You buy 10 copies of a specific collectible card for $5 each. Everybody is willing to pay $5 for each card you own, so you theoretically have $50 in the form of trading cards.
But then people want that card a lot for whatever reason. They want it so much you could sell yours for $8 each. So now, without having done anything, you have $80 in the form of trading cards.
But then people decide your cards are actually lame and don’t want to buy tgrm any more. If you were to sell them, you’d only get $1 each, so you only have $10 worth of trading cards. Thus, your cards are worth $70 less than they were, even though all the actual money is still out there and you have all the trading cards you originally bought.
To rephrase, the value of your investment fell by $70.
This is how stocks work. When the media reports that some money was wiped off the stock market, all the money still exists. It’s just that people decided some stocks are lame and not worth buying, which means the owners of those stocks can’t sell them for as much as they could have the previous day.
The point you’re missing is that the loss is real for the investors holding those assets.
If you bought ten cards for $5 each, you invested $50. When their market value rises to $80, you have an investment worth $80. If that value subsequently falls to $10, you’ve lost $70 in investment value. You can no longer sell those cards for what you could have sold them for yesterday.
And if you were someone who bought those ten cards at $8 each, you’ve now lost $70 of your original $80 investment. That isn’t hypothetical money. That’s money you actually spent and can no longer recover by selling your cards.
The money is not “still there”, the money transferred hands and you (or your retirement account) are holding the empty bag.
The thing is though you haven’t actually lost money or gained money until you sell the shares and until you do sell, you still have those shares so you could always get your money back if the stock goes back up. The only time you will lose money when holding stock is if the company goes out of buisiness
If you believe the capitalist assertion that stock always go up, sure. If you’re not close to retirement and aren’t counting on those funds anytime soon, sure.
I believe the AI circular financing bubble isn’t meaningfully going to turn a corner and become profitable enough to pay the debts already accumulated, and once it truly pops that money will never come back to the average investor trusting the financial bros to put all their eggs into that overinflated basket.
It’s literally hypothetical money
A stock is a part of a company. You still have have that part.
A stock is a piece of paper supposedly representing part of a company. You still have the paper.
There’s nothing “supposedly” about it. It does represent a part of the ownership. If you own all the pieces of paper then you own the company.
However much you paid for it and how much it’s worth are completely different stories, but the stock is indeed the ownership.
You’re like a top poster of c/stocks, shouldn’t you of all people know?
There are three massive mathematical assumptions to determine the “value” of the stock market:
- The price of a stock of a company times the number of stocks of that company is the value of that company
- The price of all stocks of a company is equal to the price for which a stock of the company was last traded (so, a simple linear extrapolation)
- The “value” of a company is measured in currency units.
It seems clear to me that some of even all of those are in fact wrong and do not represent reality.
In other words, the whole thing is bullshit.
Certainly it would explain why stock markets are far more about faith and things like momentum than they are about fundamentals.
I mean it is an approximation, repeatedly it has been shown that if another company wants to buy a publicly listed company they usually have to pay a premium to the market value = current stock price * number of shares so if anything that can be off by a bit more or less but is generally accurate, the main exemption to this being when a company has a very low float i.e SpaceX which only has 5% of its equity publicly tradable. Your second point is not typically what industry uses, usually we would use a optimized calculation between the current active highest bid and lowest offer. Your third point is abitrary, all things in our society are “valued” in an economic sense, by currency units of your choosing. There is often a discrepancy between public good and company value, but that is how people work. Gold was more valuable than food for peasants during feudal times or in USSR so it isn’t just Capitalism that makes this happen
My point is that it’s a horrible approximation, especially for things like “growth” stocks and during market bubbles.
Further, companies buying other companies don’t purchase them for the “value” of that company, they purchase them for the amount of money that those who own that company want to part with their share of the company. This is all over the place and even for the same person varies widely at different points in time - people can and do (it’s just good business sense) demand as much money for their stocks as they can get away with meaning that the amount paid is not necessarily the amount the company is worth.
