3 ms·
> But the pricing of securities in the market has always regressed to fundamentals in the long arc of history. I don't doubt this but got any good references?
by guerrilla 6y ago
> But the pricing of securities in the market has always regressed to fundamentals in the long arc of history.
I don't doubt this but got any good references?
- gen220 6y agoWhenever markets have "crashed", it's usually been a reversion to fundamentals. See the bond market crash of the 80s, the sub-prime mortgage crisis of the 00s. The reality is that the cash flow and assets underlying these securities were overpriced. In spite of it, institutional investors speculated the price up for years. People thought they had found a way to "cheat" risk, turning fundamentally risky (and therefore, low-value) assets into something more valuable. They were wrong! Other times, the market is simply too optimistic (dot-com bubble), and attaches large valuations to companies with non-existent cash flows (i.e. little fundamental value). We're arguably in a similar current today, although it's not nearly as bad, imo. The companies that get overblown valuations today at least have revenue, albeit some more legitimately than others (TSLA vs UBER).