> If you think those assets are complete scams, you aren't going to go near them, which means your opinion doesn't matter for the purpose of setting the price.

> If you think those assets are complete scams, you aren't going to go near them, which means your opinion doesn't matter for the purpose of setting the price. Doesn't that reduce demand though, which lowers price? > They all get their own teams of cheerleaders, who value the spinoffs at close to the value of the original because they think their preferred spinoff will take most of the market of the parent company. People who disagree with that valuation don't matter, because they aren't going to be trading in that stock anyway. Doesn't that only make sense if only those cheerleaders are doing buying and selling? I imagine there's three groups that matter for this argument, yay-sayers, regular people, and nay-sayers. If yay-sayers are basically all in, they've brought the stock up I imagine, but they're probably not doing a lot of movement I would guess? nay-sayers aren't buying anything, but that means there's less prospective people to buy what's being sold (stock-wise). Regular people then buy and sell. There's less people to buy what they are selling though, so does that reduce the price at which they can actually offload shares? Then again, maybe yay-sayers are willing to gobble up stock below a certain price (which is still a high valuation), propping up the market? To me it seems like both have effects on the market, opposite of each other. Then again, my knowledge of the stock market is more theoretical than anything, so I'm happy to have my assumptions explained wrong.