3 ms·

We are talking here at such high level abstractions and with stack of presuppositions that it's difficult for me to figure out just where to even begin explaini

We are talking here at such high level abstractions and with stack of presuppositions that it's difficult for me to figure out just where to even begin explaining my point and i question if i even should. If one doesn't know of a 'sure fire winning strategy' (== strong form inefficient market hypothesis ?) ( or just statistically useful may be good enough ) one should not participate in the market in most forms ( which market, participate how ). I've heard it compared to a poker game where if you don't know who the sucker is it's probably you. The general public is misinformed about the markets and gets consistently fleeced yet keeps getting pulled in by dreams of easy money - akin to a lottery. Markets have defined purposes (theoretical, practical, legal) and serve them accordingly. Enriching 'gullible, ungrateful clients' is not the primary purpose. EMH is a useful explanation to the clients why they got fleeced, and i don't want to disprove it. It takes a lot of work to figure out how the lottery works and how to consistently game it. It's just a job.

lutusp 14y ago
> ... or just statistically useful may be good enough ... If "statistically useful" means reliably above market averages year after year, then that would constitute a surefire winning strategy. There is no such thing -- if this were not so, we all would know about it by now. A tiny advantage -- a legal one, not dependent on insider trading or any other questionable premise -- however small, could be exploited to enrich the player who used it. But there is no such thing. > The general public is misinformed about the markets and gets consistently fleeced yet keeps getting pulled in by dreams of easy money - akin to a lottery. Yes, and the key to all these misleading strategies is ignorance of the EMH. Evidence for the EMH lies in the fact that, in the long term, buy & hold investors do better than players -- in the long term, on average, if all results are tallied objectively. > It takes a lot of work to figure out how the lottery works and how to consistently game it. Again, there is no such thing. If there were, businesses would refuse to use equities to raise capital, knowing they would be fleeced by the players. The only reason equities are a reasonable way to capitalize business is because it's a fair approximation of an efficient market. For the life of me, I can't figure out why people find this so hard to understand.

lutusp 14y ago

> ... or just statistically useful may be good enough ... If "statistically useful" means reliably above market averages year after year, then that would constitute a surefire winning strategy. There is no such thing -- if this were not so, we all would know about it by now. A tiny advantage -- a legal one, not dependent on insider trading or any other questionable premise -- however small, could be exploited to enrich the player who used it. But there is no such thing. > The general public is misinformed about the markets and gets consistently fleeced yet keeps getting pulled in by dreams of easy money - akin to a lottery. Yes, and the key to all these misleading strategies is ignorance of the EMH. Evidence for the EMH lies in the fact that, in the long term, buy & hold investors do better than players -- in the long term, on average, if all results are tallied objectively. > It takes a lot of work to figure out how the lottery works and how to consistently game it. Again, there is no such thing. If there were, businesses would refuse to use equities to raise capital, knowing they would be fleeced by the players. The only reason equities are a reasonable way to capitalize business is because it's a fair approximation of an efficient market. For the life of me, I can't figure out why people find this so hard to understand.