efficient markets hypothesis arguments

• Recently Active
• Top Discussions
• Best Content

By Industry

• Investment Banking
• Private Equity
• Hedge Funds
• Real Estate
• Venture Capital
• Asset Management
• Equity Research
• Investing, Markets Forum
• Business School
• Fashion Advice
• Technical Skills
• Trading & Investing Guides

Efficient Markets Hypothesis

The efficient market hypothesis (EMH) suggests that financial markets operate in such a way that the prices of equities, or shares in companies, are always efficient.

Elliot currently works as a Private Equity Associate at Greenridge Investment Partners, a middle market fund based in Austin, TX. He was previously an Analyst in  Piper Jaffray 's Leveraged Finance group, working across all industry verticals on  LBOs , acquisition financings, refinancings, and recapitalizations. Prior to Piper Jaffray, he spent 2 years at  Citi  in the Leveraged Finance Credit Portfolio group focused on origination and ongoing credit monitoring of outstanding loans and was also a member of the Columbia recruiting committee for the Investment Banking Division for incoming summer and full-time analysts.

Elliot has a Bachelor of Arts in Business Management from Columbia University.

• What Is The Efficient Market Hypothesis (EMH)?
• Variations Of The Efficient Markets Hypothesis
• Are Capital Markets Efficient?

What Is the Efficient Market Hypothesis (EMH)?

The efficient market hypothesis (EMH) suggests that  financial markets operate in such a way that the prices of equities, or shares in companies, are always efficient. In simpler terms, these prices accurately reflect the true value of the underlying companies they represent.

The efficient market hypothesis is one of the most foundational theories developed in finance. It was developed by Nobel laureate Eugene Fama in the 1960s and is widely known amongst finance professionals in the industry.

There are many implications arising from this hypothesis; however, the main proposition is that it is impossible to “beat the market” and generate alpha. 

What does beating the market or generating alpha mean? Broadly speaking, you can think of how much the return of your risk-adjusted investments exceeds benchmark indices. 

For example, a proxy for the US market will be the S&P 500, which covers the top 500 companies in the United States or over 80% of its total market capitalization .

If your portfolio of investments generated an alpha of 3%, then it is considered that your portfolio outperformed the S&P 500 by 3% (assuming that you trade in the US market)

How is it possible that share prices are always efficient and reflect the actual value of the underlying company following the efficient market hypothesis? 

It is because, at all times, a company's share price reflects certain relevant available information to all investors who trade upon it, and the type of information required to ensure efficient prices depends on what form of efficiency the market is in. 

If you are interested in a profession surrounding capital markets, be it asset management , sales & trading, or even hedge funds, the EMH is a theory you need to know to ace your interviews. 

However, this is only one topic in the diverse world of finance that you will truly need to know if you want to break into these careers. To gain a deeper understanding of finance, look at Wall Street Oasis's courses. For a link to our courses, click  here .

Key Takeaways

• Developed by Eugene Fama, the EMH suggests that financial markets reflect all available information and that it's impossible to consistently "beat the market" to generate abnormal returns (alpha).
• The EMH has three forms: weak, semi-strong, and strong. Each form describes the extent of information already reflected in stock prices.
• Under this form, stock prices incorporate historical information like past earnings and price movements. Investors can't gain alpha by trading on this historical data as it's already "priced in."
•  In this form, stock prices reflect all publicly available information, including recent news and announcements. Even with access to this information, investors can't consistently beat the market.
• The strongest form of EMH incorporates all information, including insider information. Even with insider knowledge, investors can't generate abnormal returns. However, some argue that real-world markets may not fully adhere to this hypothesis due to behavioral biases and inefficiencies.

Variations of the Efficient Markets Hypothesis

According to Eugene Fama, there are three variations of efficient markets:

Semi-strong form 

Strong form 

Depending on which form the market takes, the share price of companies incorporates different types of information. Let’s go over what kind of information is required for each form of the efficient market. 

Weak form efficiency

Under the weak form of efficient markets, share prices incorporate all historical information of stocks. This would typically cover a company’s historical earnings, price movements, technical indicators, etc. 

Another way to look at it is that when a market is weakly efficient, it means - there is no predictive power from historical information. 

Investors are unlikely to generate alpha from investing in a company just because they saw that the company outperformed earnings estimates last week. That information was already “priced in,” and there is nothing to gain trading off that information.

Semi-strong form efficiency 

The semi-strong form of efficiency within markets is believed to be most prevalent across markets. Under this form of efficiency, share prices incorporate all historical information of stocks and go a step further by including all publicly available information. 

This implies that share prices practically adjust immediately following the announcement of relevant information to a company’s stock.

What this means is that investors are not able to generate alpha by trading off relevant information that is publicly available, no matter how recent that piece of information became public.

This partially explains why you’ve probably heard those investment gurus tell you to buy the rumors and sell on the news.

One relevant example would be the reaction from every stock exchange worldwide on specific key dates surrounding the World Health Organization and the Covid-19 pandemic. 

The market crashed following specific announcements because, at that time, the market anticipated lockdowns to occur, which would damage every company’s supply chain and sales. 

If lockdowns did occur, companies wouldn’t be able to produce goods and services. Furthermore, customers wouldn’t be able to purchase goods, resulting in companies taking a hit on their earnings. And this was exactly what happened. 

Although Covid was known since November 2019, If you look at the S&P 500 and the FTSE 100, they both crashed on the same date (21st February 2020), with the impact on markets being equally significant. 

It would be safe to say that this was the date that the market started incorporating the impact of Covid-19 on a company’s share price. It is no coincidence that the World Health Organization also hosted a  press conference  that day. 

You can look at the FTSE 100 and S&P 500 index, which represent the UK and US market conditions. The following images show the drop in benchmark indices due to Covid-19: 

Unfortunately, there are a couple of caveats to this example. 

In Eugene Fama’s  purest  depiction of the semi-strong form of an efficient market hypothesis, prices are meant to adjust instantaneously following the public announcement of relevant information, with the new prices reflecting the market’s new actual value. 

When you look at the market’s reaction to Covid-19, the market crash happened gradually over a certain period. 

Furthermore, if you look at the FTSE 100 and S&P 500, the index started showing signs of recovery immediately after the market crash. 

Broadly speaking, there are two reasons this could have happened: 

There was an announcement of new publicly available information with a positive impact on markets

The market had initially overreacted to the Covid-19 pandemic

An excellent example of newly announced publicly available information with a positive impact on markets would be something like the respective countries’ governments and central banks both promoting aggressive monetary and fiscal policies designed to improve economic situations. 

Although it is impossible to say, and every investor will have a different opinion on the market, the consensus is that the market has reacted to monetary and fiscal policies. As a result, there was an initial overreaction to Covid-19 in the market. 

This is where the practical example strays away from theory. In the market’s reaction to Covid-19, the impact of new information was gradual (but still quick) and argued to be inefficient at the trough. 

However, Eugene Fama’s efficient market hypothesis anticipates rapid price movements following the release of public information, and prices are always efficient, moving from one true value to another. 

Market indices that genuinely follow the semi-strong form efficient market hypothesis would look something like this: 

And this is what the  true  efficient market hypothesis envisions. There is no exaggeration in this graph, and the market index isn't expected to have any daily fluctuation because it reflects the valid, efficient value pricing in all the publicly available information. 

Reaction to new relevant information is instant and accurate, leaving no room for values to readjust over time. 

This example applies to all forms of efficient markets, including the weak and strong forms. However, the difference is the type of information that will cause a company's share price to readjust. 

Strong form efficiency 

The share prices of companies in strongly efficient markets incorporate everything that the semi-strong form efficiency incorporates but go a step further by also incorporating insider information. 

