What's the third trend? 
The article mentions uptrends and downtrends, but doesn't mention what the third trend is. Pimlottc 09:56, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
- The three trends in market are firstly a trend in one direction, then a move in the opposite direction, and thirdly a resumption of the original move.
Investing Theory 
I removed the portion saying that Dow Theory does not produce excess returns. The article never claims that Dow Theory is either an investing or trading strategy. It is just the collected observations of one participant and is popularly used as the foundation of technical analysis.
There are some market participants who have based a trading strategy on Dow Theory, for example . My understanding is that the collected writings of Charles Dow do not amount to a prescribed trading or investing system. It is those writings that are summarized in this article. Reading the 6 Beliefs of Dow Theory certainly does not represent a trading strategy no more than reading a summary of EMH or Random Walk or index arbitrage. co94 April 25 2006
- What else do you do with stock market predictions than try to make money? In any case many people consider this to be a way to try to make money and the Cowles study is a landmark in econometrics. Smallbones 09:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
- The opening line in this article states that Dow Theory is the cornerstone for technical analysis. It does not say that it is an investment strategy. Where in the article does it say that Dow Theory is a way of predicting stock prices?
- If you are including this study merely because it is a, "landmark in econometrics," then it is not appropriate here. There is not even a formal Dow "Theory". It is only a coined term by the authors who collected Dow's writings. Moreover, I have never heard of technical analysis being misguided because of the study you mentioned. The mere fact that it is still referred to today in some way shape or form daily is probably the best validation that elements of the theory hold true.
- Moreover, saying there is "very little evidence" is subjective. The aforementioned writers of the Dow Theory Newsletters will surely disagree with you regardless of what the study says.
- This is the same problem confronting the article on Technical Analysis. People point to such and such study as proof that it works while other people point to another study that says it doesnt. I tried to avoid saying Dow Theory "works" or doesnt work in this article. Just described what Dow was thinking.
- But to be fair, if you want to include a description of the specific trading strategy studied, then maybe the commentary you included is appropriate. co94 April 25 2006.
You are just saying that scientific studies of "The Dow Theory" are nonsense. That seems to be an inappropriate attitude for an encyclopedia. Smallbones 12:12, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- No I am not. As I said above, the entry does not describe an investment theory; it only describes the general concepts of Dow Theory. Like I said before, there are going to be people who disagree with the results of the "landmark study". If you are going to include all that gobbleygook about models and studies there needs to be a lot more description included. Dow Theory newsletter followers will disagree with the statement that Dow Theory is ineffective as will most active traders. You can take any investment strategy out there and debunk it.
There is no mention whatsoever about Dow Theory as an investment strategy. Here it is only a description of the empirical observations of Charles Dow. That's it. If you want to pull out what the exact rules of investing are for Dow Theory (I dont know them.) then feel free to include them.
If you read the descriptions of the 6 beliefs, you will note that they are all general and non-specific. They support the opening line of the article that Dow Theory is the basis for technical analysis. They dont say how to invest or anything like that. I am not sure why you are so adamant about including a study that refutes Dow Theory as an investment strategy when the article never makes the claim that Dow Theory is an investment strategy in the first place. co94
June 2006 
Reverted again to the original introduction and removed the "landmark" econometrics study blurb. Smallbones, I dont see why you are so adamant about including this study supposedly refuting Dow Theoy as an investing strategy when that claim is NOT MADE in this article.
Access http://www.stockcharts.com/education/MarketAnalysis/dowtheory1.html the section on Theory Not Perfect.
="Hamilton and Dow readily admit that the Dow theory is not a sure-fire means of beating the market. It is looked upon as a set of guidelines and =principles to assist investors and traders with their own study of the market."
That is all this article is putting forward: that Dow Theory is a tool used to study the market, mostly via technical analysis. It never says that Dow Theory is a way of beating the article so your assessment that Dow Theory doesnt produce excess profits is misplaced.
July 2006 
Once again, I removed the inherently POV comments from Smallbones. Smallbones, do you even bother to read some of the "references" you cite? To start with, Goetzmann et al, conclude simply that Dow Theory works. It produced superior risk-adjusted returns. In the link that you provided it said that directly in the abstract. That's one thing. Secondly, saying that there is, "very little evidence," supporting Dow Theory is flat out wrong as well. Again, the link that you cited had numerous articles that while citing Goetzmann also referenced other studies that lend support to Dow Theory. Your subtle insistence that the word theory should be in quotes implies that Dow Theory is somehow unintelligent is misplaced as well. I'll help you out. Here are some definitions of the word 'theory' from the dictionary:
1)Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory. 2) A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment.
I dont think you are a very good contributor to this article Smallbones. I said in the beginning that I didnt think the Cowles study was appropriate here because there was no description of the study and the claim that Dow Theory was an investment strategy was not made. You barely responded; you just reinserted the piece. Then you wrap up your submission as definitive by saying that there is no evidence in supprt of Dow Theory while you later include a reference to one of the major supporters of Dow Theory. You dont give both sides of the issue. There was never any claim that Dow Theory "works" in this article yet you only cite evidence that it doesnt work. At least now a reader can see that there are some academics who agree and some who disagree with Dow Theory and your POV is removed. As in your submissions to the article on technical analysis, it doesnt appear that you even read some of your own references. You just want to implement your agenda of discrediting TA and Dow Theory.
I'm all for improvements in the article but for Pete's sake, would you please stop introducing your personal POV everywhere? Read wikipedia's guide. You will see that the burden is not on "truthfullness" but on "verifiablility". There is little to be gained by describing every single academic study out there. So let's not go nuts on all these studies... co94 July 16, 2006
1st tenet 
Article talks about 3 trends - uptrend,downtrend and recurring trend. Here are three trends which are primary, secondary and daily fluctuations. Looks like correction is due. --Tigga en 19:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- I noticed that too. I also noticed that there is no mention of lines (trading ranges). In the book Technical Analysis Explained by Pring, "Lines indicate movement" is one of the tenets. Would anyone mind if I did some editing? PushMePullMe (talk) 22:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Does the Goetzmann & Brown paper  meet the standards for inclusion in the article ? The authors include the following comment: "Very Preliminary! Comments Welcome. Please do not Quote." I believe reference to the paper should be suppressed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 12:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)