That would be the efficient markets hypothesis
taking account of the fact that there's a growth.
It's not a random walk, but it's a random walk with growth.
But almost none of you did that.
Maybe my instructions weren't clear enough.
But what you're doing is showing plausible paths for
the stock market rather the expected path.
That's how people seem to interpret when I say, please forecast it.
You are trying to show what's plausible.
So you're making, if you look at the recent history,
this person made it look like the recent history, right?
But this is not unless you can tell me, I don't know who did this forecast.
But unless you can tell me,
why did you have a turning point here in, what year is that?
2020, why did you have this turning point,
why did you have this turning point where you put it?
They have no reason, this looked plausible to them so they called that a forecast.
I know you might have done better if you had more time to think about it.
But I think this gets back to,
it's related to a concept in behavioral economics that and talked about,
those are two psychologists, called the representativeness heuristic.
People don't behave like forecasters.
They think that something they saw in the past is
representative of what will happen in the future.
Now I'm not defining their theory exactly, but
I think this is how most people take it when they have to give a forecast.