= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
AspiringRationalist comments on Stupid Questions September 2015 - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (174)
That's an interesting offhand comment. Does that imply that EMH doesn't apply to financial assets in corrupt economies, specifically to external (foreign) investors who can come and leave as they want?
Also, while China's official economic numbers are highly suspect (see e.g. this), it looks very likely that it is one of the three world's biggest economies (along with USA and EU). Can a passive investor afford to ignore it?
Well, it doesn't mitigate the risk, it just partially avoids it. You are right in that investing in foreign countries brings with it FX risk and while it's easy to hedge a lot of people are not going to bother.
Another interesting thing here is that the currency markets do not fall under EMH, both empirically (they are clearly not a random walk) and theoretically (the preconditions for EMH do not hold).
Can you please elaborate on that? Do you mean the prices themselves are not a random walk or do you mean the prices are not a random walk after adjusting for interest rate differences?
And what preconditions don't hold for currency markets?
The currency rates are not a random walk (it's easy to verify that emprirically) either before or after adjusting for the interest rate parity.
What makes currency markets different is that they have huge powerful players -- central banks -- which are not driven by the profit motive.