Quote:
Originally Posted by KaiserSose19
The issue I'm having is determining when this market inefficiency will be corrected because there is a cost to staying short over an extended period of time.
Someone raised the point earlier as to why one would go short when the markets appear to be manipulated in such a way as to more easily trend up. Well, in response, because theoretically earnings should matter... but if the vast majority of the market participants, including institutional and political figures, continue to drive it forward, does the correct answer to the test actually matter?
The answer to your question is that you can only guess at the probabilities of market inefficiencies. For example, valuations are obviously telling you the market is very overvalued compared to history, but there is a scenario where markets are able to continue to be driven higher by X (it doesn't really matter what). Just like poker in order to make good bets you want to bet on situations where you have a positive expectancy. Again, it's much more probable that risk reward is skewed to the downside, but there are times when that doesn't matter. (i.e. the flush gets there or the Fed can create wealth from nothing). Just make a good bet, control the risk, and right or wrong rinse and repeat.
Again, the hard part is actually figuring out where the market inefficiencies are, are not, and how to maximize profit. The things that makes markets so much more difficult than poker is that it is often very difficult to quantify or put a finger on situations where you have an edge. Hence why experience or years/ long hours of study are so important to seeing what other people cannot/ or at least doing it differently than the vast majority of people.