Is the Stock Market a Positive-Sum Game or a Ponzi Scheme?

[russ_watters]

No. The only reason a stock's price rises is because there are more buyers than sellers. Your quute is just two ways to rationalize WHY there are more buyers.

Yes, that's an explanation of why. There is nothing to be arguing about there. Even though you said "no", you didn't actually disagree.

And the fundamental mistake of most economic theoriies is the assumption that decisions made by humans are always rational.

I doubt any economist ever makes such a mistake. It certainly doesn't appear here: #1 in that quote is all about irrationality. So I don't know why you'd bring that up. Doesn't seem to have any relevance.

 

[nitsuj]

Who gets what back is complicated and based on bankruptcy laws. Typically, shareholders are among the last ones to get money back. They have the most to gain if the company does well and the most to lose if it does poorly.

The part in bold is is the sole point to my disagreement with you regarding the connection between equity & stock having a direct link to that equity. It simply doesn't in valuating the vast majority of a stock's price, and most often absolutely doesn't in un-favorable liquidation. A slight case could be made for mergers, however the balance sheet is plugged in those cases, and is a snapshot of speculation of sorts, not "real equity".

The reality of business' finances is never a snapshot, a stocks price reflects that...both positively & negatively.

lastly note the [STRIKE]transaction[/STRIKE] entry for such an [STRIKE]entry[/STRIKE] [a] transaction...

DR - cash
CR - Equity

stock is not even remotely similar to a loan, less the increase in assets.

exactly like when I find $20 on the ground. I don't owe anyone and I didn't commit anything. consideration is the technical term I think.

There is a number of different types of shares but common ones, a big part of the value of common shares is no different than the extrinsic value of that $20 bill.

 

[nitsuj]

You have that exactly backwards.

? My wording says that, you have to read all the words. The sentence was "There is no calculation assets - liabilities = equity / number of shares = share price"

 

[russ_watters]

The part in bold is is the sole point to my disagreement with you...

Here's an article discussing what happens to creditors and investors when a company goes bankrupt: http://stocks.about.com/od/understandingstocks/a/121308bank3.htm

...regarding the connection between equity & stock having a direct link to that equity. It simply doesn't in valuating the vast majority of a stock's price, and most often absolutely doesn't in un-favorable liquidation.

I'm thinking you missed the point of the example. I'm trying to present a highly simplified example as a starting point. The value of a stock is usually higher than the sum of the its equity because it is usually based on potential future earnings. If that's what you're disagreeing on, we don't really have a disagreement.

 

[russ_watters]

? My wording says that, you have to read all the words. The sentence was "There is no calculation assets - liabilities = equity / number of shares = share price"

I'm confused. It looks like you said "there is no calculation" and I said [paraphrase] "there is a calculation" to determine the share value.

 

[nitsuj]

You are implying that stocks have no intrinsic value and that is simply false. The fact that at any given time, the price you can by or sell at changes due to speculation does not change the underlying fact that there is real value there.

Just to keep my disagreement with you clear it's with the above perspective I disagree with.

There isn't "real value there".

In turn your comments so far have been in agreement with me.

 

[nitsuj]

I'm confused. It looks like you said "there is no calculation" and I said [paraphrase] "there is a calculation" to determine the share value.

My bad,

Of course with a snap shot valuation you include real assets...weighted in order of "solidity/liquidity". But that is merely a starting point for valuation.

 

[enosis_]

If the company instead had a loss of 10k a year for 20 years do the investors now owe that money?

Is the disconnect only one way? >debt not mine as an investor...but profits are?

There is a very very clear segregation between what a stock holder is entitled to, and it absolutely isn't (not that it couldn't be written) the cash in a bank account.

At what point is the there a direct connection from a companies equity to the stock price?

Even an IPO is valuation. There is no calculation assets - liabilities = equity / number of shares = share price.

Of course it is up the buyers to determine what the value is.

There is no way to account for all variables.

For you simplified example there could be a host of issue. Was the retiring partner an expert who was the real value of the company?

Is their product/service now obsolete? Will there be higher then ever demand for their product/service.

The shareholder is held accountable for losses - risking up to the value of their shares. If a company has losses and assets are liquidated - the value of shares decreases to a minimum $0 value. However, as long as the shares are not sold or destroyed, it might be possible for the investment to regain value.

