How do Conflicting Theories about Financial Markets Coexist?
AbstractThere are many conflicting interpretations of security prices and price determination in financial markets. They range from academic theories based on efficient markets and rational expectations hypotheses, to more traditional methods of fundamental analysis, to theories of "value" and "growth" investing, to chart-reading and technical analysis, to notions such as "reflexivity." These interpretations are logically inconsistent with each other, but they seem to co-exist, sometimes even on the same trading desk. In this paper, we seek to formulate an explanation for this strange coexistence, using some tools from critical theory to understand how financial markets operate. Structuralism is used to analyze various kinds of narratives appearing in the financial literatu
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by Yale School of Management in its series Yale School of Management Working Papers with number amz2445.
Date of creation: 01 Apr 2006
Date of revision:
Other versions of this item:
- Wesley Phoa & Sergio M. Focardi & Frank J. Fabozzi, 2007. "How do conflicting theories about financial markets coexist?," Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, M.E. Sharpe, Inc., vol. 29(3), pages 363-391, May.
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Solow,Robert M., 1998.
"Monopolistic Competition and Macroeconomic Theory,"
Cambridge University Press, number 9780521623384, October.
- Sheffrin,Steven M., 1996.
Cambridge University Press, number 9780521474009, October.
- repec:att:wimass:9707 is not listed on IDEAS
- William A. Brock & Steven N. Durlauf, 1999.
"A formal model of theory choice in science,"
Springer, vol. 14(1), pages 113-130.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ().
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.