Or you could just invest in index funds. On Sun, Aug 11, 2019 at 6:17 PM Raul Miller <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 7:22 PM Jose Mario Quintana > <[email protected]> wrote: > > :D I was even quoting from the paper. > > You get a gold star. > > But how can I talk about what the paper says with you, when you are > not acknowledging that it was said? > > > "the paper relied on no such idea" and "it's also not proposing 'a > trading > > strategy which beats the market'." > > > > That is too bad then because according to the paper, > > > > "On the contrary, finding those remaining profitable strategies would be > a > > paramount goal for many practitioners." > > > > So, I guess, practitioners look elsewhere! (Are we reading the same > paper?) > > We are. > > You're quoting from the motivations and definitions part of the paper. > > > "since the only use of the word 'beat' in the paper was a sentence > > talking about two horses." > > > > You used the phrase "the market can't be beat." earlier in this thread > > (remember?) and, for instance, Wikipedia uses "beat the market" in the > > context of the EMH; instead you can think of, consistently producing > > risk-adjusted excess returns, if that makes it easier for you (because > you > > cannot possibly be suggesting that the paper uses its own peculiar > > independent definition of the EMH; that would explain a lot though). > > Yes, I did. But what was I using the phrase to say? > > > "But we need to make one other assumption that is currently not standard > in > > modern markets: we need to allow participants to place > order-cancels-order > > (“OCO”) or one-or-the-other orders. These are orders on different > > securities that automatically cancel the remaining orders whenever one is > > hit." > > > > Can you name any market where you can place these orders or are they > still > > in La La Land? > > If that is "La La Land" then you are emphasizing functioning markets > being heavily regulated. > > Which would be accurate, by the way, though different countries > regulate them in different ways. > > > The paper just claims "markets are probably not efficient;" but you go > > further "even weak form market efficiency seems highly implausible." > What > > do you mean by "highly implausible"? Where exactly in the paper is the > > evidence that supports your claim? (Can you at least mention the > section?) > > That's a mix of the argument made in that paper with my observations > on how things typically work. > > You're right that that's not something the paper says. > > But a better way of expressing my point of view is this: > > If we constrain ourselves to literal interpretations of the various > published forms of the efficient market hypothesis, and limit > ourselves to statement which are observably correct, then it's very > difficult, and perhaps impossible, to find anything useful in what it > says, except as a rough heuristic describing some properties of > existing market regulations. > > Thanks, > > -- > Raul > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > -- Devon McCormick, CFA Quantitative Consultant ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
