[quantgenius]

Ever wonder why decades after the EMH was postulated it's still a Hypothesis? and not considered a Theory or something stronger? There are far too many people with far too good and consistent a trading record, who's style of trading uses only or primarily price and time data for any reasonable claim that technical analysis doesn't work. This doesn't mean that a typical investor can access investment pools run by these traders, just like the typical investor cannot access the best VC funds or the hottest startups. They typically have tightly binding capacity limits and once the track record is clear, they can pick and choose who to let in.

People pushing technical analysis do believe that it's pointless to look at fundamentals because all (or most) fundamental information is already in the price and hence it's pointless to look at fundamental data. In my opinion this discussion is about as pointless as a religious war.

In the real world specifics and details matter. In general, the weak form of the EMH does hold, as in if you think something is worth twice what the market says it is and you don't have a really good reason why the market doesn't realize this, you are almost certainly wrong. This of course makes a weak form of the claim that all fundamental information is in the price also true.