Talk:Noise trader

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finance & Investment, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Finance and Investment on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Finance & InvestmentWikipedia:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentTemplate:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentFinance & Investment articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Disputed content[edit]

Obvioulsy it is not clear what is meant by noise trading. For example the analyst Bassam Fattouh wrote something completely different: Black (1986) defines noise traders as agents who sell and buy assets on the basis of of irrelevant information z z Transact on the basis of extrapolating past trends (technical analysis) or irrational investors’ sentiments (herding) rather than on market fundamentals or the arrival of new information (see for instance Shleifer and Summers (1990) among many others) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.178.129.218 (talk) 15:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rewritten[edit]

The existing text was entirely original research and one-sided opinion. It was useless. I restarted the article with a complete citation back to the original Fischer Black "Noise" paper. It is a very important concept and this can be seen from the times Black's paper continues to be cited in the literature.

What the article needs is some recent research on what analysts consider what's the "signal" and what's the "noise" that goes into trading decisions. patsw (talk) 21:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The markets can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent[edit]

The markets can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent —Preceding unsigned comment added by 0cdcnctx& (talk • contribs) 00:28, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Idiot trader?[edit]

Is the mentioning of the term "idiot trader" really ethical? I don't want to erase it, since I'm not quite familiar with the topic. It does however seem not-too-relevant.69.119.232.155 (talk) 23:34, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]