Is quantitative investing fatally flawed?
- Thread starter profette_IHB
- Start date
NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
lendingmaestro_IHB
New member
<p>I sometimes wish they would have a CNBC for Las Vegas. I'd like to watch a "power lunch" broadcast at Caesar's Palace. Bob Pisani, Dylan Ratigan and Rick Santelli would be reporting from the craps tables, black jack tables, and slot machines, instead of their usually hangouts.</p>
<p>...insert your own dialogue....</p>
<p>When it comes down to it, all the valuations for stocks based on, pe multiples, dividend payouts, etc.. are all just random measuring sticks. The market is gambling and so is investing. A great book to read is "The Psychology of Investing" by Nofsinger. </p>
<p>...insert your own dialogue....</p>
<p>When it comes down to it, all the valuations for stocks based on, pe multiples, dividend payouts, etc.. are all just random measuring sticks. The market is gambling and so is investing. A great book to read is "The Psychology of Investing" by Nofsinger. </p>
acpme_IHB
New member
daedalus brings up an interesting point. much of quantitative trading is based on the same mathematical principles as econometrics and the nature of economics as a hard science is heavily debated. there are those in the scientific community that are peeved that the nobel society even gives an award for economics. one of the fundamental issues that economists and quantitative analysts face is they can only work with the data that is available. they can't simply recreate their experiments a hundred times over in a petri dish, nor is he trying to explain fact as much as he's trying to predict the future, in the case of a quantitative trader. given constantly-changing prices, regulations, market participants, and throw in the huge element of uncertain human behavior, you have a science that is extremely fickle.