Forget random quotes - page 37

New comment
 
Demi:


Templars, Freemasons, Rosencreutzers, Econometricians - not my thing, pasiba.

P.S. I've never heard of anyone getting rich on forex using econometrics. But there are a lot of articles and books......... And threads on the forum!

The rebuke is fair, I take it personally. I have started the real, I will try to break the negative opinion or the market will destroy me. I will report the results.
 
C-4:
I would like to defend the EMH so mercilessly. But there is no denying that the market is efficient to one degree or another. By efficiency I do not mean now a strict definition of EMH, dividing it into weak, strong, etc. We can judge market efficiency at least by the degree of its entropy or indistinguishability, at least visually, from a random rambling whose entropy is maximal. The market is efficient - that is a fact. The question is how much it conforms to the random walk model. I think it is 95-97%. This is a good indicator, because it becomes possible to use the classic statistical apparatus to measure it. Everything from Simple Moving Average to abstruse regression functions is based on this 97% one way or another, hence the EMH concept is used. It sort of ties together the methods we use and the object of the study. Yes, it is not enough to make money, but knowing the statistical apparatus of 97% of the market, you can already get close to the 3%, which allows you to make money on it.

For me, the place of the efficient market is precisely delineated and the boundaries of applicability are clear. For ordinary citizens, the efficient market theory has translated into portfolio investment funds, where the buy-and-hold strategy's risk-return ratio is perfectly justified with practical evidence.

.

The idea of an efficient market would have flourished to this day despite its obvious shortcomings, most polemically pointed out by Mandelbrot (1964) and Peters. But this theory does not work with the outliers that are becoming more and more frequent in the markets. What's your 97% for Najdak investors when the index fell from 5200 to 1700 around 2000. Or 2007. The RTS index from 2300 to 490. Do the math, especially when you consider leveraged buying. People didn't just lose money, they stayed in debt. And Najdak was down for a year! What a theory!

 

Demi:


I take it personally. Templars, Freemasons, Rosencraucers and Econometricians are not my kind of people, thank you.

P.S. I've never heard of anyone getting rich on forex using econometrics. But there are a lot of articles and books......... And threads on the forum!

yosuf:


It's a fair reproach, I take it personally.


What a fair one - the utter stupidity of an ineptDemi who doesn't have the brains to keep quiet about his ignorance.
 
faa1947:

For me, the place of the efficient market is precisely delineated and the boundaries of applicability are clear. For ordinary citizens, efficient market theory has evolved into portfolio investment funds, where the buy-and-hold strategy's risk-return ratio is perfectly justified with practical evidence.

.

The idea of an efficient market would have flourished to this day despite its obvious shortcomings, most polemically pointed out by Mandelbrot (1964) and Peters. But this theory does not work with the outliers that are becoming more and more frequent in the markets. What's your 97% for Najdak investors when the index fell from 5200 to 1700 around 2000. Or 2007. The RTS index from 2300 to 490. Do the math, especially when you consider leveraged buying. People didn't just lose money, they stayed in debt. And Najdak had been falling for a year! What a theory!


Thank you, it is an honour to be lauded by you. it is one of the highest indicators of intelligence on the forum.

Now let's get back to the point - the efficient market hypothesis has nothing to do with portfolio investment funds, buy-and-hold strategies, and outliers. It's all nonsense.

 
Demi:


Thank you, it is a great honour to be lauded by you. it is one of the highest indicators of intellectual competence on the forum.

Now let's get back to the point - the efficient market hypothesis has nothing to do with portfolio investment funds, buy-and-hold strategies and emissions. It's all nonsense.

Bullshit is bullshit. You tell me.
 
faa1947:
Bullshit is bullshit. You know best.

And by the way, as far as I know - the efficient market hypothesis was formulated in 1970. And how, one wonders, could it have "flourished" until 1964, when Mandelbrot "pointed out" its shortcomings?
 
MetaDriver:

As long as the fat tail ends are alive - it will be possible to trade profitably in the markets. Including sustainably.

And they will always be.

There, there. I am also convinced of exactly that. Some here for some reason strenuously try to reduce the market to a normal distribution, while the possibility of earning is buried in its abnormality, and buried deep and not obvious way. A simple example, take Hirst (sorry for mentioning one and the same thing so often, it's just my area of interest). So, we take and shuffle the bars of the real market. At the output we get the same abnormal thick-tailed distribution, with identical statistics, like dispersion, mathematical expectation, etc. But no, that's not it. Apparently, something unknown to us inside this abnormal distribution is broken, Hirst identifies it and sets the arrow in its indicator to the 0.5 position, saying as if we cannot make profit. At the same time, the difference between 0.5 and its other values comes only from the depths of anomalous distribution, but not from the very fact and not from the degree of reversal of the price curve, which seems doubtful in itself. Indeed, if the price deviates from its expected normal trajectory faster than it is expected (0.5), there can be only two reasons: either the price encounters less obstacles on its way and therefore this chart will be less jagged and more smooth. Or the price, at some points, accelerates considerably (traces of this acceleration can be seen in abnormality of the distribution) and at the end of this movement fixes a considerable part of its passed result. And here is the most interesting part, because tests for "notchiness" of real markets and stochastic series show amazing convergence with each other. That is, the number of lows and tops in both stochastic and real markets will be indistinguishable from each other, on all possible measurement horizons, from the smallest bumps and troughs to the most epic highs and lows. And this means that the whole "hell" of the market is hidden only in its strange movement, traces of which, in the form of abnormal distribution, we can see.
 
Demi:

And by the way, as far as I know - the efficient market hypothesis was formulated in 1970. And how, one wonders, could it "flourish" until 1964, when its shortcomings were "vividly pointed out" by Mandelbrot?

I would like to point out that I did not call your statements "nonsense".

Open a thread called "Econometrics is pseudoscience". What is the problem? Or state your personal vision of an efficient market, or whatever ..... Maybe I was wrong about your education, we will judge by this.

 
faa1947:

For me, the place of the efficient market is precisely delineated and the boundaries of applicability are clear. For ordinary citizens, the efficient market theory has translated into portfolio investment funds, where the buy-and-hold strategy's return-risk ratio is perfectly justified with practical evidence.

.

The idea of an efficient market would have flourished to this day despite its obvious shortcomings, most polemically pointed out by Mandelbrot (1964) and Peters. But this theory does not work with the outliers that are becoming more and more frequent in the markets. What's your 97% for Najdak investors when the index fell from 5200 to 1700 around 2000. Or 2007. The RTS index from 2300 to 490. Do the math, especially when you consider buying with leverage. People didn't just lose money, they stayed in debt. And Najdak had been falling for a year! What a theory!

This is a classic example of a good idea being applied "head-on" and failing miserably. My opinion of portfolio theory (without regard to its application to specific markets) is somewhat different. Anyway, in the future I will try to create a appropriate thread where I will describe its essence and outline the scope of its applicability. In this topic it is offtop and I would not want to talk about it in a few words.
 
Demi:

And by the way, as far as I know - the efficient market hypothesis was formulated in 1970. And how, one wonders, could it have "flourished" until 1964, when Mandelbrot "pointed out" its shortcomings?

Didn't it begin with the old man Bachelier, who spoke of his "demon of chance" etc. at the beginning of the 20th century?
1...303132333435363738394041424344...66
New comment