This implies that investors who know something about a company that isn't publicly known cannot generate abnormal returns trading off that information.

Generally speaking, you should expect more developed countries to have more efficient markets, mainly because more asset managers are analyzing stocks and more educated individuals make better investment decisions.

However, if any country were likely to display powerfully efficient markets, you would expect them to exist within more corrupt and opaque countries. This is because countries like the US and UK have implemented sanctions against insider trading purely because of how profitable it is. 

Investors with insider information are known to have an edge in markets, which is why there are policies in place dictating that asset managers and substantial shareholders must disclose their trades to the Securities and Exchange Commission ( SEC ). 

Under  Rule 10b-5 , the SEC explicitly states that insiders are prohibited from trading on material non-public information. 

In November 2021, a  McKinsey partner was charged with insider trading  because he assisted Goldman Sachs with its acquisition of GreenSky. 

The Mckinsey partner had private information regarding the GreenSky acquisition and purchased multiple call options on GreenSky , profiting over $450,000. 

Aside from the fact that the man was blatantly insider trading, the fact that he was able to profit off insider information is evidence that the US market does  NOT  possess strong form efficiency.

The above is somewhat considered to be proof by contradiction. If markets were efficient, trading off insider information would not let investors generate abnormal returns. But in this case, the Mckinsey partner could make almost half a million dollars!

To put that into perspective, $450 thousand is more than two years of the average investment banking analyst’s total compensation and slightly over four years of base pay. 

Are capital markets efficient?

After developing a decent understanding of the efficient market hypothesis, the real question is: is the market truly efficient, and do they follow the EMH? This topic is controversial, and many individuals will support different sides of the argument. 

Supporters of the efficient market hypothesis generally believe in traditional neoclassical finance. Neoclassical finance has been around since the twentieth century, and its approach revolves around key assumptions like perfect knowledge or rationality among individuals. 

In fact, most of the material taught at university and in textbooks are materials that talk about neoclassical finance - one might argue that the world of finance was built by theories such as the EMH. 

However, some of the assumptions in neoclassical finance have always been known to be overly restrictive and not at all realistic. For example, humans are not the objective supercomputers that neoclassical finance believes us to be. 

The fact is that humans are ruled by emotions and subjected to behavioral biases. We do not act the same as everyone else, and it is absurd to believe that we all behave rationally or even have perfect knowledge about a subject before making decisions.

Some of the latest developments in academics have been surrounding behavioral finance, with Nobel laureates including Robert Shiller and Richard Thaler (cameo in a classic finance film titled The Big Short) leading the field and relaxing unrealistic assumptions in neoclassical finance. 

Aside from being unable to generate alpha, another significant implication arising from the EMH is that investors can blindly purchase any stock in the exchange without any prior analysis and still receive a fair return on equity . 

That does not make sense because if everyone did that, then it would be safe to assume that the share prices would be wildly inaccurate and far apart from the company’s actual value. 

The fact is that there is some reliance upon financial institutions such as asset managers or arbitrageurs to constantly monitor and exploit inefficiencies within capital markets (such as buying underpriced and shorting overpriced equities) to keep the market efficient. 

Therefore, another argument arising from this is the idea that markets are efficiently inefficient where money managers who use costly financial information software such as Bloomberg Terminal or FactSet can gain a competitive edge in the market.

These money managers generate abnormal returns by exploiting inefficiencies within markets, such as longing for undervalued stocks or shorting overvalued stocks. A beneficial outcome of this activity is that market prices are slowly shifting towards efficient values.

The biggest argument supporting the efficient market hypothesis is that many money managers cannot outperform benchmark indices such as the S&P 500 on a year-to-year basis.

That argument is further supported when you compare the average 20-year annual return of the S&P 500 to any hedge fund’s average 20-year yearly return. You will find that  MOST  money managers underperform compared to the benchmark. 

The table below displays the November 2021 return of the top hedge funds. For reference, the S&P 500 had a total return of  26.89% . 

Therefore, if you compare the hedge funds to the S&P 500 (ignoring the hedge funds’ December 2021 performance), you can see that only three hedge funds outperformed the index. 

Hedge funds are also costly, with many institutions imposing a minimum 2-20 fee structure where there is a 2% fee charged on the AUM of the fund and a 20% fee for any profit above the hurdle rate. 

Nevertheless, while the data seems to point to the fact that hedge funds can be somewhat lackluster, a common argument is that the concept of a hedge fund is to “hedge,” which means to protect money. 

Therefore, perhaps some hedge funds have a greater purpose of maintaining their AUM rather than growing it despite the fact that hedge funds are known for having the most aggressive investment strategies . 

Overall, being a part of a hedge fund is still highly lucrative. For example, Kenneth Griffin, CEO of Citadel LLC, had total compensation of over $2 billion in 2021, whereas David Solomon, CEO of Goldman Sachs, had a total payment of $35 million in 2021. 

If you want to make $2 billion a year in a hedge fund one day, you need to polish up your interviewing skills. To impress your interviewers, look at Wall Street Oasis’s Hedge Fund Interview Prep Course . For a link to our courses, click  here .

Everything You Need To Master Financial Modeling

To Help You Thrive in the Most Prestigious Jobs on Wall Street.

Researched and authored by Jasper Lim  |  Linkedin

Free Resources

To continue learning and advancing your career, check out these additional helpful  WSO  resources:

• Call Option
• Eurex Exchange
• Fallen Angel

Get instant access to lessons taught by experienced private equity pros and bulge bracket investment bankers including financial statement modeling, DCF, M&A, LBO, Comps and Excel Modeling.

or Want to Sign up with your social account?

• Search Search Please fill out this field.

Semi-Strong Form

Strong form, the bottom line.

• Trading Strategies

The Weak, Strong, and Semi-Strong Efficient Market Hypotheses

Learn about the three versions of the efficient market hypothesis

J.B. Maverick is an active trader, commodity futures broker, and stock market analyst 17+ years of experience, in addition to 10+ years of experience as a finance writer and book editor.

The efficient market hypothesis (EMH), as a whole, theorizes that the market is generally efficient, but the theory is offered in three different versions: weak, semi-strong, and strong.

The basic efficient market hypothesis posits that the market cannot be beaten because it incorporates all important determining information into current share prices . Therefore, stocks trade at the fairest value, meaning that they can't be purchased undervalued or sold overvalued .

The theory determines that the only opportunity investors have to gain higher returns on their investments is through purely speculative investments that pose a substantial risk.

Key Takeaways

• The efficient market hypothesis posits that the market cannot be beaten because it incorporates all important information into current share prices, so stocks trade at the fairest value.
• Though the efficient market hypothesis theorizes the market is generally efficient, the theory is offered in three different versions: weak, semi-strong, and strong.
• The weak form suggests today’s stock prices reflect all the data of past prices and that no form of technical analysis can aid investors.
• The semi-strong form submits that because public information is part of a stock's current price, investors cannot utilize either technical or fundamental analysis, though information not available to the public can help investors.
• The strong form version states that all information, public and not public, is completely accounted for in current stock prices, and no type of information can give an investor an advantage on the market.

The three versions of the efficient market hypothesis are varying degrees of the same basic theory. The weak form suggests that today’s stock prices reflect all the data of past prices and that no form of technical analysis can be effectively utilized to aid investors in making trading decisions.

Advocates for the weak form efficiency theory believe that if the fundamental analysis is used, undervalued and overvalued stocks can be determined, and investors can research companies' financial statements to increase their chances of making higher-than-market-average profits.

