Can the stock market be predicted with a 100% accuracy?
Every trading book, video or blog I've read it always just boils down to "just bee yourself". Because lets face it. Virtually all """technical indicators""", """fundamental ratios""" and tips from the """media""" are complete garbage if anyone with basic statistical and programming knowledge knows how to backtest.
tl;dr no
No, unless you can predict the future, nobody knows if the market will go up or down tommorow. Just educated guesses
the markets can be predicted by technical analysis.
If you see a duck pattern, raging bull pattern, or crouching ninja pattern, it means the stock will go up
Unless you have insider information, but then you can't legally trade
Not 100% but the stock market is just a reflection of human psychology. It doesn't have any inherent logic to it like "it always goes up". It goes up and down based on human greed and fear. That doesn't mean it's easy to predict because people are sometimes irrational and suffer from herd mentality.
I am afraid the thread might not go further than this, think about on Friday 13 markets suffer just because of a belief in bad luck.
Yes.
I predict that within the next year the price of oil will go down then back up more than once.
Done.
Exactly. The way you get good at trading is to learn to predict what the average trader is going to be thinking, and also what the average algorithm is going to be doing.
>Can the stock market be predicted with a 100% accuracy?
After reading your post I could roll a dice which stock to buy to the tune of 100k USD, which in turn would influence the stock's price.
How would you predict me randomly pumping 100k into one stock?
Also, this
>Exactly. The way you get good at trading is to learn to predict what the average trader is going to be thinking, and also what the average algorithm is going to be doing.
Easier said than done. Irrationality and millions of people trying to outsmart each other make the game very difficult. You can't buy low and sell high if the herd is selling lower and lower. You also can't buy low and sell high if the smart buyer doesn't take the bait and forces the bagholder to sell at a loss.
You can predict the future of a single stock with some insider information. But the entire stock market I doubt it.
Did anybody take my advice on shorting PGEM back in June/July? I worked there. It was a hell hole. I worked at the plant that did all of the vinyl siding for the company. The supervisors weren't worth a shit. We were scrapping more than we were distributing. 2 supervisors quit. It all started when they stopped hiring people themselves and went to hiring temp workers. Got nothing but niggers and scum of the Earth being poorly trained and fucking up. I think for every day the plant operated, they were getting 6 days behind on production. I got out of there.
Nice meme. But I always laugh when people think TA predicts the future. TA reacts to the market. The market doesn't react to TA.
>the stock market is just a reflection of human psychology. It doesn't have any inherent logic to it
This is wrong. Yes, in the short-term, stock movements are seemingly random and certainly beyond prediction. This is why short-term stock pickers, day traders, swing and momentum traders inevitably fail to beat the market.
However, underlying the market are actual companies -- businesses whose prospects rise and fall with the economy and the prospects of society as a whole. For the last many hundred years, most modern economies have been growing. There are more people in them, many are getting richer, demand increases, technology improves, efficiency increases. This results in a small but steady upward push on all the businesses in that economy. Over the course of may years, this inherit positive bias tends to make the markets rise as a whole. This is why buy-and-hold investors and index investors are always regarded as the smartest with their money.
>However, underlying the market are actual companies -- businesses whose prospects rise and fall with the economy and the prospects of society as a whole. For the last many hundred years, most modern economies have been growing. There are more people in them, many are getting richer, demand increases, technology improves, efficiency increases. This results in a small but steady upward push on all the businesses in that economy. Over the course of may years, this inherit positive bias tends to make the markets rise as a whole. This is why buy-and-hold investors and index investors are always regarded as the smartest with their money.
That's a fallacy. A growing economy does not necessarily lead to a growing stock market. You are making the foolish assumption that the stock market "has to reflect the underlying economy". Stock prices change because there are buyers and sellers, STOP. There's nothing that says the buyers and sellers must always be in tuned with the economy. That goes back to irrationality and herd mentality.
You can use oranges
>A growing economy does not necessarily lead to a growing stock market.
That's literally the definition of a growing economy. GDP stands for Gross Domestic Product, i.e., a direct measurement of the advance or decline of companies in the economy.
You're just spouting high-school econ memes about buyers and sellers because you have no personal experience with stocks, businesses, or the markets. Stocks are not abstract pieces of paper. They represent ownership in businesses, and, in the long run, the value of that ownership interest is directly tied to the value of the business itself.
Just because you've only been doing this for 6 months doesn't mean we should all take a 6-month perspective on the markets. You make money in the long term, kid.
>They represent ownership in businesses, and, in the long run, the value of that ownership interest is directly tied to the value of the business itself.
Wrong. Stocks are valued based on the buyers' and sellers' agreement. Go ahead and point to me where stocks necessarily reflect the value of a company in the absence of buyers and sellers.
