I won't name names, we have some here. You'll maybe have noticed them. But it's a generic thing.
https://preview.redd.it/7aziwgo6wc381.png?width=1103&format=png&auto=webp&s=264ef5fa77887f4c1a74de6f69192cc842a13131
OP SPX reaction to the 161 : BeatTheBear (reddit.com)
https://preview.redd.it/fzqufzlyvc381.png?width=1015&format=png&auto=webp&s=e6a98e35523cbb31a3b67d10dd27594dea026958
These are one hour candles. This post was 3 hours ago. Count them.
https://preview.redd.it/qj6ba94gwc381.png?width=1901&format=png&auto=webp&s=a6a18b509ffb36c740cf6a43acfdc885331c9539
(I missed my trade, though)
https://imgur.com/a/jGd7YGI
In personal finance books I often read "Time in the market is better than timing the market" - Can anyone explain this adage in a bit more detail please so I understand better?
For example let's say you were to enter investing in index funds and so on. Am I correct that yes your funds would have grown significantly had you invested in March 2020 compared to June 2021 (this month)? Mainly because the stock prices were low last year due to the pandemic whereas they have bounced back now.
In that sense it feels like timing would have been better, but I get that this is a complicated topic as the stocks can go up as well as down.
I posted this a while ago on Twitter, but I think it's super important...
TLDR; $BANANA wasn't designed so people could "Get Rich Quick"
In the long-term, $BANANA stakers are well positioned. Users too concerned about price will probably miss the biggest opportunities <3
Here's the Thread!
DeFi has enabled some truly incredible things... like the fact you can earn #PassiveIncome for simply HODLing your tokens. I don't think we appreciate this fact enough in the case of $BANANA, so time for a little rant.
It's easy to get caught up in price action, but the real excitement in #DeFi is the steady earning that comes from staking assets (in our case, $BANANA). You might have noticed that the #ApeSwap team works hard every day to bring new $BANANA and $GNANA staking pools.
While there is a marketing reason for this, the real motivation to add staking pools is to give deeper utility to $BANANA. Every time we add a pool, the overall ApeSwap ecosystem expands to give $BANANA and $GNANA holders more opportunity. These pools come over time.
"Time in the market, beats timing the market" has never been more true. Time >>> Entry Price in our ecosystem 💰
Our $BANANA pool smart contracts don't care about price, they don't even know it exists! They only know number of tokens staked and number of rewards to give 😁
I know this sub recently discovered the efficient market hypothesis but that is nothing compared to this other hypothesis. It will literally blow your socks off and not at the same time. I present to you the Many World Hypothesis.
Essentially it says if an action has more than one possible outcome, the universe splits into two distinct universes to accommodate each of the possible outcomes.
It’s based on some quantum physics shit that only nerds can understand but you don’t need to know that for the implications
That deep OTM TSLA Put you went broke on... in another universe daddy Elon shit the bed and you own a yacht. This sub in another universe is filled with millionaires with annualized returns that make Jim Simon’s medallion fund look like an ally savings account.
We aren’t making the wrong bets.. we are just in the wrong universe. Next time you bet on a stock to go up it will..... it just might be in a different universe
So basically I guess this really doesn’t change anything. Oh and also it means time is nonlinear so Theta gang is basically fucked or not I don’t really know
I know we all see this time and time again but wanted to give a concrete example. I came out of university mid 2017 with dreams of financial freedom and started piling money into crypto. Far more then I could actually afford and this ultimately led me to a lot of exposure and I rode this through the crash and was down 95% for several years. One of these crypto’s that I invested in was Neo. I was buying Neo at various price ranges from $80 to $120. This price along with the entire market was crushed and it spent several years well under $20 and mostly under $ 10 with the lows at $5. I spent years thinking holy shit the financial losses are crazy but thought I won’t sell. I sit here today after over 3 years of being significantly in the red, actually in the green. Patience and firm hands is the safest method of making money when you know your own trading limitations.
“Every year, through thick and thin, he invested his savings into the stock market. He believed the real money was made through time in the market, not timing the market,” Cohen wrote. “He bought blue chip companies and held them forever. His 20-year annualized stock returns were over 10 %. He never borrowed money or paid interest.”
Source: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/hes-34-years-old-and-owns-550-million-worth-of-apple-so-why-is-he-hoping-the-stock-gets-hammered-again-2020-06-22
HODL FOREVER
Everything I have learnt in finance at uni has summarised that due to the efficient market hypothesis, it is impossible to achieve abnormal returns unless you have extreme intelligence and huge resources.
But I see every day well-informed individuals(day-traders) who have traded the market with Technical analysis alone and have consistently bet the market; what am I missing here with my understanding?
FYI: TA has bearly ever been mentioned in my courses, and as such, I assume that it is not academically respected; why would this be the case, or are all day-traders just full of BS?
According to the Efficient Market Hypothesis, stock prices reflect all available information and because of this, it is impossible for someone to beat the market.
