3 ms·
>- I agree you don't have any advantage. On the other hand the meltdown has already happened, so the prices have been corrected already. A couple of summers ag
by captainobvious 18y ago
>- I agree you don't have any advantage. On the other hand the meltdown has already happened, so the prices have been corrected already.
A couple of summers ago someone could just have easily said: "on the other hand, house prices have ballooned, so the massive undervaluations in the housing market have been corrected already"
You are arbitrarily calling a bottom without any justification other than an efficient market hypothesis, which, given recent volatility, is hard to put forward.
- volida 18y agoI am not in position to compare the two. But, the housing market was growing globally and so fast that the it was obvious it is artificial. However, if you said that, yeah that's the answer you actually got. "arbitrarily calling a bottom without any justification other than an efficient market hypothesis" the deal is that you should not make predictions on what the outcome you need to be. Rather, correct you predictions and adjust your investments.
- deleted 18y ago[deleted]
- trapper 18y agoAs I remember, there was only one major player who realised it. I think this is the definition of non-obvious. If it was so obvious that is was artificial, then you would have taken the bet.