Why haven't you adopted his "Theory of reflexivity" approach to investing?

...

Basically markets react to market movements -- so bull and bear markets kind of snowball. Also that for only brief, very brief moments in time does market value and "true value" ever match. Like passing ships in the night.

TL;DR - Markets are basically irrational bandwagons

You will always be a goy. Always.

>>Interesting. Please elaborate, if you don't mind.
>Interesting. Please elaborate, if you don't mind.
>Interesting. Please elaborate, if you don't mind
Interesting. Please elaborate, if you don't mind..

Isn't that kind of the point of trading?
How is that a theory?

>Isn't that kind of the point of trading?
It's the opposite of traditional trading. In traditional trading you assume the market will eventually price a financial security at it's true value. Soros says that the assumption is that whatever the trend is will compound, until it is so distorted it inverses.

>How is that a theory?
It's falsifiable in the sense put forward by Karl Popper.

It's a good theory and applies to amd's 1200% stock price increase. Investors bandwagoned stock and fell for Intel fud. Company is then undervalued. AMD can't fail, this is one of my favorite calls.

>It's falsifiable in the sense put forward by Karl Popper.
How could you tell what the true value of a market is to falsify it?

But it seems pretty obvious to me that most speculators buy when they see it rise and sell when they see it fall, especially on markets attracting many newcomers

I have; I initially thought of myself as an investor in blockchain technology; a harbringer of the futurel Then DGB happened and some annon put a sharpie in his butt. Daddy Soros made me realize that breakouts happen because of self-reinforcing patterns like the snowball affect, which can create a illusion. The illusion is not false, It can even affect the fundamentals; however, It is a transient feature that is constantly subject to reinterpretation.

To be honest I don't know, I was hoping that if I spouted my half-remembered explanation some arrogant user would butt in and correct me with a clearer, more accurate answer.

I have.

So what's his recipe? Let me guess
>timing the market

>>>>Interesting. Please elaborate, if you don't mind.
>>>Interesting. Please elaborate, if you don't mind.
>>Interesting. Please elaborate, if you don't mind.
>>Interesting. Please elaborate, if you don't mind
>Interesting. Please elaborate, if you don't mind..

Soros is a market manipulator. He funded OWS to destabalize the market so he could profit from it. I heard he was spotted on a street corner in disguise selling iPhones and Che Guerva T-shirts to angsty young teens.

Read his book when you have time (it's somewhat long). It's more complex than that. His theory isn't something that can be ditectly applied... Still it improves the way you understand how and why markets move.

Go fucking read his book, nobody is going to summarize it for you on Veeky Forums.

Psst

>Market manipulator
That's not a a secret at all, he gives some really neat examples of how he influenced stock price movements with his reports in his book. In fact he would probably say that all players in a market are 'manipulating' prices since markets are the product of cognitive biases.

kek.

Popper: Falsifiability is a needed quality for something to be a theory. Implying there need to be ways to do so, obvsly.

Im not any wiser than you, but I guess one would first find the key argument of the reflexivity approach. But thats where trouble starts: Would it be endless reflexivity, there wouldnt be any turnarounds, so something like "whenever x falls/rises y initially in time window t1, x will continue to fall/rise with z > y for the next increments of time t2"

As stated, this would clearly be falsifiable by just looking at past charts and indeed is falsified, which makes it garbage in Poppers approach since anything that is falsified at one point is deemed shit.

So, what does the theory of reflexivity really say? Someone smarter give my some insight plox

Interesting...

In the 1970s (when Soros made his fortune) investors tended to be more naive in believing that a stock's price reflects a company's inherent value. Today we just want to catch the whales. We're more cynical about prices. So his theory is somewhat outdated, most of us take it for granted. A lot of people who bought DGB understand that the coin isn't valuable in itself, they just wanted to catch the pump and dump.

Read his book, he uses his theory to test predictions in the later chapters (but it isn't super convincing). Kids, you gotta learn how to read a 700 page volume. No one is going to do the work for you on Veeky Forums.

You can find the .pdf online

Yes and no; Soros would say that the fact that speculation can also affect the fundamentals; So, the fact we show confidence in something that has potential can also positivelly affect it's growth i.e. the fundamentals change in response to the market. Something like DGB was nowhere a couple months ago and now it among the most widely traded, despite the huge loss. If their team does anything worthwhile, they could regain market confidence easily; The pump and dump put it on the map and this is the case with a lot of the crypto-currencies.

Soros was a luckbox that hit a couple of big trades

his retard theories don't work with machine learning and algo bot trading

he wouldn't make a dime in today's market

he should just be happy he made his money

>As stated, this would clearly be falsifiable by just looking at past charts and indeed is falsified, which makes it garbage in Poppers approach since anything that is falsified at one point is deemed shit.
kek.

I remember seeing a lecture he gave where he went into more detail about the nature of those turnarounds but i wont repeat it here because I'd probably misremember and misunderstand it.

>Kids, you gotta learn how to read a 700 page volume. No one is going to do the work for you on Veeky Forums.
But how do I know if its worthy my time investing in this 700 page volume, and not the dozens of other excessively long books that siren song me with the promise of wisdom?

How do I prioritize that unless someone actually explains to me the basics of a book, the content within it so I can make a more informed choice about which one to foucs on?

And your credentials are...?
How are his theories in compatible with machine learning which is, as I understand it, more prone to sterotyping and less creativity in investments than human trading?

In other words...buy low, sell high, anticipate and time the markets?

Whooooaaa....

It's a lot easier to do that when you can fundamentally manipulate the markets yourself and crash an entire currency, as Soros did with the British Pound Sterling.

He also sold his fellow Jews down the river during the """Holocaust""". I have a sort of begrudging respect for him, but his funding of open borders "import 3rd world savages to fuck up 1st world civilizations" bullshit is unacceptable.

youtube.com/watch?v=HXqty2rkUDY

>Hit the luck box
Except that for decades he ran the most successful hedge fund in history...

Cuck, stop judging his theory based on 1 sentence summaries you get from Veeky Forums.

thousands of hedge funds

a couple will show signifigant outlier performance just randomly

that's soros, same with buffett

those clowns are just lucky

>But how do I know if its worthy my time investing in this 700 page volume, and not the dozens of other excessively long books that siren song me with the promise of wisdom?
Start reading it, if you don't like it, go read something else. The Amazon summary seems pretty clear to me. You can read the summary in back cover too like we used to do back in the old days.

But if you're not asking the questions the book addresses, don't even bother. Go read a technical analysis textbook if you want practical advice.

>signifigant outlier performance just randomly
You know it's not random luck when the fund performs consistently well for 30+ consecutive years.

He's a fucking bastard, you're jew faggot for sucking his dick.

Because it means that if shitcoin X is down 60% and you think "Ok ok, it's down 60%, it can't possibly go down more! That's such a large drop!", the reality is that because it went down 60% it's MORE likely to down even further and faster because the panic snowballs.

In essence, it's saying that trends upwards or downwards don't create market pressure that eventually has to push the market back the other way; rather, they create a snowball effect where prices being up actually makes people buy even more and more until something causes the trend to reverse and then people selling causes more and more people to sell.

it's easy to make money, goy! just orchestrate the collapse of the british pound and make away with a billion dollars like I did!

I thought that was standard theory

Holy fuck...why have I never thought of momentum trading!?!?!?

Because thats exactly of reflexivity is in economics. Its not having a direction. Its the pile on method. The biggest challenge to the pile on method is lack of patience and timing...which everyone is trying to figure out all the time.

so his theory is basically about FOMO and FUD capitulation