“You’re claiming you’ve been correctly noticing good investment opportunities over a several-month period.” This not what I am arguing. I am arguing that you can check the EMH right now and notice it is false.
The actual answer to your question is unfairly favorable to me given market conditions. I put a relatively large percentage of money into crypto so my overall portfolio is up more than 200% over the last twelve months. This is not replicable going forward. Pretty much everything in crypto is up but Solana started spiking later than other coins because of how it unlocked. I actually did tell people to but it when it was ~2 USD in early January and it has since gone up around 7x. That is less than some altcoins but as I said it starting spiking later which is favorable.
I am arguing that you can check the EMH right now and notice it is false.
The issue is that unknown “counterparty risk” term. As you do not know this risk—you have so far seen it to be zero but you do not have evidence it is actually close to zero—you do not know these bets are better than EMH. Or if they are, that they are going to be available for more than a brief period of time.
Buying securities on the public market via a reputable brokerage, the risk that your profile goes to zero because of any number of technical errors or fraud is very low. There are decades of examples of investors ultimately getting the market value of their shares at the point in their lifespan they choose to sell. This large number examples over a large period of time is evidence that the risk term is very small.
This ‘security’ does not exist for the commodities you are showing. Therefore if you take [observed returned] - [risk term], EMH says that this term is less than or equal to market returns.
You have not disproven it. You may ultimately be right but the evidence in front of you doesn’t show what you are saying. You need to wait enough years to collect enough evidence to get an accurate estimate of the risk term for these markets before you can make this conclusion.
“You’re claiming you’ve been correctly noticing good investment opportunities over a several-month period.” This not what I am arguing. I am arguing that you can check the EMH right now and notice it is false.
The actual answer to your question is unfairly favorable to me given market conditions. I put a relatively large percentage of money into crypto so my overall portfolio is up more than 200% over the last twelve months. This is not replicable going forward. Pretty much everything in crypto is up but Solana started spiking later than other coins because of how it unlocked. I actually did tell people to but it when it was ~2 USD in early January and it has since gone up around 7x. That is less than some altcoins but as I said it starting spiking later which is favorable.
I am arguing that you can check the EMH right now and notice it is false.
The issue is that unknown “counterparty risk” term. As you do not know this risk—you have so far seen it to be zero but you do not have evidence it is actually close to zero—you do not know these bets are better than EMH. Or if they are, that they are going to be available for more than a brief period of time.
Buying securities on the public market via a reputable brokerage, the risk that your profile goes to zero because of any number of technical errors or fraud is very low. There are decades of examples of investors ultimately getting the market value of their shares at the point in their lifespan they choose to sell. This large number examples over a large period of time is evidence that the risk term is very small.
This ‘security’ does not exist for the commodities you are showing. Therefore if you take [observed returned] - [risk term], EMH says that this term is less than or equal to market returns.
You have not disproven it. You may ultimately be right but the evidence in front of you doesn’t show what you are saying. You need to wait enough years to collect enough evidence to get an accurate estimate of the risk term for these markets before you can make this conclusion.
Thanks for the reply! I find those numbers more persuasive than anything else. Well done!