> In what I recall from my CFA studies, research shows that only genuine insider information can consistent outperform the assumption that all information is al

> In what I recall from my CFA studies, research shows that only genuine insider information can consistent outperform the assumption that all information is already priced in. Even if you assume there are no information inequalities outside of inside information (there are), markets are myopic. Expectations focus around one scenario which is why you see slow adjustments to trends. Btw, it is actually worse than people think: I have countless anecdotes from execs who run companies, who were "experts", who had substantial inside information and were still unable to predict industry trends better than me. There is a social, cultural, institutional context...you see vastly different investor behaviour even between countries that are very similar (i.e. US/UK). This focus on information above all is a conceit to assist the construction of economic theories, not a distinction that is useful in practice. Also, you may or may not have worked for a very impressive hedge fund but win rate tells you nothing about profitability. I know a fund that made one decision in 1992, made poor decisions constantly after, almost everyone who works there is worth $100m+, and they manage $100bn. You can go 10 years with only one good idea and outperform everyone else. Win rate means nothing.