Doesn’t extinction refute mean reversion? Has to work both ways
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @BenKizemchuk @SethLevine2
Mean reversion is the exception, Ben, not the norm. This is the point of non-ergodicity. Very, very few open ended games are mean reverting for the individual. And there are no "viewers", there are only participants.
0 replies 1 retweet 12 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @BenKizemchuk @profplum99
Me: Hey Siri, are fractals ergodic? Siri: I ordered you a case of mescal to be delivered to Home, should I place the order? Me: Sigh, yes, fine, place the order ... wait, but are they?!
1 reply 1 retweet 11 likes -
I tend toward Mike’s position here, but I’m interested. Ben, could you describe more about your stance on market ergodicity?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Agree. I'd very much like to understand this view. "Seeing fractals" does not imply ergodicity, btw. Many systems that are non-ergodic exhibit local fractals. Mandelbrot spent almost 5 years on the subject http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/84858/7/Watkins_Continuing%20relevance_2018.pdf …
2 replies 1 retweet 13 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Hopefully your love for your children won’t mean revert. You have a bad take on this, Ben
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes
Are you implying “this time is different”? ie mean reversion wont happen and the Fed has unlocked the key to never making markets reflect “old” valuations?
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.