In flat markets you can make a killing selling options. In fact, with options, you can make money no matter what the market is doing.
Any more of an in-depth explanation on offer? Size & information move markets, this has been in the pipeline for some time, its just the future. On the shortest of time frames they will beat you, they always have, I cant see this as a market killer however.
Tip: Don't take everything that is said on ET too seriously. Lots of people make lots of predictions and 70%+ of those predictions are wrong
Since in my experience only 3% of those predictions on ET are right, where have the missing 27%- gone to. Why it's the dark matter of the ET universe!!!
Lets say you have capital. Lets say you recognize the commodity value of capital. Lets say you decide to invest time in making use of the capital as a commodity for making money with money. Now, feed into your plan the value of doing financial searches. The value of a search is how effectively and efficiently the answer enables you to make money with money. As the inventor says he is not going to do the above because it has been done 8 times before. He does not want to do what has already been done before. (See end of article for this self appraisal of doing searches for maiking money). Now the main event for corniness. The effectiveness (K1) and eficiency (k2) are all dependent upon the query. There is a CW rule that states: garbage in =(k1 +k2)(garbage out). The inventor believes he has worked on K1 and K2. The user will subscribe if and when he thinks he is not using garbage, all under this user's control. The inventor is corny to think he can provide a tool that has no "clearance capability" regarding NOT feeding garbage into the tool. Part of my turf is creating tools to service problem areas. In medicine ,there is a process doctors use to treat dying people. The process has 100% mortality results. They treat localities in the body. Usually several. Their prescriptions, initially, are incoherent. So to use the tool we created for them we insisted that they not fuck up the prescriptions. We analyzied their prescriptions and returned a list of mistakes they made. then we recommended the corrections necessary to actually apply the tool to the problem. Seimens did not like our solution. It was very useful and was supperior to their approach which lacked our front end. Seimens reached the obvious solution after we did demo's coast to coast in the US. They bought us out for a tidy sum. (notice that we did not make public how to detect the errors being made; but the errors became very obvious when they were pointed out.)9 To solve a problem that has a bad outcome, you need to create a complete system to provide the solution. This corny article has an author who is thinking on the same plane as all participants in the financial industry: "Finance for Dummys" is the writer's level of discourse with the inventor, his editor and whoever cuts his checks. The financial industry, so far, is just working on the "garbage" level. This is unknown to most. For anyone's reading pleasure (by rational authors), consider The Ecomomist article on page 19 of the 03MAY14 issue and the Bloomberg/ BW article on page 60 of the 12May14 to 18May14 issue. The former explains the global garbage level and the latter focuses on a discriminating technique for really extracting capital from existing market offers. ET is plagued with this type thread. As you see many found the topic article interesting. Certainly you are not going to ask such people to BS you on what they found interesting. Please go to your library and dig out copies of these issues I mentioned and spend the time reading some statistically significant stuff. I can't imagine how Harvard and Tech allow their products (students) to be so mundane to waste their time on seeking subscribers for their outputs. Maybe Warren should process your question so its inventors can go back to the drafting board. Forbes needs a new editor in the least. As you can see today is my day off.
It's not even a question of emotion, if markets become flat for an extended period of time, nobody will trade them anymore and liquidity will dry up to almost zero. And then who will take the other side of the trade? Think about it for a second. Bottom line: it's not in their interest to render the market flat, assuming they have the power to do so.
Yes! Emotion and human intervention. An example is the Ed Seykota interview in Market Wizards. Management turned what would have been a +60% year into a losing year through meddling (they knew better than the system)!