This seems like a silly point. Are markets more efficient in the infinitely long run than an individual who tries to identify the "correct" price? Quite probabl

This seems like a silly point. Are markets more efficient in the infinitely long run than an individual who tries to identify the "correct" price? Quite probably. Does the current stock market price at any given moment possibly reflect the herd mentality of a bunch of jumped-up plains apes (or the injection of a huge amount of funds by a central bank), rather than representing the future expected earnings of a given asset? Also extremely likely. The performance of the markets during the lead-up to the pandemic was absurd. It wasn't just the top-line market prices that were wrong: the obvious hedges, like Put options, were all massively mispriced, to the point that even banks started warning about it. This eventually corrected, but the correction itself was extremely painful. Now the Fed is injecting dollars in order to help "correct" the correction, with unknown long-term effects. (I don't know what the EMH has to say about prices under this regime.) Anyway, "the EMH is wrong" is an absurd simplification of the problem. The real objection here is that asset prices may be right on average, in the long-enough term, but are prone to huge over-confidence bubbles and corrections that can wreak havoc on the actual human beings, and possibly lead to suboptimal economic outcomes when prices are used to direct investment.