philosophical questioneveryone knows that in reality the stock market is completely random, only midwits think that with enough "research" you can predict itoften I hear people say that you can predict the immediate or close future by simply studying history, but lately I've been struck with this idea that much like the stock market, history is actually completely random.what do you guys think about this?
>>18527093>everyone knows that in reality the stock market is completely random, only midwits think that with enough "research" you can predict itRetroactively refuted by Jim Simons.
>>18527094never been proven wrong, not even in 2000+20+5+1
>>18527093No it's predictably.The stock market is also predictable.
>>18527096Jim Simons literally solved financial quantitative analysis and made algorithms that basically printed money by reading the market, try again.
>>18527140yeah and sam altman has made a sentient AI that is capable of qualia and other retarded bullshit only believed by midwits
>>18527146Sam Altman can't prove that his AI has sentience, whereas Jim Simons made tens of billions to prove it. If his algorithms weren't good at predicting the market, Renaissance wouldn't have consistently outperformed index funds.
>>18527149sure by all means go buy simons' course on how to get rich by mathematically playing the stock marketif such thing existed, you wouldn't see billionaires having to resort to insider trading to earn money
>>18527156>simons' course on how to get rich by mathematically playing the stock marketNever existed literally just fucking google it. He hired a crack team of mathematicians and assorted PhDs, worked tirelessly on developing a system that was right more than 50% of the time, closed the fund and they all banked tens of billions without letting anyone else in. The money simply exists and you can't ignore it, you can go and fact check the entire trajectory of their public trading history yourself.
>>18527160if such a system existed, it would be the HOLY GRAIL of investinga 15% CAGR is already insane, this guy had a 66% CAGRthat beats every known strategy in the universe, including government corruption and insider tradingif such a thing existed, you'd see much more people pursuing itsorry but it just sounds like bullshit
>>18527093>completely random, only midwits think that with enough "research" you can predict itJust follow Trump's twitter. You can "predict" it pretty easily nowadays.
>>18527093As usual, the challenge is not in knowing the particulars and not in knowing the generals, but in knowing all the stuff in between.On a long enough timeline you can predict that SPX will beat inflation and on a small enough level of detail you can predict that a share price spike driven by recycled news about the company will be shorter than usual. To generalize, you can predict the overall most general trends or some of the hyper-specific short term cases. Everything in between is close to a gamble. And this is a very good analogy to history. Do I know which laws will be passed in a couple weeks? Kinda. Do I know what the next year will bring? No. Do I know there will be another world war at some point? Kinda.
>>18527179trust bro 2 more weeks until orange baboon causes ww3
history is predictable in theory, but it has so many variables and potential random events ocurring simultaneously that it is just not worth the effort.>>18527156>sure by all means go buy simons' coursethe whole point of quantitative analysis is finding deficiencies in the stock market before anyone else, if everyone uses the same strategy it'll no longer be profitable. before dying, benjamin graham said that his investment advice was completely useless besides the basic stuff because everyone copied it.
>>18527168>if such a system existedIt exists. Fucking explain how the money is verifiably there instead of going into denial.>you'd see much more people pursuing itYes, many other hedge funds also exist and attempt to do exactly that, outwit the market. Which they're mostly unsuccessful at, because it's fucking hard. Simons literally needed an elite team of no-life nerds from around the globe to get his system to work.
>>18527182yes i too can predict that fusion energy will eventually be a thingwhen I talk about predicting the future I mean things that are actually actionable upon
>>18527198oh it's easyit's a combination (as usual) of1. getting extremely lucky2. insider information and corruption3. inflated numbers and accounting tricks
>>18527204>getting extremely luckyDoesn't hold up over time.>insider information and corruptionProve it in court and sue all remaining Medallion Fund beneficiaries.>inflated numbers and accounting tricksLook at their public trading record and prove that the numbers don't match.
>>18527093Have a 6,700% return on Polymarket "predicting" stuff. Beats the stock market and I'm bad at trading stocks, don't have a finance background or anything, but I do have a nerdy interest in history like a lot of pople here. I think history is pretty chaotic and a lot of it is people just doing whatever or reacting to what's going on in front of them. There are some interesting inefficiencies in pricing, like Zohran Mamdani being priced very low to win the Democratic nomination in NYC. I made a small bag on that one, but people just thought Muslim DSA guy, no chance, but there were various factors that were consolidating in his direction. Politics can sort of move around like a pendulum. Also one of my first big "wins" was predicting Mark Carney would become prime minister of Canada when his Conservative opponent was priced at 90c yes to win. I think the market sort of assumed Trump winning in the U.S. would lift Poilievre, but in fact there was a reaction in Canada where nationalist sentiment there historically expresses itself politically through the Liberal Party:https://youtu.be/jKQPw9vmG04A thing I like from dialectics is the idea that everything will turn into its opposite. Like what comes up must come down. So inefficiencies can come about because the market thinks the status quo will continue when it can't. It can continue for some time but eventually it will turn to its opposite.
>>18527216please dont tell people to gamble on polymarket
>>18527219Most people lose money on it.
>>18527093History is inherently something written about what *has* happened, so to ask if it's predictable is nonsensical as it is created by those who are reflecting on events that have already happened (or those reflecting on those who have reflected).If you're rather asking whether you can predict the future by using past history, then no that's impossible as there are too many variables.The only constant is human behaviour, which you can bank on.
