-
When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
World Colonial
-
Posts
5,534 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
25
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
NGC Journals
Gallery
Events
Store
Downloads
Posts posted by World Colonial
-
-
On 4/2/2024 at 8:43 PM, cladking said:
Yes. Quite right. You've told me that.
But you're wrong I can't make accurate estimates. There are many ways to do it and I've told you a few of them in the past. Most of them require experience and ALL of them require knowledge and evidence.
I love it when you say this. Who knew I didn't know how to find mint sets, BU rolls, and moderns.
Did I ever mention I've talked to all the sellers of BU rolls from the '70's and '80's? Did I ever mention they told me how many rolls they sold? I round it off to "zero" because that's all it amounts to; a rounding error.
Yes, and I have also explained to you why personal experience is never representative, no matter how many people you know or how many coins you see. In the active PCGS thread, I read one of your responses as indicating you haven't been a CRH. But whether you are or are not, doesn't change anything I told you.
It's not a matter of certainties but probabilities. That's why I use the list of factors I mentioned previously, posted below. I don't claim to know what you claim to know because no one can know it.
You're almost always comparing US moderns to 1933-1964 US coinage. Yes, it's presumably almost always scarce versus that. I haven't read your last replies on PCGS, but you have no basis for claiming that the supply of pre-1933 US coinage is much higher than consensus, except maybe where there is specific evidence to indicate it, like capped bust halves where I would agree that Coin Facts estimates are far too low.
Look at the list below. Now compare how it applies to actually older world coinage or ancients with supply most presumably consider "high" for this type of coin. It should be evident that if this coinage exists in the confirmed number and quality, there is no basis to claim US moderns should hardly ever have anywhere near the survival rates you imply, except in the TPG condition census grade and occasionally one below it.
*Mintage (Not low, not even for mint or proof sets.)
*Extent of organized local collecting. (By far the largest collector base in the world.)
*Coin age combined with length of circulation. (The coins are not old and have been – not maybe - saved in volume in “high” quality from “day one” within the lifetime of just those reading this thread. We know this from mint sets alone.)
*FV affordability (This wasn’t a constraint, proportionately or absolutely.)
*Melting, where it happened. (No relevance for the quality we’re discussing.)
*Market value which if “low”, reduces the number for sale and probability potential buyers will be aware of it. (Nominal value; limited motivation to sell, except to someone like you.)
*Random preservation; yes, it’s possible for some centuries old coin to sit in a “change jar”, just like ancient and medieval hoards. (Applies even more to US moderns.)
*Comparison to known scarcer coins in the context of the TPG populations. (Since these coins survive in current number, it’s a virtual certainty US moderns exist in multiples of dozens, hundreds, thousands, and sometimes more. Compare just to China PRC.)
*Hoards (Yes, some exist of varying size. If hoards exist for much older, much scarcer coins, it certainly exists for US moderns. That’s what rolls represent.)
*Geographic access, extent of travel, and ease of communication. (Not a limitation, not since the internet, and not since 1965. The coins circulated widely throughout the US.)
*Local circulation, as opposed to other geographic locations with more collecting. (Not relevant, it’s intended to explain trade coinage availability.)
*Quality when included in prominent collections of the series. If a coin is missing from a prominent collection or is of low quality, it’s usually at least somewhat scarce. (Not applicable; we know this from registry sets alone.)
-
On 4/2/2024 at 8:46 PM, cladking said:
How many nice pristine 1967 quarters do you think are sitting in someone's change jar. I'll give you a hint. The very last one was accidently spent or was degraded about 1973. If they're in a collection where would you find that collection from 1967? Has it been updated every year since 1967? If there are billions and billions of these collections why are they not seen?
I've never disagreed with you with this type of claim.
You're now shifting from "gems" or some narrow quality from the prior criteria.
-
On 4/2/2024 at 8:36 PM, cladking said:
What possible evidence do you have that shows modern availability is correlated to mintage? Might I remind you that all of the key dates are high mintage and some are very high.
I don't presume to tell collectors how to collect. I merely BELIEVE collectors will avoid ugly clad coins but I don't presume to tell them which are ugly and which are collectible. Those who collect clads will make this decision and this evaluation for themselves. i also don't presume to tell them how rare a coin has to be before it becomes collectible. To each his own.
