> > The idea that one cannot beat the market can be traced back, at least (and > > probably even earlier), to Louis Bachelier who in his Théorie de la > > Spéculation dissertation (1900) wrote "the mathematical expectation of the > > speculator is zero" (in French, of course). > > An attractive notion, but one that is sadly underspecified (especially in > the context of "trade war" where deterioration of skills over generations > and other "non-market issues" have formative impacts on "the market").
Irrelevant comment. > Earlier in this thread, I offered the entire trading record of a former > first lady in her younger years consisting in achieving a return of 9900% > return in 10 months. Another one is Goldman Sachs producing a profit every > single day of the 63 trading days of Q1 of 2010. > > Which, indeed, could each be taken as a concrete example that EMH does not hold. I do not recall asserting that any particular form of the EMH holds. Do you? What I do remember is, > Meanwhile, you have watered-down, > > > Sure, but https://arxiv.org/pdf/1002.2284.pdf shows that even the weak > > EMH is mathematically implausible. > > to > > > That's a mix of the argument made in that paper with my observations > > on how things typically work. > > Still, can you specify which is the particular "argument made in that paper" and in which section of the paper is made? Are you still trying to figure out in which section is "the argument made in that paper"? Come on, it is not that hard. Is it? On Sun, Aug 18, 2019 at 9:25 AM Raul Miller <rauldmil...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 6:38 PM Jose Mario Quintana > <jose.mario.quint...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > It was Fama who idea posited that it is virtually impossible to > > > consistently beat the market > > > > The idea that one cannot beat the market can be traced back, at least > (and > > probably even earlier), to Louis Bachelier who in his Théorie de la > > Spéculation dissertation (1900) wrote "the mathematical expectation of > the > > speculator is zero" (in French, of course). > > An attractive notion, but one that is sadly underspecified (especially in > the context of "trade war" where deterioration of skills over generations > and other "non-market issues" have formative impacts on "the market"). > > > > Weak: the prices of securities reflect all available public market > > > information > > In the short term, this might hold. In the long term, this becomes > ludicrous. > > > > I tried to offer some concrete examples that it EMH does not hold. > > > > Earlier in this thread, I offered the entire trading record of a former > > first lady in her younger years consisting in achieving a return of 9900% > > return in 10 months. Another one is Goldman Sachs producing a profit > every > > single day of the 63 trading days of Q1 of 2010. > > Which, indeed, could each be taken as a concrete example that EMH does not > hold. > > Unless you also hold the view that the market concepts themselves are > sadly underspecified, in which case you don't even know whether EMH is > relevant to those examples. > > Thanks, > > -- > Raul > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
