Why is the normal distribution not normal? - page 43
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
Tired of you, frankly, with your codes and handbooks.>> rest.
Rest.
AlexEro wrote >>
Rest.
So many lazybones, and I'm out here working, you know.
Get some rest.
It's incurable.
I'm fed up with the fact that a basic definition of the exchange price is being covered in the most horrendous shenanigans.
If they start discussing volume (liquidity), I'll have to call the paramedics.
Because you are a nerd, while I am a practitioner and have been trading on the exchange for ten years. That's why your attempts to make some definitions, to describe what you have not seen in your eyes are funny.)
By the way, here's another definition of 'fair price' in addition to all the others. It is simply one element of a particular trader's market model. If someone does not like this model, he has every right not to use it and to use some other one.
That is all. And there's no need to fuck off and yell that "fair price" doesn't exist. If you don't agree that the price of a commodity in an efficient market should be close to the cost of its production, that's your right. You don't have to use that "phrase" at all.
But please don't spoil people's mood and don't confuse them with your aggressive and contentless criticism.
Yes, it's a shame the trolls have killed off the topic. There were some interesting thoughts.
By the way, here's another definition of "fair price" in addition to all the others. It is simply one element of a particular trader's market model. If someone does not like this model, he has every right not to use it and to use some other one.
That is all. And there's no need to fuck off and yell that "fair price" doesn't exist. If you don't agree that the price of a commodity in an efficient market should be close to the cost of its production, that's your right. You don't have to use that "phrase" at all.
But please don't spoil people's mood and don't confuse them with your aggressive and contentless criticism.
You'll excuse me too, but your position looks like the famous "there are two opinions, mine and the wrong one".
That removes the need for you to prove or explain your point of view.
I thought that in the exchange of opinions, knowledge and views, mistakes die out and that's to everyone's advantage.
I was wrong, the task of most here is simply to convert an opponent or send him away if it does not work
If you do not agree that the price of a commodity in an efficient market should be close to its cost of production, that is your right. You don't have to use that "phrase" at all.
It's not a question of whether we agree or disagree, because the market doesn't ask for our agreement when it moves prices.
Your definition of price relative to cost may still apply to some remote extent to commodity markets, although even there it is not true, because the price is much more influenced by liquidity, or even by sheer politicking (someone somewhere and completely accidentally farted into a yellow press microphone, which was subsequently taken as a signal to ... and yet, when the price had already gone, there was a denial) than by extraction or production overheads.
You'll excuse me too, but your position looks like the famous "there are two opinions, mine and the wrong one".
That removes the need for you to prove or explain your point of view.
I thought that the exchange of opinions, knowledge and views was a waste of errors to the benefit of all.
I was wrong, the purpose of most here is simply to convert your opponent or tell him to fuck off if he fails.
I don't particularly try to prove anything because I see that some participants are completely unwilling to listen to their opponent's arguments. They are also unwilling to think. Some just want to "save face". Some need to be chewed up to the last detail.
It is not a question of whether we agree or disagree, because the market does not ask for our agreement when it moves prices.
Your definition of price in relation to the cost of production may to some remote extent still apply to commodity markets, although even there it is not true, because the price is much more influenced by liquidity, or even by sheer politicking (someone somewhere and completely accidentally farted into a yellow press microphone, which was subsequently taken as a signal to ... and yet, when the price had already gone, there was a denial) than extraction or production overheads.
Why do you think bubbles burst in the financial markets? Because the price of the asset has moved too far away from "fair". (My model)
Why do you think that bubbles burst in the financial markets? Because the price of the asset is too far away from the "fair" price. (My model)
I don't care about your model, as I am more concerned about getting the price closer to my model. Because only then will the price be truly fair.