As for your response to my 3rd point, I don’t think I’ve explained it correctly - my point is that the “value” of a company is often in things which aren’t easily quantified in money (or gold, or whatever currency token), something especially bad in “growth” “tech” stocks because there’s a double problem that to find a monetary expression of the value of the company you need to find a money value of “intellectual property” (which Tech companies are generally heavy on, much more so than capital assets which are far easier to value) which is notoriously hard and all over the place and, worse, find a money value for future market prospects and profitability (because they’re “growth” stocks, so their value is not on today’s market share and revenues for their products and services) which is even more full of la-la-land wishful thinking pulled-out-of-somebody’s ass valuations than intellectual property.
So my 3rd point isn’t about that it’s somehow wrong to translate the value of a company into monetary units, it’s that said conversion is another source of error with an error amount which can vary a lot between companies and be massive in some cases.
The DoD, they just had to choose a nice round 25 years since last time. /s
Wall Street has what we call a bussy. They stuff and store these losses in there.
Same place it came from.
Thin air.
Up the asses of obscenely rich people?
Stock valuation has always seemed like play/imaginay money to me. Until I sell my stock and buy that large purchase, I treat mine like just a number.
Imagine you’re the richest person on the planet, and own 1 trillion monies in stock of Omnia Corporation. Can you buy 1 trillion ice cream cones for 1 money each? No, because you can’t sell 1T stocks without utterly devastating the stock price… But you sure can take a loan backed by this imaginary money. Boggles my mind.
I wish someone with economics background would correct my thinking.
You’re not wrong, except the part where the money becomes more real once you sell the stock. All assets are like this – if you lasso an asteroid that contains $45 umptillion of gold, you won’t be able to sell it for $45 umptillion because you’ll crash the gold market. Money has the same problem – when the money supply grows, everyone has less money per money, which we call inflation.
Dollars, dollars everywhere and not a cent to spend.
You don’t need a business degree to know you are correct here. Someone whom may or may not be I has one though, and you are correct.
To be fair the very idea of value of money is “imaginary”. Even a bank note is nothing more than a promise.
The value of a stock is derived from the trust that someone will trade you for it. If the trust goes away, so does the value.
Similarly, the value of a bank note is derived from the trust that someone will trade you for it. If the trust in a bank (bank run) or government (scarce money supply, solvency) or economy goes away, so too will the value of money, i.e. inflation.
Even comodities and tangible goods have “imaginary” value, because these things can be under or over produced, which in turn changes how likely someone might want your good.
That being said, the degree of imagination needed to trust the value of trade varies, and stocks are definitely close to the top of the imagination tree.
The difference with stock being that if you have 1T monies, you can buy stuff worth 1T (after ice cream cones run out, buy a factory or switch to candy). With 1T of stock, you can’t.
I have a bachelors in economics and your pretty close except you’ve got realize that all money is like this. If you’ve got a us greenback in your pocket and if I decide it worthless to me, and you want something from me then all you’ve got is a small piece of art.
All value is just agreements between people and money is just a method of keeping track of favours owed that we worked out thousands of years ago. In the example of a stock, all a stock is, is an agreement between the company that issues it and its holder, that the company will do you a favour (give you some money, a dividend) some time in the future, and keep doing it every time they have some extra favours to hand out.
I may decide that the promise of those future favours are worth doing a lot of favours right now or only a few.
Right now everyone who buys and sells stocks doesn’t think a lot of companies aren’t going to be able to a lot of favours in the future so the value in the stock market has gone down. But that doesn’t mean a trillion dollars has disappeared it just means that the offer of money is lowerMy simplified take is all money is commoditized promises. It works if people believe they will work. Doesn’t if they don’t.
I don’t have economics background and think the same way as you do.
They just create money out of thin air.
Same with money. If the power goes out the can of tuna in the cupboard suddenly is worth more dead president paper. Maybe it was worth a dollar yesterday. But 2 weeks into no power I won’t sell it to you for 5 dollars.
The tuna in the refrigerator, on the other hand, is suddenly worth less. Where’s the consistency?
