Group 1 - The article discusses the reliability of market predictions and the concept of "Mr. Market," suggesting that market prices often reflect emotional states rather than rational evaluations of fundamentals [4][5]. - It highlights examples from the A-share market where stock prices peaked before the actual revenue growth of leading companies, indicating a potential predictive nature of stock prices [6][8]. - The article argues against the belief that stock prices can foresee fundamental changes, emphasizing that historical examples often reflect narrative biases rather than true predictive capabilities [10][12]. Group 2 - The relationship between stock prices and fundamentals is explored through the "random walk theory," which posits that stock prices reflect fundamental changes only when informed investors act on new information [20][22]. - It is noted that only a small percentage of informed investors (10%) can accurately assess changes in fundamentals, leading to a disconnect for the majority of investors who may misinterpret market signals [19][21]. - The article concludes that while market movements may seem to predict fundamental changes, they often do not provide actionable insights for uninformed investors [33][35].

Group 1 - The article discusses the reliability of market movements and the concept of "Mr. Market," suggesting that stock prices often reflect future changes in fundamentals rather than current conditions [3][4][6] - It highlights examples from various industries, such as consumer goods and renewable energy, where stock prices peaked before revenue growth did, indicating a potential predictive nature of stock prices [4][5] - The article argues against the belief that stock prices can predict fundamental changes, emphasizing that market movements are often a result of a small percentage of informed investors influencing prices while the majority react to these changes [18][30] Group 2 - The article critiques the notion that stock prices foresee fundamental changes, stating that this belief is often a narrative bias and that stock prices and fundamentals generally move in sync [28] - It explains that when fundamentals do not change, stock prices exhibit random fluctuations, and only a small fraction of investors (10%) can accurately price in changes, leading to misinterpretations by the larger market [29][30] - The conclusion emphasizes that while the market is effective, it does not allow for easy exploitation of its efficiency, as most investors must rely on their limited understanding to make decisions [32]