The semi-strong form efficiency theory follows the belief that because all information that is public is used in the calculation of a stock's current price , investors cannot utilize either technical or fundamental analysis to gain higher returns in the market.

Those who subscribe to this version of the theory believe that only information that is not readily available to the public can help investors boost their returns to a performance level above that of the general market.

The strong form version of the efficient market hypothesis states that all information—both the information available to the public and any information not publicly known—is completely accounted for in current stock prices, and there is no type of information that can give an investor an advantage on the market.

Advocates for this degree of the theory suggest that investors cannot make returns on investments that exceed normal market returns, regardless of information retrieved or research conducted.

There are anomalies that the efficient market theory cannot explain and that may even flatly contradict the theory. For example, the price/earnings  (P/E) ratio shows that firms trading at lower P/E multiples are often responsible for generating higher returns.

The neglected firm effect suggests that companies that are not covered extensively by market analysts are sometimes priced incorrectly in relation to their true value and offer investors the opportunity to pick stocks with hidden potential. The January effect shows historical evidence that stock prices—especially smaller cap stocks—tend to experience an upsurge in January.

Though the efficient market hypothesis is an important pillar of modern financial theories and has a large backing, primarily in the academic community, it also has a large number of critics. The theory remains controversial, and investors continue attempting to outperform market averages with their stock selections.

Due to the empirical presence of market anomalies and information asymmetries, many practitioners do not believe that the efficient markets hypothesis holds in reality, except, perhaps, in the weak form.

What Is the Importance of the Efficient Market Hypothesis?

The efficient market hypothesis (EMH) is important because it implies that free markets are able to optimally allocate and distribute goods, services, capital, or labor (depending on what the market is for), without the need for central planning, oversight, or government authority. The EMH suggests that prices reflect all available information and represent an equilibrium between supply (sellers/producers) and demand (buyers/consumers). One important implication is that it is impossible to "beat the market" since there are no abnormal profit opportunities in an efficient market.

What Are the 3 Forms of Market Efficiency?

The EMH has three forms. The strong form assumes that all past and current information in a market, whether public or private, is accounted for in prices. The semi-strong form assumes that only publicly-available information is incorporated into prices, but privately-held information may not be. The weak form concedes that markets tend to be efficient but anomalies can and do occur, which can be exploited (which tends to remove the anomaly, restoring efficiency via arbitrage ). In reality, only the weak form is thought to exist in most markets, if any.

How Would You Know If the Market Is Semi-Strong Form Efficient?

To test the semi-strong version of the EMH, one can see if a stock's price gaps up or down when previously private news is released. For instance, a proposed merger or dismal earnings announcement would be known by insiders but not the public. Therefore, this information is not correctly priced into the shares until it is made available. At that point, the stock may jump or slump, depending on the nature of the news, as investors and traders incorporate this new information.

The efficient market hypothesis exists in degrees, but each degree argues that financial markets are already too efficient for investors to consistently beat them. The idea is that the volume of activity within markets is so high that the value of resulting prices are as fair as can be. The weak form of the theory is the most lenient and concedes that there are circumstance when fundamental analysis can help investors find value. The strong form of the theory is the least lenient in this regard, while the semi-strong form of the theory holds a middle ground between the two.

Burton Gordon Malkiel. "A Random Walk Down Wall Street: The Time-tested Strategy for Successful Investing," W.W Norton & Company, 2007.

• Terms of Service
• Editorial Policy
• Privacy Policy
• Your Privacy Choices

Thanks for subscribing! Please check your email for further instructions.

Efficient Market Hypothesis (EMH): What is It and Why Does It Matter?

What is Efficient Market Hypothesis (EMH)?

The efficient market hypothesis (EMH) is a theory in financial economics that states that the prices of assets, such as stocks, bonds, or commodities, reflect all the available information about their value. This means that investors cannot consistently beat the market by using any strategy, such as fundamental analysis, technical analysis, or insider trading. The only way to achieve higher returns is by taking more risk.

The EMH has important implications for investors, traders, and financial professionals. It suggests that the best way to invest is to buy and hold a diversified portfolio of low-cost index funds that track the market performance. This is a pillar strategy embraced by many on their financial independence journey. It also implies that financial markets are rational and efficient, and that price movements are unpredictable and random.

However, the EMH is also highly controversial and widely debated. Many critics argue that the EMH is based on unrealistic assumptions about human behavior, market structure, and information quality. They point to various anomalies and inefficiencies in the market, such as bubbles, crashes, momentum, value effects, and behavioral biases. They also cite examples of successful investors who have consistently outperformed the market over long periods of time, such as Warren Buffett, George Soros, or Peter Lynch.

In this article, we will explain the main concepts and assumptions of the EMH, the different forms and tests of market efficiency, the main arguments for and against the EMH, and the practical implications of the EMH for investors and financial professionals.

Key Takeaways

The main concepts and assumptions of the efficient market hypothesis (emh).

The EMH is based on the idea that the market is a  collective  and  efficient  mechanism that processes all the available information about the value of assets and incorporates it into their prices. Therefore, the market price of an asset is the best estimate of its  true  or  intrinsic  value, and any deviation from it is random and temporary.

The Efficient Market Hypothesis relies on several assumptions about the market participants, the market structure, and the information quality. Some of the main assumptions are:

• Rationality : Investors are rational and act in their own self-interest. They have consistent preferences and expectations, and they update them based on new information. They seek to maximize their expected utility and minimize their risk.
• Independence : Investors are independent and do not influence each other’s decisions. They have diverse opinions and beliefs, and they do not follow trends or fads. They do not suffer from any behavioral biases or irrational emotions.
• Competition : Investors are numerous and have equal access to the market. They have similar information and analytical skills, and they can trade without any barriers or costs.
• Information Quality : Information is publicly available, accurate, and timely. Investors have access to the same information and can process it efficiently. There is no asymmetric information or insider trading in the market.
• No Transaction Costs : Investors can trade without any friction or costs. There are no taxes, fees, commissions, or bid-ask spreads in the market. There are also no liquidity or short-selling constraints.

These assumptions are necessary for the EMH to hold, but they are also very idealistic and unrealistic. In reality, many of these assumptions are violated or relaxed in the real world, which creates opportunities for market inefficiencies and anomalies.

The Different Forms and Tests of Market Efficiency

The EMH has three forms: weak, semi-strong, and strong. Each form implies a different level of market efficiency and testability.

The weak form of the EMH states that asset prices reflect all the  past  information, such as historical prices and returns. This means that investors cannot use technical analysis, which relies on patterns and trends in past prices, to predict future prices or beat the market.

The weak form of the EMH can be tested by using statistical methods, such as serial correlation tests, runs tests, or filter tests, to check if past prices have any predictive power for future prices.

Semi-Strong Form

The semi-strong form of the EMH states that asset prices reflect all the publicly available information, such as financial statements, news reports, analyst recommendations, or macroeconomic indicators. This means that investors cannot use fundamental analysis, which relies on evaluating the intrinsic value of assets based on public information, to predict future prices or beat the market.

The semi-strong form of the EMH can be tested by using event studies, which examine how asset prices react to new information or events, such as earnings announcements, dividend changes, mergers and acquisitions, or regulatory changes.

Strong Form

The strong form of the EMH states that asset prices reflect all the  private  information, such as insider information or proprietary research. This means that investors cannot use any information, even if it is not publicly available, to predict future prices or beat the market.

The strong form of the EMH can be tested by using performance studies, which compare the returns of different groups of investors, such as insiders, managers, analysts, or professional traders, to see if they have any informational advantage over other investors.

