• OsrsNeedsF2P@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    5 hours ago

    checks stock

    It’s up

    Yep, this article is obviously pushing an agenda. People who are willing to put their money on their opinion think otherwise.

    • icerunner_origin@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      5 hours ago

      I’m expecting the federal government to find an urgent need for a large number of Tesla vehicles in the near future. Bypass the consumer and send their money directly to nazi man.

    • copaceticOPM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      5 hours ago

      That means the numbers were not worse than expected. It was always priced in.

      • Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 hours ago

        “Priced in” is the proven false idea that markets are rational. Warren Buffet couldn’t have become a billionaire if “priced in” was true. Because otherwise there would never be undervalued companies to purchase.

        • copaceticOPM
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 hour ago

          The efficient market hypothesis does not claim anything about “rational”.

          • Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 hours ago

            I’ll amend my statement. If markets were actually efficient then Warren Buffet couldn’t have become a billionaire because everything would have already been “priced in”.

            • copaceticOPM
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              49 minutes ago

              This paper concludes that Buffett did essentially do factor-investing.

              I don’t really understand why the efficient market hypothesis (EMH) and factor investing don’t contradict each other but smarter people think they don’t (e.g. Fama who co-invented both). The general consensus seems to be that the weak form of EMH is correct but the semi-strong and the strong EMH probably not. However, while markets may not be perfectly efficient they can still be very close. This is why I believe that “priced in” often works in practice and is a useful concept.