You say private info is insider info (used to make insider trades/illegal activities) right? If so, why would it be mentioned in an article dealing with TECHNICAL ANALYSIS, concerning past price data? It would be irrelevant. Fact is, you are confused. Or, you are obfuscating. Either way, you are incorrect.
I see your record and raise you my record: HERE IS MY RECORD SINCE AUG 2. DATE MKOP T= W/L WIN% 8-2 UP 1.5 27/3 100% 8-3 UP 1.5 38/1 100% 8-6 DWN 1.0 18/1 99% 8-7 UP 1.5 35/8 100% 8-8 DWN 1.5 47/1 99% 8-9 DWN 1.0 60/2 99% 8-10 DWN 1.0 55/1 100% 8-13 DWN 2.0 30/0 100% 8-14 UP 2.0 67/1 100% 8-15 DWN 2.0 39/1 99% 8-16 UP 2.0 75/2 100% REGARDS
Let's see, Neiderhoffer blew out twice losing all his clients money. Out of the hedge fund biz. Tudor runs Billions of dollars and has had consistent great results for a long time. Still in the biz. Who do I want to listen to?
The line in Vegas on the over/under of number of people on here who side with him is 2. The under is a lock.
Look, you can't just define words and terms to fit your predisposed notions. What do you think the financial models of a hedge fund are? They are "private information" assets. The theoretical question of interest to academic researchers is whether or not the creation of these assets actually enables one to outperform the market. If you are a strong-EMH proponent, you would say "no", regardless of whether the "private information" is some retail guy's rules for using a stochastic indicator or if they are the life's work of a University of Chicago Finance Ph.D. If the author's of the paper YOU linked meant "private information" in the sense of "insider information", why would they have mentioned that the "private information" in question consisted of a "Bayesian probability model applied to past market data"? Is a Bayesian probability model "insider information"? Do you ever hear of someone being prosecuted for having a Bayesian probability model? No, of course you don't. Do you think that maybe the authors would have used a different example if they were talking about what you insist they were talking about? Like maybe said "traders who had access to corporate insiders" or "trader who had relatives working for the company" or "female traders sleeping with one of the corporation's top managers"? It's two completely different kinds of information. That you can't understand this distinction is mind-boggling at this point. I would expect someone with an IQ of even as low as 90 to get this distinction without having to have it explained again and again. Is your IQ above 90? Just forget it, man. I can tell by the responses I'm getting that other people reading get it. That you don't is irrelevant to me at this point.
I think it's a serious thing to meet the world's densest man i.e. marketsurfer. It doesn't happen every day that someone links to a paper to attempt to prove his point and ends up doing the exact opposite, then insists he's done nothing of the sort. That kind of stupidity needs to be studied in the hopes of keeping it confined, especially since it clearly can't be reasoned with.
It's gotta be a defense mechanism. He's entrenched himself so deeply in what he believes to be true that his mind must deflect any rational argument against those beliefs for fear of a total cranial meltdown
Hilarious. But it has to be confined.......................right? Hopefully the department of disease control put Surf in a plastic bubble.