> That is far and away the most pedantic form of the efficient market hypothesis I've ever heard. No one in academia or the industry actually believes that ever

> That is far and away the most pedantic form of the efficient market hypothesis I've ever heard. No one in academia or the industry actually believes that everyone always has access to the exact same information at the exact same time. Are you trolling? The efficient market hypothesis is a hypothesis, and it's based on the premise that everyone has the same information. Which word didn't you understand? No one knows whether the EMH is either valid or that it in any way underlies the behavior of the real market. It's ... wait for it ... a hypothesis. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efficient-market_hypothesis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efficient-market_hypothesis Quote: "In finance, the efficient-market hypothesis (EMH) asserts that financial markets are "informationally efficient". In consequence of this, one cannot consistently achieve returns in excess of average market returns on a risk-adjusted basis, given the information available at the time the investment is made." After reading the above, has it escaped your attention that the EMH, as defined, assumes that everyone has the same information? Common knowledge is a working hypothesis, just like the EMH itself. > ... your central premise was that the modern equities market was not stable and was not to the benefit of an "average investor". Only when private information informs trades, and I made this perfectly clear. This is why the SEC rigorously prosecutes inside traders, because it's true -- when private information informs trades, the market isn't fair. > None of this was proven by today's event and was in fact largely disproven. Nonsense. The market fell based on a lie -- on private information. This proves that information must be both shared and public for the market to work as it should. > Stability was not jeopardized ... The market commenced to plummet based on false information. The only reason it didn't melt down entirely is because those who knew it was a lie, very quickly said so. Exactly which part of that fact do you find to be mysterious? > 2 pieces of public information were consumed nearly as fast as they could be produced and the correct prices in the market were reflected. Nonsense, and you are trolling. Your position is that the lie about an attack caused the market to react appropriately. But the market's move was based on false information, therefore it was not a "correct price" -- someone was gaming the system, and whether or not it was for private gain is irrelevant. > ... and the average investor was not impacted by what could have been a malicious attempt to game the system ... False. average investors, and all straight players, and "impacted" by insider trading -- it represents a threat to public confidence in the market. That's why the SEC prosecutes inside traders, throws them in jail. Exactly which part of this everyday reality is causing you the most confusion? The market can be manipulated by inside traders and people who put out misleading or false information for private gain. The SEC does all it can to address this very real threat to public confidence in the essential fairness of the market. Circle the world you you don't understand and raise your hand.