To: SwampDogg who wrote (44040 ) 10/27/1999 2:53:00 PM From: ahhaha Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 116762
Who was that author? Probably one of my flunkies at the university. That isn't an adequate definition. A stock's price reflects the changing information about a company. Changing information can't be instantaneously available or instantaneously reflected, but stock pricing takes place over instants. The handbook's brevity compromises its utility. Such definitions are used by amateurs when they try to ridicule a truth which interferes with their greed. In any case there's no connection between that primitive definition and the unicorn or should I say, the oxymoronic, selective disclosure. Academia is filled with narrow mindedness no doubt, but I'll take the narrow to what the public does to what they teach any day. Markets aren't perfectly efficient, but that doesn't mean that you can take advantage of the inefficiencies. Selective disclosure is the view that some privileged ones can take advantage. Aside from being illegal you'll find that the expected return on operating with such information is negative. This is a truth that you won't accept. The only way that you would accept it is to be on the inside where over time you find you end up with less. It seems paradoxical, but it is true. You won't hear anyone admit it because they simply refuse to believe that with an obvious advantage they are still losing. To win you have to make good judgements, take risk, hold, be at the mercy of every evil, and be lucky. The only ones that can do all of that are people who buy stocks and don't pay attention to price or news of any kind. They are too naive to shoot themselves in the foot.