and wandering around randomly again... - page 47
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
I can say with absolute certainty that you are wrong.
All of these Nobels (chief among them Markowitz with his portfolios) believe that the efficient markets hypothesis works and that it is therefore possible to manage risk at the expense of return.
It follows from this hypothesis that one can only make money in markets by investing.
And there is another group of people who think that this hypothesis works for some time intervals, about 10 years after 1987 if you look at history. Then there is the collapse of the markets. Nobels don't want to admit it, and they are extremely stubborn people, even losing their own money doesn't teach them.
all these Nobels were not naturally the final truth, but they were right in their theories more than anyone else...
And the fact is that markets are very, very efficient indeed and become even more efficient over time ....
and the proof is their complete unpredictability... because it is logical to assume that if no one has found a market prediction system so far, then the market is efficient...
And the following is also true: the extent to which the market is unpredictable is the extent to which it is efficient...
and smart people are right about the fact that you can earn only through profitability, because even according to statistics almost no one outperforms the indices...
the standard phrase of this dipshit...if you don't like something, get out...but he's pretending to be such a superintelligent, well-mannered and noble....
the standard phrase of this dipshit... if you don't like something, get out... but he's pretending to be such a superintelligent, well-mannered and noble....
There is nothing to be surprised about, the winds of the new geopolitical component. It is understandable that his irritation is a reaction to a change in the established conditions of life.
There is nothing to be surprised about, the new geo-political component is taking over. Understandably, his irritation is a reaction to a change in the established conditions of life.
What established conditions are you talking about here?
Do you think he should act like a true Christian and slap one cheek and turn the other? It used to be that people were challenged to a duel and behaved with care, except for bullies. And now, using the Internet and anonymity, some people are getting brazen, for God's sake!
mother teresa has appeared....
It's about hypocrisy...I don't show off and don't put on a mask of decency like he does...that's all...
and i don't use the internet and anonymity... I'll say the same to your face...
What kind of established conditions are you talking about here?
People were living their lives and suddenly a new power came in. It is stressful for the population and it is a question of survival.
People were living their lives and suddenly a new power came in. It's stressful for the population, and it's a question of survival.
What power? What are you talking about?
It used to be that people were challenged to a duel and were careful, except for bullies. But now, using the Internet and anonymity, some people are getting out of hand, for God's sake!
In the past they used to watch their mouths in polite society as well. And not hypocrites, pretending to be an English lord in science, while bluffing, poking and prodding like a cobbler, because there is nothing else for nonsense cannot be justified except by using personalities. Do not be the first to poke and prod. And to speak about scientific nonsense without having any evidence at all was considered to be shameful.
What power? What are you talking about?
I don't want to engage in political battles. Do you seriously not understand or are you being provocative? This is ridiculous.
all of these Nobels were naturally not the final truth, but they were right in their theories more than anyone else...
and the fact is that markets are indeed very, very efficient and become even more efficient over time ....
and the proof is their complete unpredictability...because it's logical to assume that if no one has found a market prediction system so far then the market is efficient...
and the following is also true: the extent to which the market is unpredictable, the extent to which it is efficient...
And smart people are right to say that one can earn only due to yield, because even according to statistics almost no one outperforms indexes...
This is all emotion and there is evidence that you, like all these nobodies are completely wrong.
What is market efficiency? It is volatility (increment after detrending) is a stationary process, i.e. the distribution law is ideally normal.
But it is absolutely not. Stationarity does not smell. And currently the main move is the GARCH models based on the fat tail test. The modelling process continues until the residual from the model is stationary! And this result is extremely difficult to achieve. This can be clearly seen on the quantile-quantile plot.
A departure from the straight line is a departure from an efficient market. So much for the nobility.
Once again.
Everything I have written is not a revelation of mine, but a generally accepted fact since Maldenbrot, i.e. some 60 years ago.