But if people start collecting moderns AND want nice attractive well made coins there are not enough to supply a mass market. Many collectors would be priced out of nice MS-64 (gemmy) and better coins.
You simply can't sell 1000 of something where only one exists. The price goes up to squash the demand.
Look, not trying to be difficult but your claims have no merit.
I'm going to tell you the same thing on the PCGS forum later. There are only two possibilities for you to be correct and only two.
The first is a drastic cultural change which completely alters collective perception toward coin collecting, going back centuries. The second is temporary speculation which will “flame out”, just like the 1950-D nickel bubble.
Absent that, there is no possibility any of these claims you have bene making for years will ever happen because practically everything you claim or infer is contrary to aggregate collector behavior. Collectors and the public do not have the motives you believe.
-
On 4/2/2024 at 8:36 PM, cladking said:
What possible evidence do you have that shows modern availability is correlated to mintage? Might I remind you that all of the key dates are high mintage and some are very high.
By definition, remaining survivors has some correlation to the mintage. Not just for US moderns, for all coins.
I've explained to you that there is no basis to claim the survival rates on US moderns are lower than the world coin examples I gave you. In the PCGS thread, I used the example of the 1864 Bolivia centavo. Yes, this one is likely a random event unlike US moderns or if you want to claim both are, a vastly lower probability random event. No one can rationally dispute it.
Since I haven't read your replies to the PCGS thread (yet), I'll add that if you tell me US moderns are "scarce" or "supply constrained" again, virtually no one cares about the relative scarcity between US moderns and 1933-1964 US classics. It's completely irrelevant, because both can be bought at any time except as I told you. It doesn't matter if some silver quarter (like the 1964) is 1000X more common than any clad quarter, or more.
No one cares, except for you.
-
On 4/2/2024 at 8:26 PM, cladking said:
[sigh]
Are you really suggesting that just because no one has ever brough aunt Bertha's two rolls of bicentennial quarters to the local coin shop it must mean everyone is instead putting them both on eBay or calling up NGC for guidance?
NO! The LCS still absorbs most of the coins, dreck, and minor collections that come in as estates. There ARE NO BU ROLLS and surprisingly few mint sets. What does come in usually goes in the cash register.
So where would you look for all those BU rolls you are so sure exist?
Most coins are in someone's collection or "change jar", not any local dealer or even the internet. You can also only be in one place at one time.
Do you understand that?
Did you read vKurt's post above here? Well, if you didn't, he contradicted you but then, earlier in this thread you called his experience and Zadoks "hearsay" since apparently only yours is representative.
You know what you are actually claiming?
You are claiming that your unrepresentative experience is more accurate than the collective knowledge base on this subject. That of all collectors in history, you know something no one else can know.
So no, of course I do not believe you.
-
On 4/2/2024 at 8:21 PM, cladking said:
So because accurate estimates are impossible we're supposed to not do it at all and since they made billions of moderns we're not supposed to do them at all either!
You'd be amazed how close some of my estimates are. It comes with experience. Just because I estimate all coins a little higher than others doesn't make me wrong. Many of these estimates are simple proportions derived from a great deal of sampling. My biggest worry is actually sample bias rather than error.
No, I'm not amazed, because I know you are just "making it up". I've already told you cannot possibly know what you claim to know and that's a fact.
Your posts demonstrate you don't understand statistics and that's a fact too. You start with a false premise (that collectors "hate" this coinage) and then when you don't see it as often as you think you should because you're looking in the wrong place (your local dealer instead of the internet), you claim it's "scarce". "Scarce" meaning less available versus 1933-1964 US coinage which is the most common coinage on the planet.
Your premises are false. All estimates are based upon the observer's assumptions. Therefore, your estimates cannot possibly be accurate other than by coincidence.
-
On 4/2/2024 at 8:17 PM, cladking said:
No!!!
Between 1931 and 1965 mintage was the starting point but that was more than half a century ago. It's no longer 1965. Nobody set aside coins and this is exactly why you don't see BU rolls of moderns.
I believe I addressed all your points adequately in other subsequent posts. If I missed anything I'll look back.
Total BS.
