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.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jefferson Prescott Dewhurst who wrote (28588)	2/20/1998 8:33:00 PM
From: Reginald Middleton	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1572452

<<It gravitates towards the market value of the assets and not the book value.>> This is exactly my point. The "MARKET Value " of the assets is ~$19/sh. It's not $8 or $12/sh as your faulty analysis indicates. Was NSCP's assets worth $86 per share when the shares were selling at $86? Now you are assuming the market is truly efficient, which is a false assumption. Without a single significant change in actual assets and market conditions, NSCP's share price was halved in a matter of months. The only way to prove the company's assets are worth $19 a share is to have a entity purchase the assets in thier entirety at $19 per share and maintain or produce an increase in aggregate value as the result. If the resultant purchase results in a decrease in value to the acquiring entity, the assets were overpriced, if the results are an increase in value the assets were underpriced. An good example is the $700 million INTC acquisistion. If it is found that INTC robbed the hen house, a consequent, similar acquisition would most likely be priced higher - showing that the market price and actual economic value seek to reach parity. The parity point cannot be ascertained by simply looking up the share price of a company. Wall Street guys do go to school for something you know.