My belief in some of the weaker forms of EMH does not stem from the idea that markets would be somehow correct, but vice versa. Markets are (almost[1]) always i

My belief in some of the weaker forms of EMH does not stem from the idea that markets would be somehow correct, but vice versa. Markets are (almost[1]) always incorrect, and nobody can know how much they are incorrect tomorrow[2]. Thus nobody can beat the markets, other than the random coin tosser. Now, I fully agree that there have been certain anomalies (value premium anomaly in case of Buffett) that pretty much align with the strategies of these long term successful investors. Question is, has it been their skill to pick right anomaly as a basis for their strategy, or luck? Again, in the world of investment strategies, there for sure is someone trying almost anything. And if that anomaly disappears[3], do they have the skill to change their strategy? But we are a bit off topic here. The original question was "Why do traders in investment banks..." that is a different species from the warrenbuffetts. [1] Asset markets can be right somewhat like a clock that has stopped is right twice a day. [2] Yes, Keynes said "The market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent." [3] I have actually bet my money that the value premium anomaly is not disappearing, but that anomaly is not something investment bank traders can enjoy, as the anomaly is far too long term anomaly for them.