Martin Armstrong Discussion

[AnonymousCoder]

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/markets-by-sector/stock-indicies/dow-jones/why-hedge-funds-have-missed-the-moves/

Why Hedge Funds Have Missed the Moves
Blog/Dow Jones
Posted Jul 23, 2019 by Martin Armstrong

COMMENT: Well, Ray Dalio was short the market, missed the rally, and lost almost 5% for the first half of the year. Obviously, they don't use Socrates - lol.

LB

REPLY: I do not advise Bridgewater and I have no idea if they even subscribe to Socrates. But what you have to realize is that a lot of these hedge funds form their strategy based upon opinion for the broader view. When you have a portfolio of that size, you cannot simply trade it back and forth for each move. The question becomes critical as to where to draw the line to realize your broadview strategy is wrong.

I have stated many times that the trend does NOT begin to shift until you reach the Monthly Level. We saw that in Gold when it finally got through 1362.50 after nearly four years of bouncing off that number. In the case of the Dow Jones Industrials, our hedging models for institutions were long one month from the low and has remained in that position. This is just a hedging model which is either long or short. It at least tends to keep institutions on the right side of the trend for long periods of time.

Aside from the Reversal System, the Energy Model is extremely helpful in identifying the position of the market and if there is a risk of a crash or a rally. The Energy Model turned negative, demonstrating that there was no possibility of a crash as most analysts were forecasting from a gut perspective. A crash would have been possible ONLY if the Energy Model was at a peak. When it is testing the lows or a negative, it is warning that the energy in the market has already dissipated.

We are simply headed into a Monetary Crisis Cycle where the majority of people will never be able to forecast what will unfold from a personal gut perspective. This is not a time for lucky calls. We need objective time-tested analysis that is not clouded by human bias. This is when we need the global approach to let Socrates simply correlate the world to enable us to see the real trends that are in motion. The worst thing you can do is ASSUME you have missed something, as that is typically the kiss of death for investors where they inevitably buy the high or sell the low.

Lmao, here he goes again, shamelessly doubling down on everything. Now Armstrong is practically saying that he and Socrates were incredible in forcasting the rally from the December lows, the June low etc. What a complete bogus from this total conman. Why does he mention his "great" Energy Models after the rally? Why was he bearish at the end of May/beginning of June despite the fact that his Energy Models were already negative? And did Marty again write his own questions, because a lot of people missed the current rallies because Socrates didn't recognize them.

Thanks. Yes, it is disgraceful, disgusting. Please keep posting. He re-writes the past again. Nobody including himself would have singled out his "Energy Models" signals from the mix of conflicting signals that his super stupid computer created at the time.


Martin Armstrong is a charlatan, and he spent 11 years in jail for that reason but he has not changed.

Read this blog starting here to find out more about computerized fraud.


See armstrongecmscam.blogspot.com for a more compact view of major findings posted in this blog.

Every single defrauded person should report their case, see Where and how to complain

[1713960864]

1713960864

[1713960864]

1713960864

[1713960864]

1713960864

[1713960864]

1713960864

[1713960864]

1713960864

[1713960864]

1713960864

[trulycoined]

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/markets-by-sector/stock-indicies/dow-jones/why-hedge-funds-have-missed-the-moves/

Why Hedge Funds Have Missed the Moves
Blog/Dow Jones
Posted Jul 23, 2019 by Martin Armstrong

COMMENT: Well, Ray Dalio was short the market, missed the rally, and lost almost 5% for the first half of the year. Obviously, they don’t use Socrates – lol.

LB

REPLY: I do not advise Bridgewater...

Lmao, here he goes again, shamelessly doubling down on everything. Now Armstrong is practically saying that he and Socrates were incredible in forcasting the rally from the December lows, the June low etc. What a complete bogus from this total conman. Why does he mention his "great" Energy Models after the rally? Why was he bearish at the end of May/beginning of June despite the fact that his Energy Models were already negative? And did Marty again write his own questions, because a lot of people missed the current rallies because Socrates didn't recognize them.

Yes, I read that this morning and thought it quite coincidentally relevant to this thread. A few pages ago we discussed Renaissance Technology and Two Sigma as actual audited examples of what MA claims.

If you search "Renaissance Technology" on Google, then click the People also search for link in the right side bar, Bridgewater Associates is top result #2 after Two Sigma.

Putting two-and-two together here, it seems quite coincidental that MA would pick out one of his rivals, from a thread (this forum) that ranks on page one of google for certain search queries that also contain "martin armstrong".