Let us assume that for 2 companies, Company A and Company B, we have a discount rate of 10%, and Company A has annual growth of 10% (like the market) and Company B has annual growth of 20% (all assumptions always true in our example for the sake of this hypothetical example).
Doesn't investing in Company B always beat the market as the stock price would increase 20% as per DCF calculations? Or would EMH always value Company B at a premium and thus depress its above average growth in a way so that Company B stock only yields 10% annually?
Basically the title. A lot of capitalists I've come across seem to believe that capitalism allocates resources not necessarily as ethically but definitely more efficiently and rationally than participatory or centralized systems. Obviously you can critique their definition of efficiency or say that not everyone in the system is a rational actor necessarily but that argument can function as a critique of non-capitalist systems as well. Are there any other ideas/studies out there critiquing this idea?
Damn up 5% in one day, how crazy is this?
The deals disappear so quickly!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Superinvestors_of_Graham-and-Doddsville
For how long would an investor have to consistently outperform the market before it would be evidence against the Efficient Market Hypothesis rather than attributable to luck?
The Efficient Market Hypothesis (EMH) (alternately knows as the Efficient Capital Markets Hypothesis) is a theory of financial economics stating that:
> “asset prices fully reflect all available information. A direct implication is that it is impossible to "beat the market" consistently on a risk-adjusted basis since market prices should only react to new information or changes in discount rates (the latter may be predictable or unpredictable).”
> Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efficient-market_hypothesis
The idea behind EMH at bottom is pretty straightforward, and its rationale buttresses the principle of why insider trading is fundamentally unfair: it allows a few to profit from nonpublic information at the expense of other shareholders who are unware of the insiders' information. We need a level playing field, at least ostensibly, for the markets to work.
Now on to my point: Prior to the Internet age, the unattractive underbelly of Church history was largely hidden from most members. Mormonism in the 80’s and 90’s felt electric at times, and prognosticators both in and out of the Church predicted that its stock was going to keep on rising, fill the Earth, and become one of the world’s most dominant religions. What most of us did not realize, however, is that the top leaders were artificially inflating the value of the stock (the Church), by keeping hidden from our view insider information about the Church’s true origins. The Church leaders were essentially trading on that insider information, and enjoyed the inflated tithing receipts, enormous sacrifices of time, etc., by the unwitting membership. Of course, there have always been indicators that the Church’s appeal is more limited than advertised, and this has been so long before the Internet came into popular use. For example, many of us who served missions in developing countries witnessed firsthand that the “growth” of the Church wasn’t quite what we had been led to believe back home, i.e., we were part of a machine churning out convert baptisms consisting largely of kids and the mentally ill who attended church once or twice after baptism if they ever came back at all.
But this time around, it seems like the Church’s loss of members and stagnating growth is different by another order of magnitude. Not only is the Church failing to convert or retain those who have always walked away from it, now it is losing the “very elect” as well. No question, the Church is w
... keep reading on reddit ➡If you aren't familiar with the efficient market hypothesis, here's a wikipedia article. Are the successful money managers/quants really better because they're 'smarter' and see correlations that no one else sees? It's hard to believe that is the case, especially in today's market with the sheer amount of affordable, accessible, information. Yet somehow firms like Goldman's trading arm and Renaissance technologies seem to be able to consistently create huge returns. What do you guys think?
Edit: Sorry forgot to mention investors asked to choose a number between 0 and 100
Response frequency provided here:
The highest possible correct answer is 67. To go for 67 you have to believe that every other muppet in the known universe has just gone for 100. The fact we got a whole raft of responses above 67 is more than slightly alarming.
You can see spikes which represent various levels of thinking. The spike at fifty reflects what we (somewhat rudely) call level zero thinkers. They are the investment equivalent of Homer Simpson, 0, 100, duh 50! Not a vast amount of cognitive effort expended here!
There is a spike at 33 - of those who expect everyone else in the world to be Homer.
There's a spike at 22, again those who obviously think everyone else is at 33.
As you can see there is also a spike at zero. Here we find all the economists, game theorists and mathematicians of the world. They are the only people trained to solve these problems backwards. And indeed the only stable Nash equilibrium is zero (two-thirds of zero is still zero). However, it is only the 'correct' answer when everyone chooses zero.
The final noticeable spike is at one. These are economists who have (mistakenly...) been invited to one dinner party (economists only ever get invited to one dinner party). They have gone out into the world and realised the rest of the world doesn't think like them. So they try to estimate the scale of irrationality. However, they end up suffering the curse of knowledge (once you know the true answer, you tend to anchor to it).
In this game, which is fairly typical, the average number picked was 26, giving a two-thirds average of 17. Just three people out of more than 1000 picked the number 17.
I play this game to try to illustrate just how hard it is to be just one step ahead of everyone else - to get in before everyone else, and get out before everyone else. Yet despite this fact, it seems to be that this is exactly what a large number of investors spend their time doing.