 

[nitsuj]

The shareholder is held accountable for losses - risking up to the value of their shares. If a company has losses and assets are liquidated - the value of shares decreases to a minimum $0 value. However, as long as the shares are not sold or destroyed, it might be possible for the investment to regain value.

from the perspective of liability to the company the value was always zero. business is a going concern...in turn not a liability to the company.

ask what is the difference between a loan and contributed capital...it's what you are entitled to.

 

[enosis_]

from the perspective of liability to the company the value was always zero. business is a going concern...in turn not a liability to the company.

ask what is the difference between a loan and contributed capital...it's what you are entitled to.

My point is the owners of the shares risk 100% of their investment.

 

[Tosh5457]

You believe that since the stockholders can't access the money in the account, it can't or shouldn't affect the stock price.

You are wrong on the premise and therefore wrong in the conclusion: they do, so it does. It may not be easy and few may choose to do it, but stockholders can access the wealth of the company. That's the fundamental fact that you refuse to accept.

Yes that's my premise, but I don't think I'm wrong. The great majority of traders are speculators and hedgers, they really don't access the wealth of the company. The only stockholders who do are the ones that have more than 50% of the outstanding shares, but those won't affect the game in any significant way.

By the way, I found a finance professor of Southern California University (who is also Chief Economist of the Securities and Exchange Commission) with a paper supporting my view too. Not that it's significant to this discussion, I'm just referring it so nobody thinks I'm the only one who thinks this:
http://www.turtletrader.com/zerosum.pdf

 

[BWV]

You misunderstand the paper, it does not support an argument that stocks in aggregate are zero sum. it makes the point,which I made earlier, that trading stocks is zero sum relative to investing in the broad market, say through an index fund. This is because the average return of all traders is the market return. This is not a controversial point and does not contradict the fact that over time the value of stock prices track changes in fundamental business values

 

[enosis_]

Yes that's my premise, but I don't think I'm wrong. The great majority of traders are speculators and hedgers, they really don't access the wealth of the company. The only stockholders who do are the ones that have more than 50% of the outstanding shares, but those won't affect the game in any significant way.

I don't think all passive investors are speculators, some are looking for dividend income. Active investors are the only ones that might "access the wealth" of a company. They also have more risk.

 

[russ_watters]

The great majority of traders are speculators and hedgers, they really don't access the wealth of the company.

Whether that is true or not, it does not change the fact that they can.

The only stockholders who do...

Again: it doesn't matter if they do, it only matters that they can.

By the way, I found a finance professor of Southern California University (who is also Chief Economist of the Securities and Exchange Commission) with a paper supporting my view too. Not that it's significant to this discussion, I'm just referring it so nobody thinks I'm the only one who thinks this:
http://www.turtletrader.com/zerosum.pdf

I don't know how you could get the impression that the article agrees with you. The very first sentence of the abstract is:

Trading is a zero sum game when measured relative to underlying fundamental values. [emphasis added]

Which means that every individual transaction is zero-sum, as we already discussed: On average, when you pay $100 for a stock, you get $100 worth of value in a piece of a company. (100-100)+(100-100)=0.

That's: (buyer gain - buyer loss) + (seller gain - seller loss) = 0

The point of the article is that successful traders (those who buy and sell in short timeframes and are in category #1) are able to spot speculation and win, like in a game of poker. They might buy a $100 piece of the company for $90, gaining $10 and causing the person who sold it to lose $10. (100-90)+(90-100)=0. Notice that the buyer's item gained and seller's item lost (the actual value of the stock) is $100 in each case.

This is explained in further detail in the beginning of paragraph 1.2.3, but I can't cut and paste from the article, so you'll have to page through it yourself.

In any case, since this article is about category #1 (speculative value), it doesn't really address your question, which is about category #2 (actual value). It doesn't discuss the issue of actual value beyond merely stating that it exists.

 

[Tosh5457]

Again: it doesn't matter if they do, it only matters that they can.

Why? How is the value of the company translate in money to the accounts of the traders, if they don't access its wealth? How is that "fundamental value" exactly going to change the game?

Indeed that article doesn't support my view, but it doesn't contradict it either, so it's irrelevant.

 

[russ_watters]

Why? How is the value of the company translate in money to the accounts of the traders, if they don't access its wealth?

