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.
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.