Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;InfleXion, post: 1339523, member: 29012&quot;]There is a chain of inference here that I cannot follow. A stock is not a company, and a company is not its assets. I have no qualms with agreeing that a company&#039;s assets provide real tangible value for the company, but it is not intrinsic to the company. Any intrinsic value would not rely on the assets, but rather the company itself. Yes, the assets have intrinsic value, but that is independent of the intrinsic value of the company. Nor do I have a qualm with agreeing that a stock provides real tangible value and is a piece of the company, but again that value is not intrinsic to the stock otherwise the value would still be there even if the company were not. You could own all the stock which entitles you to all the companies assets, but to transfer the intrinsic value of the assets to the intrinsic value of the stocks is something I cannot agree with, because the nature of the assets is not the nature of the stocks. They are different things. I do believe a company has intrinsic worth, which I would say is based on the success of the business model, not the assets it has acquired. The reason I put stocks and bonds in the same boat is because the intrinsic value is worth the paper they are printed on, by definition of the word.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in