On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 1:04 PM Devon McCormick <[email protected]> wrote: > EMH is a model and all models are wrong but some of them are useful. I > seriously doubt EMH is being taught as gospel anywhere but if it were so > obviously wrong, we would see lots of people beating the market and we > don't. As a first-order approximation, it certainly looks true (the weak > form).
What do you define as "the market"? And, what do you define as "beating it"? Also, how hard have you been looking? Specifically: how many people are "beating the market"? And, why would you say that that number does not represent "lots of people"? Anyways... Money does not have significant *intrinsic* value. Money has value because of what you can get in exchange for it. This means that "beating the market" has a plethora of potential meanings. There's "beating the market" by providing value despite market details -- and markets depends on people who do this for its viability. But there's also "beating the market" by collecting money without providing anything of value. There are people who do this, but they create massive problems for other people and so there's a variety of mechanisms deployed to deal with those problems and those people. But, also, there's "beating the market" by providing value *and* collecting money. This takes tremendous drive, and discipline and organization - providing huge amounts of value to large numbers of people is not something you can do alone. And there's plenty of examples of these kinds of people and these kinds of organizations. Thanks, -- Raul ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
