>economists actually believe that its impossible to beat the market because all parties have access to perfect information
>therefore there is no such thing as information assymetry as everyone has access to the same knowledge
>mfw This is taught to millions of students worldwide in economics and business classes
How does this make you feel Veeky Forums?
Other urls found in this thread:
bloomberg.com
twitter.com
I think economists (poor people) shouldn't talk about the stock market.
Srsly though, if they think only smart ppl invest that think they know everything... they are wrong.
Heck, I even invest, and I'm the dumbest faggot I know.
user, If you knew of a way to beat the market and really make money, would you tell others about it? Or would you fool them into thinking that you can't ever beat the market and they should just invest safely.
Thought so.
Just because people have access to the collective knowledge of humanity doesn't mean they educate themselves. Most just like to watch funny cats on fb.
>Y-y-you can't beat the market
>Bought Ethereum
>Beat market
I'm well on my way to fucking milfs.
The same way I feel when professors teach students "race is a social construct".
>Nintendo shares had the worst day in 26 years when they announced that they don't, in fact, own Pokemon Go.
B..bb..but...they had access to perfect information!!
The efficient market is a lie put forth by bankers to dissuade anyone from trying.
I can't believe schools actually teach it.
The most blatant counter-example against the efficient market hypothesis is insider trading.
Insider trading is impossible in an efficient market, yet it happens all the time.
I made $10k this month off an inefficient market.
Not only that, the logic in the OP is flawed even on a fundamental level. Just because all people have access to the same information, doesn't mean everyone will do the same thing with It. People may see the same information, but each of them will have a different perspective about said information and will even experience It differently.
Let's see that I give information X to both person A and person B. Person A is smart enough to read and assimilate ideas, but not enough to develop unique perspectives and ideas through them, to him, the information contained in a book is just data that he stores in his memory to be used when he needs it. Person B doesn't just store the information though, It uses It to develop a completely new strategy/perspective that even the person who gave the information may not had think, the way he perceives the information is not like person A at all.
The information is equal, but people are not. This is such a basic concept that even a child can understand. You can teach every tactic, playstyle and fundamentals of soccer to someone and he still wouldn't be able to play better than Messi.
Let's say*
>nintendo doesn't own pokemon go
Lmao even I knew that. Stock market """investors""" confirmed for full retards.
i made 30k in a month on forex, was it a fluke sure prob, still, having flukes like this a couple times a year is enough to beat the odds , haters keep hating
During the middle ages, blacks was held in high regard in Europe.
This. Let's say that we on my job have un- and underexploited assets. Everyone knows about them. No secrets nor fringe facts here. What we need to exploit it properly is quite a few things.
The last half year-ish, we've had more pressing issues. So we could've not even got the most simple of items from our list. But people hardly care. No one, except the boss and my little cabal.
And worst of all, the founding job has been delayed because someone just had to paint us into a corner with a sub-standard program.
I wonder what their explanation is for instances when someone does beat the market? This impossibility happens daily.
>Everyone has access to the same knowledge
This isn't really true. Even if it was, it assumes that everyone in the market will seek and act on such knowledge, which may or may not happen - think of how many people regularly get quarterlies of some fund in their 401k and never read the first page.
There are differences in how information is interpreted that are not accounted for in your description. For example, two parties could have identical information about a stock but differing opinions of it's value.
You can beat the market by taking advantage of inefficiencies that we know exist.
Generally they don't state you can't beat the market, just that you have to take larger risks in order to beat it.
"The Market" as economists define it is the middle point of a bell curve. Everything 'averages out', even though that average is made of killer fucking sharks at one end, and people losing everything at the other. Besides, the results always tell the truth, and economists have poor results, because they're functionally poor people.
Everyone is always selling, money managers / Long term investors are selling you on an idea (5 - 10% returns per year, every year), and when you buy into that idea, you essentially tell your subconscious not to bring you ideas about how to make 100%, 200%, 300%, etc. How many people here have crushed the market with the super hard two step process of buy BTC and Hodl.
The few wealthy people I know all have the same attitude towards money, it's not about 10% a year, it's about doubling the investment, minimum. I know for me last year I made 300% return on the US election, in 10 days, on 80k I borrowed, at a total funding cost of $1300. I do nothing for the next 12 months and I've beaten every fund in the market by huge orders of magnitude. And it wasn't by saving money, it was by borrowing money, by understanding that money is a game, and you need to play to win.
As for 'access to knowledge', everyone has access to the same pool of knowledge, but everyone knows different things, inspired application of knowledge at just the right time, that's the key.
Not to mention the real game isn't about simply reacting to knowledge, but by putting your own knowledge out there. Warren Buffet can literally turn what he says into money, because he has the results, he can say buy X, and millions of Gopher's go out and do it. He can change the behavior of the market with his will. He can literally change the knowledge when he shares his thoughts, that's the level to aim to play on.
>all parties have access to perfect information
Insider trading and just pure laziness by investors to do research kills this argument. Chess is a perfect information game yet not all chess players are equal.
So, let me get this straight. You're smart enough to understand that this scenario has obvious and glaring exceptions to it. You fully comprehend that when examining this lesson at face value. Your professors clearly comprehend this given that they teach the lesson. Why are you operating under the assumption that nobody realizes this but you? Everyone follows the implication, at least everyone smart enough to matter. Now you decide what you do with it.
>people misunderstand a core macro economics concept
>actually feel smart for misunderstanding it
just another thread on Veeky Forums i suppose
I beat the market on a daily basis betting on memes, bull market is easy af familia.
as soon as things cool down i'll pull out my money and invest in property.
>Invest in meme stock which might release some big news
>big news released, it's actually positive
>sell during hype
>20% profit, pull out
>rinse and repeat.
It IS a core concept in economics though. Nobel Prizes have been awarded for it.
It's theoretical.
Economists know it doesn't work like that.
Here in Italy we call that concept "Concorrenza perfetta"(perfect competition).
It's a theoretical situation in which everyone knows everything about the market, sellers close enough that there are no additional fees for the distance the goods have to travel, enough sellers so that the price is the lowest possible and sellers only gain enough to pay back the costs from it