The value of the company sets the value of the stock, so when the value changes, it creates profit in a long-term investment.

I don't think that's a useful question the way you asked it though. The question makes it sound like you think the profit must come from the transfer of wealth from the company to the investor. That isn't the case. In fact, as related to stock price it's backwards: paying dividends reduces the value of a company instantly and through the transfer of value. Remember, all transactions are zero-sum, so if the company hands you cash, the company has to lose value to maintain the equality.

 

[russ_watters]

Actually, the fact that stock prices tend to drop on dividend day is a very good demonstration of the issue of stock value. And articles abound: http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/perfi/columnist/krantz/story/2012-01-05/stock-prices-dividends/52397766/1

 

[enosis_]

Actually, the fact that stock prices tend to drop on dividend day is a very good demonstration of the issue of stock value. And articles abound: http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/perfi/columnist/krantz/story/2012-01-05/stock-prices-dividends/52397766/1

From the link (my bold highlighting)

"The reason the stock falls when a stock goes ex-dividend is simple. When a dividend is paid, a portion of the company's value is being transferred from the company's bank account to the accounts of investors. That draw down in value is to be expected because paying a dividend reduces the value of a company's assets. The ex-dividend date is such a powerful force that it's usually noted in the printed stock price tables in the back of most newspapers.
Some investors might feel slighted when a stock falls on ex-dividend date, but they shouldn't. The stock price is merely adjusting the fact that some of the company's value has been transferred directly to shareholders. The value of investors' total ownership, the value of the stock plus the value of the dividend, is unchanged."

 

[nitsuj]

The value of the company sets the value of the stock, so when the value changes, it creates profit in a long-term investment.

I don't think that's a useful question the way you asked it though. The question makes it sound like you think the profit must come from the transfer of wealth from the company to the investor. That isn't the case. In fact, as related to stock price it's backwards: paying dividends reduces the value of a company instantly and through the transfer of value. Remember, all transactions are zero-sum, so if the company hands you cash, the company has to lose value to maintain the equality.

You seem to be saying the stock prices drops because the company has disbursed cash. That isn't why the price drops.

 

[nitsuj]

Actually, the fact that stock prices tend to drop on dividend day is a very good demonstration of the issue of stock value. And articles abound: http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/perfi/columnist/krantz/story/2012-01-05/stock-prices-dividends/52397766/1

What is the issue of stock value?

 

[enosis_]

You seem to be saying the stock prices drops because the company has disbursed cash. That isn't why the price drops.

There are many variables that impact stock prices. A few of those variables include earnings, growth, competition, return ratios, contract negotiations, legislation, litigation, regulation, and audit results.

 

[nitsuj]

There are many variables that impact stock prices. A few of those variables include earnings, growth, competition, return ratios, contract negotiations, legislation, litigation, regulation, and audit results.

exactly!

 

[BWV]

You seem to be saying the stock prices drops because the company has disbursed cash. That isn't why the price drops.

in the case of ex-dividend dates the cash payout is precisely why the price drops.

an important concept in securities pricing that has not been directly addressed here is arbitrage. If stock prices did not react to going ex-dividend, then one could build a strategy of purchasing stocks right before the ex-date and then selling them, pocketing a quarter's dividend with only one day of exposure to the stock price. This is an arbitrage that should not exist in a competitive market, and indeed, it does not exist.

 

[russ_watters]

What is the issue of stock value?

The issue is if the assets of the company have a direct impact on stock price. The example is a clear demonstration of the fact that they do.

You seem to be saying the stock prices drops because the company has disbursed cash. That isn't why the price drops.

Well don't keep us in suspense! Tell us what you think the correct answer is (and prove it, of course).

 

[enosis_]

As an example, let's say that in an IPO, an investor X buys all the shares, let's say 10, for $10 each (in the primary market). He spent $100, and those $100 went to the company. Next, there appears a bid of 10 shares (now at the secondary market) at $11. The investor X sells all his 10 shares to that bidder Y. Now the investor X has a profit of $10. Now let's say there's a bid for 10 shares at $12. The investor Y sells his 10 shares and made a profit of $10. For this to continue indefinitely there always need to be more money to be invested. If there weren't any other bidder, the shares wouldn't have any value and the last buyer would lose an amount of money equivalent to what the others won, making it a zero-sum game.

