Journal of Economic Perspectives—Volume 17, Number 1—Winter 2003—Pages 59 – 82 The Ef � cient Market Hypothesis and Its Critics

Citations in the corpus

Commodity futures and market efficiency (2013, background): “Even though EMHhas been repeatedly disparaged both empirically and theoretically (Cont, 2001; Malkiel, 2003), and even more so after the Global Financial Crisis broke out in 2007/2008, its validity remains an open issue, yet still it persists in standard textbooks on financial economics (Elton et…”
Measuring Organizational Performance: Towards Methodological Best Practice (2009, background): “Moreover, research on psychological and other influences suggests that market values do not simply reflect an efficient appraisal of future cash flows (Kahneman & Riepe, 1998; Malkiel, 2003).”
Applications of deep learning in stock market prediction: recent progress (2020, unknown): “However, many researchers disagree with EMH (Malkiel, 2003).”
The Evolution of Stock Market Efficiency Over Time: A Survey of the Empirical Literature (2011, background): “Fourth, proponents of the EMH always dismiss negative empirical evidence on the grounds that those detected stock market predictable patterns do not give rise to profitable investment strategies (see Malkiel, 2003).”
Asymmetric causality tests with an application (2012, background): “(1998); Ojah and Karemera (1999); Henry and Olekalns (2002); Abraham et al. (2002);Buguk and Brorsen (2003); Malkiel (2003) ; Al-Khazali et al. (2007); Cajueiro et al. (2009); Ibrahim and Aziz (2003); Hatemi-J (2004a,b) as well as Lim and Kim (2008).”
Reflections on the Efficient Market Hypothesis: 30 Years Later (2005, background): “5 See, for example, Fama (1998), and Malkiel (2003) .”
Access to finance, working capital management and company value: Evidences from Brazilian companies listed on BM&FBOVESPA (2014, background): “It is noteworthy that, in trying to avoid survival bias (Malkiel, 2003), even if a company has delisted and stopped trading on the stock exchange after a certain date, it was only removed from the sample in the delisting year, but remains in it for previous periods.”