Why is A Random Walk Down Wall Street no longer appropriate?
Malkiel’s book is over 30 years old and wrong. I now applied the correct science. Over thirty years ago Burton Malkiel wrote a best seller titled, A Random Walk Down Wall Street. He observed the apparently random behavior of the American stock markets. Malkiel did not prove the markets were random, he simply deduced that because he could not discern a pattern, the behavior must be random. Malkiel’s mistake falls under the category of “fallacies of irrelevant evidence.” It is an example of argumentum ad ignoratium, or “the appeal to ignorance.” If no one can prove the random walk theory incorrect; therefore it must be correct. His conclusions also exemplify the argumentum ad verecundiam, or “the appeal to prestige.” The fact that learned voices sing does not make their song the truth.
