efficient market hypothesis is really true? - page 2
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
if a person believes EMH is true, then he should only buy indexes because there is no edge over the market, as the price is already and always correct, it's impossible to find
inefficiencies, so if its proven true, then really everyone here is wasting time, what i'm looking for is a person who believes EMH is wrong, and explain to me why he thinks that
Why do you look for that person?
As you say, if EMH is right, you can not forecast the market, and if someone thinks it's wrong, you will still not be able to forecast the market (because it can't be done, no matter what you think about EMH).
And, you don't need to be a super finance man to understand the simple truth that the price in the market reflects EVERYTHING that EVERYBODY knows about this market. It as simple as A-B-C, sometimes nobel prizes are given just because.. (Like obama got the peace nobel prize, even before he made the 500000 cassualties war in syria). So, don't be mislead by big words, like EMH.
And, still, you don't need to forecast the market in order to make money (in that, I mean you don't need a formula that is always correct in forecasting) - you just need a set of tools that together give you a slight edge above 50%. Those can include risk management, trend identification (after they have started mainly, which involves no forecasting, just identifying - hey, that seems like a trend emerging..). And, then applying risks control. Nothing is sure, and because it is a zero sum game (less then zero because of broker and commisions) then, surely, many will lose. It is like a game, a big poker game, and those that manage the risks the best, are the ones on top. All others below the balance point, will lose. So, care how to be on top, how to play better then others. It is not finance, it's just a game, a market place. It's like the free chair game that kids play. There are less chairs then kids, so instead of thinking about EMH - go grab a chair.
Take for instance a long term trend - like the decline in GBPJPY from 192 to 120. it took maybe 2 months that journey. It was clearly a trend, and you can say that the balance point shifted from 192 to 120 each day a little, but more resonable is that the balance point changed to 120 already at the beginning of the trend, because it did not stop only at 120. It takes time to change the balance point to 120. So it's not exactly correct to say that every second is balanced, because balance shifting takes time. And still, you can not be sure that this is a balance shift (until it reaches it's target). In that time, 2 months, sometimes more, this is where the money can be made. It won't be made by sitting and thinking about EMH though.
See, it's not that complicated. Too much talking is wasting time, even though I wrote a lot (: Mostly it's for you, because you seem to not grasp the point.
great words man, you seem to explain very well this issue with nobel prize thing and yet how its not useful, thanks