Why lulz? Bad indicators, too few?

These are naive and unrefined technical indicators.

- there's only price/volume, it's very poor in terms of information. Smells like an academic with only access to a free database.

- it's really the classical technical analysis 101 indicators, studied 10000 times in research articles.

- you would need wayyyy more indicators to get a meaningful model.

Technical analysis (Bollinger bands and the like) would be treated similarly to horoscopes by many people who know how to work a Bloomberg terminal.

So then why does Bloomberg build in so many technical indicators into its product?

Look, I share your skepticism of technical analysis, but there are many traders who do not. And when managing traders, you might want to let them trade on TA because it can give them a reason to take action. Otherwise they can suffer from analysis paralysis.

I've never understood how someone had the nerve to trademark "Bollinger bands", when all they are is just a measure of 2 standard deviations from a rolling mean of share price. It's like renaming 1+1=2 after yourself and and trademarking it's use.