TL;DR
Get smart everyday buys delivered free with Prime
- Fast, free delivery on millions of items
- Prime Video, Amazon Music and more included
- Member-only deals all year
Technical analysis is still practiced, including by chartists on TikTok, and a major charting book remains in print. But the MoneyWeek report points to a gap between that visibility and institutional standing: the Chartered Market Technician Association has about 2,500 active charterholders, and aspiring investment professionals may be discouraged from foregrounding chart analysis in interviews.
A MoneyWeek report questions whether technical analysis has lost ground in professional investing, even as chartists remain visible on TikTok and a key charting textbook continues in its eleventh edition. The report points to a contrast between continued interest in reading price charts and limited institutional recognition, including about 2,500 active charterholders at the Chartered Market Technician Association.
Technical analysis, often called chartism, uses price charts and related market data to study possible trends and trading signals. MoneyWeek describes chartists as active on TikTok, while noting that investment banks once employed technical analysts. The report does not provide current employment figures or a timeline for how the practice’s role in banks changed.
The article cites Robert Edwards and John Magee’s Technical Analysis of Stock Trends, first released in 1948 and now in its eleventh edition. It is considered by some a foundational text for chart analysis. That continued publication, however, does not establish how widely the approach is used by investors or whether its signals produce reliable results.
As a measure of professional presence, the report gives the Chartered Market Technician Association’s count of about 2,500 active charterholders. It contrasts this with the CFA Institute, a global organisation that sets standards for investment professionals and runs the Chartered Financial Analyst programme. The source does not provide comparable membership figures, so the two organisations’ scale cannot be directly assessed from the information supplied.
Charting’s Place in Investment Careers
The question matters to readers because technical analysis still appears in public market discussion, while the report suggests it may carry less weight in some professional settings. That difference can shape how aspiring analysts present their skills and how investors assess chart-based commentary online.
The evidence described by MoneyWeek is suggestive rather than conclusive. A charterholder count offers one indicator of organised professional participation, and interview advice reflects a reported hiring norm. Neither alone establishes whether technical analysis is effective, how many institutions use it, or whether its influence is growing or shrinking. Readers should distinguish the discipline’s visibility from proof of its investment value.
For individual investors, the report is not a recommendation to adopt or reject chart-based methods. It supplies no performance data, strategy tests, or comparison with fundamental analysis. Claims about returns or predictive power would need separate evidence.
technical analysis stock trading book
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
The report frames a change in the public and professional profile of chart analysis: investment banks used to employ chartists, while chart reading now has an obvious presence on social media. It does not specify when bank hiring patterns shifted, name particular banks, or quantify the number of analysts still working in the field.
Two institutions help illustrate the difference between specialist charting credentials and broader finance qualifications. The Chartered Market Technician Association focuses on chart reading and reports about 2,500 active charterholders, according to MoneyWeek. The CFA Institute serves the wider investment profession through its CFA programme. The report’s comparison describes their different roles, not a like-for-like measure of membership or influence.
The continued availability of Edwards and Magee’s book also shows that the subject has an enduring body of literature. It does not, by itself, tell readers whether the methods in the book remain common in current trading practice.
“An aspiring graduate interview candidate would be advised not to mention having read it.”
— MoneyWeek report
chart reading technical analysis tools
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
What the Available Evidence Cannot Show
The report does not establish that technical analysis is dead or provide evidence about its success as an investment method. It gives no time series for the number of charterholders, no current figures for bank employment, and no data on how frequently professional investors use charts. The 2,500 charterholder count is a raw figure; the source provides no historical baseline against which to measure a rise or fall.
The stated interview advice is not attributed to a named employer, recruiter, or survey, so its prevalence is unclear. It is also unknown whether the advice applies broadly across finance roles or only to particular institutions. The article’s comparison with the CFA Institute lacks a membership figure and does not establish that the two credentials are competing alternatives.
Finally, social-media visibility and a book’s continued publication are not measures of trading performance. The source supplies no independently tested results that would settle whether technical analysis has predictive value or how that value compares with other approaches.
professional technical analysis certification
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
Evidence Needed to Track the Practice
The source does not announce a forthcoming survey, institutional decision, or new set of data. A clearer assessment would require dated charterholder counts, employment figures from investment firms, and evidence about how hiring managers view chart-analysis credentials. Those measures could help establish whether professional participation has changed over time.
Investors considering claims made by chartists can also look for specific, testable records: what signal was given, when it was issued, what market and period it covered, and how outcomes were measured. Without comparable performance evidence and a stated baseline, the question of technical analysis’s effectiveness remains open rather than settled by its popularity or professional reputation.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
Key Questions
Does the report show that technical analysis is dead?
No. It describes continued charting activity online and a specialist professional association, while raising questions about technical analysis’s standing in some investment careers. It provides no evidence that the practice has ended.
How many active charterholders does the report cite?
MoneyWeek reports that the Chartered Market Technician Association has about 2,500 active charterholders. It gives no earlier figure for comparison, so the number does not show whether participation is increasing or decreasing.
What is the book mentioned in the report?
Technical Analysis of Stock Trends, by Robert Edwards and John Magee, was first released in 1948 and is now in its eleventh edition, according to the report.
Does the report say whether chart analysis produces better returns?
No. It provides no performance studies or return comparisons. The report addresses the practice’s visibility and professional standing, not whether chart-based strategies outperform alternatives.
Source: rss
Fall Picks
fall essentials
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
