I corrected your paper. Very disappointing @Sam Colt4 .
Should make much more sense now that I’ve corrected your use of language, but this isn’t (just) a grammar lesson, you need to change your construct of “pros” and “outsiders“ and just equate them as even at the very least. But let me also redefine these words for you:
”pros” ≠ “smart people who use superior tools and minds to navigate markets better than everyone else.” (Your fictional definition)
”pros” = those who only work in/around financial markets in exchange for employment & salary/compensation. (Fact)
And based on my reality based definition vs your mythical one, the majority of “pros“ do not have any direct personal exposure to the very financial markets they “specialize” in, or even face “professional“ consequences for their errors. Why? Because they‘re insulated by “anything can happen in markets, these are flexible forecasts subject to be the complete opposite at any moment, see pages of disclaimers buried somewhere,” so that means they indeed get paid to comment and story-tell. That also means that they MUST constantly tell stories if there’s no real story to tell (either because there’s nothing going on or there is and they don’t know why), which thereby explains why you get “pro” commentary that has no value / ties to markets.
But on the other hand, you’re exposing this “storytelling in exchange for salary” in your own question, because you indeed have direct personal financial exposure and therefore are actually analyzing markets and commentsry mismatch. So you tell me, who’s really the “outsider” ?
This would all be a lot easier for you if you just dropped these “pros” and “outsiders” and “seems to be‘s”