So is the stock market just an elaborate Ponzi scheme? Or it's a positive-sum game (excluding fees)? Excluding dividends of course.

I think it's important to go back to the start with this thread and point out the example of one person owning all of the shares is incorrect. IPO stands for initial public offering. The purpose is to distribute the stock widely. In the example, a single entity owns 100% of the shares and through selection of a board of directors - absolute control of the company. In this scenario, the investor would be able to make decisions and excercise control over the management of the company not normally available to a common shareholder. The description given is not of a public corporation - but of a privately held corporation.

 

[Barakn]

No, it wasn't important to point that out. Simply change the wording to read " an investor X buys some shares, let's say 10, for $10 each" and the question at the end remains relevant.

 

[enosis_]

No, it wasn't important to point that out. Simply change the wording to read " an investor X buys some shares, let's say 10, for $10 each" and the question at the end remains relevant.

The OP clearly describes a scenario where a single entity owns all of the shares.

 

[nitsuj]

The issue is if the assets of the company have a direct impact on stock price. The example is a clear demonstration of the fact that they do. Well don't keep us in suspense! Tell us what you think the correct answer is (and prove it, of course).

Shure I'll tell you what I think it is. Sorry I don't have a magazine article to link to.

Time value of money... that's all.

As has already been said in this thread, there are many many variables that impact a stocks price...like a tragic incident involving a companies product that raises moral issues in holding stock in said company. Or threat of legislation limiting salable goods.

I wouldn't restate that as moral issues have a direct impact on a stocks price, or tragic incidents have a direct impact of a stocks price.

Russ, generally speaking, assets are reflected in a stocks price. But like I said before that's the starting point. you know as well as I many factors impact a stocks price. The tech bubble is a good example of improper valuations, straying too far from a strict hard/real asset valuation, placing too much "weight" on environmental factors.

I have no idea how a company is valued (IPO), but like I said before it is not Assets - liabilities = equity / number of shares. (to be clear it is specifically the defining of what constitutes an "asset" or "liability". as in above environmental factors could be considered an asset/liability.

Here is a case, an Audio equipment manufacturer the branded Harman Kardon goods.
Was to be bought in entirety in 2007 by Goldman Sacs & KKR and taken off the securities market.

Deal fell through, and stocks went with it to the tune of 24%. Of course Harman Industries hadn't lost any assets. Second, the got a new CEO who brought the company form single digit growth to double digit growth...the stock doubled...all with in a year...do you think their assets doubled?

Or does it make more sense that stock holders thought Goldman & KKR saw something dire in the business model and subsequently pulled out. Then after the panicked selling subsided (24% drop in Stock price) and the company actually improved performance, in turn increasing demand for the stock, increasing the price of the stock beyond a hard/real asset valuation.

Does that counter your "...clear demonstration of the fact that they do." [stock price is directly related to a companies assets]

in any case I find it silly to "debate" this at this point.All that said, nothing stops you from valuating a stock as (assets - liabilities) / number of shares.

What I am saying is a stocks price is a market valuation with little to no regard to the IPO stock price beyond it being a starting point, you're saying it is a fundamental valuation of a company.

 

[nitsuj]

in the case of ex-dividend dates the cash payout is precisely why the price drops.

an important concept in securities pricing that has not been directly addressed here is arbitrage. If stock prices did not react to going ex-dividend, then one could build a strategy of purchasing stocks right before the ex-date and then selling them, pocketing a quarter's dividend with only one day of exposure to the stock price. This is an arbitrage that should not exist in a competitive market, and indeed, it does not exist.

I agree it is the event of cash disbursement for why the stock price will drop after a dividend payout.

However the Stock price doesn't change to reflect the decrease in assets. It is literal in this case...it is simply because the dividend has just been paid out and the next one is sometime in the future.

To word it different I could say the stock price drops because it is the farthest date from the next (precedence of dividends) dividend disbursement.

 

[russ_watters]

Time value of money... that's all.

That's a word, not a definition. We're discussing here why the stock price increases, not just stating the fact that it does.

As has already been said in this thread, there are many many variables that impact a stocks price...

Yes, so I'm really not sure why you keep bringing up the short term fluctuations. They aren't relevant to this thread except as being part of the misunderstanding that the OP has: The fact that short term fluctuations are not necessarily value based is confusing the OP into thinking that there is no value base whatsoever.

