Are stock markets efficient? This is a question that has long been debated in the financial world. The efficient market hypothesis (EMH) states that all available information is already incorporated into the price of an asset. This means that it is impossible to consistently outperform the market. While the EMH is widely accepted, there are still those who challenge the robustness of the theory and believe that stock can become undervalued. In this article, we will explore the debate surrounding the efficient market hypothesis and whether stock markets are truly efficient.
The efficient market hypothesis was first introduced in 1965 by Eugene Fama. Fama argued that stock prices reflect all available information and that it is impossible to consistently outperform the market. This means that investors are not able to predict the future and that no one can time the market. As the market adjusts over time, this price inflation becomes transitory in rate of change terms, but with prices that ultimately settle at levels that reflect the underlying economic fundamentals.
The efficient market hypothesis is widely accepted by academics and investors alike, but there are still those who challenge the robustness of the theory. For example, some argue that certain markets are more efficient than others, or that certain stock can become undervalued. They believe that there are certain strategies which can be used to take advantage of these inefficiencies and outperform the market.