What if there was no stock market?

[Simple Minded]

I'll be honest, my name says it all. I don't attest to have the education that most of you have published on this thread. I work in the financial sector and couldn't argue most of the points on this thread. The thought of a market without a "stock market" or the "communist" ideals of a constant rate (9% or whatever) versus the a free market appear to be complete.

What if we revised the question and simplified it a bit, which is ironic because that would be the basis of my new question. What if there was no centralized exchange of stock? No more centrally traded mutual funds, ETFs, or other complicated investment vehicles that are invested with 401K's, IRAs, Pension Funds, etc.

Who would suffer?

Companies could still attain capital through "private" equity and correspondingly investors could do the same; and both at market rates. Would investors become more focused? Would investment horizons become more "long-term" and less speculative (quarter to quarter)? Would companies suffer for that, or thrive? Would these Stanford Grads have difficulty raising funds for a search engine? Did they need a centralized stock exchange to get public funds for a product that was so superior at the time they issued public stock?

 

[BWV]

. The Capitalist culture of economic growth is based on the reduction of nature at the prevailing interest rate.

no, growth in a capitalist economy comes from the employment of energy, specialization of labor and technology. It is not necessarily a reduction of nature any more than a hunter / gatherer or agrarian economy is

There is no doubt whatsoever in my biological intuition that nature will eventually react adversely to the disruption of biodiversity/homeostasis. Since my body co-evolved to exist in biodiversity why shouldn't I regard biodiversity as valuable to the integrity of my being?

Nature is not an entity - it could give a flying f*** about biodiversity

I know that property is conserved at any given moment of time (all wealth is owned). I know the stock of wealth increases slowly (real GDP in productions of goods and services cannot sustain 9% returns for even a few decades). So one persons financial gain, above and beyond some fixed growth rate of the real economy, eventually must come at another person's loss.

not correct because the distribution of the gains in real GDP are not, nor should they be, shared equally. If I create a cure for cancer that creates a trillion dollars of wealth in the global economy (through reduced medical costs, recovery of lost productivity etc) and I get 10 billion dollars for my effort, no one has lost

Compound interest rates are based on (1) environmental destruction with an eventual natural limit; (2) a progressive inflation scheme in the central banking system; and/or (3) competition in a non-growth economy producing winners and losers.

interest rates are based upon inflation, risk of not being paid back and the opportunity cost of capital, nothing else. They have nothing to do with environmental destruction - pre-capitalist economies have been responsible some of the worst environmental destruction through deforestation, overfarming, overgrazing etc. A capitalist economy allows the wealth necessary to have the scientific infrastructure to even understand ecology in the first place

 

[WhoWee]

I just found this thread.

The stock market is quite different than a casino.

A casino takes your bet - and you either lose or win - then you repeat.

The stock market is a place where cash is used to purchase an equity share of stock - that is ownership - in a company. This company has been weighed and measured and held to great scrutiny by Government regulators and independent auditors. The equity investment may increase or decrease in value and might pay a dividend. If the company loses money -the investor is not required to cover loses - although the investment may lose value.

Without the stock market - it would be nearly impossible for investors to participate in capital markets.

 

[Tosh5457]

Hi

I've been contemplating various economic ideas for the last several years and lately have been wondering what is the justification for even having a stock market?

On a day to day basis, the frenetic movement of money between hands accomplishes absolutely nothing in the grand scheme of things. It produces absolutely no wealth, it just shifts it around from less savvy "investors" to those who have more of a knack for the game. For those who understand the game, it makes some of them absurdly rich for essentially doing squat. It inflates real wealth inside absurd stock valuations and creates enormous risk for people who aren't "good at the game."

I understand that a finite, healthy economy requires the free flow of money, but it seems like the stock market is a strange backwater where there is enormous churn with little overall benefit to the society as a whole.

If the enormous amounts of time and energy devoted to mastering the stock game were instead devoted to designing a stable system with high liquidity and low to zero risk, it seems like we'd all be much better off. For example, it seems like a pure bond market (with a couple of tweaks to eliminate penalties for pre term sales) would be a much better way to go.

I would be very interested in hearing why the stock market is a good thing.

Why such a social sciences sector's rat like me haven't seen this topic before, I had the same question as you in my mind :grumpy:

When you're speaking of stock market, you're referring to the primary or secondary market, or both?

On the primary market a company does its IPO, and raises the funds. The secondary market, which is the market we all hear about, only serves to provide liquidity to the investors who bought on the primary market. Who would buy a company's stock if it was difficult or impossible to sell it later? That would be a very big risk. But the secondary market also has influence on a company, because de-valuations on a company's stock results in a loss for important shareholders (those who vote) and that may lead to other problems I guess, but I don't know much about that.

So basically the speculators' role is to provide liquidity, and nothing else. They don't contribute to investment directly, only indirectly. If it wasn't for them (in the context of the stock market), it wouldn't be so easy for companies to get funding in the primary market. But of course, speculation brings financial instability, and that's a pretty big problem.

ON your suggestions of the bond market:

For example, it seems like a pure bond market (with a couple of tweaks to eliminate penalties for pre term sales) would be a much better way to go.

Seems right to me, but I don't know if the risk would be too big for the companies to get acceptable interest rates though. But no secondary markets, or a restricted secondary market, would also mean that cash would mostly be used to borrow, to invest or to consume. There would be no money used on unproductive "investments" like speculation.

 

[WhoWee]

Seems right to me, but I don't know if the risk would be too big for the companies to get acceptable interest rates though. But no secondary markets, or a restricted secondary market, would also mean that cash would mostly be used to borrow, to invest or to consume. There would be no money used on unproductive "investments" like speculation.

In order for a security to be registered it must meet financial reporting requirements that help investors make informed decisions. A buyer of junk bonds (that's where this conversation is heading) will make a decision based on a prospectus - a snap shot in time. Once purchased the only indicator of investment performance will be receipt of payment.