Efficient Market Hypothesis Quotes

Market prices are always wrong.

The generally accepted view is that markets are always right -- that is, market prices tend to discount future developments accurately even when it is unclear what those developments are. I start with the opposite view. I believe the market prices are always wrong in the sense that they present a biased view of the future.

How could economics not be behavioral? If it isn't behavioral, what the hell is it?

as an economics professor I am by nature inclined to the view that the truth isn't out there, it's in here - that usually you learn a lot more by thinking really hard about the data than you do by sniffing around for supposedly inside information.

I take the market-efficiency hypothesis to be the simple statement that security prices fully reflect all available information.

But whatever the consensus on the EMH, I know of no serious academic, professional money manager, trained security analyst, or intelligent individual investor who would disagree with the thrust of EMH: The stock market itself is a demanding taskmaster. It sets a high hurdle that few investors can leap.

I don't entirely reject the idea of efficient markets. It needs updating.

The prevailing wisdom is that markets are always right. I take the opposite position. I assume that markets are always wrong.

I had always been interested in markets - specifically, the theory that in financial markets, goods will trade at a fair value only when everyone has access to the same information.

The efficient market theory is one of the better models in the sense that it can be taken as true for every purpose I can think of. For investment purposes, there are very few investors that shouldn't behave as if markets are totally efficient.

Investing in a market where people believe in efficiency is like playing bridge with someone who has been told it doesn't do any good to look at the cards.

The proposition is that prices reflect all available information, which in simple terms means since prices reflect all available information, there's no way to beat the market.

I have never believed that large-cap stocks are too well followed to be anything but efficiently priced.

I am not well qualified to criticize the theory of rational expectations and the efficient market hypothesis because as a market participant I considered them so unrealistic that I never bothered to study them.

To establish the right price for a stock, the market must have adequate information, but it by no means follows that is the market has this information it will thereupon establish the right price.

Market prices are always wrong in the sense that they present a biased view of the future.

If you believe that markets operate in Alan Greenspan fashion, then you don't inquire into the details.

It's a funny thing, by the way, how people who love free markets are also quite sure that they know that investors are being irrational.

If I subscribed to the efficient market theory I would still be delivering papers