Does that counter your "...clear demonstration of the fact that they do." [stock price is directly related to a companies assets]

No.

What I am saying is a stocks price is a market valuation with little to no regard to the IPO stock price beyond it being a starting point, you're saying it is a fundamental valuation of a company.

I'm not sure what the IPO price has to do with anything. It's history once the company goes public. People don't even remember it. No, once the IPO is over, the IPO price doesn't have much to do with it. And I never said it did. I just said before the IPO, they try to set an IPO price based in large part on what they think the value of the company is.

Perhaps the issue here might be you're seeing/setting up a false dichotomy between me and the OP. The opposite of the OP saying stocks aren't based at all on value is not that they are based entirely on value. Don't make the mistake of thinking that I'm saying the true value of the company is the only thing that goes into setting the price. I've been very clear that that's only a long-term generality, not a day-to-day reality.

 

[russ_watters]

I agree it is the event of cash disbursement for why the stock price will drop after a dividend payout.

However the Stock price doesn't change to reflect the decrease in assets. It is literal in this case...it is simply because the dividend has just been paid out and the next one is sometime in the future.

To word it different I could say the stock price drops because it is the farthest date from the next (precedence of dividends) dividend disbursement.

None of that disagrees with the stated reasoning by the example other than just a word-play or re-stating the obvious. It's like saying my bank account doesn't have less value the day before payday, it just appears that way because it happens to be the day before payday.

No: the stock price drops because it is reflecting the decrease in assets of the company. The fact that that day is also the furthest from the next disbursement is just another way of saying the same thing.

There's no substance to any of that. It almost sounds like you are just disagreeing to disagree!

 

[nitsuj]

Don't make the mistake of thinking that I'm saying the true value of the company is the only thing that goes into setting the price. I've been very clear that that's only a long-term generality, not a day-to-day reality.

! In setting an IPO, I feel it is fair to say that it is a representation of the actual value of the company ( and am sure it includes more than just real assets / liabilities).

There is no connection between the assets of a company and the "asset" that a stock holding would be, this is unlike a bond or similar debt.

If I set up a company that is a bar of gold, I contributed that capital and then when public (yea idealizing here) and you buy the stock you are NOT entitled to the bar of gold. It is still owned by the company, it's in the corporate bylaws which also say your stock merely entitles you to a vote of who makes decisions for the company...not what the decisions are. Such as liquidate company and send cheque to shareholders.

There will always be a disconnect between a companies assets and the (voting) stock, whether it be corporate bylaws or legislated ones.

The intrinsic value of common stock is faith/belief/foresight ect, not said company's balance sheet. There is no "gold standard" for common stock values.

That is to say there is no claim for common stock holders in a companies assets.

 

[nitsuj]

None of that disagrees with the stated reasoning by the example other than just a word-play or re-stating the obvious. It's like saying my bank account doesn't have less value the day before payday, it just appears that way because it happens to be the day before payday.

No: the stock price drops because it is reflecting the decrease in assets of the company. The fact that that day is also the furthest from the next disbursement is just another way of saying the same thing.

There's no substance to any of that. It almost sounds like you are just disagreeing to disagree!

One point of view strongly implies there is a direct connection between stock value and the companies assets.

There other point of view strongly implies the stocks value is a direct connection to market valuation + TMV. That is a HUGE difference perspectives.

 

[Tosh5457]

As I see it, this will only be settled when we define the game mathematically. So we need to define:
- the possible events of the game
- the players of the game
- utility function (a function that assigns a real value to each event that can happen in the game)

The only possible events are trades between 2 players, and the players are obviously defined as the speculators in the stock market.

Defining the utility function as the profit, in money, of the investors in a given trade, it'll be a zero-sum game. Each transaction is zero-sum, and since the secondary market is just made of transactions, it follows that the game is zero-sum. Agree? If you don't agree, please give a counter-example that proves me wrong.
It'll be a constant-sum game if we define the utility function as the balances (zero-sum for the variations of balances).

