-27.986
-14.680
-4.762

TRBO
(%)
-3.826
3.593
20.938

TRBO
(%)
-3.548
-0.182
7.075

19
27
14

Panel B Profits from the average of all trading rules (daily)

H
grouping
0.5 > H
0.5 < H > 0.55
0.55 < H

Total
(%)
-9.613
-2.934
1.4725

MACO
(%)
-9.337
-0.027
4.350

Filter
(%)
-15.959
-8.588
-7.000

9
17
4

Panel C Profits from the average of all trading rules (weekly)

H
grouping
0.5 > H
0.5 < H > 0.55
0.55 < H

Total
(%)
-23.250
-7.240
15.56

MACO
(%)
-26.840
-6.677
24.070

Filter
(%)
-38.810
-25.037
-3.867

- 34 -

TRBO
(%)
-4.077
10.010
21.910

N
10
10
10

Table 5 - Hurst exponent estimation on sub-periods

Daily Data
Symbol

Weekly Data

H1

H2

H3

AA
AIG
AXP

0.501
0.558
0.488

.511
.550
.545

.556
.531
.514

BA
BAC
C
CAT
CVX
DD
DIS
GE
GM
HD

0.542
0.549
0.587
0.512
0.479
0.463
0.497
0.519
0.549
0.507

.573
.451
.577
.511
.431
.461
.524
.533
.568
.493

HPQ
IBM
INTC
JNJ
JPM
KO
MCD
MMM
MRK
MSFT
PFE

0.564
0.540
0.542
0.464
0.530
0.518
0.573
0.464
0.541
0.507
0.452

PG
T
UTX
VZ
WMT
XOM

0.500
0.512
0.491
0.503
0.486
0.477

H1

H2

H3

.563
.620
.497

H
0.0282
0.0469
0.0243

0.498
0.597
0.497

.505
.593
.592

.615
.514
.487

.595
.689
.533

H
0.0586
0.0876
0.0526

.589
.514
.552
.563
.537
.453
.521
.517
.585
.582

.571
.616
.612
.525
.485
.527
.524
.526
.590
.500

0.0099
0.0833
0.0301
0.0269
0.0530
0.0406
0.0017
0.0080
0.0115
0.0495

0.543
0.562
0.603
0.522
0.488
0.463
0.503
0.556
0.554
0.524

.536
.426
.609
.524
.412
.454
.559
.566
.582
.493

.654
.486
.612
.604
.582
.424
.527
.531
.595
.647

.605
.629
.618
.540
.476
.598
.592
.593
.652
.517

0.0593
0.1043
0.0046
0.0423
0.0859
0.0930
0.0325
0.0311
0.0372
0.0829

.576
.512
.557
.497
.520
.462
.494
.442
.473
.547
.470

.537
.587
.578
.522
.600
.543
.631
.442
.531
.483
.550

.460
.514
.535
.477
.530
.586
.510
.553
.619
.561
.533

0.0590
0.0427
0.0215
0.0225
0.0436
0.0630
0.0749
0.0641
0.0735
0.0416
0.0421

0.564
0.566
0.570
0.451
0.523
0.518
0.629
0.445
0.566
0.506
0.431

.561
.555
.630
.551
.502
.448
.527
.441
.431
.552
.439

.691
.621
.665
.518
.665
.539
.760
.412
.509
.450
.621

.429
.498
.515
.468
.481
.700
.498
.592
.737
.608
.559

0.1310
0.0616
0.0785
0.0418
0.1007
0.1276
0.1436
0.0966
0.1590
0.0801
0.0925

.541
.451
.531
.479
.488
.416

.458
.506
.547
.555
.469
.530

.509
.533
.506
.556
.488
.483

0.0419
0.0418
0.0207
0.0442
0.0110
0.0573

0.484
0.532
0.478
0.514
0.505
0.474

.535
.410
.530
.472
.505
.396

.453
.565
.590
.607
.436
.578

.513
.586
.509
.615
.478
.490

0.0424
0.0961
0.0420
0.0804
0.0348
0.0910

H1 Hurst exponent for the first sub period of 07/22/1998 to 11/19/2001

H2 Hurst exponent for the second sub period of 11/20/2001 to 03/21/2005
H3 Hurst exponent for the third sub period of 03/22/2005 to 07/21/2008
H standard deviation of the H across the three sub periods.

