> Technical analysis has been repeatedly proven to not be a valid investment strategy over long periods of time. Even still, your statement is true since techni

> Technical analysis has been repeatedly proven to not be a valid investment strategy over long periods of time. Even still, your statement is true since technical analysis requires no effort... Technical analysis is not an investment "strategy." It is a technique that many market participants use to varying degrees. You're free to dismiss it, as many critics do. Regardless of whether you use fundamental analysis or technical analysis, profitable investing/trading requires a lot of other things (money management, discipline, etc.). I will say this in response to your "hero" comment: I personally don't know a technical analyst who was long US equities in late 2007 as long-term trendlines were breaking. And you can probably do the math on what short positions produced in 2008. On the other hand, for example, there are very smart folks sitting underwater on AAPL stock they bought in the $600 to $700 range who are arguing that the company is undervalued according to fundamentals. Maybe they're right, but they're not making money and they're currently paying a very high opportunity cost. In short, in my experience, technical analysis in its most basic form keeps investors/traders on the right side of the trend, and enables them to more easily identify when the trend has changed. That right there is more than half the battle. > If you don't understand fundamental analysis, why would you comment so forcefully about fundamental analysis? There's a difference between not understanding something and not relying on it. I never said that I didn't understand fundamental analysis. I argued that comparing the price-to-sales ratio at IPO of a small number of companies today to the price-to-sales ratio at IPO of a larger number of companies in 1999 is not a valid methodology for proving or disproving the existence of a bubble. > ...he has the most successful incubator in the history of tech investing. Maybe it is worth considering what he says before assuming a ratio you haven't spent much time thinking about is not that important. I respect Paul Graham and what he has done with YCombinator. And I've pointed out in the past that YCombinator is far more insulated from the "bubble" than others because it invests very small amounts of money in lots of companies at their formation. As such, YCombinator is nowhere near as exposed to valuation inflation as other investors. None of this means that everything PG says should be accepted without question. Appeal to authority arguments might sound convincing, but they're probably not going to make you money. If your own due diligence suggests that you should invest/trade primarily off of price-to-sales, I wish you the best.