Not in that tuna after 2 weeks, I can tell you that much
Check Lord Feltersnatch’s back pocket!
Sounds Liechtenshteinish. 🤭
Imagine if I had a collectible Lex Luthor action figure which you really wanted - you would be willing to pay me $100 for it. Then you stopped thinking that superhero stuff was cool and didn’t want the action figure anymore for more than $10. What has changed about the world is that I no longer have the option to get the $90 difference from you by selling the action figure, but only because you would keep the $90. No money went anywhere. However, market value was reduced. If my action figure and your money were all that existed in the world, then the world would no longer be a place with $200 of value. It would now only have $110 of value, and in that sense it would be a worse place to the extent that market value corresponds to happiness or abstract utility.
Wealth is not a conserved quantity. You can reduce my wealth just by wanting what I have less, even if afterwards we both have exactly what we had before.
That explanation right there is why a “wealth tax” is much more difficult to implement in any meaningful way that proponents of it like to admit
But billionaires still want to live fancy lifestyles. Tax the methods they use to create cash flow, ban a lot of the tricks they use to manipulate stock valuation (the Tesla valuation is fake, etc), and a lot of that problem goes away. Like taxing the use of collateral in loans (easily treated as advance in capital gains tax on the asset you took a collateral on).
Taxing the use of collateral in loans would hit anyone with a HELOC. Like I said, it’s more complicated than proponents like to admit.
It never existed.
If you make two beautiful paintings, and sell one for $1000, then decide to sell the other, but nobody wants it for more than $500, you didn’t “lose” the $500 difference.
Maybe you even told people you had another $1000 painting, then only got $500 in cash for it, so your reported net wealth dropped by $500.
At worst, you actually paid $1000, then sold for $500, but even then, the difference didn’t disappear, you just transferred it to the original owner by overpaying, or to the new owner by undercharging if the price goes back up.
Indeed, if they’re talking about market capitalization then “wiped out” doesn’t make sense. It’s just simply a measure of the dollar cost of shares, much more important is liquidity and real volume.
P/E ratio, price to earnings, is key to judging intrinsic wealth, although earnings can be a bit squishy of a metric. 15/1, 13/1, and thereabouts depending on sector is traditional. Tesla is trading at like 552 price to one earning. Other tech companies are also most overpriced but much of the market is also to a lesser degree.
The market is mostly irrational, there are no ways to judge intrinsic wealth in a late stage capitalist stock market where we don’t have free markets and protectionism through tariffs.
Idk about that, no perfect metric, but a company that earns 1 billion a year, and is likely to continue to do so, is worth about 15 billion in stock price. (edited to correct 1 to 15 from 15 to 1.)
Obviously tech especially is out of whack. The entire market is out of whack, partly because the last two big downturns had the government bailing them out to make more than if the market didn’t crash at all.
But the lack of enforcements of regulations or consequences, is another big factor, and there are others.
That said, I don’t think late stage capitalism even captures where we are right now. It’s an oligarchy, a partial fascist one, a police state. Plus the government is taking stock in companies now. Intel, now this Venezuela oil deal, (a joke, they can’t get any more oil to speak of, not even in the 25 years their contract is for, that’s why the oil majors declined, but that’s another story, other than the government gets to buy at production cost, and gets like 25 percent of the company.)
It’s oligarchic repression, sliding into authoritarianism. But my argument is admittedly just semantic and not well fleshed out perhaps.
It only makes sense in the scenario where someone paid the $1,000 price, and then could only sell it for $500 later. They just lost $500 for their efforts.
A lot of people though bought the other $500 painting, heard it was worth more but held on to it a bit longer to see what happens. Later they are told- no it’s still only worth $500. It’s only “opportunity cost” at that point.
Usually what happens is more akin to the market “correcting” the price estimation of shares of a company.
But the stock market sounds like a zero sum game.
Who sold the stock off early? If everyone wanted to devest from a specific company and we all sold our stock at the same time and nobody wanted to buy it… huh
The value of a stock IS what it was previously sold for. If it sells for $100, and there are 100 shares issued, the company has a total worth of +$10,000 from stocks.
