4 ms·
Rational from the POV of investors looking to extract some short-term returns. Completely irrational in that nobody seems to give a shit about Gamestop and they
by tootie 6y ago
Rational from the POV of investors looking to extract some short-term returns. Completely irrational in that nobody seems to give a shit about Gamestop and they're actual performance as a business.
- thatswrong0 6y agoA stock price is never just about the fundamentals of the company. It's not rational to think of stock prices only from that limited perspective. You _must_ consider the supply and demand for the stock and the people that are currently trading it. They are a part of the equation.
- josephorjoe 6y agoExactly. Stock owners are free to not sell their stock and this cannot be ignored. I have a guitar that I could sell on the open market for ~$300. But I don't want to sell it. If someone offered me $300 for it, I'd say no. If they offered $400, I'd still say no. I'd say no at $900. Why? Because I don't want to sell it and I don't have to. There is some price that will change my mind, of course, but it has nothing to do with the actual value of the guitar.
- Miner49er 6y agoAn argument could actually be made that Gamestop should be worth about $250 a share, assuming they capitalize on this short squeeze by issuing new shares and turn things around/pivot well.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- kristjansson 6y agoOne buys a stock on the premise that someone else will pay more for it in the future. Most of the time the future is years down the road, because you made a good bet on what business would be profitable. Sometimes the future is the following Tuesday because someone got out over their skis and _needs_ your stock now.