>he invests based on a stock's income and balance sheet

File: 1455981751746.gif (127KB, 468x475px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 468x475px

>>1119516
>he invests in indexes

>Doing masters in finance after studying Ba(hons) in eco at Melb uni
>9am lecture ...CAPM...THERE IS NO WAY TO BEAT DA MARKET....TAKE THE INDEX
>11am lecture....WARREN BUFFET IS GOD LEARN HIS TACTICS, BOOK TO MARKET RATIOS, VALUE STOCKS...ect ect ect.

Finance is fucked. i am envious of the arts students.

>>1119551
>11am lecture....WARREN BUFFET IS GOD LEARN HIS TACTICS, BOOK TO MARKET RATIOS, VALUE STOCKS...ect ect ect.
Wow, they don't teach you survivorship bias, confirmation bias or selection bias at your university?

>>1119551
investing in an index is good for personal finance
tactics and ratios are good for creating your own ETF

>>1119568
psychology is still seen as a meme science in economics because it implies people are irrational
>implying the efficient markets hypothesis is wrong
>implying Nobel Prize economists are incompetent
>implying the whole foundations of finance and economics are flawed

>>1119579
>implying george soros didnt make a shitload of money

>>1119579
>>implying the efficient markets hypothesis is wrong
But wouldn't the efficient market hypothesis make investing in general equivalent to gambling, indexing, value investing, daytrading, swing trading; all of it would equally be gambling.

>>1119589
>>1119602

You misunderstood me you plebs. I'm saying that irrational psychology of humans pretty much disproves the efficient markets hypothesis and that Nobel Prize economists are just paid shills to keep their comfy tenure positions

File: 1395460452006.jpg (98KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 300x300px

>>1119610
>irrational psychology of humans pretty much disproves the efficient markets hypothesis

let the academics do their thing we're not trying to disprove their theories. gambling is bad, hmkhay? but clearly professional gamblers do exist and they make a living doing it for many years before they have to suck dicks for money. many years OP

>>1119589
>bet that the dice will fall on 6
>everyone else thinks its gonna be 1-5
>it acctually falls on 6
>every one is forced to learn my genius betting tactics

>>1119602
>all of it would equally be gambling.
not if the economy continues to grow at a good pace it wouldnt.

>>1119658
>>1119661
Professional gamblers avoid that kind of crap.

>>1119610
Why are you so angry? We get it .. you like indexes and think people unfairly shill against them. Ok, fine. Point taken.

You don't have to bully others.

>>1119661
>not if the economy continues to grow at a good pace it wouldnt.
If markets were efficient it would already be priced in

>>1119610
Find me a person who exercises options out of the money. Not perfectly rational is not the same as completely random

>>1119602
Gambling is a zero sum game, investment isn't.

>>1121122
Yes it is. Every dollar and share can only be held by one person and they get moved around. It's a zero sum as it gets.

>>1121168
>Yes it is. Every dollar and share can only be held by one person and they get moved around. It's a zero sum as it gets.
Stock I own announces good results. Price goes up by $1. I am $1 more wealthy. No one is $1 poorer.

>>1121202
It's totally a zero sum game since at no point does any more money or stock get created during a trade. The only part that isn't zero sum is when new shares or dollars are minted.

>>1121217
What is productivity.

>>1121250
Trading shares doesn't produce anything of value though

>>1121261
But the money traded represents access to goods and services which productivity increases.

So while interest rates help push growth, innovation (fuck turnbull you've ruined this word for me) increases the value of currency.

>>1121266
Buying shares from another investor (the majority of trades are like this) does nothing to increase the company's productivity. Trading shares is zero sum.

>>1121261

Except to people who pay less for something because of it.

>>1121217
>changing the definition
You'll go far.

>>1121269

It increases the traders productivity.

>>1121284
Isn't the definition of a zero sum game one where there are winners and losers and money in = money out?
And in the stock market for you to take money out you have to have someone putting it in. Seems a fairly straight forward zero sum game to me. Like poker I guess.

>>1121290
see >>1121202 and get some reading comprehension

>>1121293
The definition of a zero sum game has nothing to do with individual participants' wealth, but the amount of money involved. Since nowhere in the stock trading process are dollars created, that means by definition money is just moving around and that means by definition it is zero sum.

>>1121294
>The definition of a zero sum game has nothing to do with individual participants' wealth
Oh really? Kek.

Zero sum game has nothing to do with money. Great argument anon.

>>1121295
Yes really. In poker some players leave the table with more money (wealth), others with less, but it's zero sum
The defining characteristic of zero sum is that no more money can come out than goes in. The stock market is precisely this.

>>1121300
Great ... a moron who uses his own faulty example to convince himself that he's right, instead of responding to the example that proves he's an autistic retard.

Enjoy poverty faggot.

>>1121300
But, more money gets poured into stocks sometimes, like from cash reserves. Some people hold more cash.

I get your argument, but it's not. If stocks are good people hold less cash. If they are bad people pull out cash.

>>1121346
>But, more money gets poured into stocks sometimes, like from cash reserves. Some people hold more cash.
Yeah but for every dollar anyone withdraws from the stockmarket someone else had to put in that one dollar. It's not a magic machine that just prints dollars into existence.

>>1121359
but if heaps put money in then there is more money in the market. of course people exchange money, but there are points where people are giving more money for the same product than other people.

a) If you pay $1, stock goes to $10, I take $10 from my savings and give you $10 for it, there is no $9 extra dollars in the market.

b) you pay $1, I take .50c from my savings and buy from you. there is now .50c less in the market.

The entire economy may be zero sum if you ignore productivity changes, the equity market is not zero sum.

>Printing machine
Does this even relate to anything?

>>1121362
Yeah yeah righteo.

I love economists btw:
>all trade is by definition positive sum, because when two parties agree to an exchange each party must consider the goods it is receiving to be more valuable than the goods it is delivering. In fact, all economic exchanges must benefit both parties to the point that each party can overcome its transaction costs, or the transaction would simply not take place.
>all trading is net positive for every party else it wouldn't happen
>nobody ever makes silly trades
Kek. Yeah by these standards I guess the stock market isn't zero sum at all!

>>1121376
I agree. But regardless its still not zero sum.

The market doesn't operate in a vacuum. If it did I would shoot a load every time I made a trade.