I haven't responded to your post(s) on the PCGS forum (yet), but your posting pattern is to disregard the evidence I use against your claims where you either rely on your unrepresentative experience or use irrelevant evidence.
I already told you in the other thread that if the world coinage I used as examples has the numbers and apparent survival rates it does, this coinage is almost certainly a lot more common than you claim.
There is absolutely no basis to claim that the survival rates on US moderns is lower or even approaches the examples I gave you.
It's utterly absurd.
-
On 3/30/2024 at 1:30 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:
Also: a case of the expanded supply of Fairmont creating its own demand, much like the 1857-S $20 DEs with the SSCA.
Yes, in this case I'd attribute it to buying for "investment":
I presume the data is somewhere though I cannot find it, but it's my inference that there are some coins that were previously too scarce to be collected by a large enough collector base which became more valuable even as the supply increased. Outside of "investment coinage" like your example, it appears only the most preferred coins (disproportionately from US coinage) have a deep demand base when "excessively" scarce.
-
On 3/30/2024 at 8:33 AM, cladking said:
The typical coin shop has gone from having 40 or 50 1968 mint sets to only one or two. Since the sets still don't sell the wholesalers don't maintain any larger inventories than they ever did and these are not substantial. Most old time collectors don't have any of these. If they have a few mint sets they will not be 1968. So where are you going to look for them? At flea markets? Among HSN customers?
You could start with the internet which is what 21st century coin collecting revolves around instead of your outdated model where you think it is your local dealer. No one needs to leave their house to buy this coinage, not even once.
On 3/30/2024 at 8:33 AM, cladking said:How do you supply a mass market?
A collector only needs one coin for their set. This coinage can be bought on demand, all the time, in practically any quality, only exception being arbitrary criteria or in some specialization mostly invented (as in "made up") by US collecting.
It's a non-problem, except for someone who theorizes in the abstract about how the world might "run out" of this coinage because collectors will find it so interesting they will either never sell it or sell it in such low proportion it won't be available.
Look on the internet, something your posts indicate you virtually never do. I've looked intermittently or regularly for a wide variety of coinage: US, world, ancient. Interestingly, I find the coins I'm looking for much, most, or all of the time and it's anywhere from dozens, hundreds, to even thousands of times scarcer than any US modern as a date/MM in all but the highest TPG eligible quality.
If the world hasn't run out of draped bust/small eagle half dollars (I see it every time I look) with something like 275-350 known for both dates in total (not a specific quality), there won't be any "shortage" for any of this coinage either.
-
On 3/30/2024 at 9:32 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:
If this is true, wouldn't this massive destruction of supply be accompanied by a big RISE in the price of specific coins in those sets ?
Not necessarily, because the remaining supply is not low, and collectors don't collect in a vacuum where they will ignore the price of competing alternatives at similar prices.
It also depends upon your definition of "big rise". All circulating coins start at FV and under overmarketed and over-financialized US collecting combined with currency debasement since 1965 increase in value by large percentages routinely.
-
On 3/29/2024 at 12:16 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:
Where or how did you come up with those figures ?
I don't doubt that many Proof/Mint sets were opened up and sold piece-mail for key dates or for a certain proof....but I agree with Kurt, I see TONS of these things at shows and many of them (most of them ?) are worth face value or original cost -- no appreciation whatsoever.
There are no accurate estimates of survivors or survival rates, even for most actually scarce coins, much less post-1933 US coinage with large to absolutely huge mintages. Mintage, that's the starting point for determining scarcity on any coin.
If anyone thinks mintages on any post-1933 US circulating coin are "low", try counting to these numbers and they will find out it isn't. Proof and mint set mintages for the last 60+ plus years aren't, even for a circulating coin. The 1950-D nickel or a "W quarter"? It will only take you about one month without eating, sleeping, or doing anything else to count to 2+MM. No, that's not a small number.
From this starting point, you then need to apply common behavioral factors known to correlate to attrition, which has limited to virtually nothing to do with what anyone sees or doesn't see by personal observation. I've encountered numerous collectors on coin forums who claim or imply a coin is "scarce", or "rare", or "hard to find" or whatever because they didn't see as many as they think they should or supposedly couldn't find it.
