3 ms·
You're just asserting, i. e. "which simply isn't the case over time". The article build a model that appears reasonable, and from which follows that any talent
by matt4077 10y ago
You're just asserting, i. e. "which simply isn't the case over time". The article build a model that appears reasonable, and from which follows that any talent allowing returns above 1% of the market would lead to a wealth distribution different from the one observed in reality.
- downandout 10y agoSince you don't like my comment, if you read some of the other comments in this thread, you'll see that the model built in this article actually isn't reasonable at all (as I said). A small percentage of investors have achieved results that aren't possible through pure luck. So you are, in a word, wrong. Thanks for the downvote though.