Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : The Art of Investing -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sun Tzu who wrote (1605)	3/23/2021 10:01:18 PM
From: sense	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10599

No, that's just a fallacy entrained in the logic of the article... which it presents with a single anecdotal instance... sufficiently turning the logic of the "study" on its head to make it worth ignoring. Not news that in every market cycle someone makes a wrong call... or makes an early call... which doesn't make them wrong... rather than early in relation to optimally timed CHOICES... When someone says... "this is a bubble"... you should check to see if you agree... and then trade it like it is a bubble if that's what it is... without ever surrendering YOUR choices to some others control ? The author had no reason I see to accept an "early call" as evidence of anything in context of the paper as written ? It contributes nothing but makes an unforced error in a tangent. If you want to do a study of people who recognized reality early... and then made bad trading decisions... fine... that would be worth doing... Otherwise, you should start any study intending to learn about "identifying bubbles"... by looking at the choices made and the reasons for those choices made by people who made more correct decisions... than people who made more vocal decisions ? A survey of the things considered by people who got it right... would do more to illuminate the subject than wasting time validating the existence of bubbles... because some moron publishes a paper claiming they don't exist... which, in itself, is a "paralysis of analysis" issue in not seeing forests for the trees... Identifying others having that problem... not a reason I'd choose to spend too much time joining them in debate... when the time could be used far more profitably elsewhere... And, then... take a risk... and do something original ?