The three forms of the EMH are nested within each other: if the strong form holds, then the semi-strong and weak forms must also hold; if the semi-strong form holds, then the weak form must also hold; but if the weak form holds, it does not imply that the semi-strong or strong forms hold. Therefore, the stronger the form of the EMH, the more efficient and unexploitable the market is.

The Main Arguments For and Against the Efficient Market Hypothesis (EMH)

The EMH is one of the most influential and debated theories in financial economics. There are many arguments for and against the EMH, both theoretical and empirical. Here are some of the main ones:

Arguments For the Efficient Market Hypothesis

• Empirical Evidence : There is a large body of empirical evidence that supports the EMH, especially the weak and semi-strong forms. Many studies have shown that technical analysis does not generate consistent excess returns, and that fundamental analysis does not provide reliable signals for market timing or stock selection. Moreover, many studies have shown that most active managers, who claim to have superior skills or information, fail to beat the market or their benchmarks, especially after accounting for fees, taxes, and risk.
• Theoretical Plausibility : The EMH is based on the idea that markets are efficient and rational, which is consistent with the assumptions of classical and neoclassical economics. The EMH also relies on the law of large numbers, which states that as the number of independent observations increases, the average of the observations converges to the true mean. Therefore, as more investors participate in the market, their collective actions and opinions tend to cancel out each other’s errors and biases, and the market price converges to the true value.
• Practical Implications : The EMH has practical implications for investors and financial professionals. It supports the passive investing strategy of buying and holding low-cost index funds that track the market performance. This strategy is simple, cost-effective, tax-efficient, and risk-adjusted. It also challenges the role of active managers, analysts, and regulators in the market. It suggests that they do not add any value or efficiency to the market, and that they may even create distortions or inefficiencies.

Arguments Against the Efficient Market Hypothesis

• Empirical Anomalies : There is also a large body of empirical evidence that challenges the EMH, especially the semi-strong and strong forms. Many studies have identified various anomalies and inefficiencies in the market, such as bubbles, crashes, momentum, value effects, size effects, calendar effects, dividend effects, earnings surprises, and arbitrage opportunities. These anomalies suggest that asset prices do not always reflect all available information, and that investors can exploit these inefficiencies to generate excess returns.
• Theoretical Criticisms : The EMH is also criticized for being based on unrealistic assumptions about human behavior, market structure, and information quality. Many critics argue that investors are not rational and independent, but rather irrational and influenced by each other. They suffer from various behavioral biases and irrational emotions, such as overconfidence, loss aversion, anchoring, herding, or confirmation bias. They also argue that markets are not competitive and efficient, but rather imperfect and distorted. There are various barriers and costs to trading, such as taxes, fees, commissions, bid-ask spreads, liquidity constraints, or short-selling restrictions. There are also various sources of asymmetric information or insider trading in the market, such as managers, analysts, or regulators. They also argue that information is not publicly available, accurate, or timely, but rather scarce, noisy, or manipulated. There are various sources of information noise or manipulation in the market, such as rumors, frauds, or media.
• Practical Examples : The EMH is also challenged by many practical examples of successful investors who have consistently outperformed the market over long periods of time, such as Warren Buffett, George Soros, or Peter Lynch. These investors claim to have superior skills or information that allow them to identify undervalued or overvalued assets and exploit market inefficiencies. They also use various strategies that contradict the EMH, such as value investing, growth investing, contrarian investing, or arbitrage investing.

The Practical Implications of the Efficient Market Hypothesis (EMH) for Investors and Financial Professionals

The EMH has practical implications for investors and financial professionals. Depending on whether they accept or reject the EMH, they may adopt different approaches to investing and financial decision making.

Implications for Investors

For investors who accept the EMH, the best way to invest is to follow a passive investing strategy of buying and holding a diversified portfolio of low-cost index funds that track the market performance. This strategy is simple, cost-effective, tax-efficient, and risk-adjusted. It also avoids the pitfalls of active investing, such as overtrading, underperforming, or paying high fees.

One example of a passive investing strategy that supports the EMH is the  VTSAX and Chill  strategy, which involves investing all your money in a single index fund that tracks the total US stock market: the Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund (VTSAX). This fund has low fees (0.04%), high diversification (over 3,600 stocks), and high returns (10.7% annualized since inception). By investing in VTSAX and chilling (i.e., not worrying about market fluctuations or timing), you can achieve financial independence in the long run.

For investors who reject the EMH, the best way to invest is to follow an active investing strategy of using various methods and techniques to identify undervalued or overvalued assets and exploit market inefficiencies. This strategy is complex, costly, tax-inefficient, and riskier. It also requires the skills, information, and discipline of active investing, such as research, analysis, forecasting, timing, or trading.

One example of an active investing strategy that challenges the EMH is the  value investing  strategy, which involves buying stocks that are trading below their intrinsic value and selling them when they reach their fair value. This strategy is based on the idea that the market often misprices stocks due to irrationality, noise, or manipulation, and that investors can use fundamental analysis to estimate the true value of stocks based on their earnings, assets, dividends, or growth potential. By investing in value stocks and holding them for a long time, investors can achieve superior returns.

Implications for Financial Professionals

The EMH affects how financial professionals create, manage, or advise on financial products and services. They may use different approaches depending on whether they accept or reject the EMH.

For financial professionals who accept the EMH, the best way to add value and efficiency to the market is to create and maintain low-cost index funds that track the market performance. This approach is consistent with the EMH and benefits the investors. One example of a financial professional who follows this approach is  John Bogle , the founder of Vanguard Group and the creator of the first index fund.

For financial professionals who reject the EMH, the best way to add value and efficiency to the market is to use methods and techniques to find undervalued or overvalued assets and exploit market inefficiencies. This approach is inconsistent with the EMH and benefits the investors. One example of a financial professional who follows this approach is  Warren Buffett , the chairman and CEO of Berkshire Hathaway and one of the most successful investors of all time.

The efficient market hypothesis (EMH) is a theory that states that asset prices reflect all available information and that investors cannot consistently beat the market by using any strategy. The EMH has three forms: weak, semi-strong, and strong. Each form implies a different level of market efficiency and testability.

The EMH is supported by some empirical evidence, theoretical plausibility, and practical implications. It suggests that the best way to invest is to buy and hold low-cost index funds that track the market performance. It also challenges the role of active managers, analysts, and regulators in the market.

The EMH is challenged by some empirical anomalies, theoretical criticisms, and practical examples. It suggests that the market often misprices assets due to irrationality, noise, or manipulation. It also provides opportunities for investors to exploit market inefficiencies and achieve superior returns.

The EMH is one of the most influential and debated theories in financial economics. It has shaped the way we think about markets, investing, and finance. It is not a definitive or conclusive theory, but rather a useful framework for understanding and analyzing markets. It is up to each individual to decide whether they believe in it or not, and how they apply it to their own financial goals.

Share this post:

David Baughier

Leave a comment cancel reply.

What is Efficient Market Hypothesis? | EMH Theory Explained

The efficient market hypothesis (EMH) can help explain why many investors opt for passive investing strategies, such as buying index funds or exchange-traded funds ( ETFs ), which generate consistent returns over an extended period. However, the EMH theory remains controversial and has found as many opponents as proponents. This guide will explain the efficient market hypothesis, how it works, and why it is so contradictory. 

Best Crypto Exchange for Intermediate Traders and Investors

Invest in 70+ cryptocurrencies and 3,000+ other assets including stocks and precious metals.

0% commission on stocks - buy in bulk or just a fraction from as little as $10. Other fees apply. For more information, visit etoro.com/trading/fees.

Copy top-performing traders in real time, automatically.

eToro USA is registered with FINRA for securities trading.

What is the efficient market hypothesis?

