3 ms·
This sort of scare tactic means nothing without an effort to explain the correlation. Without a testable theory, it's meaningless data mining. My guess is some
by lutusp 13y ago
This sort of scare tactic means nothing without an effort to explain the correlation. Without a testable theory, it's meaningless data mining.
My guess is someone on the inside has already shorted the market just before press time, anticipating the effect the article will have among unsophisticated investors. And guess what, boys and girls? That kind of "insider trading" is legal -- you can say anything you want in the press, and you can position yourself to benefit from your own article in advance. It's all perfectly legal.
- enoch_r 13y agoShorting the S&P500 in the hopes that a MarketWatch article will have a significant effect on the price despite the $14T market cap and high liquidity would be an absurdly risky and low-return way to make money. That's why people who run these sorts of scams focus on penny stocks with low market caps, relatively unsophisticated investors, and low liquidity. Not that I disagree that the article is meaningless data mining--I just think stupidity is a better explanation than conspiracy. Edit: I should have used the DJIA instead of the S&P500, since that's what's referenced in the article, but the same points hold.
- lutusp 13y ago> I just think stupidity is a better explanation than conspiracy. That possibility must always be given its due weight. :)