That's what I attempt to do in applying my claims, including comparing coins with better known estimates to those without it.
The only thing personal observation will confirm for anyone is that a coin is common. A coin might be scarce if you don't see it (often), but in and of itself isn't the reason. Some experience is more representative than others, but no one's experience is actually representative of hardly any coin, certainly not common coins.
P.S. Been gone for a long time and still owe you a response on the other thread.
-
On 1/5/2024 at 11:08 AM, World Colonial said:
Belief in "fundamentals" is a form of EMH. There is no evidence that stocks or any financial assets are valued from "fundamentals". Everyone just assumes it.
One other point. I know that most of these markets are higher now, after 15+ to 20+ years.
That's not the point.
The point is that if "fundamentals" really explained market prices, obviously these indexes should be noticeably higher than now. I don't have earnings data but given whatever growth has occurred locally and globally where the largest companies operate, I can infer the stocks comprising these indexes are making (a lot) more now vs. previously where this performance doesn't correlate. The prices then (at any of these points in time) weren't based upon "fundamentals", then or now.
If you don't like these indexes, take a look at the Korea ETF. It's lower now vs. 16 years ago and yes obviously, I know it's paid some dividends. Since Korea earnings are higher now versus then, why is this ETF lower?
-
On 1/5/2024 at 11:14 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:
Not at all -- it does. You have to look AT the fundamentals and BEYOND them, too....at times.
Because the expectation was that China would adopt democratic liberalization measures that would aid U.S. and other business interests in China. This followed the 2000 WTO/GATT acceptance of China. Without that, China doesn't become the world's manufacturer the next 2 decades. Chinese stocks SUCKED for about 5 years until 2005 and then soared like 6-fold in 2 years.
I don't need to know fundamentals to know that any market or item that goes up 6x in 2 years is probably overvalued and priced for perfection -- and perfection didn't happen the next 10-15 years for China. Ergo, market-losing returns except in select stocks.
Pure rationalization. This doesn't explain anything. What you described (without admitting or maybe even knowing it) is psychological.
China's Shanghai index hit 1400 in 1992 when GDP (yes, probably not accurate) was about 2% to 3% of today's reported level. The index is around 2900 now.
The "fundamentals" do not explain this performance.
-
On 1/5/2024 at 11:11 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:
Do you watch CNBC or FoxBusiness or Bloomberg TV ? They mention valuations and fundaamentals all day long, WC. I get 25-30 research PDFs a day....that's all they talk about.
I've watched it in the past. It's not that I don't know anything you are telling me. I disagree with your premises because it's not valid.
-
On 1/5/2024 at 11:10 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:
Sure they can. But fundamentals are only 1 leg in the 3-legged stool of stock analysis. You also have to look at starting valuation and interest rates. Sometimes political considerations (i.e., China vs. Hong Kong/South Korea/Japan) comes into play.
No one can quantify the price from what you wrote. Interest rates usually correlate to stock prices, but it's not mechanical.
I'm aware starting valuations are relevant. I never claimed otherwise.
-
On 1/5/2024 at 11:06 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:
Every single market you cited is HIGHER today than years earlier -- except Hong Kong/China for obvious reasons. All that is telling me is that stocks do great over long periods of times...earnings tend to go up (about 7% a year for the U.S.)....GDP growth is important which we and Asia have and Europe does not....and starting valuations matter.
Really, where is the evidence for this?
What is the obvious reason for China and Hong Kong? Because it doesn't fit your claims?
-
On 1/5/2024 at 11:06 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:
You're hung up on EMH. Nobody buys or sells stocks based on textbook theories. Forget about EMH -- unless they talk about it on CNBC.
Belief in "fundamentals" is a form of EMH. There is no evidence that stocks or any financial assets are valued from "fundamentals". Everyone just assumes it.
-
On 1/5/2024 at 1:21 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:
Yes, but that doesn't mean the P/E is irrelevant. You need to know if earnings have collapsed. Clearly, they haven't. So the P/E ratio IS useful right now. If we enter a recession, I agree: best to buy at 25x EPS instead of 16x EPS (although the trend in recent years has been for the multiple to collapse MORE than earnings).
