Markets are neither 'perfect' nor 'efficient' - The Daily Reckoning
The Daily Reckoning by Bill Bonner
On This Day - 11 September 2014
PRINTER FRIENDLY | ARCHIVES
Markets are neither 'perfect' nor 'efficient' A  A  A

Ouzilly, France

Dear Diary,

Still nothing to write home about on Wall Street. No big sell-off. No big boom. It's late summer. Stocks are high and the mommas are good lookin'

When we left off our series yesterday, we had run through the basics of the Efficient Market Hypothesis...and the reasons it is not correct...and how you can benefit from other investors' mistakes.

In a nutshell, just do the math. When a stock is worth more than the market price, sell. When it is worth less, buy. When it is in between, just sit tight. There, what could be simpler?

How do figure out how much a stock is really worth? Read Ben Graham's classic, "Security Analysis." Everything you need to know is there.

No time for security analysis? Well, our STS (Simplified Timing System) is about as simple as it gets. Buy when the Dow is under 10 times earnings. Sell when it gets over 20. Otherwise, do nothing. That's the hard part.

Your editor likes STS because he doesn't have the temperament for detailed stock research.

Will it work for you? Hey, no one knows. All we know is that it has in the past. Following the STS over the last 114 years would have allowed you to participate in the big run-ups in the '20s...the '60s...and the '80s/'90s. Each time, your friends would have told you that you "sold out too soon." But you would have missed the big drawdowns of the '30s...the '70s...and the early '00s too.

--- Advertisement ---
The Investing Secret That Could Make You Really Rich!

Most investors always eye big companies.

But that's probably because they are unaware of a handful of unknown companies which have already given returns like 105% in about a year, 139% in just seven months, and many more.

And the fact of the matter is that these unknown companies have the potential to give even higher returns over a period of time.

Of course, you need someone to pick the right unknown companies from the lot.

And that's what I'm writing to you about now. Just click here for full details...
---------------------------

Of course, this time could be different! Maybe the STS approach won't work anymore. Remember, you can never prove a hypothesis; you can only disprove it. And maybe you don't want to wait 5...10...or 20 years for the P/E ratio to fall under 10 so you can get into the stock market, anyway. Everything has a price. And the price you pay for the safety and performance of STS is time.

But today, we want to take up the subject from a slightly different direction. We want to explain a hypothesis of our own view.

First, as you could see from our discussion of EMH and its critics, the matter was far from decided. On the one hand, EMH says investors are rational, profit seeking people who will use all the known facts and opinions to set the right prices. The other says they will consistently err. But the other side also says that while some investors are smart enough to take advantage of other investors' errors, they are not smart enough to eliminate them. There's the rub. Why not?

Both sides believe that stocks have a 'correct' price. EMH advocates believe the correct price is set by the market. EMH critics believe the market frequently errs, and that its mistakes are observable, calculable and correctable (or arbitrageable). The critics do not explain how come - assuming you can see them and bet against them - the 'innovations' persist. Seeing a stock underpriced by the mob should bring forth buying on the part of the smart money, thus bringing the price immediately back into line with expected earnings. Porter attempted to explain this inconsistency by saying errors persisted only in 'inefficient' markets and so forth. But if there were money to be made, you'd think an ignored market would attract interest and become much more efficient, fast. He also said that 'conflicts of interest' prevented the big players from betting against certain anomalies. But that assumes all the big players are on the same team. They are not. Our experience of Wall Street tells us that the big firms are very cannibalistic. Given a choice, they would prefer to feast on the carcass of one of their own species than on the flesh of small investors.

It is more likely that the 'errors' persist, because they are not as visible and redressable as the critics maintain. They are errors of judgment - and thus subject to a substantial amount of error themselves - not errors of calculation.

In short, our hypothesis is this:

    Both EMH and its critics are wrong. Markets are neither 'perfect' nor 'efficient.' But neither are they mistaken, in the sense that errors are obvious and calculable. The smart money is not just observing and correcting mistakes; it is also making its own guesses....and, often, its own mistakes. Often, the smart money succeeds. Sometimes it does not.

Our hypothesis comes from the recognition of the asymmetry of knowledge. We can never know what a stock is worth. All we can do is guess. It stands to reason, that people who do their homework take better guesses.

But there are no 'correct' answers. The market discovers new prices every second...based on all the inputs to which humankind is receptive. Those include a rational calculation of the present value of a stock's expected future earnings, discounted for risk. Also included are opinions, guesses, rumors, myths, and all manner of prejudicial half-truths - some firmly founded on logical thought and observation, others more delusional and whimsical.

There are no 'innovations.' Because there is no correct answer to innovate against.

The market merely aggregates opinions - right, wrong, stupid, baffling - and discovers a consensus. Usually, those who do the hard work of valuing an income stream make better predictions about tomorrow's consensus prices. But not always.

In our view, a market - and life itself - is only somewhat subject to rational calculation. Sometimes, doing the numbers works. Sometimes, yesterday's numbers give no hint of things that will happen tomorrow.

There's more to the story...something else going on. Something that often defies your logic...and throws your hard work in your face. Just what kind of thing are we dealing with? You'll find out tomorrow, when this series concludes.

Bill Bonner is the President & Founder of Agora Inc, an international publisher of financial and special interest books and newsletters.

Disclaimer:
The views mentioned above are of the author only. Data and charts, if used, in the article have been sourced from available information and have not been authenticated by any statutory authority. The author and Equitymaster do not claim it to be accurate nor accept any responsibility for the same. The views constitute only the opinions and do not constitute any guidelines or recommendation on any course of action to be followed by the reader. Please read the detailed Terms of Use of the web site.

Get The Daily Reckoning directly
in your mail box.
Just enter your e-mail address » 

Read our Privacy Policy and Terms Of Use.

Equitymaster requests your view! Post a comment on "Markets are neither 'perfect' nor 'efficient'". Click here!

  

Recent Articles:
A Darkness Is Spreading Across the US
August 22, 2017
Today, we are attacked by one preposterous thing after another, each of them even more absurd than the last.
Dear PM Modi, India is Already Land of Self-Employed, and It Ain't Working
August 21, 2017
Most Indians who cannot find jobs, look at becoming self-employed.
Trump Takes a Beating
August 18, 2017
Donald J Trump, a wrasslin' fan, took a 'Holy Sh*t!' blow on Tuesday.
Which Gods Will Bring Down the US Empire?
August 17, 2017
Mr Trump is in the White House and the gods are in their heavens; what's not to like?