From: Dan Fabulich (dfabulich@warpmail.net)
Date: Tue Sep 17 2002 - 00:36:47 MDT
gts wrote:
> I have no interest in playing word games with you. If you do not accept
> my answer to your question (that the stockmarket, in the long run,
> provides corporate profits to shareholders in the form of dividends or
> capital gains or both) then that is fine by me. Believe whatever you
> chose to believe. It makes no difference to me.
One is based on the other. It may or may not worry you that, as far as
many people know, that one isn't based on anything at all.
> I would be surprised to learn that you've spent even a semester on these
> questions as an undergraduate.
Hah. More than that, actually, though, I'll admit, not as long as you,
and it's mostly theory.
> > Again, in the gum certificates, the broker could have claimed
> > that the gum certificates "represent" the relevant bank assets.
> What relevant "bank assets"?
Since you asked: part of the imaginary setup was that it was merely a fad
that certificate prices tracked anything; I made up the assets of a bank
as an example, but it could have been anything.
As far as many people know, it's only a fad that there even IS a P/E
ratio. (Look how out of touch we got during the 90s.) I think I could
explain it. You would merely claim that one was based partly on the
other, just like the gum broker would claim.
When called upon to find a basis, you'd, ah, claim it again. With
authority. ;) But so would the broker. The point was that you needed to
say something that the broker couldn't say.
But you didn't.
-Dan
-unless you love someone-
-nothing else makes any sense-
e.e. cummings
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:17:06 MST