>If you came up with a definitive way to value stocks it would mean a) you are probably the richest man in the world b) You at the very least deserve a Nobel pr

>If you came up with a definitive way to value stocks it would mean a) you are probably the richest man in the world b) You at the very least deserve a Nobel prize in economics. I'm not looking for a "definitive way", I'm looking for a rational way to assist in pricing a stock. When something can't be forecast perfectly, we should cease forecasting it at all? I'm just asking a simple question about what you'd pay for the stock, and why.