Alright, so I'm doing some self-education on investing, and I've noticed in the investment books that are highly regarded there is a definite slant against anything QA.
The faults with QA are obvious... you can't predict the future of a market from the past, you can't predict what traders today will do tomorrow, you can't create a mathematical equation to predict trading behavior, etc, etc. Those things should be mostly obvious to any trader that thinks.
That being said, markets do behave in somewhat predictable ways, and the more ways you can model that data the more able to make predictions you are when balancing it with more solid company and empirical data. If this weren't true, then the phrase "buying from pessimists and selling to optimists" wouldn't make any sense. A truism like that depends on markets being somewhat predictable, in some regard, even if that regard is difficult to nail down much of the time.
So my question is, what exactly is so wrong with Quantitative Analysis when practiced as a probability matrix of potential behavior? More specifically, what do value investors have against it?
Submitted January 19, 2017 at 02:35AM by yellowdex http://ift.tt/2iUHgCJ
