4 ms·
The real conclusion would be to realize that the people "good at valuation" are glorified gamblers and not on another plane of existence from the rest. In fact
by Bakary 6y ago
The real conclusion would be to realize that the people "good at valuation" are glorified gamblers and not on another plane of existence from the rest.
In fact, it's tautological to state that if they got burned, then they are not that good. Or perhaps the entire thing is pareidolic nonsense.
- RivieraKid 6y agoDisagree. The short-sellers are correct about GameStop's valuation. In a liquid and competitive market they would profit and help the price move into the direction of correct valuation.
- Bakary 6y agoIsn't that essentially magical thinking? The market is what it is, and their strategy failed. It doesn't really make sense to blame the market when the scheme fails and presumably celebrate the individual or group's purported brilliance when the scheme works. What actually happens is the ultimate arbiter of who profits and who doesn't, not the hypothetical fairer environment that "should" have existed to reward certain strategies. It's similar to blaming the roulette wheel when the gambler fails and praising the gambler when they succeed.
- zeusk 6y agoWell, the market thought otherwise and market is always right. They just forgot that efficient market hypothesis is just that, a hypothesis. Real world markets behave differently thanks to finite resources and secondary markets (essentially leveraged derivatives caused 2008 crash and I believe they'll cause another before regulators wake up from their sleep).