English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

This article develops a critical reflection on the way the efficient market hypothesis (EMH) is debated, and in so doing tries to design an efficient way to criticize it. We first expose the debate is flawed by a confusion between two different forms of efficiency that we call technical and fundamental respectively, a confusion based on the implicit assumption that the first one implies the second one. We then show this inference requires the validity of a hypothesis which is neither tested nor part of the explanatory model of what is tested, and that the tested efficiency is generally the technical one, save in some scarce cases. This very scarcity is finally related to the prevalence of the investor’s point of view in financial theory:  technical  efficiency does make sense for investors, but not for regulators, because it does not imply  per se  that market valuation is the best one for financial assets. Assessing the ability of markets to produce informed judgements on the price of these assets would mean to reopen a debate on  fundamental  efficiency.

Inefficient Debate. The EMH, the “Remarkable Error” and a Question of Point of View