Assume, for the sake of the argument, that you bought a thousand shares of Microstrategy Class A on July 11, 1998, at the closing price of $20.87 (adjusted for splits and reverse splits, $104.35).
And then you went into the jungles of Borneo, on an archeological dig.
And did not come back out until yesterday, when the adjusted close was $50.03. You would think you lost money, but, such is life.
But if, while you were in the jungle, you came across a tattered faded copy of the New York Times dated March 10, 2000, when the adjusted close was $3130, you would have thought you were a millionaire. And when you finally struggled out of the jungle to call your broker with a sell order, you'd think you were ruined.
I don't think the lack of buyers for MSTR at $3130 actually has anything to do with liquidity, unless by "lack of liquidity" you mean the "sell to whom?" phenomenon.
The fact that MSTR was actually selling for $3130 at some point was due to one (or both) of the following: 1) short squeezing and/or 2) mass hysteria.
But not lack of liquidity, no.
Similarly, when 1,500 sq. ft. 3 bedroom bungalows no longer sell for $2 million in Palo Alto, that is not due to the lack of liquidity, per se. |
