Timeline for Does the existence of anomalies disprove the efficient markets hypotheses?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
12 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 31, 2017 at 14:20 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackQuant/status/892027140559994881 | ||
| Jul 8, 2017 at 7:39 | vote | accept | An old man in the sea. | ||
| Jul 8, 2017 at 0:52 | answer | added | npsom | timeline score: 0 | |
| Jul 6, 2017 at 19:35 | comment | added | fni | Market efficiency cannot be disproven, as showed below by @MatthewGunn. On the other hand, Market inefficiency CAN be disproven: it is enough to find the "right" model for excess returns. Hence, until we find the right model we should accept inefficiency...At least if we believe in Popperian Science | |
| Jul 6, 2017 at 19:02 | answer | added | Eliotb | timeline score: 0 | |
| Jul 6, 2017 at 18:35 | answer | added | Matthew Gunn | timeline score: 10 | |
| Jul 6, 2017 at 16:49 | answer | added | Dave Harris | timeline score: 2 | |
| Jul 6, 2017 at 9:50 | review | Close votes | |||
| Jul 11, 2017 at 18:31 | |||||
| Jul 6, 2017 at 9:24 | comment | added | Alex C | Famous Chicago saying "it takes a theory to beat a theory" (not just a bunch of anomalies). | |
| Jul 6, 2017 at 9:24 | comment | added | An old man in the sea. | @AlexC I'm not sure the nobel prize award can be used as a criteria, substituting academic research... thanks for your comment anyway ;) | |
| Jul 6, 2017 at 9:16 | comment | added | Alex C | The award of the Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences to Robert Shiller confirms that the EMH has been rejected. However the fact that Eugene Fama also got the prize shows that the Swedish Academy cannot make up its mind on this issue. | |
| Jul 6, 2017 at 9:07 | history | asked | An old man in the sea. | CC BY-SA 3.0 |