I don’t get this. On one hand, event studies support ss EMH (i.e. abnormal returns cannot be achieved after the release of info), but on the other hand, earnings surprises IS a market anomaly. So which one is it? What am I missing?
The same thing occured to me as well. There seem to be points for, and points against, semi strong EMH. For some reason the book just decides “for” ss EMH, even though it contradicted other parts… Maybe someone else gets it. I know I certainly see a lot of technical analysis talk on tv, and people seemingly making a living doing it as well, which I believe violates the ss eMH hypothesis.
My take…the results support EMH…EXCEPT the instances mentioned in the book, price/book, small firm, neglected firm, calendar something and earnings surprises etc. I guess thats why they are termed as “anomalies”