If I want to sell my car and nobody wants it at my asking price, I don't sell my car. Similarly if I want to buy a house and there's none for sale in the neighborhood I want, I don't buy a house that day.
Why do stocks get to be different?
Alex's content just reminded me
If I want to sell my car and nobody wants it at my asking price, I don't sell my car. Similarly if I want to buy a house and there's none for sale in the neighborhood I want, I don't buy a house that day.
Why do stocks get to be different? --
Drew |
|
Becuase the market makers make sure there is always a buyer
That gives confidence to people buying that if the had to they would be able to dump. Yes, prices go down at that point, but it beats a total standstill. That is what liquidity is all about.
Is this bad? |
|
Not saying bad, but why is it required?
Why are stocks unique, that we have to have confidence that every stock can be sold whenever you want?
--
Drew |
|
Primary vs Secondary Market.
http://en.wikipedia....y_market#Function
In the secondary market, securities are sold by and transferred from one investor or speculator to another. It is therefore important that the secondary market be highly liquid (originally, the only way to create this liquidity was for investors and speculators to meet at a fixed place regularly; this is how stock exchanges originated, see History of the Stock Exchange). As a general rule, the greater the number of investors that participate in a given marketplace, and the greater the centralization of that marketplace, the more liquid the market. There are weird examples of things like this - e.g. Lloyds of London, where individuals used to put up money to guarantee insurance and had unlimited liability. Liquidity is good, but pathological things can happen if it is forced. Trouble is, when there is a working market for something, a structure that exists to guarantee liquidity can act as a vampire middle-man. Cheers, Scott. |
|
So ...
A free market guarantees the most efficient allocation of resources. Except when it doesn't. So we create a system of guarantees in the finance sector that doesn't exist in the wider economy, and that system reduces the peak efficiency of the system in exchange for ... what do the rest of us get out of this, again?
--
Drew |
|
We get to watch, and pick up the pieces when it crashes. :-/
|
|
Heard about Piketty?
The groundbreaking status of the book was recognised by a recent long essay in the New Yorker in which Branko Milanovic, a former senior economist at the World Bank, was quoted as describing Piketty's volume as "one of the watershed books in economic thinking". In the same vein, a writer in the Economist reported that Piketty's work fundamentally rewrote 200 years of economic thinking on inequality. In short, the arguments have centred on two poles: the first is a tradition that begins with Karl Marx, who believed that capitalism would self-destruct in the endless pursuit of diminishing profit returns. At the opposite end of the spectrum is the work of Simon Kuznets, who won a Nobel prize in 1971 and who made the case that the inequality gap inevitably grows smaller as economies develop and become sophisticated. http://www.theguardi...st-thomas-piketty |
|
Yup. #388401. ;-)
http://forum.iwethey...iwt?postid=388401
It's an important book, no doubt. But it's not the last word (of course). See DeLong's review in that thread. Cheers, Scott. |
|
I will *TRY* to stop doing that to you. ;0(
|
|
No worries.
My snark detector is often broken.
Post what you like. The more, the merrier. Cheers, Scott. |
|
Also, (most importantly?) Brokers a guaranteed commissions.
|