Shiller Subtweets Fama, March 2000


Know Your Meme: A subtweet, a shorthand for “subliminal tweet,” refers to a status update on Twitter that is covertly addressed to a specific individual without the handle of the recipient.

Urban Dictionary: the shortening of “subliminal tweet” which is directly referring to a particular person without mentioning their name or directly mentioning them and it basically indicates that the tweet in which the hashtag is used is a subliminal tweet. Basically, it’s talking about someone behind their back but sort of in their face on Twitter.


The shock of Professors Robert Shiller and Eugene Fama sharing the Nobel Prize in Economics this winter – despite having virtually opposite opinions on how markets work – still has not worn off. People want to talk about virtually everywhere investing nerds coalesce. I’ve had at least half a dozen barroom coffee shop discussions about it with friends and colleagues myself.

For the uninitiated, Bob Shiller’s view is that people – and by extension the markets they comprise – are fundamentally emotional and irrational in how they behave. Eugene Fama, on the other hand, believes that markets price all new information efficiently and investors, by and large, make appropriate, rational decisions based on what is known at the time. My own view on this matter continues to evolve, but the more I’ve seen and experienced over the years, the more closely I’ve become aligned with the Irrational camp and the further I’ve been yanked from the Efficient one.

This weekend, Shiller revisited his time on stage accepting the award and he can’t quite shake the disagreement he has with Fama’s efficient markets framework (see: ‘The Rationality Debate, SImmering in Stockholm’, NYT January 19th).

I think it’s pretty funny that, after so much time, both of these obviously brilliant men could continue to disagree. They’ve been collecting data for decades now, each man bolstering his case with the latest research and study results. Reconciliation at this point is probably impossible. It shows you how hard the truth is to come by, even for the very brightest among us.

I went back to a passage from Shiller’s landmark book, Irrational Exuberance, which chronicled the Tech Bubble of the late 1990’s in real-time and predicted its eventual bursting. Here’s what he had to say about the Markets Are Efficient school as the Dow Jones was skyrocketing from 3600 to 11,200 in the space of a few years…

“Within the past generation the branch of financial theory that is derived from the assumption that all people are thoroughly rational and calculating has become the most influential analytical device to inform our mastery of the market. Those financial theorists who consider the market price to be a cunningly efficient processor of financial information have had a profound effect on the systematic management of the world’s wealth, from the corner stockbroker right up to the Federal Reserve. But most of these scholars of finance and economics shrink from public statements about the level of the stock market (although they are often more loose-lipped in expressing their opinions at lunch and over beers) because they do not want to be caught saying things in public that they cannot prove. Assuming the mantle of scientific detachment, these financial economists tend to fall back on the simple but elegant model of market efficiency to justify their professional position.”

That quote appeared in the first edition of Irrational Exuberance, which was published in March of 2000, at precisely the top and end of the secular bull market. By that time, the Nasdaq had exploded from 2500 (at which it traded for 50 times earnings) to over 5000 within the space of a year. How anyone could’ve been arguing with Shiller that this was somehow rational investor behavior is beyond a reasonable observer’s comprehension. With the benefit of fourteen years’s remove, it is hard to make the efficiency case with a straight face.

Rather than call out Fama or anyone else at the Chicago School of Business by name, the professor dropped the above subtweet into the preface of his book. It predated Twitter’s existence by six years and presupposed the subtweet itself by about nine. To which I say: Well done, sir.


The Rationality Debate, Simmering in Stockholm (New York Times)

Irrational Exuberance: (Second Edition)  (Amazon)


Watch Also:

Robert Shiller live from the World Economic Forum in Davos comments on the markets today (CNBC)

This content, which contains security-related opinions and/or information, is provided for informational purposes only and should not be relied upon in any manner as professional advice, or an endorsement of any practices, products or services. There can be no guarantees or assurances that the views expressed here will be applicable for any particular facts or circumstances, and should not be relied upon in any manner. You should consult your own advisers as to legal, business, tax, and other related matters concerning any investment.

The commentary in this “post” (including any related blog, podcasts, videos, and social media) reflects the personal opinions, viewpoints, and analyses of the Ritholtz Wealth Management employees providing such comments, and should not be regarded the views of Ritholtz Wealth Management LLC. or its respective affiliates or as a description of advisory services provided by Ritholtz Wealth Management or performance returns of any Ritholtz Wealth Management Investments client.

References to any securities or digital assets, or performance data, are for illustrative purposes only and do not constitute an investment recommendation or offer to provide investment advisory services. Charts and graphs provided within are for informational purposes solely and should not be relied upon when making any investment decision. Past performance is not indicative of future results. The content speaks only as of the date indicated. Any projections, estimates, forecasts, targets, prospects, and/or opinions expressed in these materials are subject to change without notice and may differ or be contrary to opinions expressed by others.

Wealthcast Media, an affiliate of Ritholtz Wealth Management, receives payment from various entities for advertisements in affiliated podcasts, blogs and emails. Inclusion of such advertisements does not constitute or imply endorsement, sponsorship or recommendation thereof, or any affiliation therewith, by the Content Creator or by Ritholtz Wealth Management or any of its employees. Investments in securities involve the risk of loss. For additional advertisement disclaimers see here:

Please see disclosures here.

What's been said:

Discussions found on the web
  1. commented on Sep 21

    … [Trackback]

    […] Read More Info here on that Topic: […]

  2. w88 commented on Sep 21

    … [Trackback]

    […] Information to that Topic: […]

  3. Bitcoin Era Scammed You? commented on Sep 23

    … [Trackback]

    […] Information to that Topic: […]

  4. 먹튀검증사이트 commented on Nov 07

    … [Trackback]

    […] Here you can find 14229 additional Info on that Topic: […]

  5. intelligent automation solutions commented on Nov 27

    … [Trackback]

    […] Read More Info here to that Topic: […]

  6. Harold Jahn Canada commented on Nov 27

    … [Trackback]

    […] Find More Information here to that Topic: […]

  7. fake rolex for sale commented on Dec 30

    … [Trackback]

    […] Read More here on that Topic: […]

  8. AEG ACSGREEN manuals commented on Jan 20

    … [Trackback]

    […] Here you can find 91645 additional Information on that Topic: […]

  9. replique montre commented on Jan 24

    … [Trackback]

    […] Information on that Topic: […]

  10. cvv hight balance commented on Jan 26

    … [Trackback]

    […] Find More on on that Topic: […]

  11. cibc personal online banking commented on Jan 27

    … [Trackback]

    […] Here you will find 46033 additional Info to that Topic: […]

  12. Regression testing commented on Feb 07

    … [Trackback]

    […] Info on that Topic: […]