Timeline for Buying shares when the price goes down 2% and selling shares when it goes up 2%
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 5, 2021 at 21:21 | history | edited | Barmar | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 553 characters in body
|
| Apr 20, 2020 at 1:35 | comment | added | toolforger | @Barmar this is different from a perpetuum mobile: after all, successful traders do have an automated trading strategy. What's missing is the explanation how the 2% strategy is worse than other, existing strategies, so this is about the relative merits of strategies, not about trying to invent a perpetuum mobile. | |
| Apr 18, 2020 at 15:13 | comment | added | Barmar | @toolforger If someone proposes a perpetual motion machine, I wouldn't need to feel the need to explain why that particular machine doesn't work. I've added another paragraph explaining why any basic strategy like this is bound to fail. | |
| Apr 18, 2020 at 15:10 | history | edited | Barmar | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 613 characters in body
|
| Apr 18, 2020 at 5:42 | comment | added | toolforger | This answer is correct but answers with an explanation about the actual problems with the strategy are better. | |
| Apr 17, 2020 at 16:33 | comment | added | Brian | Subscribers to the EMH often model the stock market as a random walk (with a slight bias upwards). With this model, investment strategies based on historical pricing data are trivially rejected, since by definition a random walk sets prices completely independent of pricing data. | |
| Apr 16, 2020 at 17:43 | comment | added | information_interchange | For more info along this line of thinking, see the Efficient markets hypothesis: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efficient-market_hypothesis | |
| Apr 16, 2020 at 14:46 | history | answered | Barmar | CC BY-SA 4.0 |