IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/ufajxx/v76y2020i2p5-14.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Efficient Market Hypothesis, the Financial Analysts Journal, and the Professional Status of Investment Management

Author

Listed:
  • Stephen J. Brown

Abstract

Prior to Eugene Fama’s 1965 contribution to the Financial Analysts Journal, making money on Wall Street was considered to be easy. The practical implication of the efficient market hypothesis (EMH) changed that presumption. Despite challenges to the hypothesis, small investors—those who are not professionals and have limited capital and limited access to special information—may as well assume that the EMH is true. Persistent outperformance requires skill and a professional status for security analysis—Benjamin Graham’s argument in 1945 for the establishment of the Financial Analysts Journal. Not surprisingly, the Journal has extensively covered discussions of the EMH and its practical and intellectual implications.Disclosure: The author reports no conflicts of interest. Editor’s Note Submitted 3 February 2020Accepted 23 February 2020 by Heidi Raubenheimer, CFA, Luis Garcia-Feijóo, CFA, CIPM, Daniel Giamouridis, and Steven Thorley, CFA.

Suggested Citation

  • Stephen J. Brown, 2020. "The Efficient Market Hypothesis, the Financial Analysts Journal, and the Professional Status of Investment Management," Financial Analysts Journal, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 76(2), pages 5-14, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:ufajxx:v:76:y:2020:i:2:p:5-14
    DOI: 10.1080/0015198X.2020.1734375
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/0015198X.2020.1734375
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/0015198X.2020.1734375?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:ufajxx:v:76:y:2020:i:2:p:5-14. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/ufaj20 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.