We closed yesterday’s post on whether markets are efficient with the conclusion that it could be possible to beat the market. But, to do so, we would need either better information or to view things differently—specifically referencing time horizons as one way to do that. Let’s start with a couple of areas where better information is a real possibility. Then, we’ll take a deeper look at the second idea, which is both more subtle and more interesting.

We closed yesterday’s post on how to invest with the question of whether markets were efficient—and what that would mean for how we invest. A foundational assumption of most investment theories is that markets are efficient, which is to say that all information is reflected in an asset’s price. If this holds true, then it shouldn’t be possible to beat the market because—by definition—everything that could affect prices is already accounted for.

After writing yesterday’s post on the price of oil, I thought it might be useful to take a longer-term look at the behavior of oil. I think this will provide some context to yesterday’s discussion, as well as to future developments. To start, let’s look at the price history over the past 30 years.

Oil has been in the news quite a bit recently. Prices have risen to multiyear highs, and the recent decision by the U.S. to reimpose sanctions on Iran has rattled markets even further. We know that oil prices are a key risk indicator for the economy, but is it time to start worrying? Plus, what do higher oil prices mean—if anything—for the financial markets?

As we start moving further into May, I think it’s a good time to take a look back at April’s economic news, plus what to expect in the month ahead.

A reader asked the other day, simply, whether I was worried about the debt. As I was considering a response, I realized it was going to be a long one and that I had not written about this issue for quite a while. So, here we are.

As we move away from the financial crisis and as policies normalize, it is a good time to take a look at what the removal of those policies might mean. After all, many of the actions taken in the aftermath of the crisis were explicitly designed to do certain things. If those actions were successful, then presumably their reversal would have the opposite effect.

We closed yesterday’s post on the stock market and your portfolio with the proposition that future returns, historically, have been lower when the market started out expensive than when the market started out cheap. This would seem to be common sense, but there is considerable resistance to the idea. Let’s think it through by starting with a look at the actual numbers.

We closed yesterday’s post on market turbulence with the big picture: risks are rising, but they are still not necessarily immediate. Of course, this is important to remember. But it also implicitly assumes that, as investors, we are primarily concerned with that short-term risk. In fact, what we should be looking at is how our portfolios are likely to play out over years and decades, not the next couple of quarters. With that in mind, what can we discern from current conditions about the longer-term impact?

Yesterday, we had another breakdown in the stock market. Major indices dropped for the third day out of four, and they were down this morning. Once again, we are getting close to the long-term trend line, the 200-day moving average, which is where I personally start to pay attention.