SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Non-Tech : Meet Gene, a NASDAQ Market Maker -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: booters who wrote (968)9/3/2000 7:59:14 PM
From: Dan Duchardt  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1426
 
booters,

neither any money will have been created nor destroyed. It will simply have changed hands. And that's the very definition of a zero-sum game

You earlier stated that zero-sum has a mathematical definition. You seem in this post to be accepting Dave's statement, quoted above, as that definition. I think much of this zero-sum discussion has been based on a lack of any consistent definition of the term, with many different people giving it different meanings. My use of the term many posts back was not meant to be precise, but was intended to state that in most cases the net gain, which is the difference between total gained and total lost is a small difference between two much larger numbers. That small difference need not be zero over any time frame for the purposes of my original use of the term.

If Dave's statement is the precise definition, then most of the arguments that have been given that the equities market is not zero sum fail. In particular, let's take the hypothetical case of 10M shares of stock that is issued at $10, and trades in such a manner that everyone who ever buys it sells it at the same or a higher price, including any traders or MMs who own it for any period of time from seconds to years, until at some point in time all 10M shares are purchased for $100. Some have argued this would be a highly positive sum game, because nobody has lost anything. However, no money has been created The person who pays $100 a share is providing all of the money for all of the gains accumulated by all former owners of that stock over its lifetime. The effect would be exactly the same as if the stock had been issued at $100 per share and nobody ever sold it. That too would have been simply a transfer of money from the purchaser to somebody else, only in this case that somebody else would have been the original issuer of the stock. Instead of the issuer getting $100M for his company, and letting intermediary owners have $900M, the issuer would have gotten the whole $1B. Of course no one would have paid $1B for the company that had no proven track record at the time of issue, so the sharing of the money transferred was necessary.

Now let me refute my own argument, at least in a way. The original 10M shares did not represent full ownership of the company. The issuer convinced people who bought at $10 that they could make a profit for themselves even though they were only buying maybe a third or less of the company. Mr. issuer retained maybe 20M shares for himself, for which he paid nothing except the sweat of his brow and maybe some seed money. During the time all the buying and selling was going on, and the company was generating income that paid his salary and bonuses, his 20M shares was turning into something that had a value of $2B. Scale all that up some, and meet Mr. Gates. Wealth was being created while all that stock was changing hands, but not for the aggregate of all people buying and selling the stock, only for the one or few guys who never bought it. Still, that is just on paper, and true wealth will not be realized until somebody is willing to transfer $100 per share into his hands. So again no money has really been "created".

The only money that has been created is the income of the company, and of course that was just transferred from people who buy the products. Somebody mentioned earnings early on in the discussion as the thing that makes the market a net sum game. The actual value of the company increases as it acquires cash and property and machinery, etc., but is that the market? Not really. It's just the stuff that makes one person willing to transfer $100 to somebody else who was willing to transfer $99, who was . . . . etc.

So is it a zero sum game? Darned if I know, or anyone else for that matter. It all depends on what you want to define the boundaries to be. And it really doesn't matter to me individually as long as I get to sell the stock for more than I paid so I can use that money to give to somebody else for something I want or need.

Dan