"F. Marc de Piolenc" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Forgive me for stating the obvious, but all value is perception, as > > there is no value without a valu-er. So if you say that the [capital] > > market value of a stock does not reflect the value of the enterprise, > > you are talking nonsense, because the market is the ONLY forum where > > people and institutions are able to bid from day to day for equity in > > the enterprise. On Wed, 25 Jul 2001, Goldlist Cynic wrote: > Here you are contradicting yourself. you have completely missed the > point. I will type slowly so you can understand. I believe you are the one who contradicts yourself. > You [F. Marc de Piolenc]: "but all value is perception, as there is no value without a > valu-er." > > Me [Goldlist Cynic]: Exactly right! ... ... > Me: No, now you are contradicting your previous statement! We agreed > that the market value of the stock represents the "perceived" value of > the enterprise by under qualified "valuers", not the "true" value of > the enterprise... I don't believe the other poster agreed that the "perceived" value was a perception of underqualified valuers. As opposed to qualified valuers who presumably can see "the true" value? It seems to me there is a lack of clear definitions in this discussion. Since you agree that "all value is perception", the term "true value" can have no meaning (your contradiction I alluded to earlier), unless you make one up and specify what it is. It would also be useful to define "perceived value", although it is not as critical since this term doesn't seem to contradict the concept that "all value is perception". > A man approaches you with a beautiful stone and tells you it is a > diamond and requests you buy it from him. You see it is beautiful but > you are no gem expert. What to do? You ask a few friends and they all > advise that it certainly looks like a diamond, and their friends agree, > and the price seems right, so you buy it. $700 later and you decide to > pop over to the jeweler to find out how you fared. Oh no! its a piece > of worthless glass! Problem was, the perceived value was MUCH higher > than the real value. Either that, or the valuer simply re-evaluated after learning that the seller had lied about the item being valued. > ... > You must give up everything you own, and in return you may choose a > gift... 10 Billion in your bank right now... or Yahoo! (assume this > person had bought all the yahoo stock and declared it no longer a > public company) Making a private company out of a previously publicly traded one changes the value of it. I don't disagree with your assessment of Yahoo, but that simply means that you and I place a different value on Yahoo than the current Yahoo shareholders do. Apparently your definition of "true value" has something to do with the underlying assets. However since the value of the underlying assets is also based on perception (since "all value is perception") it would seem that there is no way to discover what that "true value" is. Unless you wish to clearly (and somewhat arbitrarily) define the term "true value". Jon --- You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: archive@jab.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
