We're pleased to announce an update is coming to the community boards.
Sunday, September 25th: We are migrating the boards to a new platform. The site is currently in read-only mode and we will bring it back online as soon as the migration is complete.
Actually, we were talking about this yesterday and someone said that while you can find "cheap stocks" anywhere you'll only find "inefficiently-priced stocks" in places where it's hard to look. Obviously, that latter group is what generates the largest returns.Although I understand very well what you're getting at, let me throw in some devil's argument. If what you're saying is the case, then the market where all information is at everyone's fingertips should be efficient. Like the U.S. market. Ergo the U.S. market adheres to EMT.No?Let me throw out a completely different analogy. In games the better player generally wins. If it's a game of complete information, like chess, then the better player always wins when the difference in level is beyond a certain threshold. (And that difference is not so big on the absolute scale.) But with games of incomplete information like backgammon or poker, a very poor player stands a very reasonable chance to win every now and then against any player, no matter the difference in level.If you consider yourself an above average expert, which type of game would you rather play? And another trick question: which game (not sport) makes the most money for the best players?Mark
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |