Talk:Adaptive market hypothesis

Comment
''(Forgive me, dear friends if I'm not posting this comment properly. I'm new at this.) I'm not clear on the article's use of the example of several species contending in a market of abundance, such as Italian Renaissance oil paintings. Such paintings seem rather rare to me. Perhaps lumber or crushed rock or waxed paper would better exemplify abundance. But do the oil paintings show something I'm missing that lumber, rock and paper don't show? But also, how does this second example show that the number of species affects the efficiency of the market? Can a person with good understanding of AMH provide improved or additional examples? Thank you. Thessal (talk) 04:04, 10 January 2023 (UTC)


 * It is not advertising at all, it is a real theory proposed bo an author called Lo that is intended to be a modification of a well known old finance theory called the efficienct market hypothesis proposed in the 70´s by Profesor Euguen Fama and criticized by Behavioral Finance. Maybe the text needs to be modified a bit to make it more professional but the citation is alright.


 * Thanks a lot :)
 * Magda


 * Yeah, actually, Lo's theory is really more of a challenge to the efficient market hypothesis than a modification to it. Hopefully in the future his theory will get into mainstream academic discussion and more people will pick up on it.  Clinevol98 (talk) 02:12, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

RFD and Tag
I am removing this tag. The paper is referred to in the press multiple times, as well as in this paper, which finds evidence for it in FX, and against EMH: http://ideas.repec.org/p/fip/fedlwp/2006-046.html. Additional references include: http://www.castrader.com/2006/10/adaptive_market.html, http://www.cxoadvisory.com/blog/external/blog5-26-05/, http://econophysics.blogspot.com/2006/08/evolutionary-economics-adaptive-market.html, http://www.investmentnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050207/SUB/502070709/1008/TOCm, http://www.advisorperspectives.com/pdfs/Elusiveness-of-Investment-Skill.pdfSposer (talk) 19:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Further to the wp:rs claim, it is a scholarly article published in a highly respected peer-reviewed journal. That is an allowable source. Sposer (talk) 19:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I'm having trouble understanding your point. I don't know what you mean by "which fines evidence for it in FX", I don't know what the reference to "RFD" in the section header refers to, and the second of your links doesn't seem to work and appears to be a blog anyway. My point about the original article is that that article was written by the person who invented this term. It may well be considered a reliable source for purposes of verification, but it is probably not an acceptable source to establish notability. Beeblbrox (talk) 20:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Corrected typo. The FX paper finds evidence for Lo's paper. And, why would you think the article was written by one of the authors? I know I have made small edits to it. And, again, even if the term was coined by Lo, the paper meets wp:rs as per the rules there. The additional peer-reviewed paper referring to adaptive market hypothesis adds to the evidence. There were blog pieces referring to it, but there are also multiple articles, which I left out, but will add if you like. Regardless, the paper, investmentnews, advisorperspectives pieces are more than enough to allow the article to stay and not be deleted. As for RFD, that is request for deletion I thought, and the article should not be deleted. Sposer (talk) 21:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

To the extent that it matters I found the article useful and was glad to find it on Wikipedia.steven (talk) 19:44, 26 July 2010 (UTC)