My brief overview was probably too abstract for you.
Be that as it may, in your quote of my conclusion, you repeat the essential point of where the contemporary scene winds up.
"A non solution is being affected and that is abundantly clear as depicted by the measures now in play and the extent of the measures."
"A non solution is being affected" describes the collective work of quants and the organizations to which they contribute.
"that is abundantly clear" describes the published record of these people and organizations and how the record specifically compares to what the market offers and how the record compares to other's records who do not use the quant approach and do much better obtaining what the market offers.
"as depicted by the measures now in play and the extent of the measures." states that there are these conventional measures (see above) and they are published and these results are very unimpressive to say the least.
The briefest authoritative statement that confirms this and which is written by quants is: "Disagreement and the Stock Market" (Hong, Stein, 2007, pages 1 through 4).
EMH is best addressed in the quant's specialized field of info-gap decision theory (a NON-probabilistic decision theory) where two alternatives for solutions exist.
Nesting (throw all the shit possible at the wall and see what sticks) (robustness) and Contraction (knowing that you know) (opportuneness) are the possibilities.
You may know that robustness is the pervasive choice in the financial industry; robustness-satisficing preferences prevail, unfortunately.
Do a search to learn about information gaps in order to understand the problems facing quants and how they did not deal with them but, instead, do what they currently do.
For about 20 years an alternative to EMH has been floated by quants: behavioral finance.
Maybe you can notice that EMH focuses on market numbers; likewise, you may be able to perceive that behavioral finance does too, but from a different vantagepoint. That vantagepoint is the one where the rejection of the null hypothesis is verified by trading rules.
The theory and empirical aspects of these two themes has NOT enabled quants to "beat the markets". See the references in the above sited brief statement.
The most productive outcomes of why the quant stuff does not work can be found in the leading edge arguments between the two systems of beliefs (theory) and practise (the empirical).
ADH of Lo blows away EMH, in his and other's opinions with a substitute that is just as NON performing as EMH.(Lo, 2005)
Pragmatically behavioralists step in with theraputic fixes(Peterson, Shull, to name a few) and training fixes (Steenbarger and his OODA, 2004, 2005) all based upon failure to perform in the markets. These operations use the nesting quant formulations and automation as a baseline from which to "build".
From my point of view it is incumbant on me to offer publications on the same level. The contemporary debate is striving to get on the table just why what is being done doesn't work. My viewpoint is based on what does work and is not based upon any of the four aspects of the breadth of the current debate of the quants.
It has been a rational exercise of all of these people to continue to iteratively refine their theses and empirical bases. The financing of their efforts comes from an industry and the gorvernment (NSF) that has an embedded pervasive standard orthodoxy (Lo. 2005, Abstract and Introduction). In effect, they will always remain "in the box".
It may be noted that many contributors to the quant world come from outside the standard orthodoxy. But they are paid the make the standard orthodoxy work when and where those conventionally trained industry experts cannot make it work.
Fortunately, I come from outside the financial industry and from inside the physics and science and mathematics formal educational systems. So it will be possible to use the language of the quants to express an out of the box viewpoint to those in the box by either training or avocation.
There is no reason to believe that traders would be concerned, through training or experience, with the quants and their constructs. The fact that there is some connection to what quants do and with what traders do is evidently not going to change things in the financial industry. The industry is the same now as it was before the quants were recruited; it is still primarily probabilistically based, unfortunately.
The fly in the ointment had to be taken out before any progress could be made. People other than quants have done that now. (OT in this thread) The SOP of the industry is going to be using the fly in the ointment for one long time before things change for them.
