Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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.

Technology Stocks : Cisco Systems, Inc. (CSCO) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: RetiredNow who wrote (56846)	1/22/2002 10:48:55 AM
From: Eric	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 77400

Mindmeld Your comments ring pretty true. A stock is worth what people are ready to buy it at every instant in time. Seems to have worked pretty well for centuries.

To: RetiredNow who wrote (56846)	1/22/2002 12:53:44 PM
From: Stock Farmer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 77400

LOL... If we're going to get picky on each other, might as well be correct. [You] would argue that there are always exactly as many buyers as sellers. So then if you are the only buyer and I am the only seller (making us equal in number), can I sell ten shares whilst you buy but one? LOL Actually, we are saying the same thing, imprecisely ~ which is that it is SUPPLY versus DEMAND that seems to tilt the price of a share. And elasticity is not fixed or readily identifiable, for a variety of complex factors. Which change over time. But I suggest we try to discuss what each other is saying (as opposed to the words we are using). Yes, today shares are worth what they are worth today. Although what they are worth today seems to have changed in the last hour or so, it seems. Which is not unusual, as history would show us. And yes, on the surface the long term history argues for continued upward price adjustment. Going forwards, history may rhyme to the extent that it actually repeats. But then again, it may not. A few points to ponder. First, history prior to 1998 argued against the existence of a massive bubble to the upside. The one that did occur, despite trends in the past 30 years or so. Is it possible that the bet determines the selection of evidence on which the bet is justified? Those ink-blot psyhc tests are based on this less than Vulcan attribute of ours. Second, in 1930 there was considerable discussion about long-term upward trends too. Which turned out to be true. But not until after a few decades had passed. I hazard a guess that there were folks in Japan ten years ago spouting similar claims, who now find themselves waiting patiently for history to prove them right. Third, those historical rates of return being quoted were achieved in concert with historical rates of economic value creation. Is it entirely inconceivable that a basis of economic cause-and-effect exists between the rate of value creation and the appreciation in the price of a slice? If price trends strongest with price, then feel free to measure only price appreciation trends. But if it trends to track with anything else more strongly, perhaps it is prudent to look elsewhere. Of course it's all about choices. Feel free to choose which apparent historical relationships you think will be maintained and which will be violated. Which choice is of course what makes a market exciting :) So in the end, we are in agreement after all. John