4 ms·
I agree that humans ignore the views that do not support the narrative they decided is true or they deem unlikely. I'm not following how is that relevant. I do
by tinyhouse 6y ago
I agree that humans ignore the views that do not support the narrative they decided is true or they deem unlikely. I'm not following how is that relevant.
I do agree that fundamentals (for whatever it means) are not sufficient for success. In the end of the day, investments are based on speculations about the future. The reason the fundamentals matter is that they provide some guidance for your speculations. The basis which you can build your narrative upon. Sometimes they can mislead you, often things happen you missed or couldn't predict (e.g., a pandemic), etc.
Finally, I also agree (if that's what you meant) that some narratives people follow are not based on fundamentals, but rather based on their biases or whatever someone else may have told them. But if you ask me such investments fail more often than not.
- PartiallyTyped 6y ago> I agree that humans ignore the views that do not support the narrative they decided is true or they deem unlikely. I'm not following how is that relevant. That is the argument, the hedge funds made a bet and had already decided the outcome, my argument is simply that they ignored the bull thesis because they had already decided the outcome. They also ignored the possibility of getting royally forked up. If main street figured it out, somebody else could have as well, and Michael Burry did.