The efficient market hypothesis (EMH) claims that all assets are always fairly and accurately priced and trade at their fair market value on exchanges. If this theory is true, nothing can give you an edge to outperform the market using different investing strategies and make excess profits compared to those who follow market indexes.

Efficient market definition

An efficient market is where all asset prices listed on exchanges fully reflect their true and only value, thus making it impossible for investors to “beat the market” and profit from price discrepancies between the market price and the stock’s intrinsic value. The EMH claims the stock’s fair value, also called intrinsic value , is much the same as its market value , and finding undervalued or overvalued assets is non-viable.  

Intrinsic value refers to an asset’s true, actual value, which is calculated using fundamental and technical analysis, whereas the market price is the currently listed price at which stock is bought and sold. When markets are efficient, the two values should be the same, but when they differ, it poses opportunities for investors to make an excess profit.

For markets to be completely efficient, all information should already be accounted for in stock prices and are trading on exchanges at their fair market value, which is practically impossible.

Hypothesis definition 

A hypothesis is merely an assumption, an idea, or an argument that can be tested and reasoned not to be true. Something that isn’t fully supported by full facts or doesn’t match applied research.

For example, if sugar causes cavities, people who eat a lot of sweets are prone to cavities. And if the same applies here – if all information is reflected in a stock’s price, then its fair value should be the same as its market value and can not differ or be impacted by any other factors. 

Beginners’ corner:

• What is Investing? Putting Money to Work ;
• 17 Common Investing Mistakes to Avoid ;
• 15 Top-Rated Investment Books of All Time ;
• How to Buy Stocks? Complete Beginner’s Guide ;
• 10 Best Stock Trading Books for Beginners ;
• 15 Highest-Rated Crypto Books for Beginners ;
• 6 Basic Rules of Investing ;
• Dividend Investing for Beginners ;
• Top 6 Real Estate Investing Books for Beginners ;
• 5 Passive Income Investment Ideas .

Fundamental and technical analysis in an efficient market 

According to the EMH, stock prices are already accurately priced and consider all possible information. If markets are fully efficient, then no fundamental or technical analysis can help investors find anomalies and make an extra profit. 

Fundamental analysis is a method to calculate a stock’s fair or intrinsic value by looking beyond the current market price by examining additional external factors like financial statements, the overall state of the economy, and competition, which can help define whether the stock is undervalued. 

Also relevant is technical analysis , a method of forecasting the value of stocks by analyzing the historical price data, mainly looking at price and volume fluctuations occurring daily, weekly, or any other constant period, usually displayed on a chart.

The efficient market theory directly contradicts the possibility of outperforming the market using these two strategies; however, there are three different versions of EMH, and each slightly differs from the other.

Three forms of market efficiency 

The efficient market hypothesis can take three different forms , depending on how efficient the markets are and which information is considered in theory: 

1. Strong form efficiency  

Strong form efficiency is the EMH’s purest form, and it is an assumption that all current and historical, both public and private, information that could affect the asset’s price is already considered in a stock’s price and reflects its actual value. According to this theory, stock prices listed on exchanges are entirely accurate. 

Investors who support this theory trust that even inside information can’t give a trader an advantage, meaning that no matter how much extra information they have access to or how much analysis and research they do, they can not exceed standard returns. 

Burton G. Malkiel, a leading proponent of the strong-form market efficiency hypothesis, doesn’t believe any analysis can help identify price discrepancies. Instead, he firmly believes in buy-and-hold investing, trusting it is the best way to maximize profits. However, factual research doesn’t support the possibility of a strong form of efficiency in any market. 

2. Semi-strong form efficiency

The semi-strong version of the EMH suggests that only current and historical public (and not private) information is considered in the stock’s listed share prices. It is the most appropriate form of the efficient market hypothesis, and factual evidence supports that most capital markets in developed countries are generally semi-strong efficient. 

This form of efficiency relies on the fact that public news about a particular stock or security has an immediate effect on the stock prices in the market and also suggests that technical and fundamental analysis can’t be used to make excess profits.   

A semi-strong form of market efficiency theory accepts that investors can gain an advantage in trading only when they have access to any unknown private information unknown to the rest of the market.

3. Weak form efficiency

Weak market efficiency, also called a random walk theory, implies that investors can’t predict prices by analyzing past events, they are entirely random, and technical analysis cannot be used to beat the market. 

Random walk theory proclaims stock prices always take a randomized path and are unpredictable, that investors can’t use past price changes and historical data trends to predict future prices, and that stock prices already reflect all current information. 

For example, advocates of this form see no or limited benefit to technical analysis to discover investment opportunities. Instead, they would maintain a passive investment portfolio by buying index funds that track the overall market performance. 

For example, the momentum investing method analyzes past price movements of stocks to predict future prices – it goes directly against the weak form efficiency, where all the current and past information is already reflected in their market prices.  

A brief history of the efficient market hypothesis

The concept of the efficient market hypothesis is based on a Ph.D. dissertation by Eugene Fama , an American economist, and it assumes all prices of stocks or other financial instruments in the market are entirely accurate. 

In 1970, Fama published this theory in “Efficient Capital Markets: A Review of Theory and Empirical Work,” which outlines his vision where he describes the efficient market as: “A market in which prices always “fully reflect” available information is called “efficient.”

Another theory based on the EMH, the random walk theory by Burton G. Malkiel , states that prices are completely random and not dependent on any factor. Not even past information, and that outperforming the market is a matter of chance and luck and not a point of skill.

Fama has acknowledged that the term can be misleading and that markets can’t be efficient 100% of the time, as there is no accurate way of measuring it. The EMH accepts that random and unexpected events can affect prices but claims they will always be leveled out and revert to their fair market value.

What is an inefficient market? 

The efficient market hypothesis is a theory, and in reality, most markets always display some inefficiencies to a certain extent. It means that market prices don’t always reflect their true value and sometimes fail to incorporate all available information to be priced accurately. 

In extreme cases, an inefficient market may even lead to a market failure and can occur for several reasons.

An inefficient market can happen due to: 

• A lack of buyers and sellers; 
• Absence of information; 
• Delayed price reaction to the news;
• Transaction costs;
• Human emotion;
• Market psychology.

The EMH claims that in an efficiently operating market, all asset prices are always correct and consider all information; however, in an inefficient market, all available information isn’t reflected in the price, making bargain opportunities possible.

Moreover, the fact that there are inefficient markets in the world directly contradicts the efficient market theory, proving that some assets can be overvalued or undervalued, creating investment opportunities for excess gains. 

Validity of the efficient market hypothesis 

With several arguments and real-life proof that assets can become under- or overvalued, the efficient market hypothesis has some inconsistencies, and its validity has repeatedly been questioned. 

While supporters argue that searching for undervalued stock opportunities using technical and fundamental analysis to predict trends is pointless, opponents have proven otherwise. Although academics have proof supporting the EMH, there’s also evidence that overturns it. 

The EMH implies there are no chances for investors to beat the market, but for example, investing strategies like arbitrage trading or value investing rely on minor discrepancies between the listed prices and the actual value of the assets. 

A prime example is Warren Buffet, one of the world’s wealthiest and most successful investors, who has consistently beaten the market over more extended periods through value investing approach, which by definition of EMH is unfeasible. 

Another example is the stock market crash in 1987, when the Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) fell over 20% on the same day, which shows that asset prices can significantly deviate from their values. 

Moreover, the fact that active traders and active investing techniques exist also displays some evidence of inconsistencies and that a completely efficient market is, in reality, impossible. 