>Just because you've only been doing this for 6 months doesn't mean we should all take a 6-month perspective on the markets. You make money in the long term, kid.
I think you should control that ego of yours on a Kabuki theatre forum.
>>They represent ownership in businesses, and, in the long run, the value of that ownership interest is directly tied to the value of the business itself.
>Wrong.
Kek. Enjoy your crypto losses, faggot.
I can pretty much predict everything 100%. Proff on my blog.
>Kek. Enjoy your crypto losses, faggot.
Nice argument :^)
Seriously though, junior. You won't find any academic paper that says the stock market must be correlated to GDP.
Stop asking stupid questions Rank
>day traders fail to beat the market
Are you speaking to an average day trader? Because otherwise this is total horseshit
>100% accuracy
If you could predict the stock market with at least 51% accuracy consistently you could become a billionaire within 10 years through high frequency trading.
>Are you speaking to an average day trader? Because otherwise this is total horseshit
I'm speaking to 95% of daytraders, including you snowflake.
I've only made money so far and I don't do it full time
you saying eventually I'm going to fuck it up? When ive been doing it for years?
absolutely not. it isn't gambling if you model companies and use logic, but it's not far off, and unless you have lots of money, it's not worth doing anyway.
If the media says everything is fine, be worried.
One thing I learned is they are always pessimist unless shit is about to hit the fan
Not very bright, huh? I never said you'd definitely lose money. I said you'd fail to beat the market. That you're too dim to appreciate that importance distinction tells me everything I need to know about your future prospects.
>tl;dr Don't quit your McDonalds job.
>he thinks "making money" isn't equivalent to beating the market in this context
Yeah you fucking retard, when work isn't as busy and I have time to invest, It's not that hard to beat the market. You just have to do your research and not be an idiot
>mcdonalds
No, I work for Nintendo
>It's not that hard to beat the market.
Kek. Know how I know you're 12?
>I work for Nintendo
Playing video games in mommy's basement isn't a job, kid.
just buy POTCOIN!!
>shit shit post
K
I'm not shit posting. I'm making fun of you, dumbass. You're too stupid to realize that I'm actually calling you a retarded roleplaying child. There's no humor intended.
* You are not a successful day trader.
* You do not beat the market.
* You do not work for Nintendo.
* You are a poorfag.
* You live in your parent's basement.
* You have no business contributing to a thread about investing.
These are facts.
>mic drop
You're a projecting retarded faggot
...
>triggered by reddit tier autism post
Yes it can. Buy Ripple, trust me $$$$$$
Yes
of course not retard.
No. It's too complex, and it's all controlled by human whims.
YES
IF YOU BUY/SELL YOU CAN 100$ PREDICT THE MARKET IN THAT MOMENT
GIVE ME PRIZE FOR CLEVER CORRECT ANSWER
>still looking for crouching ninja over roaring viking
LMAOing at your life
maybe YOU can't
>smart
>For the last many hundred years, most modern economies have been growing.
>most modern economies
>most
>most
>most
You're pretty stupid, huh, Nikkei-fag?
which is the best software for a Demo-Account ? Im new to trading and want to test it with a Demo Account
Yes.
Law of Attraction
who /buylowsellhigh/ ???????????
These Hundredplus year timeframes you speak about are meaningless in the personal timeframes.
Most people will only have 18-65 to invest and grow. Often people don't get their shit together for a while.
Any one of these 40-47 years having a bad year is significant.
The first rule of investment is understanding what you're investing in.
Most people don't even know what an index is or how to calculate one. Most people couldn't tell you which companies were on an index at any one time.
I'm opposed to being sold a black box that prints money.
If you're not gonna do the minimum of disassembly and reassembly you will if you're unlucky eat the biggest blackest swan hydra penis no lube.
Munger talks about the three 50% peak to trough reduction events in his lifetime. Most people don't have the capital to survive these on their meager savings.
150k retirement is very different from 300k retirement.
>These Hundredplus year timeframes you speak about are meaningless in the personal timeframes.
But the cherry-picked twenty year time frame you speak of in the Nikkei is meaningful?
Wew, lad. Dat logic.
>Any one of these 40-47 years having a bad year is significant.
Um, no its not. U.S. equities decline in one of four years historically. Doesn't change the fact that equities have averaged almost 12% total return in that same time frame.
Protip: people don't invest their life savings on one day in the history of the markets.
>Most people don't even know what an index is or how to calculate one.
[citation missing]
Just because you're confused about the world's most popular equity investment, don't project your ignorance onto others. Go educate yourself.
>150k retirement is very different from 300k retirement.
Are you off your meds? Your entire post is pretty low test, even for you.
SWHC - INTC - SLV - AA - AMDA - AMRS
;^)