> You can discount any article that claims to refute the efficient market hypothesis unless the author includes a bit about how they have already arbitraged thi

> You can discount any article that claims to refute the efficient market hypothesis unless the author includes a bit about how they have already arbitraged this deficiency away and are currently sitting on a multi-billion dollar pile of money. That's not really fair at all, actually. In general it's perfectly reasonable to prove something non-constructively. There's no a priori reason to assume that a disproof of the efficient market hypothesis would be accompanied by a formula which can generate arbitrary amounts of money for its user. Finance is far more complicated than that. > So uhh, given that he's got billions of dollars, there may actually be something there. Then again, the core skill of hedge funds is to convince people to let you manage their money, which is somewhat different than actual investing skill, so it's still unclear. That Asness has accumulated billions of dollars in personal wealth is really only one dimension of why I'd say he's particularly qualified to comment on it. In my opinion, it's not even the most compelling - I'd say the fact that he received a doctorate under Fama and is involved in the academic community is a much more resounding affirmation of his arguments. As for AQR's performance, it's a fair point that most hedge funds don't have a great return. But if you're looking for constructive examples to argue against the EMH, you can just cite Renaissance, Bridgewater, Soros, Baupost, Citadel, DE Shaw or Two Sigma.