5 ms·
They might just be statistical outliers. Given infinite time, would any investor beat the market? That's the real question (sticking to the mathematical theor
by Judgmentality 6y ago
They might just be statistical outliers. Given infinite time, would any investor beat the market? That's the real question (sticking to the mathematical theory here).
Be careful before holding up a single example as an exception to the rule. Some basic statistical analysis show there was a 30% chance the Red Baron, the most famous WW1 fighter pilot, was just lucky. And obviously his luck eventually ran out.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/news-bytes-red-baron-lucky/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/news-bytes-red-ba...
- anm89 6y agoOr thee might not be. If your burden of proof is that no data is valid because new data might come in that disagrees, then sure it's easy to see why you can't acknowledge that someone has disproved the theory. It also makes the theory unfalsifiable ie meaningless. So we are right back at it not being meaningfully true.
- Judgmentality 6y agoFair. My point was if an investor really can't beat the market, you'd never know until an infinite amount of time has passed (or at least, whatever a large enough timespan is for this context - I honestly don't know as I haven't made a statistical model). If it really is random, there will be outliers by luck. But not just some - all investors would eventually gravitate towards the overall trend of the market with enough time (again, assuming you can't beat the market). So yeah, until I make a falsifiable model it's just intellectual masturbation.