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 still has an active online following and a dedicated professional association, but it appears to have a smaller role in institutional investing than its past prominence might suggest. The available evidence describes that shift; it does not establish whether chart-based strategies can reliably produce returns.
Technical analysis has not disappeared, but it appears to have lost ground in professional investment circles even as chart-based commentary remains common on TikTok, according to a MoneyWeek report. The report points to about 2,500 active Chartered Market Technician Association charterholders and says aspiring investment graduates may be advised not to mention reading a classic charting text in interviews; it does not establish whether the method can reliably generate returns.
MoneyWeek describes a divide between public visibility and professional status. It says TikTok is full of chartists performing technical analysis, while investment banks once employed technical analysts. The report does not give a count of current bank roles or a time series showing how employment has changed, so the extent and timing of any decline cannot be measured from the material provided.
The report cites the Chartered Market Technician Association, an organisation devoted to chart reading, as having about 2,500 active charterholders. It also contrasts that figure with the CFA Institute, which sets standards for investment professionals and runs the Chartered Financial Analyst programme. No comparable CFA membership or certification figure is supplied, so the two organisations’ scale cannot be directly compared on the basis of this report.
Another marker is the staying power of Technical Analysis of Stock Trends, by Robert Edwards and John Magee. First released in 1948, the book is now in its eleventh edition and is regarded by some practitioners as a core text. MoneyWeek says a graduate interviewing for an investment role might now be advised against citing it. That is presented as an account of hiring culture, not as a formal rule adopted by employers.
Charting’s Place in Investment Careers
The question matters to readers because professional acceptance and investment performance are different issues. A method can become less fashionable among banks without every chart-based approach being ineffective; likewise, continued popularity on social media does not show that a strategy has predictive value or is suitable for investors.
For graduates, the report suggests that presenting chart reading as a primary qualification could be received differently from demonstrating skills associated with mainstream investment training. But the source offers no survey of hiring managers, interview outcomes, or job listings. It therefore supports a cautious observation about perceived status, not a universal conclusion about recruitment.
For individual investors, the key limitation is that the report supplies no performance data: there are no returns, time periods, benchmarks, or comparisons with other strategies. Readers cannot use the material to determine whether technical analysis works after costs, across markets, or over different horizons. The development is best understood as a debate about the discipline’s standing, rather than a verdict on its results.
technical analysis stock charting book
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
A Classic Text, New Audience
Technical analysis studies price charts and related market information to identify patterns or possible trading signals. Its modern public profile includes online creators, while its professional history includes the use of chartists at investment banks, as described by MoneyWeek. These details show that the practice has appeared in both retail-facing and institutional settings; they do not establish how widespread it is today.
The report uses Edwards and Magee’s 1948 book as a measure of continuity. Its eleventh edition indicates that the text remains in circulation, but publication history alone does not show how many investors use it or whether its methods perform well. The article’s central contrast is between the book’s continued recognition and the reported reluctance to cite it in graduate interviews.
The institutional figures also need care. The approximately 2,500 active charterholders are a count attributed to the Chartered Market Technician Association, but the source material provides no date for the figure and no historical series. It cannot, on its own, show whether the association is growing or shrinking. Nor does the comparison with the CFA programme establish that the two credentials serve identical roles.
“TikTok is full of chartists performing technical analysis.”
— MoneyWeek report
The Evidence Behind the Debate
The source does not identify the date of the charterholder count, provide historical membership figures, or quantify how many investment banks currently employ technical analysts. Its account of graduate interview advice is also not tied to a named recruiter, employer, or survey. These gaps make it difficult to measure how far the discipline’s professional standing has changed.
Most importantly, the report provides no evidence on investment results. It does not compare chart-based strategies with passive investing or other methods, nor does it specify markets, time frames, transaction costs, or risk. Whether technical analysis is useful for a particular decision remains unanswered by the supplied material.
What Would Clarify Charting’s Role
A clearer picture would require dated data on Chartered Market Technician Association membership and employment trends, alongside evidence from investment firms about how technical analysis is used today. Hiring surveys could test whether interview candidates are actually discouraged from discussing charting, rather than relying on general advice reported by MoneyWeek.
To assess performance, researchers or investors would need transparent tests that name the strategy, market, period, costs, and comparison benchmark. Until such evidence is provided, the report supports a limited conclusion: technical analysis remains visible and has an organised professional community, while its place in institutional investing appears less assured. The question of whether it produces dependable results remains open.
Key Questions
Is technical analysis dead?
The MoneyWeek report does not establish that it is dead. It describes ongoing online activity and about 2,500 active charterholders, alongside signs that charting may carry less status in some professional investment settings.
How many active technical analysts does the report cite?
It attributes a figure of about 2,500 active charterholders to the Chartered Market Technician Association. The report does not provide a date or a historical comparison for that count.
Does the report show that technical analysis makes money?
No. It provides no returns, benchmarks, or strategy tests, so it cannot establish whether chart-based investing produces reliable results.
Are graduates being told not to study charting?
The report says an aspiring graduate may be advised not to mention reading Technical Analysis of Stock Trends in an interview. It does not name the advisers or present evidence that this is standard practice across employers.
Source: rss
Halloween Picks
halloween
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
