wc himself seems to spend a lot of effort looking at the fundamentals and investing according to his best assessment of the "available information", which means he doesn't really believe all information has been discounted, or the two-fund theorem. "It's the statue, man, The Statue."
And even if everyone had the same info, they don't all draw the same conclusions. "everyone knew" that the dollar/euro at $1.35 was just a stopping point on the way to the gutter. Then it traded back in for 2 years.
And also, not everyone is a "guy with reputation". Which is only more to support my claim that the market is not as simple as the guys in mathematical finance need to believe it is so their models are even tractable with a supercomputer. "It's the statue, man, The Statue."
wc himself seems to spend a lot of effort looking at the fundamentals and investing according to his best assessment of the "available information", which means he doesn't really believe all information has been discounted, or the two-fund theorem.
so I look for segments where I think the market has not yet discounted available information, or maybe said another way where the markets for some reason are not closely followed and the random walk theory won't apply, and try to make a little extra money there. (that and the private investments are areas where insight and hard work can give me an edge).
but on calling the big companies, or the overall market trends, I find that I probably lose as much as I win--ie, a random walk. so why not just take the index funds in those areas?