Made me wonder if in a roundabout way, he is trying to save face again for anyone who might start reading this thread, while not making it too obvious he's been snooping around here past week or two...

[Alex-11]

The problem with the backtest is that there are supposed to be verifiable data. Armstrong's team does not provide historical data. Therefore the backtest but be regarded with skepticism.

All that backtest is supposed to do is to show how this backtest has performed in the past ( yes, according to MA). In my view this is historical data. It's just a bit labour intensive to bring this into tabular format, but it can be done.Now you have a hint how you can possibly make some profits with some numbers (without subjectivity). On the monthly level it's indeed difficult or impossible to verify because it takes so many years of history, especially if you do not trust the numbers on the chart and you think they are fake. But on the daily and weekly level. you could try it out and/or backtest other charts like this for that time scope.

If only Reversals are close to 100% reliable then any elected Reversal elected by less than 1% could be entered for a guaranteed trade, if it were the case.

elected reversals are good if there is a bull or bear market. In sideway market, elected reversals don't perform so well (or even bad). After all, they should perform well though , if one is staying long enough in the market to catch the bull and bear markets.  This is all without the arrays.

Armstrong says you cannot use the GMW etc to trade as it is not a trading tool etc. Those other things simply increase contradictions and conflicting signals.

well, that's a whole new topic on it's own...

For the moment I don't want  to prove that Socrates is great unless someone is paying me a decent bonus  . I just  want to prove that there are various false assumptions and false statements made here in the forum.

[MTL4]

I find it interesting that if you look at the back of most of MA's old reports/studies, you actually see some technical analysis (look at the Gold $5000 report from 2009 for instance).  The sad part is that if he had just used that "primary channel" (even though it was not done totally correctly) he would have seen that gold broke out the top of his channel in mid 2011 (usually indicating a test of support later) and then broke out the the bottom mid 2012 (usually indicating a top was likely already in place, further retreat was likely).  This to me was an easy call yet it no prediction was ever made until well after the fact.  Same with his DOW predictions (18500, 23000, and 32000/40000, these clearly come from channels too hence the upper range numbers) which we have passed 2 of them already but not at all on the timing he had indicated via any of the blog posts (public or private).  This is the hard part for most I think since he mixes some stuff which has technical viability with other stuff that is clearly guessing.

I'm still waiting for someone who claims this Socrates system works to do a live trade on here so we can follow along and verify the P/L, I've heard lots of claims over the years but not a single person could back it up with anything other than hearsay and great stories after the fact.

[MA_talk]

IMO the goal should be not to trade after MA's blog posts but only after Socrates numbers itself.  Trading should be done  completely independent of his advise or opinion.
Blog posts can be used for educational purpose, but not mainly for trading decisions.

backtest I've posted already several times:  http://armstrong.forumprofi.de/showthread.php?tid=78&pid=234#pid234

The system is not everywhere buggy, but I can understand people who would rather wait until some bugs are fixed. And for people who have problems with Socrates, this would also be my advise (to wait).

And please explain how Armstrong claims that it is possible to break the laws of thermodynamics ala Japanese scooter guy.

hehe, I've no idea what you are talking about.
There are many things I can't explain, but there are a few things I can and they are enough for me. The main point is, they need to work

@Alex-11, you have no idea?  Oh, you have no ideas about basic science, or you have no ideas about what we have posted about Armstrong's scooter from Japan on this forum for so many times?

Here is the raw text, by Martin Armstrong, on the perpetual machine that even generates energy:

In Tokyo, a man came to me with a magnetic engine. He wanted me to help him and take it public. He left me a scooter and told me to test it out. You plugged it in once and thereafter it self-generated power and did not need to be plugged in again. I was skeptical at first. I asked him why he was coming to me? He said he had been to all the top auto manufacturers and everyone wanted to buy it. He was offered $50 million and turned it down not because he wanted more, but because they wanted to shelve it so it would not see the light of day. That was another project they ensured was killed in my affair.

Are you not aware of the above from Armstrong, or are you not aware of the basic science?

Any people with at least one science class from high school should understand that there is NO free energy.  Are you one of them or not?

Well, Martin Armstrong certainly did NOT understand, and that speaks volume AGAINST any other claims that Armstrong have made.  You have two choices:

1. Believe that Armstrong was simply ignorant about the basic science, in which case, one would wonder whether he even has the intelligence to do all these "energy" model, artificial intelligence, etc.  Why would anyone trust Armstrong's ability when he doesn't even have the most basic understanding of the most fundamental science.

