A guest on yesterday’s edition of WBBM’S Noon Business Hour (“NBH,” a program I HIGHLY recommend…noon to 1 PM Chicago time on AM 780) was asked to opine on the
reasons for the market’s mild doldrums of late.
Since I was cutting the lawn at the time, I didn’t catch the guest’s
name and am unable to quote his exact response.
But, paraphrasing, he offered that the market was due for at least a
mild downturn or breather after reaching record highs.
This explanation seems reasonable and is certainly as good
as any other offered by the “experts” in the field of market prognostication.
Those of us who believe, with more than the usual degree of conviction,
in the efficiency of markets,
however, believe not only in the inability of anyone to consistently call the
direction of markets. We also believe
that it is nearly impossible for anyone to explain why the market has done what
it has done; who knows what future events the markets were or is discounting
with their usual remarkable efficiency? People generally stink at prospectively
calling the markets; they also generally stink at even retroactively calling
the markets. Such musings as offered
by the NBH’s guest, and the guests
on every markets oriented show, may be interesting and fun but they are,
ultimately, quite useless. See 8/29/14 ’s BULLS, BEARS, AND BRAINS: THE RELENTLESS PURSUIT OF THE FOOL’S ERRAND OF CALLING THE MARKETS for further illumination on this topic.
Given our fervent belief in the efficiency of markets, those who think like yours truly might
respond to a question regarding why the market did what it did with a wise guy
answer like
“The market was down
because there were more sellers than buyers,”
which is about as illuminating as
“The bond market went
down because interest rates went up,”
but is nevertheless at least as insightful as anything
anybody else might pull out of a conveniently situated orifice.
But even the glib and wisenheimer answer
“The market was down
because there were more sellers than buyers”
is wrong because there cannot be more sellers than buyers;
clearly, even in this age of such financial sophistication as naked shorts (which, for those of you
not as familiar with the markets as other readers, are not as interesting as
they sound), for every seller, there must be a buyer. A better, but no less smart-butted answer,
would be
“The market was down
because there were more sellers than buyers AT THE PRICES THAT PREVAILED BEFORE
THE MARKET FELL.”
Right again, Mr. Quinn.
Thank you.
No comments:
Post a Comment