If the stock sells for 90 bucks, then the “wealth from stocks” goes down to +9,000 total since every share is now “worth” 90 dollars.
No, that’s the “price” of a stock. Price and value are two different things.
There don’t have to be actual sales for the price to move in an orderbook based system though, the price could collapse just from all the buy orders at the top of the range being cancelled.
Thanks. I’m seeing two conflicting stories in my mind.
I’d the company is worth $10,000 and there are 100 shares. And if I sold 10 for $100 each the company is still worth $10,000?
But who gets to calculate when the value goes down? Is it when someone offers me $90 and I accept? Why can’t I just pretend to be two people and sell myself stock at $10 to artificially tank the price so I can buy the dip? Or do the reverse and pump the price up?
Or maybe the first 10% to sell gets the best deal and the price auto-magically goes down because of ‘market trend’ and each next 10% gets increasingly screwed until the company is worthless?
Stock markets like NYSE are supposed to prevent certain types of manipulation if detected. Wash trades (trading with yourself) is one of the generally illegal methods to move prices.
That second example is kinda true with stock classes and new share issuance (voting shares and non voting shares, among others). It’s absolutely possible to give different types of investors more favorable terms.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Share_class
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stock_dilution
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preferred_stockBut on open stock markets, what you have is simply the order book of bids on purchases versus bids on sales. When the two don’t meet no sales happen (no volume), when a lot of people want to buy and sell you’ll see a lot of jumps up and down as sellers go down a bit to meet buyers and buyers go up a bit to meet sellers, and this represents the volume. If sellers are more eager to sell in total then they’ll push price down as a net effect, or vice versa pushing it up for buyers competing to buy.
Current price is simply latest sale price. Total valuation is simply total shares multiplied by sale price. Yes, this isn’t accurate at all in a basic mathematical sense as it doesn’t capture nearly enough information on actual value in any sensible way.
Congratulations, you just figured out market manipulation! Some of that isn’t strictly legal, but since when does that affect people’s actions?
How is it a zero sum game if prices can just go up or down almost arbitrarily?
Because the main way money moves in and out is by people buying in and cashing out. If no company injected more (by dividends and stock buy backs) and no company took money out (by IPOs, funding rounds or stock options), it would just be a box people would put money in and get money out.
ln that case it would be a zero sum game, because every dollar taken out by someone was put in by someone else, but because there is a flimsy connection to companies creating/extracting value in the real world it is not.Someone bargaining to buy a melon at a market can negotiate a price with the seller. Then the next buyer may negotiate a better price. You could record that the price of melons has fallen. However, all of the melons and all of the currency in the transactions is accounted for. Nothing has been lost.
Sure, but there’s nothing material actually backing the stocks.
Simplistic answer is that equity holders sold and turned some of their equity into cash.
Slightly more nuanced answer is that when people tried to sell, they couldn’t get as much as they wanted (paper value of the equity) so accepted a lower price.
Eli5: I have two gumballs that I paid $10 each for. They’re “worth” $20 combined. I go to sell one but no one will give me $10, i have to accept $6 instead. Now that’s the “worth” of each gumball. Two gumballs now are $12. Price discovery means that all gumballs lost 40% of value™
ITT: A wild variety of stand-ins for the classic “widget” imaginary product for which money is exchanged.
This is why I stick to commodities: physical materials with real uses. Sure there can be tulip events but there is still a physical item being exchanged.
Meanwhile, what I have lost since yesterday is somewhere around 0.2%. Background noise.
I don’t really give a shit about short term ups and downs it’s long term trends I invest for and over the last twenty years I’ve done fantastic.
45% of the entire market is now in AI or AI adjacent.
People said the exact same thing around late 2007.
Nasdaq was like 2,500 in 2007 and is 25,000 now.
That requires you to have had your money in index funds, etc. Money invested in stocks in companies that goes bankrupt may simply disappear. Even the index funds can have their value tanked by this.
