|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
The honorable judge may have missed some of the latest in academia.
Robert A. Haugen wrote a book on this stuff titled: "The New Finance; The Case
Against Efficient Markets." , Prentice Hall 1995.
It is required reading for the Chartered Financial Analysts Exam.
Robert Haugen is Professor of Finance at The University of California, Irvine.
His unimpeachable credentials have made several in academia finally begin to pay
attention.
I think anyone who hasn't looked at the whole theory of Efficient markets
including necessary yet farcical assumptions (Assume that "somehow the prices of
ALL [securities] reflected everything that was knowable and relevant about them"
etc.) has not earned the right to use it in judgement of others actions.
I am in no way defending RW. They are guilty of something in my opinion. They
lied and they misrepresented. But the judge should have known better. He might
have given ammunition for a good appeal.
Richard Garvis
Manning Stoller wrote:
> Hi Andy,
> I know it's just a theory but there are many economists, academics etc. who
> hang their hat on this theory. I certainly don't agree with it and frankly, I
> thought this was debunked years ago but Judge Levine's statement is all the
> more ludicrous. Lets see, does that mean that anyone who gives a technical
> opinion is a fraud? The only exception is given to newspapers - they can talk
> about it.
>
> Andy wrote:
>
> > Subject: Re: CFTC decision on technical analysis
> >
> > >There are some prestigious academics who do acknowledge the importance of
> > >technical analysis. I'm thinking in particular of MIT's prestigious Dr.
> > >Andrew Lo.
> >
> > <Snip>
> >
> > Wasn't there an article in Futures Magazine in either 1996 or 1997 that
> > stated that 2 economists from either the Fedreal Reserve or the Treasury
> > Dept. found that there was some validity to the "Head and Shoulders"
> > pattern's preditive powers about 60% of the time? If is so, that technical
> > analysis works. Logically, then that the efficient market THEORY (sorry for
> > the big caps but I want to state that it is just a theory, not a rule or a
> > law) and the random walk theory has been debunked?
--
********************************************************
Look at yourself! How much more apparent does it have to become until you
finally begin to accept it!
|