I think the frustrating thing about trying to discuss things with you miles is that you don't argue fairly.
You won't ever admit someone else made a good point. You won't directly answer questions, but you sidetrack to questions not asked. You move the goalposts when people answer your concerns. You switch positions, without being willing to defend what you've said previously (or deny you've said them, and then when quoted back claim it's out of context, or try to shift what you meant by it).
Surely things can come out of context, or be misspoken, but a genuine person would say "Oh, I said that wrong, you are correct that I said that, but what I meant was XYZ" rather than "No, that doesn't mean that" when it's clear to everyone that it did; you seem unwilling to admit an error, ever.
Sometimes I think it's a language issue, other times I think you're being deliberately obtuse. Maybe it's a mixture of both.
It's maddening trying to actually have a real debate with you, because the goal of a debate should be mutual understanding and learning from the other, rather than to win, but you seem to prefer the latter.
Here's an example.
He can go reread his own posts from the early pages of this thread, where he discusses the positive feedback mechanism of momentum strategies, and how crowding impacts the strategy's future returns, and maybe he'll see for himself.
Are you not interested in quoting me back to myself or simply unable to find a quote that supports your prior poorly considered assertions?
Sol said you talked about positive feedback and crowding helps future returns. Which you surely did.
So here is the quote for you:
The point that I was making is that if everyone theoretically adopted such a strategy, it would still be difficult to arbitrage away it's strengths because of the unique properties of momentum (its paradoxical positive feedback loop to crowding.)
You go on to spew other stuff like:
You made a claim that you can't back up. In order to support your claim you would have to prove the following.
1. That DM investors materially benefit from others adopting their strategy.
2. That they benefit in a manner that is distinct from other investors benefitting from others adopting their strategy.
No. Sol wouldn't have to prove those, because he didn't make claims regarding that. He made a claim about you talking about how crowding and positive feedback helps DM returns. Which it does, and you said so.
You try to claim he said much more than he did, which is disingenuous
. You often seem to misstate others points, changing what their claims were, and then "refuting" them.
But there you go. There's the quote proof of what you said, exactly as it related to Sol's claim. It has nothing to do with what you claim Sol's claim was.