Contrasting beliefs about the efficient market hypothesis

Although the EMH has been largely accepted as the cornerstone of modern financial theory, it is also controversial. The proponents of the EMH argue that those who outperform the market and generate an excess profit have managed to do so purely out of luck, that there is no skill involved, and that stocks can still, without a real cause or reason, outperform, whereas others underperform. 

Moreover, it is necessary to consider that even new information takes time to take effect in prices, and in actual efficiency, prices should adjust immediately. If the EMH allows for these inefficiencies, it is a question of whether an absolute market efficiency, strong form efficiency, is at all possible. But as this theory implies, there is little room for beating the market, and believers can rely on returns from a passive index investing strategy.

Even though possible, proponents assume neither technical nor fundamental analysis can help predict trends and produce excess profits consistently, and theoretically, only inside information could result in outsized returns. 

Moreover, several anomalies contradict the market efficiency, including the January anomaly, size anomaly, and winners-losers anomaly, but as usual, factual evidence both contradicts and supports these anomalies.  

Parting opinions about the different versions of the EMH reflect in investors’ investing strategies. For example, supporters of the strong form efficiency might opt for passive investing strategies like buying index funds. In contrast, practitioners of the weak form of efficiency might leverage arbitrage trading to generate profits.

Marketing strategies in an efficient and inefficient market 

On the one side, some academics and investors support Fama’s theory and most likely opt for passive investing strategies. On the other, some investors believe assets can become undervalued and try to use skill and analysis to outperform the market via active trading.

Passive investing

Passive investing is a buy-and-hold strategy where investors seek to generate stable gains over a more extended period as fewer complexities are involved, such as less time and tax spent compared to an actively managed portfolio. 

People who believe in the efficient market hypothesis use passive investing techniques to create lower yet stable gains and use strategies with optimal gains through maximizing returns and minimizing risk.

Proponents of the EMH would use passive investing, for example: 

• Invest in Index Funds;
• Invest in Exchange-traded Funds (ETFs).

However, it is important to note that other mutual funds also use active portfolio management intending to outperform indices, and passive investing strategies aren’t only for those who believe in the EMH.

Active investing

Active portfolio managers use research, analysis, skill, and experience to discover market inefficiencies to generate a higher profit over a shorter period and exceed the benchmark returns. 

Generally, passive investing strategies generate returns in the long run, whereas active investing can generate higher returns in the short term. 

Opponents of the EMH might use active investing techniques, for example: 

• Arbitrage and speculation; 
• Momentum investing ;
• Value investing .

The fact that these active trading strategies exist and have proven to generate above-market returns shows that prices don’t always reflect their market value. 

For instance, if a technology company launches a new innovative product, it might not be immediately reflected in its stock price and have a delayed reaction in the market. 

Suppose a trader has access to unpublished and private inside information. In that case, it will allow them to purchase stocks at a much lower value and sell for a profit after the announcement goes public, capitalizing on the speculated price movements. 

Passive and active portfolio managers are often compared in terms of performance, e.g., investment returns, and research hasn’t fully concluded which one outperforms the other, 

Efficient market examples

Investors and academics have divided opinions about the efficient market hypothesis, and there have been cases where this theory has been overturned and proven inaccurate, especially with strong form efficiency. However, proof from the real world has shown how financial information directly affects the prices of assets and securities, making the market more efficient. 

For example, when the Sarbanes-Oxley Act in the United States, which required more financial transparency through quarterly reporting from publicly traded businesses, came into effect in 2002, it affected stock price volatility. Every time a company released its quarterly numbers, stock market prices were deemed more credible, reliable, and accurate, making markets more efficient. 

Example of a semi-strong form efficient market hypothesis

Let’s assume that ‘stock X’ is trading at $40 per share and is about to release its quarterly financial results. In addition, there was some unofficial and unconfirmed information that the company has achieved impressive growth, which increased the stock price to $50 per share. 

After the release of the actual results, the stock price decreased to $30 per share instead. So whereas the general talk before the official announcement made the stock price jump, the official news launch dropped it. 

Only investors who had inside private information would have known to short-sell the stock , and the ones who followed the publicly available information would have bought it at a high price and incurred a loss. 

What can make markets more efficient?

There are a few ways markets can become more efficient, and even though it is easy to prove the EMH has no solid base, there is some evidence its relevance is growing. 

First , markets become more efficient when more people participate, buy and sell and engage, and bring more information to be incorporated into the stock prices. Moreover, as markets become more liquid, it brings arbitrage opportunities; arbitrageurs exploiting these inefficiencies will, in turn, contribute to a more efficient market.

Secondly , given the faster speed and availability of information and its quality, markets can become more efficient, thus reducing above-market return opportunities. A thoroughly efficient market, strong efficiency, is characterized by the complete and instant transmission of information. 

To make this possible, there should be: 

• Complete absence of human emotion in investing decisions;
• Universal access to high-speed pricing analysis systems; 
• Universally accepted system for pricing stocks;
• All investors accept identical returns and losses. 

The bottom line

At its core, market efficiency is the ability to incorporate all information in stock prices and provide the most accurate opportunities for investors; however, it isn’t easy to imagine a fully efficient market. 

Research has shown that most developed capital markets fall into the semi-strong efficient category. However, whether or not stock markets can be fully efficient conclusively and to what degree continues to be a heated debate among academics and investors.

Disclaimer:  The content on this site should not be considered investment advice. Investing is speculative. When investing, your capital is at risk.

FAQs on the efficient market hypothesis

The efficient market hypothesis (EMH) claims that prices of assets such as stocks are trading at accurate market prices, leaving no opportunities to generate outsized returns. As a result, nothing could give investors an edge to outperform the market, and assets can’t become under- or overvalued.

What are three forms of the efficient market hypothesis?

The efficient market hypothesis takes three forms: first, the purest form is strong form efficiency, which considers current and past information. The second form is semi-strong efficiency, which includes only current and past public, and not private, information. Finally, the third version is weak form efficiency, which claims stock prices always take a randomized path.

What contradicts the efficient market hypothesis?

The efficient market hypothesis directly contradicts the existence of investment strategies, and cases that have proved to generate excess gains are possible, for example, via approaches like value or momentum investing.

When more investors engage in the market by buying and selling, they also bring more information that can be incorporated into the stock prices and make them more accurate. Moreover, the faster movement of information and news nowadays increases accuracy and data quality, thus making markets more efficient. 

Weekly Finance Digest

By subscribing you agree with Finbold T&C’s & Privacy Policy

Related guides

How to Buy SoundHound Stock [2024] | Invest in SOUN

How to Buy Mullen Automotive Stock [2024] | Invest in MULN

10 Biggest Technology Companies in the World [2024]

Challenges and Opportunities for Modern Islamic Traders in the Global Economy

Introducing price alerts.

Create price alerts for stocks & crypto. Get started

• Get 7 Days Free

Never Mind Market Efficiency: Are the Markets Sensible?

Not always, but it’s difficult to profit from that knowledge.

So Much for Efficiency

I began this article with the goal of addressing an academic notion, the efficient-market hypothesis , or EMH. My research dissuaded me. In one University of Chicago article, a faculty member questions the EMH by citing Black Monday, 1987, when global equities dropped 20%-plus for no apparent reason. Yet elsewhere on that institution’s website, another professor states that attempting to refute the EHM by bringing up stock market “runs and crashes” reveals “simple ignorance.”

Time to retreat. If the birthplace of the efficient-market hypothesis cannot define the issue consistently, there’s no hope for me. Thus, I will reframe the discussion. Never mind the E word. Let’s discuss instead if the investment markets are sensible. (Once again, I had intended a different word, and once again I withdrew from the field after reading a Stanford professor’s complaint that “Rationality is one of the most overused words in economics.” Sigh.) Although “sensible” does have several scientific meanings, none to my knowledge occurs within investment research.

