3 ms·
There's a difference between a stock that doesn't get you dividends and an item with a sensible expected worth. Sure, it's hard to put a concrete price on a 2x4
by ivanbakel 6y ago
There's a difference between a stock that doesn't get you dividends and an item with a sensible expected worth. Sure, it's hard to put a concrete price on a 2x4, but you at least understand what value people see in it - the way supply and demand affect the price are reflections of the worth of lumber as a building material (or whatever else).
But the price of a stock is nonsense - if you don't own enough to influence the company, and the stocks don't pay out, then the price is just money that moves in and out of your account. You can't even really say that the price of a stock is an agreement of its arbitrary value; you sell the stock because you expect it to go down, and you sell the stock to someone else who expects it to go up. If you buy a stock at the peak, you are paying the highest ever price for its lowest ever value.
- esrauch 6y agoFor voting stocks I can see it making sense that the big players who want some threshold of influence would determine the value. And, if a company could be bought out then your shares can get paid out that way. But Google has nonvoting no-dividend shares, and I don't think they are feasibly going to get bought out without crashing first, so the price isn't from that either though. I think it really only makes sense if you think Google is going to issue dividends some day.