In two posts, you went from “Every. Bit.” of evidence supports EMH to
vineviz wrote: ↑Sun May 15, 2022 2:58 pm
most markets, most of the time,
That’s an enormous difference!
Fame’s own work ends up requiring an (evolving) set of factors to explain why the empirical evidence of markets behave they way they do in apparent defiance of EMH.
There’s this wonderful debate between Fama and Thaler where, like GameStop, Thaler has some examples of pretty obviously non-efficient market results and Fama has to dismiss them as anecdotes, much as he does GameStop.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bM9bYOBuKF4
I would think that, as an academic, once you start omitting inconvenient evidence, you are starting down a dangerous path. I wish Fama showed more interest in these exceptions. Especially since, despite being so weird, they can be pretty consequential.
I get that, for most of us, most of the time, it makes the most sense to treat markets as efficient. But I’d expect the people who make a living studying these things to hold themselves to higher standards.