2. Believe that Armstrong was not ignorant, but instead he LIED.  In this case, given his lying record (and on many other stuffs), it is difficult to trust any of Armstrong's (hindsight) claims.

Any other choices are not logical.

[s29]

In the news:

White House, Congress strike a two-year debt ceiling and budget deal
Published Mon, Jul 22 2019

Which really reminds me of how many times Armstrong endlessly rant about that the Democrats and Republicans couldn't agree on anything anymore, because Democrats only know resistance. This deal is clearly proves Armstrong is WRONG.

Which also is funny to read his comments in several blogposts years (!) ago:

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/uncategorized/the-beginning-of-the-rise-in-interest-rates-is-here/

The Beginning of The Rise in Interest Rates is Here
Blog/Uncategorized
Posted Nov 2, 2013 by Martin Armstrong

Almost 6 years later: record negative yielding governments bonds. Again Armstrong is WRONG.

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/uncategorized/us-vows-no-default-over-debt-ceiling-debate/

US Vows No Default over Debt Ceiling Debate
Posted Mar 9, 2015 by Martin Armstrong

Part of the entire problem with debt and why we seem to be reaching BIG BANG, is that we are on a perpetual borrowing agenda in every country.

Rates are falling in the private sector, but in the public sector we have this clash with extending the debt ceiling year after year. People are starting to get concerned about government debt as a whole and we are seeing this in Europe as well.

Every country, Marty? Okay, let's look at the facts. Germany's government debt to GDP shrank from about 80 to 60 percent. Euro Area as a whole from 92 to 85 percent. What was he talking about? Again, WRONG.

[unwashed]

I like to also mention what I observed in regards to reversals. As I stated in an earlier post, reversal are just a comfirmation. When I had access to Socrates and reversals after the 2015 wec I was able to match the reversals on a chart. What I found was, the first bullish reversal coresponded with the high of the previous rally and the second of the rally before the last. If the market was going sideways it was the high within that sideways move. My conclusion is the the reversal system is a derivative of Charting/TA. This is something anyone with access to the reversals can check. After trading/investing using TA for almost 21 years I couldn't justify paying $1800 a year on something I could do myself. I personally don't remember MA actually stating when someone should buy on the reversals, on the first, second or third? Maybe someone can clearify this.

Using confirmations at a point is also nothing new. Chandlestick charting also preaches and teaches wait for confirmation but states the points of entry. I'm a student of bar charting which teaches to identify trend changes and are probably the people who are credited with creating the trend before the confirmations.

My point is that I suggest everyone should pick a study, learn it, trade it and get dragged through the mud (loses)  before trying to use, prove or disprove MA system. Or get a job with RenTech and retired after 10 years   

[Alex-11]

...

of course I know "free energy" and that most scientist say it's nonsense and have their explanation. I'm sure that Armstrong knows it too.
It's like in the 14th century, where you come up with the idea that the earth is not flat but a ball. Totally and completely unimaginable and against all known laws of physics.
Either ways, I've never seen such a device with my own eye's nor I am a physicist or an inventor.
I only know that some guy approached MA and showed him something and it seem to have impressed MA.
I also know that if you are looking for something that you can use against some expert, you welcome just anything. Even if doesn't really have anything to do with the area of expertise of this guy.  That the standard procedure everywhere , be it politics, media or science.  You just through some mud at somebody and hope something will stick on him.

What I found was, the first bullish reversal coresponded with the high of the previous rally and the .....

I've also noticed that, but I didn't look closely at it.  This is really required if you want to make a final statement about this connection.
E.g. what if an instrument makes new highs never seen before? Reversals are still there. From where should it take those reversals if no history of a similar high is available?

[trulycoined]

In the news:

White House, Congress strike a two-year debt ceiling and budget deal
Published Mon, Jul 22 2019

Which really reminds me of....

US Vows No Default over Debt Ceiling Debate
Posted Mar 9, 2015 by Martin Armstrong

Part of the entire problem with debt and why we seem to be reaching BIG BANG, is that we are on a perpetual borrowing agenda in every country.

Rates are falling in the private sector, but in the public sector we have this clash with extending the debt ceiling year after year. People are starting to get concerned about government debt as a whole and we are seeing this in Europe as well.

Every country, Marty? Okay, let's look at the facts. Germany's government debt to GDP shrank from about 80 to 60 percent. Euro Area as a whole from 92 to 85 percent. What was he talking about? Again, WRONG.