The Sensibility Standard

The first definition of the Cambridge Dictionary serves our purpose. The adjective “sensible” describes a decision that is “based upon or acting on good judgment or practical ideas or understanding.” We may therefore call an investment sensible if it is priced by sound collective judgment. Some of its buyers and sellers will be loopy. That is immaterial. The issue is whether the group decision is defensible.

That is not a difficult standard, as the consensus need not be correct, or even remotely close to being so. It merely needs to arrive at a valuation that can be justified, given the information that was then available. For example, buying the stocks of companies that soon declare bankruptcy, as with Kodak or Neiman Marcus, doesn’t violate the precept of sensibility. It would if investors knew for certain that the event would occur, but they do not. Sometimes, wonders occur.

For example, Apple AAPL shares sold at a split-adjusted $0.10 in July 1997 because the marketplace widely expected the company to enter Chapter 11. Suddenly, co-founder Steve Jobs returned to the organization and staved off the seemingly inevitable by arranging a shock $150 million investment from rival Microsoft MSFT . Apple’s stock gained 1,100% over the next two and a half years.

A similar principle applies to marketplaces, as opposed to individual securities. It’s easy to claim now that the breathtakingly high valuations accorded to Japanese equities in December 1989, or US technology stocks in February 2000, were manically foolish. Investment tulips! But people made similar arguments about the FAANG stocks a decade ago while being indisputably wrong . As with recessions, bubbles are more often proclaimed than realized.

Exception 1: Treasury Bonds

All that said, sometimes the financial markets do cross the sensibility line. One recent instance involved 30-year Treasury bonds, which briefly in March 2020 yielded less than 1%. As I wrote at the time, no matter what one’s economic forecast, the bond’s prospective gain was too low for a 30-year commitment. That yield could not be defended. Stocks may permit investment miracles, but government bonds do not. Their returns are fully specified in advance.

This is where the distinction between efficiency and sensibility proves useful. Enterprising academics will have no problem arguing that those Treasury bond prices were efficient. Central banks hold Treasury debt; investors with long-term liabilities immunize them with similarly long-term assets; and those who run strategic portfolios prefer to hold the same positions, regardless of their costs. One can tell stories why a 0.99% yield was an “efficient” payout.

Fair enough. But for typical investors, those prices were nevertheless insensible. Aside from sheer speculation—the possibility of fools selling to even greater fools—Treasury bonds accomplished nothing that Treasury bills could not do better. Both securities protected against the stock market’s slide. Unlike Treasury bonds, though, bills did not carry the threat of steep capital losses, should US interest rates follow the very likely path of rebounding from their 200-year lows .

Exception 2: Destiny Tech100

An even more recent example is a publicly traded fund called Destiny Tech100 DXYZ , which owns 23 positions in privately held technology firms. Conventional mutual funds buy and sell their shares at net asset value, which would make DXYZ’s shares worth $5.00, give or take, as the fund launched on March 26, 2024, with a NAV of $4.84. Closed-end funds, however, cost what the market will bear. Which, in the case of DXYZ, has been a weight that Hercules would struggle to shoulder.

That openly fails the sensibility test. Some amount of investment premium may occur because retail investors cannot otherwise own the fund’s businesses. A 2,000% markup, however, cannot be countenanced, nor can the fund’s extreme volatility. After all, DXYZ’s price dropped from $99 to $29 in 6 days, despite a lack of relevant news. Call that behavior efficient or call it not. Either way, it’s absurd.

Exception 3: Carveouts

A third situation concerns stock “carveouts.” Company A has sold a small public stake in one of its subsidiaries, which I imaginatively will call Company B. Company A now announces that it will spin off the rest of its Company B stake. In response, the publicly traded shares of Company B rally so aggressively that the imputed value of Company B stock that Company A still retains—the divestiture having not yet occurred—exceeds the stock market capitalization of Company A.

In other words, Company A now possesses a negative value. Somehow, through its additional sale, Company A has simultaneously boosted the value of Company B while making its own net worth less than zero. If that seems peculiar, that’s because it is. However, such events have occurred on several occasions, some of which are chronicled in this paper . (Sure enough, a subsequent article argued that such events do not contradict the efficient-market hypothesis.)

Where’s the Money?

By now, you may have guessed the catch: These examples offer no profit opportunity for investors establishing long positions. Violations of the sensibility test typically occur with securities that are overpriced, as opposed to those that are open and obvious bargains. They are potential short sales, not long positions. And selling short is perilous because what is already expensive can easily become even more expensive. (For proof, ask those who have shorted Trump Media & Technology Group’s DJT stock, only to watch its price rise 130% in one month.)

The authors of the previously mentioned carveout paper, Owen Lamont and Richard Thaler, explain the situation: “If irrational investors are unwilling to buy [securities] at an unrealistically high price, and rational but risk-averse investors are unwilling or unable to sell enough shares short,” then prices can become distorted. The skeptics are twice sensible—first in recognizing that the security in question costs too much, and second in avoiding the hazard of shorting too aggressively. Twice sensible, however, does not square the market.

This explanation of investment behavior is also consistent with the performance of active portfolio managers. They are well-trained, informed, and disciplined. They can see where danger lies. Unfortunately for their funds’ returns, their acumen provides scant benefit. They may know enough to recognize the markets’ trouble spots, but for the most part, they cannot gain from that knowledge.

Despite my frustration with how the term “efficient markets” is used, I recommend this 1991 review of the concept from Eugene Fama, wherein he discusses the literature that initially followed his research. Naturally, Dr. Fama favors accounts that preserve the notion of market efficiency to ones that admit anomalies. That said, he gives his critics their due while clearly explaining their arguments.

Post Postscript

As I file this article for publication, I see that GameStop GME stock is up 80% on the day, on the hope that Keith Gill, who touted the company online in 2020, will be returning to social media. Not only is that news unrelated to the company’s business, but it’s not really even news, since the signal consists of an uncaptioned picture on Gill’s social-media site.

Oh, and AMC Entertainment AMC has also gained 60% on the day because AMC is another dinosaur business that is owned by some of the same investors who hold GameStop, so if there’s a rumor about a web-related sighting for GameStop, that naturally should lead to AMC being worth substantially more.

Is that behavior consistent with the markets being informationally efficient? Indeed it is. Almost instantly after the picture was posted those stocks rallied. Is that behavior consistent with sanity? Not so much.

The opinions expressed here are the author’s. Morningstar values diversity of thought and publishes a broad range of viewpoints.

The author or authors do not own shares in any securities mentioned in this article. Find out about Morningstar’s editorial policies .

More in Rekenthaler Report

Is the Stock Market Too Concentrated?

Should You Buy and Hold an Artificial Intelligence Portfolio?

Bill gross warns investors to steer clear of bond funds, about the author, john rekenthaler.

John Rekenthaler is vice president, research for Morningstar Research Services LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Morningstar, Inc.

Rekenthaler joined Morningstar in 1988 and has served in several capacities. He has overseen Morningstar's research methodologies, led thought leadership initiatives such as the Global Investor Experience report that assesses the experiences of mutual fund investors globally, and been involved in a variety of new development efforts. He currently writes regular columns for Morningstar.com and Morningstar magazine.

Rekenthaler previously served as president of Morningstar Associates, LLC, a registered investment advisor and wholly owned subsidiary of Morningstar, Inc. During his tenure, he has also led the company’s retirement advice business, building it from a start-up operation to one of the largest independent advice and guidance providers in the retirement industry.

