3 ms·

Keep in mind that the stock price reflects the best estimation of the future long term prospects of the company. I definitely disagree with that. I think we ca

Keep in mind that the stock price reflects the best estimation of the future long term prospects of the company. I definitely disagree with that. I think we can see many, many counter-examples; so many that they're not weird exceptions but a significant part of the picture. Take the recent fun and games with Gamestop, or Hertz, for example. The best estimation of Hertz at the time was that they were going out of business (or at least going through one of the uniquely American phases of a business in which their debts get cancelled, the bankruptcy exit plan leaves shareholders with nothing, and Hertz gets to carry on); yet the share price kept on climbing (perhaps the most common estimation of people involved in buying Hertz shares was that they had a rosy future).

WalterBright 6y ago
Many many examples? The GME thing was unique, which is why it was in the news. It was a short squeeze. It was in the news for days, meaning it is an aberration. As for the Hertz thing, which I know nothing about, it sounds like the buyers thought the stock had long term upside potential.
- EliRivers 6y ago
  It's fascinating and well worth a read. Back in June or so, Hertz was going bankrupt. Their stock was going up anyway, trading volume was way up. Hertz decided to ride that wave and asked to make a new stock offering so that people would give them a whole bunch of money right before they went bankrupt. In the paperwork to apply for a new stock offering, they openly said that they were going bankrupt (hell, they asked their bankruptcy court for permission to make a new stock offering!) and their stock was going to become worthless very soon (I understand the SEC thought about the act of selling new stock to rubes as one final payday, and after conversation between them and Hertz, Hertz withdrew the application to sell new stock in a company that openly said it was going bankrupt). Their stock kept going up. They'd openly said they were going out of business (soon after that their stock did indeed become worthless), and they were telling people this, and the stock went up anyway. It seems that the majority of buyers were buying it based not on analysis or on any real idea of future earnings. The best estimation of the future long term prospects of the company was that they'd go bankrupt and all shares would become worthless; yet the share price was yomping upwards because a terrible estimation of the future long term prospects of the company was that they must be recovering because, hey look, they want to sell some new shares! I guess where this is going is that I say that the price of a stock reflects the current price at which you could probably buy or sell one of that stock (assuming there's a market for it), and any interpretation of its meaning beyond that comes with caveats and conditions. Sure, often, there's some kind of link to the company's "value" or "potential future earnings" or some such, but by no means always and to make a blanket assertion that the stock price "reflects the best estimation of the future long term prospects of the company" is a dangerous simplification. Many many examples? Yes, I think so. Stock price is the market price; it's not set by anyone based on careful analysis. Some people decide the price they're willing to pay based on analysis, but the actual price is pretty much by definition what people are willing to pay for it, which has no inherent link to what it's "worth".

WalterBright 6y ago

Many many examples? The GME thing was unique, which is why it was in the news. It was a short squeeze. It was in the news for days, meaning it is an aberration. As for the Hertz thing, which I know nothing about, it sounds like the buyers thought the stock had long term upside potential.

EliRivers 6y ago
It's fascinating and well worth a read. Back in June or so, Hertz was going bankrupt. Their stock was going up anyway, trading volume was way up. Hertz decided to ride that wave and asked to make a new stock offering so that people would give them a whole bunch of money right before they went bankrupt. In the paperwork to apply for a new stock offering, they openly said that they were going bankrupt (hell, they asked their bankruptcy court for permission to make a new stock offering!) and their stock was going to become worthless very soon (I understand the SEC thought about the act of selling new stock to rubes as one final payday, and after conversation between them and Hertz, Hertz withdrew the application to sell new stock in a company that openly said it was going bankrupt). Their stock kept going up. They'd openly said they were going out of business (soon after that their stock did indeed become worthless), and they were telling people this, and the stock went up anyway. It seems that the majority of buyers were buying it based not on analysis or on any real idea of future earnings. The best estimation of the future long term prospects of the company was that they'd go bankrupt and all shares would become worthless; yet the share price was yomping upwards because a terrible estimation of the future long term prospects of the company was that they must be recovering because, hey look, they want to sell some new shares! I guess where this is going is that I say that the price of a stock reflects the current price at which you could probably buy or sell one of that stock (assuming there's a market for it), and any interpretation of its meaning beyond that comes with caveats and conditions. Sure, often, there's some kind of link to the company's "value" or "potential future earnings" or some such, but by no means always and to make a blanket assertion that the stock price "reflects the best estimation of the future long term prospects of the company" is a dangerous simplification. Many many examples? Yes, I think so. Stock price is the market price; it's not set by anyone based on careful analysis. Some people decide the price they're willing to pay based on analysis, but the actual price is pretty much by definition what people are willing to pay for it, which has no inherent link to what it's "worth".