3 ms·
a strong point. kind of puts a dent in the efficient market hypothesis, and the glorious dream that traders believe in: that the market is somehow inherently de
by 19eightyfour 9y ago
a strong point. kind of puts a dent in the efficient market hypothesis, and the glorious dream that traders believe in: that the market is somehow inherently democratic. how are we expected to believe in this if we don't have access to the information?
this asymmetry would seem to skewer emh.
-- but then again ... checking the prices at "nasdaqtrader" the idea that we don't have access seems like the myth. $14 a month for Nasdaq issues ( I guess that means quite a lot of stocks ), is only slightly more than my Spotify. And if you don't have the money to pay $14 you probably don't have the money to make much of a dent in the market anyway!
so what's the reality here? is data you can actually trade on that affordable or is it not?
- rammy1234 9y agocase I would then make is spotify is selling private art ( music ) from a private seller to public for a fee. it is like you pay for watching a movie from a private distributor. Trade is like I invest money for their business. I need to be informed buyer is what I would say. But then it is not about affordability or about I would be able to make a dent in the market. i will be fine if i can make a dent in my pocket. it is about information and data which like you say investors believe is democratic in nature ( but which it sounds like is not )