> The current market value is typically the best estimate we have for their long term value.

It's not. The EMH has been empirically disproven in the 80s.

Could you please link me to the evidence? Which version of the EMH has been disproven?

EMH comes in multiple different strengths. The strongest version would be something comical like 'market prices are omniscient and perfectly predict future prices'. That's almost certainly wrong. Very weak versions are something like 'Don't bother actively trading on the news as a retail investor, because by the time you've heard them, the folks over at Goldman Sachs and the hedge funds and their computers will have traded on them a million times over already', and these are almost certainly true. (But even somewhat stronger versions are probably true.)

▲

littlestymaar a day ago | parent [-]

See Bob Schiller's work (for which he received the econ Nobel prize in 2013).

The “weak version of EMH” has nothing to do with markets being “efficient”, it's a property of random markets. Assimilating the two just Fama's motte-and-bailey fallacy.

▲

eru a day ago | parent [-]

When you say 'random' you probably mean that market prices are a Martingale? See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martingale_(probability_theory...

That's very, very related to being efficient.

> Assimilating the two just Fama's motte-and-bailey fallacy.

No, not at all.

	▲	littlestymaar 19 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> That's very, very related to being efficient. “No, not at all”.