Efficient Market Hypothesis (EMH)

Reviewed by Anjaneyulu | Updated on Aug 27, 2020

Introduction

The Efficient Market Hypothesis (EMH), alternatively referred to as the Efficient Market Theory, is a hypothesis, which states that share prices reflect all information and that consistent alpha production is impossible. According to the EMH, stocks are always trading on exchanges at their fair value, making it impossible for investors to buy undervalued stocks or sell inventories for inflated prices.

Expert stock selection or market timing would also make it difficult to outperform the overall market, and the only way an investor can generate higher returns is by buying riskier investments.

Understanding

While a pillar of modern financial theory, the EMH is particularly contentious and sometimes contentious. Believers claim that looking for undervalued stocks or trying to forecast market movements from either a fundamental or technical review is futile.

Theoretically, neither technical nor fundamental analysis can consistently produce risk-adjusted excess returns (alpha), and outsized risk-adjusted returns can only result within the information.

Study on EMH

Efficient market hypothesis proponents conclude that investors could do better by investing in a low-cost, passive portfolio because of the randomness of the market.

The EMH is backed by data collected by Morningstar Inc. in its Active / Passive Barometer analysis of June 2019. Morningstar compared the returns of active managers in all categories against a composite comprising related index funds and exchange-traded funds (ETFs).

The study found that only 23% of active managers were able to outperform their inactive colleagues over ten years, starting in June 2009. Global equity funds and bond funds found higher performance rates. US large-cap funds reported lower performance rates. Investors have generally fared better by investing in low-cost index funds or ETFs.

While at some point, a percentage of active managers outperform passive funds, the long-term challenge for investors is to be able to identify who will do so. Less than 25% of active managers with top performance can consistently outperform their passive manager counterparts over time.