↓ Skip to main content

Memory effects in stock price dynamics: evidences of technical trading

Overview of attention for article published in Scientific Reports, March 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
73 Mendeley
Title
Memory effects in stock price dynamics: evidences of technical trading
Published in
Scientific Reports, March 2014
DOI 10.1038/srep04487
Pubmed ID
Authors

Federico Garzarelli, Matthieu Cristelli, Gabriele Pompa, Andrea Zaccaria, Luciano Pietronero

Abstract

Technical trading represents a class of investment strategies for Financial Markets based on the analysis of trends and recurrent patterns in price time series. According standard economical theories these strategies should not be used because they cannot be profitable. On the contrary, it is well-known that technical traders exist and operate on different time scales. In this paper we investigate if technical trading produces detectable signals in price time series and if some kind of memory effects are introduced in the price dynamics. In particular, we focus on a specific figure called supports and resistances. We first develop a criterion to detect the potential values of supports and resistances. Then we show that memory effects in the price dynamics are associated to these selected values. In fact we show that prices more likely re-bounce than cross these values. Such an effect is a quantitative evidence of the so-called self-fulfilling prophecy, that is the self-reinforcement of agents' belief and sentiment about future stock prices' behavior.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 73 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 1%
United Kingdom 1 1%
Italy 1 1%
Unknown 70 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 19%
Researcher 12 16%
Other 7 10%
Student > Master 7 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 8%
Other 14 19%
Unknown 13 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 14 19%
Business, Management and Accounting 13 18%
Physics and Astronomy 8 11%
Mathematics 7 10%
Computer Science 6 8%
Other 8 11%
Unknown 17 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 September 2023.
All research outputs
#6,201,660
of 25,193,883 outputs
Outputs from Scientific Reports
#42,258
of 138,505 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#53,581
of 230,883 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scientific Reports
#192
of 721 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,193,883 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 138,505 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 230,883 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 721 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.