4 ms·
Alright, I'll bite, but obviously we're hand-waving definitions on many fronts. I'll argue that equity markets are not good platforms for crowds to judge the f
by leelin 16y ago
Alright, I'll bite, but obviously we're hand-waving definitions on many fronts.
I'll argue that equity markets are not good platforms for crowds to judge the fair market cap of companies (or the NPV of cashflows). Most participants have an incentive to maximize profits or preserve capital subject to some risk appetite, and very few are actually interested in pricing companies; instead participants are mostly interested in what they think the others players are doing.
If we were to crowdsource what movies HN users enjoyed, that could work. However, if we said that you would be paid for your vote only if you were in the same group as the majority, then suddenly you aren't voting honestly... you are trying to figure out how other people might vote, and our final result is the aggregation of a lot of game theory (plus a few naive honest players who get picked off by the rest of us).
Therefore, equity prices are not a democratic vote. Prices are not a weighted sum of your vote times your conviction (nor are they your vote * conviction * wealth). They can break down to a battle of speculators trying to outwit each other and exploit any flaws in the market or others' thought processes.
D. E. Shaw Research recently set a record simulating a single protein molecule in surrounding water for about 1 millisecond using first principles from computational chemistry, and I suppose that means they have a long way to go before fully modeling protein folding because the aggregation function of all those forces are complex. However, I'd bet it would be much harder to aggregate all the market participants and all their incentives from first principles to step 1 millisecond forward in live trading time.
I'm not saying you can't make profits. Obviously people have for a long time found relationships here and there that can predict future price movements. I'm saying a formal aggregation model that would let us fully compute and Turing-decide future prices, even if we had all the relevant inputs, seems complex.
- joshu 16y agoSpeculators continually enter and abandon the market. Without adding information to the system, they just add volatility without driving the price in any direction. The price is thus the sum of people that know or believe something, weighted by the resources the have to bear. I'm not sure I understand why you need or want the price to be "democratic"? What problem are you trying to solve here?