Hacker News Reader

Comment by roughly | Hacker News Reader

If anyone had any notion that the markets were efficient or rational in any way regarding the actual underlying value of the companies they purport to represent, I certainly hope that notion didn’t survive the pandemic - I’m not sure what world stocks were pricing in over the last two years, but it didn’t pass even a cursory smell test.

View on HN

It's still going on.

Nikola, a vaporware company with absolutely 0 revenues burning $600m / year, is still "worth" $3b.

HKD, a vaporware company, is being pump and dumped and is now "worth" $150b+, the size of Bank of America, despite being 50 employees with nothing of value.

https://www.reddit.com/r/wallstreetbets/comments/wegalp/hkd_...

The only way I can understand the Efficient Markets Hypothesis is as a way for academic economists to explain why they personally have not gotten rich trading stocks.

If you’re actually curious about the EMH, you should really read something deeper than non-finance people paraphrasing it poorly.

Finance people (well, the ones that actually make money trading) don't put much stock in EMH either..

I assume you mean they don’t put much stock in the strong EMH - Which is true, but the concept is the underpinning of most risk-weighted investing and some form of it (eg weak or semi-strong EMH) lines up nicely with why index funds outperform on a very broad basis.

I’m trying to think of a good analogy to CS.. maybe “Good engineers don’t put much stock in artificial intelligence”

Can you please cite some of these references?

It's a really approachable theory and contrary to what you'll read in tech message boards - doesn't remotely boil down to "the market can't be wrong". Burton Malkiel (economist most famous for writing "A Random Walk Down Wall St" and being a longtime advisor of Vanguard) has a paper talking about the early 2000's pushback.

It gives a good summation / spells out some critiques / offers his reasons for disagreeing:

https://www.princeton.edu/~ceps/workingpapers/91malkiel.pdf

Thank you very much

It's rational on the predication of completely absurd stories about growth trajectories.

It's what happens when a bunch of dumb money comes into the market

the market is the most efficient place you can put your money, and the companies that underlie the market are the greatest stores of value with the best growth opportunities we know of, and the pandemic didn't change that.

Dying to hear where else you suggest putting investments...?

If one believes the current market is bogus, then it is quite possible to move money into hard/sticky assets. Real estate is the prime example of this, as it’s in everyone’s interest that real estate not crash too hard. Similarly bonds

Big question to ask if you are betting the market is bogus is whether the market will stay bogus while your “safe” asset stays flat.

of course you have alternatives to invest in, but whether the public markets are bogus or not is not a question of your personal belief.

Yes, the market is very efficient at losing money as well by punishing foolish people that believe the market is only efficient at making money. Buy, buy, buy!

If anything, the current situation is a demonstration of the opposite. The claim that markets are efficient and rational is based on long term price finding. This includes a lot of noise. If Peleton never makes a profit, the market will eventually find the correct price.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com