Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
toro said:The financial crisis was not due to over regulation, but rather ineffective regulation.
Yes the regulation was so ineffective in the USSR and Red China that 100 million died. THe West had been so successful because it has has so much less regulation. The final solution is to replace liberal regulation altogether with capitalist regulation.
But, sadly, the liberal will lack the IQ to understand capitalism so can't understand how capitalist regulation would work.
After spending nearly 20 years in the capital markets, I can only conclude that the Efficient Market Hypothesis is a joke.
of course as a liberal you can't understand. Here's a liberal version that maybe you can. Imagine the libtards made all the popular drugs and gave them to all the drug companies in unlimited quanity. The drug companies would then be in a competitive race to move those drugs anyway they could to whomever they could.
Now imagine the libturds printed money in unlimited quanities and gave it to the banks! Now you understand the great recession.
Go away.
of course as a liberal you can't understand. Here's a liberal version that maybe you can. Imagine the libtards made all the popular drugs and gave them to all the drug companies in unlimited quanity. The drug companies would then be in a competitive race to move those drugs anyway they could to whomever they could.
Now imagine the libturds printed money in unlimited quanities and gave it to the banks! Now you understand the great recession.
Go away.
If you have the character for it this is a huge opportunity for you to learn. Do you want to be a liberal all your life?
I'm an institutional money manager. I had a front row seat to the financial crisis. I kept my group away from subprime mortgages, and I profited from the collapse. So, no, I don't need to learn anything from an ideological hack who labours to type more than five sentences at a time.
I have yet to see any evidence where any technical analysis is better than chance for longer than it takes to go viral. For example, Black and Sholes seems to have been discovered and used secretly by at least 4 different people in the 40s, 50s and 60s in warrant or convert vs equity hedges. (Only one after publication confession that I am aware of. The other suspected cases are unproven.) That field of investment now has no consistent profit potential.Technical analysis contradicts weak form EMH.
Market efficiency waxes and wanes. Sometimes markets are very efficient, sometimes they go off the rails. Some markets are more efficient than others, and all markets trend towards efficiency over time.
However, there are simply too many "Million year events" to believe that markets really follow a Gaussian distribution. They better follow a power law distribution.
Perhaps in spelling labor?I'm an institutional money manager. I had a front row seat to the financial crisis. I kept my group away from subprime mortgages, and I profited from the collapse. So, no, I don't need to learn anything from an ideological hack who labours to type more than five sentences at a time.
I'm an institutional money manager. I had a front row seat to the financial crisis. I kept my group away from subprime mortgages, and I profited from the collapse. So, no, I don't need to learn anything from an ideological hack who labours to type more than five sentences at a time.
It takes only a few words to defeat a liberal. For example, can you say what caused the crisis?
toro said:The financial crisis was not due to over regulation, but rather ineffective regulation.
Yes the regulation was so ineffective in the USSR and Red China that 100 million died. THe West had been so successful because it has has so much less regulation. The final solution is to replace liberal regulation altogether with capitalist regulation.
But, sadly, the liberal will lack the IQ to understand capitalism so can't understand how capitalist regulation would work.
So Brutus, what regulation would you like to change? There has to be one. Perhaps I agree.
If we were talking AM radio we could argue about the 50k cap or something.
Have any in particular which irk you? Just one. Has to be easy to find one. Let me know if you are not familiar with the topic of regulations and I will find one for you.
Brutus, why will you never debate an issue with me?
I'm an institutional money manager. I had a front row seat to the financial crisis. I kept my group away from subprime mortgages, and I profited from the collapse. So, no, I don't need to learn anything from an ideological hack who labours to type more than five sentences at a time.
Brutus said:It takes only a few words to defeat a liberal. For example, can you say what caused the crisis?
toro said:The Fed, Wall Street, the Fed, deregulation, The Fed, financial "innovation," the Fed, the GSEs, the Fed, China, the Fed, everyone caught in a mania, the Fed, politicians, the Fed, Japan, the Fed, the economics profession, the Fed, the mortgage and housing industries, and the Fed.
Did I mention the Fed?
toro said:The financial crisis was not due to over regulation, but rather ineffective regulation.
Yes the regulation was so ineffective in the USSR and Red China that 100 million died. THe West had been so successful because it has has so much less regulation. The final solution is to replace liberal regulation altogether with capitalist regulation.
But, sadly, the liberal will lack the IQ to understand capitalism so can't understand how capitalist regulation would work.
So Brutus, what regulation would you like to change? There has to be one. Perhaps I agree.
If we were talking AM radio we could argue about the 50k cap or something.
Have any in particular which irk you? Just one. Has to be easy to find one. Let me know if you are not familiar with the topic of regulations and I will find one for you.
Brutus, why will you never debate an issue with me? You always resort to some devisive partisan name calling game.
Are you familiar with ANY regulations? You must be, this is easy. Just pick one, any one you disagree with and make a point.
Brutus, why will you never debate an issue with me?
Man Brutus, you sure must be a big government regulation loving fellow if you cant think of one you would like to strike down over three days.
For anyone who believes they have a system that will consistently beat the market, I would suggest a read of the old classic, "A Random Walk Down Wall Street" by Burton Malkiel.I have yet to see any evidence where any technical analysis is better than chance for longer than it takes to go viral. For example, Black and Sholes seems to have been discovered and used secretly by at least 4 different people in the 40s, 50s and 60s in warrant or convert vs equity hedges. (Only one after publication confession that I am aware of. The other suspected cases are unproven.) That field of investment now has no consistent profit potential.Technical analysis contradicts weak form EMH.
Market efficiency waxes and wanes. Sometimes markets are very efficient, sometimes they go off the rails. Some markets are more efficient than others, and all markets trend towards efficiency over time.
However, there are simply too many "Million year events" to believe that markets really follow a Gaussian distribution. They better follow a power law distribution.
The people who can keep their pie trap shut about a system that really works is very nearly the null set. Throw in reverse engineering of consistently profitable trading systems and it really gets bad. So, no systems that really work like STS, Dow Dogs, the January effect and others eventually get learned and get the profits squeezed out of them by too many users.
On distribution I have to agree with you but simple power law distribution has also been disproven although approximation through iterations of different power law bases comes real close. The figure I hear and which is therefore probably wrong is between 2 and 5 but not e as a base with a separate trendline of 3-5% (any power law distribution of base> 1 has an upward bias and therefore an upward trendline. This is a separate trendline based on behavior.) So power law distribution doesn't work too well and the probable glitch is in the model of economic man being used.
For anyone who believes they have a system that will consistently beat the market, I would suggest a read of the old classic, "A Random Walk Down Wall Street" by Burton Malkiel.
Amazon.com: A Random Walk Down Wall Street: The Best and Latest Investment Advice Money Can Buy (9780393315295): Burton G. Malkiel: Books
Motivated by both statistical and psychological evidence on under and over-reaction, we propose two proxies for the degree to which traders under- and over-react to news, namely, the nearness to the Dow 52-week high and the nearness to the Dow historical high, respectively. We find that nearness to the 52-week high positively predicts future market returns. We further show that our proxies contain information about future market returns that is not captured by traditional macroeconomic variables and that our results are robust across G7 countries. In cross-sectional analysis, for stocks that have more likely experienced underreaction (to either good news or bad news) in the past, the momentum effect is about 3 times stronger. For stocks that have more likely experienced overreaction in the past, the value premium is also much stronger.
From the beginning of 1927 through August of 2007, the overall market has returned an average of 10.10% a year. The highest momentum stocks returned an average of 17.76% a year.
Whats more, thats just the value-weighted portfolio. By looking at the equal-weighted portfolio, which gives more say to smaller-cap stocks, the results are even more impressive. The equal-weighted high-momentum portfolio returned an average of 21.94% a year.
