Talk:Point of view

The problem with the Point of view#Investor Point of View is that much of the investments are speculative that is they are looking for gains in stock value and not dividents from actual profit done by companies.

The obsolete saying that stock value in stock markets is determined by future profit expectations is totally false. If you look at P/E (Price/Earnings) ratios of companies you may notice situations like a few years back Nokia had a P/E-ratio of 100, which translates to them making the same profit for 100 years to generate the value of all stocks at that moment.

Stock value is based IMO more on collective mass psychosis then future earnings. The original idea of the stock market was to provide solvence, that is to say liquidation for assets, for investments so that one could get the invested money (and maybe a little profit for the investment) if the capital was needed elsewhere.

All completely true. Image over substance. But even the future profit expectations concept is wrong, and so is the idea of valuation by multiplying the current stock price by the total number of shares. If you sold all the shares at once, obviously, the price would be near zero by the time you were done. Liquidity simulation is the advanced way to deal with this, but, it does no good for those without sophisticated models of the economy. And yes P/E ratios being very high are proof of this. It's also proof that there is not a mysterious "seventh style of capital", but only a concept of equity that is recursive and reflective of this mass psychosis.

Some stock markets are offering the use of their trade system to boost solvence of non-listed shares which is a good thing for it makes funding more available to smaller companies

When all auditors are criminals, in order to keep any jobs at all, they distract us from their uselessness and criminality by offering us the right to do what we already had the right to do - sell shares in our own companies. ;-)

For Consumerium Services to be really useful for an investor would require a paradigm shift, which is unlikely to occur anytime soon, from speculative investing to sustainable investing where dividends would be the primary source of premium paid for the investment.

Many investors never gave up on dividend-paying stocks and refuse to fall for fads in "growth stocks". Many of those still have their money.

Agreed that this is the main issue. But it might occur sooner than you think, especially if there is another world war. Which will be soon if things keep on as they are. While some like to blame betting as such for this, the fact is, betting is part of business and politics and academic life too, in fact it is part of any competitive activity. Judicious use of voting in the private sector and betting in the public sector might do a great deal to break up the dominant mind-sets. There is a marvellous example in a w:Robin Hanson paper about the bets on the weather that predict the UK's weather far better than the bureaucratic offices in the UK government. But after ten years of this proven track record, official government estimates are still not based on the accurate betting-based numbers, but on the academically "justified" bad numbers. Think about it. That's betting the whole planet on a bunch of academics. The Pentagon was probably right to go to prediction markets - and the public is wrong to cut them off for doing so.

xCjtAh <a href="http://bbxdctdsxuml.com/">bbxdctdsxuml</a>, [url=http://qaczwiffhqmz.com/]qaczwiffhqmz[/url], [link=http://nlkfditejxpq.com/]nlkfditejxpq[/link], http://isyjaptamyhi.com/

comment1, http://evayyztabolt.hotmail.ru/site-220.html ñåêñ çíàêîìñòâî ïÿòèãîðñê, =))),

comment4, http://stephhorkakk.pop3.ru/gollandiya-znakomstva/doc_105.html ñàéòû çíàêîìñò òâåðü, xjrknl,