PLEASE NOTE: At the time I selected this book, it had sixteen reviews. Out of the fourteen non-Vine reviews, eleven were One-Hit Wonders (written by reviewers with no other reviews), including at least one family member. Two more were from reviewers with three reviews or less to their credit. In total then, close to ninety percent of the non-Vine reviews came from shill reviewers with an average of 1.2 reviews each. For anyone unfamiliar with the Amazon reviewing system, this equals near zero credibility. Compared to such hugely biased "feedback," my own review may come as a shock.
George Lindsay's claim to fame was a pair of appearances on "Wall $treet Week." Incredibly, the Lindsay Web site* links to archival footage of the first (1981) appearance, despite host Louis Rukeyser derisively calling Lindsay "Count Dracula"! (because of his bizarre appearance and incomprehensible counting methods)
* The Web site is run by fellow Lindsay devotee Carl Futia, who is in fact one of the One-Hit Wonders enumerated above. Mr. Futia's review fails to disclose his financial interest in the "fan" Web site.
I am reviewing a so-called Draft Manuscript of _George Lindsay and the Art of Technical Analysis_. I have never seen such an explicit disclaimer on an ARC (Advance Reading Copy), almost as if the publisher fully expects negative criticism. Truly, I am surprised that a reputable company such as Pearson Education--publishing here under their FT Press imprint--would offer content like this.
This book is full of bad prose and illegibly captioned charts. The latter may be rectified for final publication; the former is unlikely, unless they rewrite the whole book. The bulk of the blame lies not with the author here---to my knowledge, he bears no relation to stock market writer Charles Carlson of
Buying Stocks Without a Broker fame--but with the source material itself. Ed Carlson idolizes Lindsay yet continually admits that his (Lindsay's) writings are incomplete and inaccurate. "For every rule Lindsay listed, an exception can be found such that one has to wonder how Lindsay decided which example was to become his 'rule'!" (p.62)
The book is full of such moments of authorial disappointment:
+ "Unfortunately, [Lindsay] didn't describe that 'complicated procedure' and, unless he passed it on orally, it appears he took it with him to his grave." (p.42)
+ "Lindsay doesn't address that apparent contradiction." (p.66)
+ "Lindsay, however, failed to explain how an analyst could know where or when a five-wave reversal should be expected!" (p.67)
+ "Again, Lindsay did not share how to determine whether the roof is missing prior to completion of the pattern." (p.70)
+ "Here again, [Lindsay] failed to define exactly what should be considered an 'extreme' intraday low." (p.121)
+ "Lindsay never explained what a 'big' decline meant to him." (p.125)
Nor can Mr. Carlson himself communicate efficiently. The Glossary is no better than the text. "Important Low: During an uptrend, a low in a Low-Low-High interval that drops lower than a previous low in the uptrend preceding the most recent high."
The worth of Technical Analysis (TA) is always going to be contentious, even in a well-written book. Here, any nuggets of insight are lost in a sea of impossible reaches and unscientific wishful thinking. "Many of [Lindsay's] methods require the analyst to interpret and get a 'feel' for what the market is doing." (p.106) When the rules work, Lindsay is made out to be a genius. When they don't, it's an Exception! "These counts don't always work but, when they do work, they do so with amazing accuracy." (p.191)
If you want an enjoyable book about stock market investing in the 1950s, a much better choice is Nicolas Darvas' swinging title,
How I Made $2,000,000 in the Stock Market. If you prefer your bunkum extra fun, then proceed directly to Erich von Daniken's classic
Chariots of the Gods. Do not pass Go. Do not collect $200. And by all means, do not count from the Middle Section!
Lindsay apparently believed that the stock market--all of human history, indeed--followed specific time patterns. "The important numbers to be acquainted with are 36, 40, and 56. These are intervals of time--36 years, 40 years, and 56 years." (p.25) Incredibly, Carlson attempts to find examples from history to bolster this infantile theory. _George Lindsay and the Art of Technical Analysis_ is worthless hagiography, full of the same kind of statistical cherry-picking as
The Bible Code. As my mama said, even a broken clock is right twice a day!
If you read enough of this book, it begins to devolve into pure crazy-talk. "One can think of the convergence of these intervals, during some window of time, as creating a mass that has its own gravity. The gravity draws the price upward." (p.98)
At best, Lindsay's musings smack of snake oil salesmanship. At worst, they represent the ravings of a madman. That's not an appealing choice. Thankfully, you have a third choice: DON'T BUY THIS BOOK.
