After taking risk into account, do more managers than you’d see by chance outperform with persistence? Virtually every economist who studied this question answers with a resounding 'no.'

I take the market-efficiency hypothesis to be the simple statement that security prices fully reflect all available information.

The efficient market theory is one of the better models in the sense that it can be taken as true for every purpose I can think of. For investment purposes, there are very few investors that shouldn't behave as if markets are totally efficient.

In an efficient market at any point in time the actual price of a security will be a good estimate of its intrinsic value.

Active management is a zero-sum game before cost, and the winners have to win at the expense of the losers.

An investor doesn’t have a prayer of picking a manager that can deliver true alpha.

I’d compare stock pickers to astrologers but I don’t want to bad mouth astrologers.