There are also laughable fabrications or, at the very least, hysterical exaggerations, in his articles. In the above link you posted to MA's blog:
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/uncategorized/us-vows-no-default-over-debt-ceiling-debate/

The article links to this:
https://www.newyorkfed.org/research/staff_reports/sr716.html

Where MA explains: PS: Yes I am aware of the Fed starting to investigate the business cycle. At last!

However, a quick search on newyorkfed.org uncovers several thousand articles going back to at least 1999... That discuss the business cycle.

The theory itself was conceived in the 1800s and further codified in the mid 20th Century.

Here we have MA making out he's one of the forefathers of business cycle theory, or one of the few using it seriously. I suppose it is more bait for his audience to part money for his events and subs.

[Lindegas]

I showed MA how I created free energy. He was sceptical at first but once I sent him pictures of how I bypass my electricity meter and then tapped into next doors power he was convinced that free energy is obtainable at last. This is also how Socrates works in my opinion

[MA_talk]

I showed MA how I created free energy. He was sceptical at first but once I sent him pictures of how I bypass my electricity meter and then tapped into next doors power he was convinced that free energy is obtainable at last. This is also how Socrates works in my opinion

That's a good one, .

[MA_talk]

...

of course I know "free energy" and that most scientist say it's nonsense and have their explanation. I'm sure that Armstrong knows it too.
It's like in the 14th century, where you come up with the idea that the earth is not flat but a ball. Totally and completely unimaginable and against all known laws of physics.
...

Sorry, using that analogy of a flat Earth is not the right one.  That shows your lack of scientific knowledge.  Science is always evidence-based.  Long before that, there were already several observable evidences for a non-flat Earth.

So if I simply come up with an idea that claims if you take my newly invented drug, you can live one thousand years more, does that make it true?  NO.  Claims must be evidence-based.  There is ZERO evidence that one can produce nuclear reactions from a spinning scooter, and therefore produce energy in exchange of loss of mass.

For someone like you, going around on internet, and believe everything literally as true, just because it came from someone's mouth, I have no words to describe such mental state.

Armstrong HAD the possession of the scooter to run testing.  And still he couldn't understand that there is no free energy.  I think I will feel better taking advice from a high school student than from Armstrong.

[nattybear]

I like to also mention what I observed in regards to reversals. As I stated in an earlier post, reversal are just a comfirmation. When I had access to Socrates and reversals after the 2015 wec I was able to match the reversals on a chart. What I found was, the first bullish reversal coresponded with the high of the previous rally and the second of the rally before the last. If the market was going sideways it was the high within that sideways move. My conclusion is the the reversal system is a derivative of Charting/TA. This is something anyone with access to the reversals can check. After trading/investing using TA for almost 21 years I couldn't justify paying $1800 a year on something I could do myself. I personally don't remember MA actually stating when someone should buy on the reversals, on the first, second or third? Maybe someone can clearify this.

I had very similar findings with my use of daily and weekly reversals. Very frequently using a Decision Points approach you would get a level which was very close to the reversals which Socrates would pump out (even within 10pts at times). This was one of the reasons why I didn't see the sense in continuing the Pro subscription on the Dow - I could do it myself without much effort.

I also find trading from Decision Points without MA/Socrates prediction efforts more reliable. I'm able to trade based on what the price movement is rather than MA's slanted view which in my experience has been very unreliable.

[unwashed]

...

of course I know "free energy" and that most scientist say it's nonsense and have their explanation. I'm sure that Armstrong knows it too.
It's like in the 14th century, where you come up with the idea that the earth is not flat but a ball. Totally and completely unimaginable and against all known laws of physics.
Either ways, I've never seen such a device with my own eye's nor I am a physicist or an inventor.
I only know that some guy approached MA and showed him something and it seem to have impressed MA.
I also know that if you are looking for something that you can use against some expert, you welcome just anything. Even if doesn't really have anything to do with the area of expertise of this guy.  That the standard procedure everywhere , be it politics, media or science.  You just through some mud at somebody and hope something will stick on him.

What I found was, the first bullish reversal coresponded with the high of the previous rally and the .....

I've also noticed that, but I didn't look closely at it.  This is really required if you want to make a final statement about this connection.
E.g. what if an instrument makes new highs never seen before? Reversals are still there. From where should it take those reversals if no history of a similar high is available?