- 35 -

Table 6 - Returns to technical trading rules classified by H on sub periods

Panel A Sub-period 1 (07/22/1998 to 11/19/2001)
Filter
(%)

TRBO
(%)

I. Profits from the average of daily and weekly trading rule returns
0.5 > H
-0.170
-0.195
-0.279
0.5 < H > 0.55
-0.098
-0.061
-0.213
0.55 < H
0.067
0.192
-0.125

0.009
0.015
0.232

25
19
16

II. Profits from the average of daily trading rule returns

0.5 > H
-0.142
-0.146
0.5 < H > 0.55
-0.081
-0.043
0.55 < H
-0.003
0.065

-0.178
-0.163
-0.080

-0.102
-0.037
0.047

14
11
5

III. Profits from the average of weekly trading rule returns

0.5 > H
-0.205
-0.258
0.5 < H > 0.55
-0.121
-0.086
0.55 < H
0.099
0.250

-0.407
-0.282
-0.146

0.151
0.086
0.315

11
8
11

Filter
(%)

TRBO
(%)

I. Profits from the average of daily and weekly trading rule returns
0.5 > H
-0.329
-0.290
-0.568
0.5 < H > 0.55
-0.015
-0.019
-0.105
0.55 < H
-0.053
-0.039
-0.172

-0.129
0.065
0.070

12
19
29

II. Profits from the average of daily trading rule returns

0.5 > H
-0.103
-0.116
0.5 < H > 0.55
-0.039
-0.030
0.55 < H
0.037
0.085

-0.136
-0.092
-0.061

-0.059
-0.013
0.131

5
13
12

III. Profits from the average of weekly trading rule returns

0.5 > H
-0.490
-0.415
0.5 < H > 0.55
0.035
0.003
0.55 < H
-0.117
-0.126

-0.877
-0.132
-0.251

-0.179
0.233
0.028

7
6
17

Filter
(%)

TRBO
(%)

I. Profits from the average of daily and weekly trading rule returns
0.5 > H
-0.348
-0.237
-0.643
0.5 < H > 0.55
-0.096
-0.057
-0.261
0.55 < H
0.021
0.067
-0.041

-0.131
0.007
0.037

14
19
27

II. Profits from the average of daily trading rule returns

0.5 > H
-0.119
-0.124
0.5 < H > 0.55
-0.060
-0.052
0.55 < H
0.070
0.095

-0.175
-0.099
0.022

-0.058
-0.028
0.093

6
13
11

III. Profits from the average of weekly trading rule returns

0.5 > H
-0.519
-0.323
0.5 < H > 0.55
-0.174
-0.067
0.55 < H
-0.013
0.048

-0.994
-0.612
-0.084

-0.186
0.084
-0.002

8
6
16

H
grouping

Total
(%)

MACO
(%)

Panel B Sub-period 2 (11/20/2001 to 03/21/2005)

H
grouping

Total
(%)

MACO
(%)

Panel C Sub-period 3 (03/22/2005 to 07/21/2008)

H
grouping

Total
(%)

MACO
(%)

- 36 -

Table 7 - Estimation results from regression of profits from trending trading rules on H.
This table presents the results of the regression between the profits generated by technical analysis on a time series and longterm dependencies (H as proxy), as expressed by the following equation:

TTR Profits = ao + a1Hurst Exponent(H) + 1

Panel A Profits from the average of all trading rules
Estimation
1H

Intercept
-127.82
(-5.43)

Hurst
237.75*
(5.24)

Adjusted R2
0.310

F-value
27.55

N
60

Hurst is the nature of the dependencies in the time series as measured by the Hurst exponent
*estimation is significant at both the 5% and 1% level of significance

Panel B Average profits from the moving average, filter, and trading range break out rules
Estimation
1 MACO
2 Filter
3 TRBO

Intercept
-176.34
(-6.12)
-110.50
(-2.88)
-91.67
(-4.33)

Hurst
334.82*
(5.81)
190.93*
(2.48)
157.67*
(3.72)

Adjusted R2
0.372

F-value
18.51

N
60

0.066

3.09

60

0.370

18.33

60

Hurst is the nature of the dependencies in the time series as measured by the Hurst exponent
*estimation is significant at both the 5% and 1% level of significance

Table 8 - Estimation results from regression of profits from trending trading rules on H
with sub-period data
This table presents the results of the regression between the profits generated by technical analysis on a time series and the
time series long-term dependencies (H as proxy) by using the sub-period data, as expressed by the following equation:

TTR Profits1 = ao + a2Hurst Exponent(H)1 + 1

Estimation

Intercept

Hurst
Adjusted R2
F-value
Exponent
1 daily and -67.48
112.54
0.039
0.004
weekly
(-3.20)
(2.88)
2 daily
-0.84
1.51*
0.334
45.67
(7.12)
(6.75)
3 weekly
-111.69
178.23*
0.084
8.14
(-3.23)
(2.85)
*estimation is significant at both the 5% and 1% level of significance

- 37 -

N
180
90
90

Table 9 - Returns to contrarian trading rules classified by H

Panel A Profits from the average of all trading rules (daily and weekly)
H
grouping
0.5 > H
0.5 < H > 0.55
0.55 < H

