I think a better question is will we run out of quality shares to own?
are we going to run out of shares?
- Thread starter dozu888
- Start date
I don't think you understand the sheer size of global economies and companies. Of course, there are plenty of short term "traders" on here that are also confused, thinking the US Fed can control the market and that PPT teams are making what would have to be massive buys of shares to move markets temporarily. The concept of "running out of shares" is meaningless. Shares are just a way of parceling out ownership. Big players who own shares are listed in the public domain and insider trades have to be reported as well. In reality, overall stock markets are like real estate, too big to be manipulated or cornered by any small group of investors.
I think the real question I wanted to ask was - why is the S&P not at 6000 right now.. if you can borrow at 2% to buy something yielding 6% (SP earnings), isn't this a sure bet?
The buy-backs and the privatizations are happening... just wondering why it's not going at a much faster pace.
The buy-backs and the privatizations are happening... just wondering why it's not going at a much faster pace.
some recent discussions of short term trading made me want to revive this thread... insight like this is what enables you to have a belief to catch a super cycle.
this thread was started when QQQ was at 105.
today the condition is almost the same... 10-year at 2.5%, SP forward yielding 6%
what are you going to do about it?
this thread was started when QQQ was at 105.
today the condition is almost the same... 10-year at 2.5%, SP forward yielding 6%
what are you going to do about it?
your pushing stocks to the public
there is no shortage of stocks or shares. companies can issue as many shares as they want.
the biggest scam in the stock market is the idea, that companies can issue and dilute shares without approval from minority shareholders.
the concept that stocks can be diluted via share dilution is the scam of the stock market.
company should be selling share and raise cash and invest the cash back into the BUSINESS like amazon did in the late 90`s and 2000`s and ever since. amazon never ever bought a stock buy back. okay!
steve jobs never buy back stock. and both amazon and apple increased shareholder value 10000% over 10 years. buy issuing stock and borrow money and investing it into the business.
company buying back stock is really stupid! more like some big whale who bought low and wants to exit or some trader bought cheap sell it back to the company as nobody in`the `streets `or pros wants to buy it and hold it at these inflated stock prices.
there is no shortage of stocks or shares. companies can issue as many shares as they want.
the biggest scam in the stock market is the idea, that companies can issue and dilute shares without approval from minority shareholders.
the concept that stocks can be diluted via share dilution is the scam of the stock market.
company should be selling share and raise cash and invest the cash back into the BUSINESS like amazon did in the late 90`s and 2000`s and ever since. amazon never ever bought a stock buy back. okay!
steve jobs never buy back stock. and both amazon and apple increased shareholder value 10000% over 10 years. buy issuing stock and borrow money and investing it into the business.
company buying back stock is really stupid! more like some big whale who bought low and wants to exit or some trader bought cheap sell it back to the company as nobody in`the `streets `or pros wants to buy it and hold it at these inflated stock prices.
You own a company that does nothing but hold cash, and currently holds $100, so with 100 shares each they are worth $1 per share. You have $100 worth of stock, right? You do an offering of 100 shares at the current price of $1.00 per share. As I'm sure you understand, an offering means that if Billy buy's all 100 of those shares he pays the company 100*$1=$100. Your company now has $200 in cash. And you own 100 out of 200 shares, or half. Which are worth .5*$200=$100. Were you "diluted" because of the offering? Was the value of what you owned diminished in any way?
An let's talk about share buybacks, the opposite of dilution, which you seem to dislike and misunderstand in equal measure. Same company, now worth $200. The company decides to do a share buyback using $100. You opt not to sell your shares but Billy sells all 100 of his for $1.00. The company now has $100. You have your 100 shares which now represent 100% of the company. You have 1*$100=$100. Were you disadvantaged or your value diminished in any way by that share buyback? Would it be any different if you'd sold your shares, as you were free to do if you thought the buyback was happening at an overvalued price?
Perhaps we should rename this thread basic market mechanics?
If you buy, someone has to sell. We are the someone.
