In the late 1980s, professors Andrew Lo and Craig McKinlay published a paper which cast doubt on the random walk hypothesis. In a 1999 response to Malkiel, Lo and McKinlay collected empirical papers that questioned the hypothesis' applicabilityLo, Andrew; MacKinlay, Craig. A Non-Random Walk Down Wall Street, Princeton University Press, 1999. that suggested a non-random and possibly predictive component to stock price movement, though they were careful to point out that rejecting random walk does not necessarily invalidate EMH, which is an entirely separate concept from RWH. In a 2000 paper, Andrew Lo back-analyzed data from the U.S. from 1962 to 1996 and found that "several technical indicators do provide incremental information and may have some practical value". Burton Malkiel dismissed the irregularities mentioned by Lo and McKinlay as being too small to profit from.
In the late 1980s, professors Andrew Lo and Craig McKinlay published a paper which cast doubt on the random walk hypothesis. In a 1999 response to Malkiel, Lo and McKinlay collected empirical papers that questioned the hypothesis' applicabilityLo, Andrew; MacKinlay, Craig. A Non-Random Walk Down Wall Street, Princeton University Press, 1999. that suggested a non-random and possibly predictive component to stock price movement, though they were careful to point out that rejecting random walk does not necessarily invalidate EMH, which is an entirely separate concept from RWH. In a 2000 paper, Andrew Lo back-analyzed data from the U.S. from 1962 to 1996 and found that "several technical indicators do provide incremental information and may have some practical value". Burton Malkiel dismissed the irregularities mentioned by Lo and McKinlay as being too small t.o profit from