My own suspicions have been for quite some time now that fundamentals are what move markets and that technicals are mostly bullshit and are only valid because algo-traders school like fish based on technicals.
Actually it does. The central premise of the Efficient Market Hypothesis is that all relevant information is already priced in.
>"the market can remain irrational longer than you can stay solvent."
Irrational behaviour by uninformed investors is theoretically already priced in, if the market is efficient.
Thing is, the hypothesis can be useful whilst being only approximately true. If it is true to with 0.1% then, in most cases, it is quite appropriate to model it as being perfectly true. And obviously, there are other cases where that model isn't useful. In those cases, it would probably still be useful to take the 0.1% number into account.
IMO markets can't be efficient because we as humans aren't - our perception of value itself can be subjective and influenced by many things including FOMO, safety in numbers perceptions, risk aversion (usually), etc etc.
The intuition behind the efficient market hypothesis is that each of these deviations from "homo economicus", if it occurs in a market, is an opportunity for someone else to make money. EMH says that opportunity won't be wasted, at least for very long.