4 ms·

Exactly. If you could accurately predict returns, you wouldn’t publish, you’d profit. Profiting from the strategy would be a much better form of proof than a pa

• betterunix2 5y ago
  Or it might just be that this is already known to the algorithmic traders, who already use headlines (text) as an input to their systems.
  • deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
• ggm 5y ago
  It probably had implicit status as post hoc reasoning since the images include post closure photos for at least some markets since some news images come after closure. They'd have to work awfully hard to demonstrate better than random with only prior data. A confounding problem is that news sources change stories and use a/b testing to pick story winners. This could even be a meta analysis of emerging sentiment on delay, which means you'd do better timewise on the origin sentiment than the second differential. Except you can't access the same pool of opinion so at best, it's a clever trick to access emerging sentiment through reactive reasoning on news sites. Why is that better as a driving function to invest across the market than other sources?
• capableweb 5y ago
  > Exactly. If you could accurately predict returns, you wouldn’t publish, you’d profit While it's sometimes fun to assume things, it gets hard when you talk about people. In this case, not everyone is driven by profits and money, so it's most likely incorrect to assume "They didn't use this way of gaining profit themselves, so it's probably not profitable".
  • agumonkey 5y ago
    Also nothing says he didn't try and profit enough (to fund more research) from his idea already.