Edge Rewrite
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

Jump to content

Talk:Intermarket analysis

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Latest comment: 15 years ago by Ruthiecameryn

{{helpme}} Please guide me, as I would love to have more reviews and guidance regarding this topic. As this is a valuable topic for the financial world. Sincere thanks once more..

Frankly, it reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article.
In addition, I have some concerns about the content. You say:
Intermarket analysis can be though of as a form of fundamental analysis
yet it sounds more like technical analysis than fundamental analysis.
The following statement:
Hence, intermarket market analysis can be though of as a type of instantaneous fundamental analysis and is not really meant to work on a tick by tick basis. It gives you a general bias and direction.
is an assertion, but is not obvious, nor supported.
Some statements are unintelligible:
There are many approaches to intermarket analysis like mechanical, rule based (while not mechanical via a different angle).
Many statements are assertions without a reference:
The most widely accepted correlation is the inverse correlation between stock prices and interest rates;
(Not to mention that it isn't true. There is a far more widely accepted correlation, that between bond prices and interest rates.)
This isn't even a sentence:
A really simple concept for Intermarket based systems.
I don't feel it is suitable, nor even easily correctable.--SPhilbrickT 22:42, 7 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Sincere thanks for your guidance, shall look into the matter. Please give a week or so, please.. Moreover, if it is possible to move it back to my own userspace to make it a better article before going live.. please do so.. Sincere thanks and apologies once more..

Ruthiecameryn (talk) 20:54, 10 February 2011 (UTC)Reply