Kudos to MMs
- Thread starter nitro
- Start date
Which is harder, deciffering Linear A
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_A
Unifying the four forces of the Universe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_everything
or Computing FV of SPX?
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/reply.php?action=newreply&threadid=142338
The latter two may be _impossible_ on Godel grounds:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel's_incompleteness_theorem
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_A
Unifying the four forces of the Universe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_everything
or Computing FV of SPX?
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/reply.php?action=newreply&threadid=142338
The latter two may be _impossible_ on Godel grounds:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel's_incompleteness_theorem
What makes you think that there is actually a Fair Value for the markets??? (just because CNBC shows it in the morning doesn't make it so)
FV in plain English means: What we think where the market should be.
Well, guess what? The market can and will think otherwise. I could say FV is the SMA and sure enough, the market tends to come back to it, except when for long periods of time it trends and doesn't touch the SMA. But eventually it always does touch it, except you can go broke in the trend time.
So in short, your whole concept of the FV is flawed and specially that you can come up with a secret formula (not to mention you know it better than others) is just, well, as the story shows, ridiculous.
Don't believe me, just count which version of FV you are already at. I think it is 3.0 and you are working on 4.....
Better question : How do you model something that doesn't exist??
One could argue that the Dow should be at 8000 today as FV and anything else in the economy go, and we are still above 11K.
So make a convincing argument first that there is actually a FV, then model it second... Oh wait, screw the modeling...
FV in plain English means: What we think where the market should be.
Well, guess what? The market can and will think otherwise. I could say FV is the SMA and sure enough, the market tends to come back to it, except when for long periods of time it trends and doesn't touch the SMA. But eventually it always does touch it, except you can go broke in the trend time.
So in short, your whole concept of the FV is flawed and specially that you can come up with a secret formula (not to mention you know it better than others) is just, well, as the story shows, ridiculous.
Don't believe me, just count which version of FV you are already at. I think it is 3.0 and you are working on 4.....
Better question : How do you model something that doesn't exist??
One could argue that the Dow should be at 8000 today as FV and anything else in the economy go, and we are still above 11K.
So make a convincing argument first that there is actually a FV, then model it second... Oh wait, screw the modeling...
isn't any type of trading uses one kind or another kind of FV? let's say one is a momentum trader using 5-min bars. he holds his position ~4 hours on average. is he using FV? i would say yes, he operates under the assumption that in his time-frame FV is in the direction of the momentum.