Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
But how much of that $80 isn't casino value?

If the casino is bubbling, the bubble component and the realistic value component become impossible to distinguish.

You could eliminate the bubble component by eliminating speculation and making it impossible to sell shares within - say - a year of purchase. That would turn casino transactions into more thoughtful and measured investment transactions.

Of course that's not going to happen, because no one in the casino wants to have their toys taken away. And also because a lot of 'growth' is generated by imaginary casino value artificially inflating expectations.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Thu Mar 22nd, 2007 at 06:41:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Can't agree.  Much of this is just an emotional reaction IMO.

All valuation has a degree of subjectivity as price really is set by buying pressure vs. selling pressure.  However if you are looking at Apple, larger profits and a new, growing market should mean the company truly is worth significantly more.  Is some of the $80 hype?  maybe.  But is that just a random bet that can move in either direction by a random amount based on unknown and unpredictable forces -- NFW?  This entire analogy of a casino strikes me as lame.

We already have strong incentives to hold shares 1 year or more.  Capital gains taxes are much lower than regular income from short term speculation.

by HiD on Thu Mar 22nd, 2007 at 07:02:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]
All valuation has a degree of subjectivity as price really is set by buying pressure vs. selling pressure.


And that's where you're missing my point.

I'm not talking about the specific value of a share in isolation, but the fact that the Ponzi effect distorts values across the entire market - which is mainly what drives the creation of bubbles and the apparent creation of value out of thin air.

We're really talking about different feedback loops. At the first level you have 'rational' investment, based on an expectation of return defined purely in terms of the business itself. E.g. if I know that I have X amount of something valuable but I need $Y dollars to bring it to a saleable state, it's easy for me to estimate whether or not an investment is worthwhile.

When those expectations can themselves be traded as abstract entities, you add another feedback loop which is divorced from the 'rational' value. At this point you're dealing in fictions, and it becomes a case of what you can get away with or (literally) persuade others to buy.

This where the Ponzi effect starts driving a bubble. Book values become a combination of 'rational' values, inflated faith-based values, and semi-random volatility created by trading momentum and market-making plays by those who want to cream off a few extra %, just because they can.

In reality-based terms we're now a long way from rational values, and deep into a place where rooms full of people with servers make shit up. Book values are an act of faith and exist only as long as people are willing to keep that faith in a future return. This becomes defined by market momentum, and not so much because of a specific business case.

Once that faith disappears the bubble pops, and values return to something that might pass for a rational assessment.

A company like Apple can catch the wave of sentiment that drives a bubble and ride it to the top of the optimism curve. But the rational element of share value can easily be swamped by pseudo-value created by Ponzi-like trading.

(Did we learn nothing from the Internet bust?)

As for taxes preventing volatility - considering the almost mythological volumes of trading on the markets, these taxes don't seem to do much to dampen enthusiasm for speculation.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Thu Mar 22nd, 2007 at 09:16:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Taxes would damp volatility if transactions were taxed. The Tobin tax applied to all financial markets, basically.

"It's the statue, man, The Statue."
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Mar 22nd, 2007 at 09:21:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]
  1.  What Mig said.  Taxes are on profits, not trades. The tax on trades is just commissions which are virtually nothing these days on computer executed blocks.  Plus the bid/ask losses.

  2. your contention that the entire market is a bubble at the moment is not supported by the facts as I see them.

The average P/E of the S&P 500 is only 16 X if the Yahoo financial page is accurate.  That implies a 6% profit across the big companies that are probably 80% of the market value.  It's been lower when interest rates are much higher but this is hardly Ponzi leverage.  You are grossly overgeneralizing.

You are comparing the apples of Enron/CMGI/Lucent with the oranges of Coca Cola, Merck, etc.  

by HiD on Thu Mar 22nd, 2007 at 06:57:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]


Occasional Series