Before his role at Morningstar Associates, he was the firm's director of research, where he helped to develop Morningstar's quantitative methodologies, such as the Morningstar Rating for funds, the Morningstar Style Box, and industry sector classifications. He also served as editor of Morningstar Mutual Funds and Morningstar FundInvestor.

Rekenthaler holds a bachelor's degree in English from the University of Pennsylvania and a Master of Business Administration from the University of Chicago Booth School of Business, from which he graduated with high honors as a Wallman Scholar.

There’s No Evidence of a Retirement Crisis

When low risk means high risk, are you an investment historian or a futurist, tips are on sale, the best bond index funds: part 2, the dangerous myth of ‘the new normal’, sponsor center.

• Yekaterinburg
• Novosibirsk
• Vladivostok

• Tours to Russia
• Practicalities
• Russia in Lists

Rusmania • Deep into Russia

Out of the Centre

Savvino-storozhevsky monastery and museum.

Zvenigorod's most famous sight is the Savvino-Storozhevsky Monastery, which was founded in 1398 by the monk Savva from the Troitse-Sergieva Lavra, at the invitation and with the support of Prince Yury Dmitrievich of Zvenigorod. Savva was later canonised as St Sabbas (Savva) of Storozhev. The monastery late flourished under the reign of Tsar Alexis, who chose the monastery as his family church and often went on pilgrimage there and made lots of donations to it. Most of the monastery’s buildings date from this time. The monastery is heavily fortified with thick walls and six towers, the most impressive of which is the Krasny Tower which also serves as the eastern entrance. The monastery was closed in 1918 and only reopened in 1995. In 1998 Patriarch Alexius II took part in a service to return the relics of St Sabbas to the monastery. Today the monastery has the status of a stauropegic monastery, which is second in status to a lavra. In addition to being a working monastery, it also holds the Zvenigorod Historical, Architectural and Art Museum.

Belfry and Neighbouring Churches

Located near the main entrance is the monastery's belfry which is perhaps the calling card of the monastery due to its uniqueness. It was built in the 1650s and the St Sergius of Radonezh’s Church was opened on the middle tier in the mid-17th century, although it was originally dedicated to the Trinity. The belfry's 35-tonne Great Bladgovestny Bell fell in 1941 and was only restored and returned in 2003. Attached to the belfry is a large refectory and the Transfiguration Church, both of which were built on the orders of Tsar Alexis in the 1650s.  

To the left of the belfry is another, smaller, refectory which is attached to the Trinity Gate-Church, which was also constructed in the 1650s on the orders of Tsar Alexis who made it his own family church. The church is elaborately decorated with colourful trims and underneath the archway is a beautiful 19th century fresco.

Nativity of Virgin Mary Cathedral

The Nativity of Virgin Mary Cathedral is the oldest building in the monastery and among the oldest buildings in the Moscow Region. It was built between 1404 and 1405 during the lifetime of St Sabbas and using the funds of Prince Yury of Zvenigorod. The white-stone cathedral is a standard four-pillar design with a single golden dome. After the death of St Sabbas he was interred in the cathedral and a new altar dedicated to him was added.

Under the reign of Tsar Alexis the cathedral was decorated with frescoes by Stepan Ryazanets, some of which remain today. Tsar Alexis also presented the cathedral with a five-tier iconostasis, the top row of icons have been preserved.

Tsaritsa's Chambers

The Nativity of Virgin Mary Cathedral is located between the Tsaritsa's Chambers of the left and the Palace of Tsar Alexis on the right. The Tsaritsa's Chambers were built in the mid-17th century for the wife of Tsar Alexey - Tsaritsa Maria Ilinichna Miloskavskaya. The design of the building is influenced by the ancient Russian architectural style. Is prettier than the Tsar's chambers opposite, being red in colour with elaborately decorated window frames and entrance.

At present the Tsaritsa's Chambers houses the Zvenigorod Historical, Architectural and Art Museum. Among its displays is an accurate recreation of the interior of a noble lady's chambers including furniture, decorations and a decorated tiled oven, and an exhibition on the history of Zvenigorod and the monastery.

Palace of Tsar Alexis

The Palace of Tsar Alexis was built in the 1650s and is now one of the best surviving examples of non-religious architecture of that era. It was built especially for Tsar Alexis who often visited the monastery on religious pilgrimages. Its most striking feature is its pretty row of nine chimney spouts which resemble towers.

Plan your next trip to Russia

Ready-to-book tours.

Your holiday in Russia starts here. Choose and book your tour to Russia.

The Unique Burial of a Child of Early Scythian Time at the Cemetery of Saryg-Bulun (Tuva)

<< Previous page

Pages:  379-406

In 1988, the Tuvan Archaeological Expedition (led by M. E. Kilunovskaya and V. A. Semenov) discovered a unique burial of the early Iron Age at Saryg-Bulun in Central Tuva. There are two burial mounds of the Aldy-Bel culture dated by 7th century BC. Within the barrows, which adjoined one another, forming a figure-of-eight, there were discovered 7 burials, from which a representative collection of artifacts was recovered. Burial 5 was the most unique, it was found in a coffin made of a larch trunk, with a tightly closed lid. Due to the preservative properties of larch and lack of air access, the coffin contained a well-preserved mummy of a child with an accompanying set of grave goods. The interred individual retained the skin on his face and had a leather headdress painted with red pigment and a coat, sewn from jerboa fur. The coat was belted with a leather belt with bronze ornaments and buckles. Besides that, a leather quiver with arrows with the shafts decorated with painted ornaments, fully preserved battle pick and a bow were buried in the coffin. Unexpectedly, the full-genomic analysis, showed that the individual was female. This fact opens a new aspect in the study of the social history of the Scythian society and perhaps brings us back to the myth of the Amazons, discussed by Herodotus. Of course, this discovery is unique in its preservation for the Scythian culture of Tuva and requires careful study and conservation.

Keywords: Tuva, Early Iron Age, early Scythian period, Aldy-Bel culture, barrow, burial in the coffin, mummy, full genome sequencing, aDNA

Information about authors: Marina Kilunovskaya (Saint Petersburg, Russian Federation). Candidate of Historical Sciences. Institute for the History of Material Culture of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Dvortsovaya Emb., 18, Saint Petersburg, 191186, Russian Federation E-mail: [email protected] Vladimir Semenov (Saint Petersburg, Russian Federation). Candidate of Historical Sciences. Institute for the History of Material Culture of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Dvortsovaya Emb., 18, Saint Petersburg, 191186, Russian Federation E-mail: [email protected] Varvara Busova  (Moscow, Russian Federation).  (Saint Petersburg, Russian Federation). Institute for the History of Material Culture of the Russian Academy of Sciences.  Dvortsovaya Emb., 18, Saint Petersburg, 191186, Russian Federation E-mail:  [email protected] Kharis Mustafin  (Moscow, Russian Federation). Candidate of Technical Sciences. Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology.  Institutsky Lane, 9, Dolgoprudny, 141701, Moscow Oblast, Russian Federation E-mail:  [email protected] Irina Alborova  (Moscow, Russian Federation). Candidate of Biological Sciences. Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology.  Institutsky Lane, 9, Dolgoprudny, 141701, Moscow Oblast, Russian Federation E-mail:  [email protected] Alina Matzvai  (Moscow, Russian Federation). Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology.  Institutsky Lane, 9, Dolgoprudny, 141701, Moscow Oblast, Russian Federation E-mail:  [email protected]

Shopping Cart Items: 0 Cart Total: 0,00 € place your order

Price pdf version

student - 2,75 € individual - 3,00 € institutional - 7,00 €

Copyright В© 1999-2022. Stratum Publishing House