|
|
|
|
|
|
by barry-cotter
2674 days ago
|
|
|
The weak form of the Efficient Market Hypothesis is true but the strong form, which you’re expounding, is a crock. Warren Buffet has beaten the market for longer than I have been alive at what the stock market is optimised to do. George Soros made multiple fortunes as a trader and Julian Simons’ Renaissance hedge fund mints money and has for decades. The only one of those you can invest in is Buffett because it pleases him to run Berkshire Hathaway his way instead of maximising his personal returns like the founders of the best hedge funds. After fees the investors in them don’t beat the market but the principles make giant piles of money for long periods of time. Investing skill exists, is rare and often captures all of the gains accruing to it because wannabe investors bid for access to it and due to the winner’s curse often overpay. George Soros is like Steve Jobs. Making a giant fortune once could be luck but if you can repeat it again and again the chances it was ever luck just go down and down. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Superinvestors_of_Graham-a... > The speech and article challenged the idea that equity markets are efficient through a study of nine successful investment funds generating long-term returns above the market index. All these funds were managed by Benjamin Graham's alumni, pursuing different investment tactics but following the same "Graham-and-Doddsville" value investing strategy. All that said. The weak form of the EMH is true. You personally are very unlikely to beat the market over the long run. |
|
|