[na85]

>No, for technical analysis to work, EMH needs to be false.

The way it was explained to me is that if the EMH is true, then looking at fundamentals is pointless because all the fundamentals are already priced-in, which leaves nothing but price and volume data left to analyze.

How could EMH be anything other than true in that case?

I'll note that investopedia is often not a good source. Here's an investopedia article that explicitly supports my position, for example: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/technicalanalysis.asp

[apetresc]

> The way it was explained to me is that if the EMH is true, then looking at fundamentals is pointless because all the fundamentals are already priced-in, which leaves nothing but price and volume data left to analyze.

So, TA proponents believe that market forces, economics, political and social trends, etc, are all instantaneously absorbed by the market - but "double tops"[1] and "hanging mans"[2] and "three black crows"[3] are all low-hanging fruit that the elite can take advantage of?

I'm usually pretty open-minded, but I can't make myself see anyone believing this non-ironically.

[1]: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/double-top-and-bottom.a... [2]: https://www.investopedia.com/articles/active-trading/040914/... [3]: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/three_black_crows.asp

[na85]

I dunno. I think fundamentals move markets and TA is mostly bs so I'm not here to litigate the validity of TA with anyone.

[bsamuels]

The same claims about TA/EMH are made as part of the CFA study materials that are made in the investopedia I linked.

I'm afraid I don't know what else to tell you, there's no public links to CFA Institute study materials and they're a pretty definitive certification authority in finance.