Why would I make an exception for recessions? If earnings are a legitimate metric to value stocks, then the P/E ratio should be valid in all market environments. This is another rationalization.
On 1/5/2024 at 1:21 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:Markets and the public change and so do stocks. MSFT went public in 1986 and didn't pay a dividend until about 20 years later but it went up 100-fold in that time. AMZN has never paid a dividend and her stock is up 1000-fold. WMT never paid a public dividend until after 30 years as a public company and returned 34% a year.
All those companies GREW -- they were GROWTH stocks -- and their stock prices reflected those realities. If you were advising Sam Walton, he would have paid a dividend in the early-1970's and never toppled Sears-Roebuck.
And if you were a stockbroker, you would not have recommended buying WMT in the depths of the 1974 bear market...because the S&P 500 sold for 6x EPS and WMT sold for 12x EPS, 2x the market. You would have passed on the stock at $12...even though it would have been A BARGAIN AT $600/share !!! 
Yes, there is change, a psychological change.
I've told you that to 99%+ of shareholders, there is a difference between the company and the stock certificate. Yes, I agree it's an unorthodox view, but that's what practically everyone actually buys, a stock certificate. They own a piece of paper whose value isn't contingent upon what most believe.
Look at the examples I gave you in my above post, especially the foreign markets. I didn't include those examples to get an answer from you, because the "fundamentals" don't and can't explain this performance. The purpose is to demonstrate that this belief is invalid. If "fundamentals" actually explain prices, there is no possibility for these results.
I already know you are going to disagree, because you're going to reply with some other supposed reason to explain it which doesn't have anything to do with anything.
The price is what it is, regardless of what it is. It isn't because of "fundamentals".
-
On 1/5/2024 at 1:21 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:
These aren't fallacies promoted by "Wall Street" -- even folks who disagree with WS marketing agree that numbers are numbers. You can quibble with the numbers but you can't say they aren't representative of the fundamentals.
I absolutely can dispute this claim, because neither you nor anyone else can demonstrate otherwise. It's not incumbent upon me or anyone else to disprove this conventional belief. You actually believe in a form of EMH without admitting it. EMH is nonsense. Academics never demonstrated EMH. They just couldn't explain prices by supposed causal events, so they just made this theory up.
I explained to you the implied concensus agreement on the impact of psychology on various "bubble" stocks: serial money losers, "disruptors", "meme stocks", "unicorns". So, am I supposed to believe these are valued on "fundamentals" too? If not, based exactly on what?
How about CSCO? How does its performance explain the stock price? It's 35% lower today versus 2001 even as it's a much larger far more profitable company.
Or how about these markets? How do you explain this? You're going to tell me that this price performance is explained by earnings and GDP?
Index 12/23 COVID low GFC peak dot.com peak Other
S&P 500 4559 2191 1555 1553 442 (10/1994)
Stoxx600 459 306 400 407 125 (10/1994)
Switzerland 10879 9036 9548 7938 2675 (10/1994)
ASX 200 7040 5022 6851 3386 1857 (10/1994)
Shanghai 3040 2646 5560 1953 794 (10/1994)
Hong Kong 17559 22519 27254 18397 16820 (7/1997)
Singapore 3094 2381 3726 2528 Not available
Korea 2496 1439 2085 1066 1145 (10/1994)
Taiwan 17287 8523 9807 10393 10512 (1/1990)
Thailand 1397 1105 924 499 1695 (10/1993)
Dot.com peak = late 1999. early 2000 GFC peak = mid-2007 to mid-2008
Stoxx600 is Europe’s S&P 500 All indices in local currency
Source: CNBC.com
-
On 1/4/2024 at 9:36 PM, VKurtB said:
This idea that P/E ratios are somehow bogus is itself the bogus part of the conversation. It’s complete poppycock. P/E ratios are a perfectly fine metric. Whether those earnings are paid as dividends, or used to buy back stock, or used to finance growth in key areas, or EVEN to engage in M&A activities, thus making it unnecessary to finance that with debt, is about 99% immaterial. It ALL becomes shareholder value. Now of course if they want to use it to pay obscene management salaries, or pursue DEI activities, that is an invitation to sell immediately and run for the hills, and I shall, right after I vote down that garbage with my proxy form.
I already explained your objection.
