The DSI is a useful, but very expensive, tool used by pension funds and other money managers. I'm an independent investor/trader and can't swing that annual fee.
If you subscribe to his commodities newsletter, about once a month or so, he covers the DSI in relationship to the current markets . This is a better route for an independent trader --which I assume you are. He also periodically covers the COT, seasonality and other indicators.
I've been a subscriber to his newsletter for about 5 years now and his insight on current market conditions make the newsletter a "must renew" for me. (FYI, I also love Larry McMillan's weekly newsletter and Jon Markman's Strategic Advantage)
if the newsletter is still too pricey for you, buy some his books on ebay or amazon. His moving average channel methods, as well as momentum work are as relevant today as they were when he first developed them. These two indicators are ALL OVER his newsletter because he uses them in all timeframes. And the books are under $5.00, if you don't mind purchasing them used.
But another advantage to subscribing to his newsletter is you get GREAT discounts on his webinars.
One final thing: SFO magazine has a recent webinar (free) in its archives that Jake gave last week and you can get a taste of his presentation style. If you like his webinar, you'll like his other materials.
Footnote -- Commodity Traders Consumer Report, a respected futures publication, tracked the trades Bernstein recommended in his $895 flagship newsletter. If you had acted on these weekly tips from 1988 through 1992, you would have lost money for five consecutive years (assuming typical transaction costs).
The following user says Thank You to dk27 for this post:
He seems to me to be a real master at confusing causation with historical correlation, and most of his "systems" seem to me to be backfitted; in other words the evidence he shows for them may be perfectly valid, with hindsight, but that doesn't actually demonstrate any predictive value at all.
To draw a horse-racing analogy: if you set out in search of correlations, and look through every Wednesday’s Epsom racing results over the last 10 years and find a “statistically significant” correlation between the number of the winner of the first race on the card with the number of the winner of the third race at Ascot on the following Friday afternoon, that may be perfectly true and valid and correct, but it implies no indication at all of “future edge” in betting that way. It will take two years for your readers/subscribers to realise this, by which point you'll have written another three books and generated even more publicity.
It seems to me that Mr. Bernstein perhaps hopes that a substantial proportion of his customers won't quite work this out.
The following user says Thank You to Tymbeline for this post: