Interesting paper. Took a skim-read and a couple of things stood...

Interesting paper. Took a skim-read and a couple of things stood out.

First thing, the article conclusion [my emphasis] is "The evidence shows that technicians are able to predict abnormal returns in individual stocks up to a twelve-month horizon, while fundamental analysts exhibit weaker predictive ability. Beyond that, neither group is able to predict returns on the market index, equity sectors, bonds, or commodities".
Whilst it's possible to successfully pick value-growth stocks one really needs to think of FA over a greater period than just 12 months. For instance, Buffet's preferred holding period is "forever". Having said that, I would have expected FA to at least beat TA beyond 12 months (although I know people who successfully use LT MAs).

Second thing, they based their assessment on analyst recommendations. There are pros & cons to this approach but I think this emphasizes to me the benefits of a DIY approach (or simply using ETFs).
One line in particular cracked me up, "mean raw returns during one, six, nine, and twelve months following sell recommendations are actually higher than the mean returns following buy recommendations".

Also, I wonder whether using data from the US market favours TA over FA and how different this would be if it was say the ASX.