Please see the attached image.
“Only two out of twenty tokens have correlations beneath this threshold, namely McDonald’s Corporation and Gamestop Corporation with respective correlation coefficients of 0,79 and 0,93.”
Buyse, J. (2021). Impact assessment of digital assets on securities markets [Universiteit Gent]. https://libstore.ugent.be/fulltxt/RUG01/003/010/051/RUG01-003010051_2021_0001_AC.pdf
Dude, the post is a master’s thesis from Ghent University. It is at least as statistically rigorous as any comment on Lemmy.
Oh a masters thesis? Oh WOW 😲😳!
If you don’t immediately see the issue in the above statement, then Google Pearsons correlation coefficient and spend a little time reading.
It should be glaringly obvious why the statement made is both true, and also utterly devoid of meaning. If it’s not, look at what a bonferroni adjustment is and why it’s important when calculating multiple statistics as is being done here.
The sources and methods are laid out in the thesis. The author, his advisor, the people who upvoted this, and I thought that this idiosyncrasy was meaningful. On the other hand, some sarcastic ding-dong on the Internet disagrees…
That rate of correlations being below that threshold, 1-in-20, is exactly the rate at which you would expect to get a false positive correlation at that cut off. Because they’re comparing multiple statistics (multiple tests), they need account for that, which is where a Bonferroni adjustment would come in into play. You have to account for the fact that you’re comparing multiple statistics simultaneously, so based on randomness alone, some will come as significant even when they arent. Posting random pages from a students MA thesis is, well, just kinda sad. I’m sorry you lack basic statistical literacy. I’ve given you some material you can use to correct that.
You are being rude, and this idiosyncrasy is significant. I will try to explain for you in simple terms. Although the price of a stock varies over time, at any given time, the price should be approximately the same across brokers. (And for tokenized stocks to substitute for non-tokenized stocks, then their prices also need to correspond.) When I buy a stock on Charles Schwab, then the price should be the same as when you buy the same stock on Fidelity. If you get a different price from me, higher or lower, then the price of the stock is wrong. No Bonferroni correction necessary. It doesn’t matter whether this happens for every stock or just one idiosyncratic stock. If the price is different, then the price is wrong.
Tell me you dont understand how a market works without telling me you dont understand how a market works.
National best bid and offer
Speaking as someone who is not an expert in statistics - next time, please include information on what is wrong (or being misinterpreted) in the initial comment. I’m sure we’ll all be able to better improve our understandings that way.
I did.
Was referring to this initial comment in case that was not clear: https://lemmy.whynotdrs.org/comment/1835267