You could argue that that defining the utility function like that doesn't make sense. In the real economy for example, it wouldn't make sense, because what is really useful there is the production (whether people are getting products or not), not money.
In the stock market, maybe we could define the utility function of a given trade between 2 traders as the profit/loss in regards to the fundamental value of the stock. In that sense, it would be zero-sum in relation to the fundamental value. But because the fundamental value grows over time and it's obvious to see that everyone can win in this game, defining the utility function by taking time into account (for example, the profit/loss over 1 year), it would be clearly a positive-sum game. But does it make sense to define the utility function like that? Whether the corporations grow or not, in reality the stock holders don't benefit anything from it. Unlike the case in the real economy, where more production means people get more products, a growth in the companies don't benefit the stockholders in any way.

So IMO the only reasonable way to define the utility function is using money, because that's ultimately what's "useful" for the traders. In the real economy the products are what's useful. In a hunting game for example, what's useful are the meat you can get. In the stock market, the only useful thing you'll get is money. And if you define the utility function by the profit/loss of money, it's indeed a zero-sum game.

 

[BWV]

this has been settled repeatedly then you keep trying to raise the dead horse. Yes, trading stocks is a constant sum game - the constant sum being the aggregate return of the stock market. Investing in the aggregate stock market is not a zero sum game because it tracks growth in the real economy (through dividends, no-arbitrage assumptions and all the other mechanisms discussed here). If the real economy is not a zero sum game then the aggregate stock market is not

 

[russ_watters]

Right: the growth happens BETWEEN the transactions. Those are the "events" Tosh doesn't want to consider.

 

[enosis_]

Sometimes a stock's market price has very little to do with assets or the balance sheet. The price to earnings ratio is summarized in the following link.

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/price-earningsratio.asp#axzz2HQQGw3UB

"The P/E is sometimes referred to as the "multiple", because it shows how much investors are willing to pay per dollar of earnings. If a company were currently trading at a multiple (P/E) of 20, the interpretation is that an investor is willing to pay $20 for $1 of current earnings."

 

[russ_watters]

Ugh, I didn't see this before:

If I set up a company that is a bar of gold, I contributed that capital and then when public (yea idealizing here) and you buy the stock you are NOT entitled to the bar of gold. It is still owned by the company, it's in the corporate bylaws which also say your stock merely entitles you to a vote of who makes decisions for the company...not what the decisions are. Such as liquidate company and send cheque to shareholders.

As I said to Tosh several pages ago, don't let the complexity added by multiple owners confuse you into thinking the definition of "ownership" changes. It doesn't. The stockholders own the company. So "The company owns" is still synonymous with "the stockholders own".

And incidentally, since you were non-specific and you worded it badly, the case you described was for one shareholder: You set up the company and sold the entire company to me, making me the sole owner of the bar of gold. But since I know you meant there are multiple shareholders...it is still wrong. The bylaws may or may not include direct voting on policy. If the voting is direct, all you have to do is convince 50%+1 shareholders to vote with you. If the voting is indirect, you just have to do the same except electing a representative who will do what you want.

The fact that it is cumbersome for stockholders to make major changes in large companies and doesn't happen often does not change the status of stockholders.

In any case, this was already discussed in detail and I have rehashed more than I really wanted to. For fuller treatment, read back a couple of pages.

 

[russ_watters]

Sometimes a stock's market price has very little to do with assets or the balance sheet. The price to earnings ratio is summarized in the following link.

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/price-earningsratio.asp#axzz2HQQGw3UB

"The P/E is sometimes referred to as the "multiple", because it shows how much investors are willing to pay per dollar of earnings. If a company were currently trading at a multiple (P/E) of 20, the interpretation is that an investor is willing to pay $20 for $1 of current earnings."

"Sometimes"

But over the long term, the average P/E ratio of the market stays within a relatively small range.

 

[enosis_]

"Sometimes"

But over the long term, the average P/E ratio of the market stays within a relatively small range.

I agree - but as link indicates - it varies by industry. The fun starts when a company has negative earnings (a loss) but still maintains an industry multiple.

 

[BWV]

I agree - but as link indicates - it varies by industry. The fun starts when a company has negative earnings (a loss) but still maintains an industry multiple.

Multiple of what? Not of earnings obviously

Investors are smart enough to discern that a company currently losing money may not do so in the future and price the stock accordingly

 

[russ_watters]

I agree - but as link indicates - it varies by industry.