So, that make three of us in the last 6 post,hmmmm. You would be better off learning and trading on your own. I've found I'm correct more so then MA. As far as picking reversals out of thin air, I've posted about projection on post #5987. I stated 2 projection (reversals) that were derided from the pattern of Head and Shoulder and triple top. All patterns can be projected from it's breakout point. Some are "Flag", "Pennants", "Horizontal channels", "Wedges", "Double top", "Cup & Handle" and as mentioned H&S and triple top. Then you have the Candlestick patterns. My retail broke has these patterns embedded and all I have to do is pick one and wait for them to form and trade them. Oh, and they can be back-tested for performance. That's from a retail broker! I'm sure many here have them. I've seen trading system that do elect buy and sell signal in real time for whatever your perimeters you set. There's even systems out there that actually does the trading for you, you open an account, set your perimeters and it automatically executes the trades for you. The cost probably is competitive with MA system. If you really look around and see what's available out there, then MA doesn't look that impressive.  For $1800 a year you can subscribe to Metastock, a world class trading software (which, I believe has automatic trading) and they give you all the tools needed. As for no history or patterns to go by, again in a previous post I show these number can be projected with Channels and trendlines and probably be just as accurate or in the ball park.

[Alex-11]

....we would have to go by the predictions Armstrong makes on his blog. ...

in my experience there are gaps in the blog. It give you an idea of how many times he's right, but for consistent trading it's advise more for mid to long term trading. IMO you can't rely solely on the blog

-I stopped being a subscriber some time ago, but last I saw, the Weekly Reversal numbers change in the Socrates textual analysis. So I don't know if they were wrong or invalid, or what.

as I mentioned before, for now focus only on the elected reversals and on the reversals table in the dashboard. They are stable and valid. If the textual analysis has numbers that can be found in the dashboard reversals table, I guess you can consider it. Otherwise there is a chance that the number that is not in the table is not correct, if it refers to reversals.

[AnonymousCoder]

...
You would be better off learning and trading on your own. I've found I'm correct more so than MA.
...

I think it can be summarized as follows:

There are 1) the TA principles to master and 2) market knowledge. Both areas are subject to human trading errors.

If we automate 1) then we should eliminate errors in 1).

If we however use Socrates for 1), we are fooling ourselves because then errors in 1) cannot be eliminated because Socrates is subject to human interpretation to an extreme extent. Instead of eliminating the human error component, we would be introducing multiple new sources and types of human error. This drives people insane because Socrates cannot even be understood because of the ambiguities / lack of consistent rules. Therefore, Socrates is not suitable.

In other words: I would ask Martin Armstrong: When are you going to computerize Socrates analysis? And I am serious about it.

Or in yet other words you cannot keep an intelligent person in a Socrates support function for long because that person will be driven insane.


Martin Armstrong is a charlatan, and he spent 11 years in jail for that reason but he has not changed.

Read this blog starting here to find out more about computerized fraud.


See armstrongecmscam.blogspot.com for a more compact view of major findings posted in this blog.

Every single defrauded person should report their case, see Where and how to complain

[blinder007]

I am challenging Martin Armstrong to publish historical results of his SOCRATES reversal system!

It would be very easy for him to shut up  all his critics by publishing historical results of the  Reversal "system", assuming the results were positiv .

What do I mean?  I show it as an example:

I am using Tradestation. I use as an example a simple breakout system (the so called Turtle System).

Initial capital:  USD 100'000   same rules and inputs applied to all symbols - so NO optimization

Symbols (futures contracts) traded:

Equity Indices:  YM, ES, NQ, FDAX, NK
Interest rates:   US, FGBL
Currencies:       EC, JY, SF,
Metals:             GC, SI, HG
Commodities:    CL, W, KC

based on Daily bars, over the last 10 years.

Results:
Total return:       $ 322'031
nbr of trades:      1997
winning trades       763
losing                  1230
% prof                 38,2 %       in range with most trend following systematic systems

avg trade:           + $ 135.33
Profit factor:         1.10
avg win/avg loss    1.77

compound Annual Return:  15.8 %
max consecutive wins:        9
max  consecutive losses:    24

max runups, max drawdowns   etc

Information like that helps you decide if you want to consider such a system.  In this exemple rather Not.

So I am challanging Martin Armstrong  to publish historical results of his reversal sytems  (Annually, quaterly, monthly, weekly, daily) in a similar manner to give clients or potential clients a chance beeing able to make an informed decision to use that approach.

