no, this argument is weak. all kinds of implicit assumptions about markets and valuations. markets can be massively innefficient when dimensionalized by (for example) any other variable than information. eg. volatility. but vol has massive market value itself (see: black scholes). subject to massive externality (see: political economy). Regardless, asset bubbles are economically and politically problematic.
It sounds like you just pulled a couple terms out of your behavioral finance textbook and decided to call it a day before substantiating any of your claims.
Well, you wouldn't seem to be able to get through the first point. Which is an analytic critique of emh, not a behavioral one. So you either don't understand this or are mixing your metaphors. Also you argue: I don't understand X, therefore...PQR follows. Which is not solid ground, generally, to make sweeping statements.
Comments
no, this argument is weak. all kinds of implicit assumptions about markets and valuations. markets can be massively innefficient when dimensionalized by (for example) any other variable than information. eg. volatility. but vol has massive market value itself (see: black scholes). subject to massive externality (see: political economy). Regardless, asset bubbles are economically and politically problematic.
It sounds like you just pulled a couple terms out of your behavioral finance textbook and decided to call it a day before substantiating any of your claims.
not quite.
Which part?
Well, you wouldn't seem to be able to get through the first point. Which is an analytic critique of emh, not a behavioral one. So you either don't understand this or are mixing your metaphors. Also you argue: I don't understand X, therefore...PQR follows. Which is not solid ground, generally, to make sweeping statements.