As well it should. Growth industries will have higher P/E ratios than stable industries because they are growing faster. So tomorrow's predicted earnings are expected to be much higher than today's. Basically, the earnings are expected to "catch-up" to the P/E ratio.

 

[enosis_]

As well it should. Growth industries will have higher P/E ratios than stable industries because they are growing faster. So tomorrow's predicted earnings are expected to be much higher than today's. Basically, the earnings are expected to "catch-up" to the P/E ratio.

Yep - except for those situations when they don't.

 

[russ_watters]

Yep - except for those situations when they don't.

Sure -- it's a prediction. Sometimes predictions don't pan out.

 

[nitsuj]

And incidentally, since you were non-specific and you worded it badly, the case you described was for one shareholder: You set up the company and sold the entire company to me, making me the sole owner of the bar of gold. But since I know you meant there are multiple shareholders...it is still wrong. The bylaws may or may not include direct voting on policy. If the voting is direct, all you have to do is convince 50%+1 shareholders to vote with you. If the voting is indirect, you just have to do the same except electing a representative who will do what you want.

It was really poorly worded, even to say I sold the company to you doesn't makes sense. I'll refine it more, just need to review the accounting.

 

[Tosh5457]

Right: the growth happens BETWEEN the transactions. Those are the "events" Tosh doesn't want to consider.

Russ, please use the game theory formulation, it simpler to discuss it. Yes, that happens, and what that means is that more players will come into the game (more capital to be invested). That doesn't change the nature of the game, like more players coming to a poker cash game table doesn't change the fact that poker is a zero-sum game (excluding house commissions).

You don't accept the fact that the company growing doesn't give the stockholders any direct benefit. The only benefit they'll have, in average, will be to see their stock rise in price because of others investors expectations rising. But a game just made of transactions will always be zero-sum. It doesn't even matter if the stockholders have the power to change something in the company or not, if they're not getting any of the profits companies get, they can only show a profit by selling their stock in the secondary market. And again, that's just made of transactions, it's zero-sum.

Anyway, I still haven't understand something. Russ, are you trying to say the stock-market isn't a zero-sum game in respect to the profits of the stockholders, or are you saying that only analyzing profits doesn't make sense, and something is missing?

 

[BWV]

Russ, please use the game theory formulation, it simpler to discuss it. Yes, that happens, and what that means is that more players will come into the game (more capital to be invested). That doesn't change the nature of the game, like more players coming to a poker cash game table doesn't change the fact that poker is a zero-sum game (excluding house commissions).

So what do the aggregate real (i.e. net of inflation) gains and losses of all poker players since 1950 years sum to?

A. zero

what do the aggregate real gains and losses of all stock traders (gross of taxes and transaction costs) sum to?

A. a 5844.180% return (http://dqydj.net/sp-500-return-calculator/) including dividends. The price gain alone is about $12 trillion in current dollars

so tell me again how both are zero sum games?

 

[enosis_]

Russ, please use the game theory formulation, it simpler to discuss it. Yes, that happens, and what that means is that more players will come into the game (more capital to be invested). That doesn't change the nature of the game, like more players coming to a poker cash game table doesn't change the fact that poker is a zero-sum game (excluding house commissions).

You don't accept the fact that the company growing doesn't give the stockholders any direct benefit. The only benefit they'll have, in average, will be to see their stock rise in price because of others investors expectations rising. But a game just made of transactions will always be zero-sum. It doesn't even matter if the stockholders have the power to change something in the company or not, if they're not getting any of the profits companies get, they can only show a profit by selling their stock in the secondary market. And again, that's just made of transactions, it's zero-sum.

There are other possible benefits to investors including dividend disbursements, stock splits that increase the number of shares held and possibly warrants that could be exercised or sold.

 

[Tosh5457]

So what do the aggregate real (i.e. net of inflation) gains and losses of all poker players since 1950 years sum to?

A. zero

what do the aggregate real gains and losses of all stock traders (gross of taxes and transaction costs) sum to?

A. a 5844.180% return (http://dqydj.net/sp-500-return-calculator/) including dividends. The price gain alone is about $12 trillion in current dollars

so tell me again how both are zero sum games?

You're only seeing one side of the picture in the stock market case. Tell me, where did those $12 trillion come from?

 

[BWV]

that is beside the point - you said to use game theory jargon. The sum of the winnings is a positive number, hence its not a zero sum game