Total
(%)
11.319
9.718
5.612

BB (20,2)
(%)
10.515
9.700
4.786

BB (20,1)
(%)
10.995
8.673
7.893

BB (30,2)
(%)
12.445
10.781
4.157

N
20
26
14

Panel B Profits from the average of all trading rules (daily)

H
grouping
0.5 > H
0.5 < H > 0.55
0.55 < H

Total
(%)
5.426
1.034
2.498

BB (20,2)
(%)
5.310
-0.037
3.325

BB (20,1)
(%)
6.550
1.050
4.675

BB (30,2)
(%)
4.420
2.088
-0.500

N
10
16
4

Panel C Profits from the average of all trading rules (weekly)

H
grouping
0.5 > H
0.5 < H > 0.55
0.55 < H

Total
(%)
17.211
23.613
6.183

BB (20,2)
(%)
15.720
25.280
5.370

BB (20,1)
(%)
15.440
20.870
9.180

BB (30,2)
(%)
20.470
24.690
6.020

N
10
10
10

Table 10 - Estimation results from regression of profits from contrarian trading rules on
H.
This table presents the results of the regression between the profits generated by technical analysis on a time series and longterm dependencies (H as proxy), as expressed by the following equation:

TTR Profits = ao + a1Hurst Exponent(H) + 1

Panel A Profits from the average of all trading rules
Estimation
1H

Intercept
77.56
(1.96)

Hurst
131.79*
(1.73)

Adjusted R2
0.05

F-value
3.01

N
60

Hurst is the nature of the dependencies in the time series as measured by the Hurst exponent
*estimation is significant at the 10% level of significance

- 38 -

Table 11 - Estimation results from regression of profits from technical analysis on

lagged H
This table presents the results of the regression between the profits generated by technical analysis on time series (t0) and the
time series long-term dependencies (H as proxy) in the past period (t-1), as expressed by the following equation:

TTR Profits1 = ao + a2Hurst Exponent (H)(t-1) + 1

Panel A All observations
Estimation
1 daily and
weekly
2 daily

Intercept
Adjusted R2
F-value
H
0.52
-0.013
-0.003
0.612
(83.9)
(-0.78)
0.522
0.047
-0.003
0.767
(83.49)
(0.876)
3 weekly
0.536
-0.011
-0.012
0.284
(48.12)
(-0.533)
*estimation is significant at both the 5% and 1% level of significance

N
120
60
60

Panel B Observations with 10 lowest variance of H across sub-periods

Estimation

Intercept

Adjusted R2

F-value

-1.44
(1.46)

H
1.86
(1.30)

1 daily and
weekly

0.017

1.70

40

2 daily

-1.14
(-2.51)

2.11*
(2.47)

0.213

6.14

20

3 weekly

-1.88
(-1.45)

2.955
(1.28)

0.033

1.86

20

*estimation is significant at both the 5% and 1% level of significance

Table 12 - Estimation results from regression of sub-period H and full time series.
This table presents the results of the regression between the standard deviation of the H across sub-periods and the standard
deviation of the log returns of the entire time series, as expressed by the following equation:

H = ao + a1Data Set + 1
Estimation
1

Intercept

Data set

Adjusted R2

F-value

0.818
-37.26
0.778
208.03
(21.36)
(-14.42)
*estimation is significant at both the 5% and 1% level of significance

- 39 -

(Pearson)
-0.88

N
60

Table 13 Summary of profits on daily versus weekly scale

Profitable rules
Daily

Weekly

MAC-O

33
( / 90)

57
( / 90)

Filter

15
( / 90)

BB

Average return

Range (Max/Min)

of profits

Daily
(%)
-2.2

Weekly
(%)
-3.1

Daily
(%)
21.3 /
(21.9)

Weekly
(%)
67.7 /
(74.4)

Daily
(%)
9.4

Weekly
(%)
35.2

29
( / 90)

-10.6

-22.6

21.9 /
(33.9)

89.1 /
(146.5)

10.7

39.1

67
( / 90)

63
( / 90)

2.7

15.9

13.3 /
9.73

111.6 /
-45.47

5.07

33.9

TRB-O

46
( / 90)

52
( / 90)

-0.2

10.8

17.4 /
(17.3)

90.4 /
(59.9)

8.1

29.1

Total

161
( / 360)

201
( / 360)

-2.58

0.25

- 40 -

Figures
Figure 1 Line graph of persistent, anti-persistent, and no persistence time series
Panel A Persistent time series (McDonalds, H = 0.629)
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Panel B Anti-persistent time series (Johnson and Johnson, H = 0.464)

70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25

Panel C Time series with no persistence (Alcoa, H = 0.498)

45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10

Solid line raw prices

Dashed line 10-day moving average
Dotted line support trend line

- 41 -

Figure 2 - Rescaled range analysis to estimate Hurst Exponent for DJIA time series

- 42 -