Can You 'Learn' The Stock Market?
The world of investment presents us with many paradoxes. One of these is the fact that, although there is an enormous body of literature out there, in the form of books, magazines, newspaper articles, seminars, internet sites, TV programs and so on, investment remains a tricky business, fraught with dangers and risks of various kinds. It is just not easy to earn a consistently good return at a reasonable level of risk without something or other going wrong at various times. This all raises a fundamental question: What and how much can one really learn?
Fundamental Barriers to Learning
At almost any point in time, there are some people who claim that the markets will go up and others who claim that it will drop, according to says German expert Bernd Niquet ("Keine Angst vorm nächsten Crash, aktualisierte Taschenbuchausgabe," Piper Verlag, München 2003). And there are also some who say it will move sideways. Furthermore, the same sources of information may be used to draw these contradictory conclusions. This means that one has to be very careful about "knowledge" of any kind about the stock market, or other investment markets.
There can be no doubt that it is hard to learn anything reliable and consistent about the daily (or short-term) ups and downs of the markets. One can only really learn meaningfully about something that is sufficiently stable to get a metaphorical grip on. For instance, there is no problem learning a foreign language, the principles of mathematics or even those of economics. Of course, these fields develop over time, but there is a body of knowledge that is there to stay and you can learn it.
This applies only to a limited extent for the stock market. There are reliable, consistent principles of asset allocation and arbitrage, short selling and many other basic, intermediate and advanced concepts and methods. Stocks themselves are theoretical entities that are not much different than they were decades (or even centuries) ago. And human psychology is pretty constant over the ages - not that this makes it easy to deal with people.
The problem is that there is an awful lot that is not stable. And in particular, identical starting situations for investments can, at different points in time, lead to completely different constellations of factors and results. In each situation, different aspects dominate, and what worked or failed before, may now do the opposite.
This means that what really matters is experience, skill and plain luck. Learning the "theory" is indispensable as a starting point, but from there you need to develop a feel for real-life situations and learn to recognize patterns of activity and behavior, as well as how they interact with one another.
Even so, in the investment scene, such experience and expertise is not necessarily reliable, which explains why even the best pros fail horribly from time to time. Such patterns of failure can also apply to people who are really well-educated and informed, but simply in the wrong market at the wrong time.
Knowledge, says Niquet, is absolute (right or wrong), but experience is relative to other people and to a particular situation. Furthermore, we do not know where our knowledge begins and ends. And most importantly, we do not know what we do not know.
Some Things Are Intrinsically Controversial
The economy is and has always been characterized by unresolved issues and diametrically opposing views. For example, neo-classicists are keen on markets and leaving them alone. Keynesians, by direct contrast, like to intervene in markets.
Reducing unemployment is equally fraught with controversy. Some policies and situations certainly raise unemployment, and others reduce it, but when there is 10% unemployment in a country, there is no panacea for getting is safely back down to 3%.
To cut a long story short, there is no clear right and wrong on such issues, no approach to economic and financial issues that works perfectly at all times. The result is that economists are always fiddling around trying to get things right and often getting it wrong. This means one can certainly learn about the controversy, but not the one right way, which simply does not exist.