Originally sent in an email newsletter by John Mauldin at http://www.frontlinethoughts.com/
I know time in the market beats timing the market, but I’m too scared to pull the trigger on my savings right now.
I feel like poorly-planned US diplomacy and the Chinese regime in general is bound to cause conflict and economic disruption. I want to invest in both markets but I can’t imagine them seeing eye-to-eye any time soon. How do I overcome this?
I’m terrified, but every day I wait is another day I’m out of the market.
I would like to ask the mods to remove any negative hypothesis in this forum that does not contribute to the progress of a cure or hold an unbiased scientific proof.
I say this because many people in another thread on here went on a tirade about HIV progress which wasn’t factually true. Then I see this pop up on the front page of reddit:
https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/r4qpri/glaxosmithkline_ready_for_human_trials_of_hiv_cure/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
This is what we need. We need to keep uniting and driving progress so we can end up on the front page of reddit and have increased visibility.
Now I get it. A lot of people are frustrated with HSV. Whether it’s the stigma, fear of lifestyle changes, fear of transmission, suffering daily, or mental health. All of these issues affect a wide variety of people.
However, I’m seeing this place transform for the negative with members who do not have hope. That’s not the purpose of this forum. The purpose is for people who do have hope and want to be activists to potentially have HSV cured.
Here are some actions you can take:
- Support promising pathways by reaching out to a senator about the bill
- Support funding
- Do not post anything that would further frustrate or discourage members from actively participating in meeting with politicians, researchers, or scientist.
- Consider the impact and effectiveness of your post with respect to advancing a cure.
- Make sure we keep focus on post and questions that are HSV cure focused.
- Be solution minded and if you’re not just copy and paste the messages to send out or guide people who want a cure to this forum.
I felt the need to make this post because there were a lot of false claims about virology. In addition to that there are people who have joined purely to deter motivation likely because of their frustration. I get it, but please vent on r/herpes and come here to help us all get rid of this pesky bugger.
Mike_herp also said he’d have open discussion Saturdays for this which is/was a brilliant idea. I really just think we need to keep focus on the goal, otherwise the message gets lost and when scientist and researchers do visit this forum they may see all hope is gone which isn’t good either.
I've been reading Andrew Lo's book "Adaptive Markets," and I am curious as to how the economics establishment views his idea.
As someone who does not have any formal economics background other than micro as an undergrad, his main idea, that biology and evolution (competition, mutation, adaptation/evolution) are better mental frameworks for conceptualizing economics and financial markets than those used by classical economics, is pretty spot on.
it makes far more sense to me to conceptualize markets as ecosystems, which by definition presumes that they are changing and adapting over time; as opposed to the classical view that markets are at equilibrium or tend towards equilibrium. i am not going to rehash all the well-worn criticisms of utility and rational actors, but, unlike traditional economics, Lo's hypothesis provides an explanation for why we act as we do.
Anyway, why has this not received any traction? Is there just too much momentum in economics academia? I know Weinstein has being trying to introduce a shift in economics for over a decade now and hasn't really made any progress from what I can tell.
Is this just where all information regarding the price and value of stocks/shares is available for everyone to see? Or is it a little more complex than that?
I'm in the middle of reading Malkiel's Random Walk Down Wall Street. It's my first book related to investments, and it's been fantastic so far.
However, I want to get an idea for a few opinions and generate some new discussion on the Efficient Market Hypothesis, since it's the antithesis to the all the research analysts and chartists on Wall Street (or even this sub). Is their job as futile as Malkiel makes it out to be - or is there value in pursuing those lines of investing work? Also something interesting - can the EMH be applied to cyrptocurrency markets?
Assuming the market is the S&P 500, and so is your eligible universe of stocks.
Spend a little time in r/investing and got frustrated by the "time in the market" bs people keep throwing around. What's hard about timing a volatile market? It will be up and down all the time so nothing can go tit's up unless you do some extra retarded short term plays. Like doesn't matter if you call or put, you will be right eventually! Make some easy 30% a week instead of hoping for that 3000% jackpot bet. How the fuck does some 5% a year shit beat that?
A neat little 'S&P 500 Simulator':
> In this simulation, you are given a 3-year market period from sometime in history (between 1950 and 2018) or you can run in Monte Carlo mode (which picks randomly from daily returns in this period) and you start fully invested in the market and can trade out of (and into) the market if you feel like the market will fall (or rise).
- https://engaging-data.com/market-timing-game/
Instructions:
> You will start fully invested in the market, with $100,000 (when you push the "Start/Pause" button). You can sell all of your investments by pushing the "Sell" button and buy back in by pushing the "Buy" button. At the beginning, you can only sell. Once you've sold, you can then only buy. See if you can outperform the market by selling high and buying low. The game will last for about 3 years (750 market days), after which you can extend the game or restart with another random, historical period (or Monte Carlo simulation).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Superinvestors_of_Graham-and-Doddsville
For how long would an investor have to consistently outperform the market before it would be evidence against the Efficient Market Hypothesis rather than attributable to luck?
