What are some criticisms of the efficient market hypothesis?
Perhaps the biggest criticism of the efficient market hypothesis is that it is based on a misunderstanding of what determines stock market valuations.
Valuations are less a factor of known information than they are of future cash flow projections. While those are based in part on available information, they are also based on qualitative factors and judgments on leadership, optionality, competition, emerging technologies, and other drivers.
The efficient market hypothesis also ignores the impact of sentiment on valuations and prices. For example, there's no question that bubbles exist in the stock market and other asset classes. Well-known examples are the dot-com bubble, the real estate bubble of the mid-2000s, and the recent cryptocurrency bubble. Some have argued that there's currently a bubble in artificial intelligence stocks.
The existence of asset bubbles, which are driven by price action, momentum, hype, and the greater fool theory, seems like some of the best evidence that the efficient market hypothesis isn't accurate, or at least isn't a full explanation of a stock price.
To get a complete understanding, you need to factor in market sentiment and predictions about the future, as well as known information about a stock.