There is a difference between the company and the stock certificate.
You're also still assuming that prices are contingent upon "fundamentals", implicitly a belief in the Efficient Market Hypothesis.
It's complete bunk. No one can explain prices from "fundamentals". It's accepted as a truism.
-
Double post
-
On 1/2/2024 at 1:03 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:
In the old days, the DJIA would be a buy at a 6% dividend yield and a sell at a 3% dividend yield. But that encompassed a RISING rate environment from 1946-81. We've had a FALLING rate environment for decades and even with the latest rise we are still historically low in yields.
Interest rates are also psychologically determined. No one can explain interest rates from "fundamentals" either. I've explained this numerous times before and can do it again. It certainly isn't due to any supposed omnipotence by the modern economic priesthood, those working at central banks and government treasury departments.
On 1/2/2024 at 1:03 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:Net-Net: yields are not going back to the old levels on stocks because today's stocks are less-risky, more transparent, and in many respects CHEAPER with more defensive MOATS than their predecessors.
Compare today's Tech Titans to the 1970's "Nifty Fifty" stocks. No comparision in terms of market dominance and ability to adapt.
More of your belief in false causality. Everything you believe is entirely the result of the asset mania.
Read some history. You're read "Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds" and "Manias, Panics, and Crashes". I presume you have. The level of speculation and valuation dwarfs these precedents and the only reason anyone will believe it has no relevance or doesn't matter is because they believe in a form of modern alchemy as I wrote in a prior post in this thread a few days ago.
Yes, I am aware of these "defensive moats" which is actually mostly a code word for oligopolistic and monopolistic corporate behavior. But since "fundamentals" don't determined prices, it doesn't mean what you claim anyway.
-
On 1/2/2024 at 1:03 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:
But you are eliminating a huge change from 1982: the ability to buy back stock. Before then, companies either hoarded cash or paid dividends. Today, they can buy back stock and many companies prefer to do this. You have to compare shareholder yield (dividend yield + stock buyback yield) to have a valid number.
No, I didn't forget anything. I didn't address it in my prior posts but anticipated you would make this claim.
Stock buybacks don't "return cash" to shareholders. That's another Wall Street lie.
Stock buybacks increase demand for what “investors” actually bought – the stock certificate – but they don’t actually receive anything from the company, unless something is supposed to include an increase in an accounting number, what's reflected in EPS. That's why this conventional claim is not accurate.
If you sell your shares, you don’t own it, do you? So, you didn’t get anything just like shareholders who sold don’t receive dividends either. Selling is selling and who you sold your shares to doesn’t alter the outcome.
It’s not “returning cash” to shareholders if the company buys it but different if sold to someone else. Shareholders who didn’t sell obviously didn’t receive anything. A legal claim to a higher proportional share of an accounting number (EPS) isn’t cash.
And before you answer, I know why management does it and why many shareholders favor it. I know that stock buybacks usually correlate to higher stock prices, but this still doesn't support the conventional claim.
-
On 1/2/2024 at 1:03 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:
No, it shouldn't. And no it didn't.
Stocks going back to 1926 have had dividends account for about 40% of the total return when one reinvests the dividend. But that encompasses DECADES of high-yields for the DJIA and S&P 500 (the DJIA yielded 10% in 1932). Not until 1956 did the yield on stocks fall below that of bonds -- beause most investors had long memories and remembered stocks going down 85-90% from 1929-32.
I already know this. It's not news to me.
Yes, the change in the relative return between dividends and appreciation is due to psychology, exactly as I have been telling you. That's exactly why "investors" are willing to accept such low yields now whereas they wouldn't before.
On 1/2/2024 at 1:03 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:Stocks have been de-risked because information is more easily accessible on corporate fundamentals. In the 1880's, information on railroad stocks sometimes took hours or days to reach investors. In the 1920's, information still took a few minutes, sometimes an hour or so. Today, information takes seconds or less.
Yields are less important to total return compared to growth. And I say that as a dividend and value investor.