Of course trends exist in the market and most systems for trading stocks work for a time but are not consistent over a period of years.For anyone who believes they have a system that will consistently beat the market, I would suggest a read of the old classic, "A Random Walk Down Wall Street" by Burton Malkiel.
Amazon.com: A Random Walk Down Wall Street: The Best and Latest Investment Advice Money Can Buy (9780393315295): Burton G. Malkiel: Books
That was one of the first books I ever read on investing.
And I reject it thoroughly. The Efficient Market Hypothesis is nonsense. Stocks are not a random walk, at least not all the time. There is serious serial correlation in the stock market.
Motivated by both statistical and psychological evidence on under and over-reaction, we propose two proxies for the degree to which traders under- and over-react to news, namely, the nearness to the Dow 52-week high and the nearness to the Dow historical high, respectively. We find that nearness to the 52-week high positively predicts future market returns. We further show that our proxies contain information about future market returns that is not captured by traditional macroeconomic variables and that our results are robust across G7 countries. In cross-sectional analysis, for stocks that have more likely experienced underreaction (to either good news or bad news) in the past, the momentum effect is about 3 times stronger. For stocks that have more likely experienced overreaction in the past, the value premium is also much stronger.
Investor Attention, Psychological Anchors, and Stock Return Predictability by Jun Li, Jianfeng Yu :: SSRN
From the beginning of 1927 through August of 2007, the overall market has returned an average of 10.10% a year. The highest momentum stocks returned an average of 17.76% a year.
Whats more, thats just the value-weighted portfolio. By looking at the equal-weighted portfolio, which gives more say to smaller-cap stocks, the results are even more impressive. The equal-weighted high-momentum portfolio returned an average of 21.94% a year.
http://www.crossingwallstreet.com/archives/2007/12/the_incredible.html
Of course trends exist in the market and most systems for trading stocks work for a time but are not consistent over a period of years.For anyone who believes they have a system that will consistently beat the market, I would suggest a read of the old classic, "A Random Walk Down Wall Street" by Burton Malkiel.
Amazon.com: A Random Walk Down Wall Street: The Best and Latest Investment Advice Money Can Buy (9780393315295): Burton G. Malkiel: Books
That was one of the first books I ever read on investing.
And I reject it thoroughly. The Efficient Market Hypothesis is nonsense. Stocks are not a random walk, at least not all the time. There is serious serial correlation in the stock market.
Investor Attention, Psychological Anchors, and Stock Return Predictability by Jun Li, Jianfeng Yu :: SSRN
From the beginning of 1927 through August of 2007, the overall market has returned an average of 10.10% a year. The highest momentum stocks returned an average of 17.76% a year.
What’s more, that’s just the value-weighted portfolio. By looking at the equal-weighted portfolio, which gives more say to smaller-cap stocks, the results are even more impressive. The equal-weighted high-momentum portfolio returned an average of 21.94% a year.
http://www.crossingwallstreet.com/archives/2007/12/the_incredible.html
Individual investors get a computer, a trading account, and a system and think they can play with big boys. In todays world of high frequency traders, and flash crashes the little guy doesn't stand much of a chance.
I have yet to see any evidence where any technical analysis is better than chance for longer than it takes to go viral. For example, Black and Sholes seems to have been discovered and used secretly by at least 4 different people in the 40s, 50s and 60s in warrant or convert vs equity hedges. (Only one after publication confession that I am aware of. The other suspected cases are unproven.) That field of investment now has no consistent profit potential.
Somebody somewhere is always on a lucky streak, it happens at the craps table too.I have yet to see any evidence where any technical analysis is better than chance for longer than it takes to go viral. For example, Black and Sholes seems to have been discovered and used secretly by at least 4 different people in the 40s, 50s and 60s in warrant or convert vs equity hedges. (Only one after publication confession that I am aware of. The other suspected cases are unproven.) That field of investment now has no consistent profit potential.
I don't follow this but last I read James Simons of Renaissance Capital is doing just fine with 90 Ph.D's or so. Many more would be doing fine if they had considered that housing prices can go down. THe future looks better if we ever get through this liberal patch.