He can add the usual dislaimer requested by CFTC  that it is   hypothetical etc etc blabla.



If he is not willing and able to provide that, would be the last major SIGN that  it is all a SCAM  or a loosing approach.

Until and unless HE PROVES the validity of his  "SYSTEM"   STAY AWAY.

[nattybear]

I recall that July is meant to be a panic month according to Gumbi.

Granted, there's time for it to playout however so far it's only been a ~800pt trading range. Only April had a smaller range this year. Prior to that, we're going back to 2017.

[AnonymousCoder]

I recall that July is meant to be a panic month according to Gumbi.

Granted, there's time for it to playout however so far it's only been a ~800pt trading range. Only April had a smaller range this year. Prior to that, we're going back to 2017.

The way you use this system is incorrect. The system is meant to be used in hindsight. Then you pick the signals that best match the situation that actually occurred.

Available signals to pick from in a single time frame:
- momentum (bullish / bearish / neutral)
- trend indicator (bullish / bearish / neutral)
- long-term trend (bullish / bearish / neutral)
- cyclical strength indicator (bullish / bearish / neutral)
- direction with respect to indicating pivot (above = bullish / below = bearish)
- timing (complicated, confusing, ambigous: turning points, directional changes, panic cycles, volatility)
- overall tone after recent elected reversals (bullish / bearish / neutral)
- The broader tone of the market (bullish / bearish / neutral)
- Oscillators position (bearish / bullish / mixed)
- Energy (rising / declining)
- Immediate Reversal election (Bullish / Bearish / none)
- Fake elected Reversals https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1082909.msg51666429#msg51666429
- Superposition event canceling a recently elected reversal

Yes, I am not joking, these can all appear in a single report.

Then there are signals that must be considered but they are not in the reports:

- The NON-election of a reversal of a higher order i.e. major (the most ridiculous "signal" I have ever seen)
- Reversal One Percent Rule
- Reversal gap

We are counting 16 signals in a single time frame. When we multiply this by 3 for daily, weekly and monthly time frames to be conservative, we get 48 signals, each of them may have different directions.

The Socrates "system" does not provide a computerized solution for consolidating these signals into a measurable response.

Practically speaking, however, these signals are very useful for Martin Armstrong and cohorts (Gumbi, Alex-11, over45, Strike Eagle 26) to point out in hindsight that the system was right again because signals x y and z told you so. We have seen Gumbi do it here:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1082909.msg51536685#msg51536685

This case is the worst because he is picking the "The NON-election of a reversal of a higher order" signal to invalidate an elected Reversal.

That IS the design of it, the design of a charlatan. It is not designed for the user to make a profit. It is designed to show the user after the fact how they SHOULD have made a profit because Socrates is always correct.

Anybody wanting to pay Martin Armstrong money so he can call them a fool?


Martin Armstrong is a charlatan, and he spent 11 years in jail for that reason but he has not changed.

Read this blog starting here to find out more about computerized fraud.


See armstrongecmscam.blogspot.com for a more compact view of major findings posted in this blog.

Every single defrauded person should report their case, see Where and how to complain

[blinder007]

"We are counting 12 signals in a single time frame. When we multiply this by 3 for daily, weekly and monthly time frames to be conservative, we get 36 signals, each of them may have different directions.

The Socrates "system" does not provide a computerized solution for consolidating these signals into a measurable response."


fully agree  - also with the rest of your post.

If Socrates as he claims were an Artificial Intelligence System it would consider and weight all this data and would spit out a conclusion like:

- as of the close today  the systems position is  Long / or Short / or Flat.

There are firms out there as in this forum mentioned  before,  that are sucessfully  using real AI and real math models
and not some shitty what - if Cobol 1980 computer code that cannot draw a correct trendline. All these successful firms use muti-market and correlations analysis etc.
and not some single price data analysis.

An example of such a firm is Renaissance Technologies.

Huge amounts of capital are directed into this type of research (hundreds of millions) - and with Moores law applied in this sector there will be next to zero room in the asset management  arena for freelancers and bullshitters in the medium to near future. This already manifests itself : Almost NO asset mager beats the performance of the Benchmarks. If  somebody is young they are much better of buying a few benchmark ETF's cross the major asset classes, save and add regularly to these products and let time and inflation  combined with very LOW FEES do their  magic.

And there is definitely NO need for a Charlatan Armstrong/Socrates ncluding 99.9 % of the rest of these "Asset Manager and Advisor and Newsletter writer" clowns.