Total BS
"information" has nothing to do with valuation or prices. Same false causality fallacy. How many times have you heard someone say something is only worth what someone will pay for it? More than I can count. But supposedly, that doesn't apply to "investments" because that's derived from "fundamentals"
This belief is also based upon the bogus "discounting" claim from the Efficient Market Hypothesis (EMH). I haven't heard anyone mention EMH in decades (since it's completely absurd) but that's what's still implicitly consensus belief and it's believed due to the concurrent belief in the impact of "fundamentals", not just present but future.
There is no "discounting" in the implied sense. “The market” (market participants collectively) can’t discount anything, because it’s an anthropomorphic abstraction from collective “investor” belief in false causality. It’s absurd to believe “the market” somehow “knows” anything. “The market” isn’t alive knowing what individuals know collectively. That’s a quasi-form of pantheism and another “rabbit hole” altogether.
As for individuals, I infer they believe this implicitly, when there is any evaluation at all (e.g., not “meme” stocks.) In at least one post, you cited behavior that “investors” typically (if not usually) put more research into the purchase of a low to mid-priced consumer good, like a toaster oven. This should be expected, since the vast majority of “investors” don’t “invest” directly and direct stock purchases represent a (decreasing) minority of share ownership. They “invest” on auto pilot (e.g., 401K) through index funds or delegating stock selection to money managers. When buying shares directly, “Investors” are also mostly ignorant of economics and accounting, know little if anything about statistics and present value, mostly don’t know anything about or understand the business represented by the company shares they buy, and how other “fundamentals” supposedly relate to stock prices. So how can they discount anything where this information you have repeatedly referenced makes any difference?
The answer is they can’t, meaning this supposed discounting is actually psychological as I told you, not an analysis of how events ("information") supposedly impact prices economically. It’s what ‘investors” believe and acting on this belief that matters, not the event(s) or aby supposed "information".
What about quantitative valuation methods, more common among institutions? It’s still psychologically based, because these predictive methods use assumptions biased by the user’s optimism or pessimism. There is no objective valuation method since there is no correct value. There is relative value, but since discounting attempts to predict future returns, it cannot avoid subjectivity either.
Look at the dot.com bubble, current “bubble” stocks, “meme” stocks, “disruptors”, “unicorns”, and serial money losers. Consensus implicitly admits these prices are psychologically determined while concurrently believing other prices are the result of the “fundamentals”. The same psychology responsible for “bubbles” accounts for all prices, all the time, without exception. “Investors” don’t “accurately” judge value “rationally”, except when “bubbles” occur. Believing this is a total absurdity since value is an arbitrary abstract mental construct.
Value is an arbitrary mental construct. It’s not contingent on anything, except collective perception. That’s why it fluctuates so radically independently of any supposed “fundamentals”. That’s why a raging mania (the one we have now) facilitated by deranged government policy (since at least 2008) can inflate fake “wealth” to such ridiculous heights, unlike real wealth requiring actual effort. If financial values were contingent on or subject to constraints in the physical world, it wouldn’t be possible.
Once Red-Hot....Now, They're Not: Fallen Stars
in US, World, and Ancient Coins
Posted · Edited by World Colonial
What do you not understand from what I have told you?
Everything you write is based upon your personal experience. What makes you think you know more about this subject than everyone else combined, because that's exactly what you are claiming?
Your posts don't demonstrate any knowledge about the availability of coinage generally. Do you understand that?
In my last post above, I provided you with 12 factors which have a demonstrated correlation to survivability, much better than what anyone sees including you. You completely disregard it and proceed to tell me exactly the same thing you told me before.
That's what you do in all our conversations, ignore independently verifiable evidence in favor of your erroneous assumptions of collective perception and your unrepresentative experience.
So, I ask you again, why would I accept your claims over everything collectively known on this subject?
You think that because you know the collecting characteristics makes you knowledgeable on the context of this discussion?
Read what I just wrote. Your posts demonstrate no knowledge in estimating populations. You're not even familiar with the TPG data which is the starting point. No one who is familiar with the subject will ever make the claims you make, starting with your inaccurate claims on statistical methods. You either don't understand statistics or still believe your erroneous assumptions make your observations accurate.
I've never claimed this coinage is "uncollectible". You can't find a single post where I stated or implied it. Disagreeing with your exaggerated claims doesn't mean I don't think it's collectible. It's another example where you just "make things up" in this instance because you dislike what I tell you.