 |
| Make Sure Your Weighing Machine is Properly Calibrated |
Just a few days ago, I read courtesy of Reuters that Tesla had lost one-third of its value.
Shocked, I rushed to read how such a loss had occurred.
Had Brother Musk misplaced or “lost” the “code” to Tesla’s Bitcoin account?
Did meteors strike Tesla’s factories, wiping out needed capital assets?
Did Lucid leapfrog Tesla's self-driving technology?
I read on.
Rather the article was about the decline in the price of Tesla stock.
The writer of the headline apparently is a naive adherent of the efficient market theory conflating stock prices with value.
So what is the point?
There is a difference between the price of a stock and its (intrinsic) value.
Many tragedies in the investment world have occurred because of a conflation of the two.
Market sentiment plays a large part in the price of a stock.
One day an NMC or a Wirecard are flying high. The next day they are not.
When 911 occurred, prices on the NYSE dropped dramatically forcing the closure of the market.
In both cases there was a wide gap between value (reality) and price (sentiment).
Prior to the price decline NMC and Wirecard had high prices, but no value, unless one were to count negative numbers.
In the second case, the stocks on the NYSE as a general group did not suffer any real loss of value. Their prices just diverged from value.
Earlier this year, one of my colleagues gave me a JPMorgan research piece on Tesla which posited a value of some USD 160 or so a share.
JPM had computed the value using multiple “different” methods, though as Aswath might tell you many of these seemingly independent methods are really fundamentally linked.
I found it entertaining but not convincing reading. The JPM research piece not the Professor's.
A sum of the parts analysis in a distressed sale might have been more illuminating.
Posts
