For intraday trading, news is not needed at all, there is movement - you need to trade. If for medium-term trading, you always get the news second. Large institutional players are always the first to hear the news and have a huge team of analysts who study the news and make predictions. News is important only if you constantly trade only 2-3 stacks and you are a guru in everything that happens in these companies. The most important news is global news, unemployment, rate hikes and big boss talk. And still you never know where the market will go. The news is good, the market is falling. How many times have I seen this.
So efficient, that it was made by folks who couldn't beat the index, so they needed to find an explanation for their wives, as why do they have to move into the nearby trailer park, despite of having PHD in physics, yet loosing all of the monies, while going all in on some leveraged bet, that was supposed to work-out 100%. ,, John, but you won Nobel Prize in Econom - ... - Yes, yes, but you see, market is too efficient and... "
EMH got a lot of criticism and the point which was offered by the thread runner is not an exception. I totally agree that there is a certain time lag in assets' prices and the news. The most interesting thing is that such a time lag can be infinetely long which makes the market really unpredictable and illogical. If this hypothesis had any connection to the reality, we wouldn't have the bubbles and economic crisis. Let me draw an example here of crisis in 2008. Who knew that CDOs were just a piece of ***? Did their prices reflect this kind of information? Of course, not. So, I don't really believe in efficient market and adequate market players.
Well, at least we don't have Trump anymore, who could move the Dow 700 points in a minute with a tweet.