> > --- Alypius Skinner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > A statistical physics model is predicting that the > US stock market > > > recovery suggested by recent rises will only last until > spring next > year, > > > before tumbling yet further. > > > > Why would this contradict efficient markets?
If this prediction is correct, there will be more doubt about the "efficient market" theory. But it won't disprove the theory, since further predictions need to be made from the model for this model to be considered accurate. And, of course, if the model IS accurate, today; and is thought to be so, such that money can be made based on its predictions, then certainly in the near/ mid future (2-4 years?), the behavior of money maximizing agents will change to incorporate this model's results -- and in the process nullify the money making opportunity, or at least greatly reduce the opportunities. Even if the model is accurate today, for the near future -- it will become inaccurate as human actors adjust their game-playing strategies. (While a free market is not zero-sum, nor the stock market, quite--it seems pretty close in the short term) A Random Walk Down Wall Street by Burton G. Malkiel, basically claimed, empirically, that the markets were fairly efficient. Irrational Exuberance, by Robert J. Shiller "By history's yardstick, Shiller believes this market is grossly overvalued, and the factors that have conspired to create and amplify this event--the baby-boom effect, the public infatuation with the Internet, and media interest--will most certainly abate. " amazon review of the book published in March, 2000 -- around the beginning of Great Fall. Funny, there doesn't seem a single date for the begining of the internet bubble collapse? Greenspan made the remark at the end of 1996. He, and many others, thought (knew?) the market was "overvalued". http://www.allianceforlifelonglearning.org/course.jsp?c=2105 A course! by: Course Author: Robert J. Shiller, Stanley B. Resor Professor of Economics, Yale University, Yale University Profile > Online Instructor: Andrey D. Ukhov; Sunil Gottipati; Chian Choo $250 tuition, $35 material (book out of stock, maybe this is why?) > > It has always seemed to me that the "greater fool" theory is > incompatible > with market efficiency. I think so too; and there are two main issues not well incorporated into the efficient market theory (or my brief hobby economists' view): 1) timing -- "how long" can a market be "temporarily" and inefficiently priced? 3 years? (1996-1999?) 2) principal agent theory -- what happens when the agents in the market who are paid to provide, and trusted to provide, accurate information (like H. Blodget*), but have a huge personal economic incentive to mislead? USA Today: "On several occasions, Blodget was publicly bullish on stocks that he dismissed as garbage privately. Most of the companies were giving Merrill investment banking business." (4/14/02) > The markets may or may not be efficient, but the term must be > defined in > some way that has enough objective meaning to be analyzed and tested. > Actually, as is often the case, "non" efficiency is assumed, in some theory, and then disproven. As I think will happen to the anti-bubble theory, if it tries for too many predictions. Tom Grey AEI quote: The problem with the incessant push for the public to buy equities is that it ultimately leads to lower returns. If everyone obeys the exhortation to buy stocks, share prices will be driven up so high that expected returns on equities will collapse at the first sign of doubt about earnings prospects. The further stock prices rise, the further they subsequently fall given anything but improving news on earnings, as they have done since March 2000. As this Outlook goes to press, the NASDAQ Index is now at approximately 1400, down from 5,100 in March 2000, having fallen by 73 percent in just thirty months. The broader S&P Index has fallen 32 percent, at an average rate of 14.6 percent a year, since early March 2000. * "Merrill Lynch's famed "Internet Bull" made his reputation by setting a price target of $400 on Amazon.com when it was trading at $243."
