top 99 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 189 points 1 week ago (17 children)

It never existed.

If you make two beautiful paintings, and sell one for $1000, then decide to sell the other, but nobody wants it for more than $500, you didn't "lose" the $500 difference.

Maybe you even told people you had another $1000 painting, then only got $500 in cash for it, so your reported net wealth dropped by $500.

At worst, you actually paid $1000, then sold for $500, but even then, the difference didn't disappear, you just transferred it to the original owner by overpaying, or to the new owner by undercharging if the price goes back up.

  • source
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] 34 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (5 children)

    Indeed, if they're talking about market capitalization then "wiped out" doesn't make sense. It's just simply a measure of the dollar cost of shares, much more important is liquidity and real volume.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 week ago*

    It only makes sense in the scenario where someone paid the $1,000 price, and then could only sell it for $500 later. They just lost $500 for their efforts.

    A lot of people though bought the other $500 painting, heard it was worth more but held on to it a bit longer to see what happens. Later they are told- no it’s still only worth $500. It’s only “opportunity cost” at that point.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 week ago (2 children)

    P/E ratio, price to earnings, is key to judging intrinsic wealth, although earnings can be a bit squishy of a metric. 15/1, 13/1, and thereabouts depending on sector is traditional. Tesla is trading at like 552 price to one earning. Other tech companies are also most overpriced but much of the market is also to a lesser degree.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago (1 child)

    The market is mostly irrational, there are no ways to judge intrinsic wealth in a late stage capitalist stock market where we don't have free markets and protectionism through tariffs.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 8 points 1 week ago*

    Idk about that, no perfect metric, but a company that earns 1 billion a year, and is likely to continue to do so, is worth about 15 billion in stock price. (edited to correct 1 to 15 from 15 to 1.)

    Obviously tech especially is out of whack. The entire market is out of whack, partly because the last two big downturns had the government bailing them out to make more than if the market didn't crash at all.

    But the lack of enforcements of regulations or consequences, is another big factor, and there are others.

    That said, I don't think late stage capitalism even captures where we are right now. It's an oligarchy, a partial fascist one, a police state. Plus the government is taking stock in companies now. Intel, now this Venezuela oil deal, (a joke, they can't get any more oil to speak of, not even in the 25 years their contract is for, that's why the oil majors declined, but that's another story, other than the government gets to buy at production cost, and gets like 25 percent of the company.)

    It's oligarchic repression, sliding into authoritarianism. But my argument is admittedly just semantic and not well fleshed out perhaps.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (10 children)

    But the stock market sounds like a zero sum game.

    Who sold the stock off early? If everyone wanted to devest from a specific company and we all sold our stock at the same time and nobody wanted to buy it... huh

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 week ago (3 children)

    How is it a zero sum game if prices can just go up or down almost arbitrarily?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 week ago

    Because the main way money moves in and out is by people buying in and cashing out. If no company injected more (by dividends and stock buy backs) and no company took money out (by IPOs, funding rounds or stock options), it would just be a box people would put money in and get money out.
    ln that case it would be a zero sum game, because every dollar taken out by someone was put in by someone else, but because there is a flimsy connection to companies creating/extracting value in the real world it is not.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    Someone bargaining to buy a melon at a market can negotiate a price with the seller. Then the next buyer may negotiate a better price. You could record that the price of melons has fallen. However, all of the melons and all of the currency in the transactions is accounted for. Nothing has been lost.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 7 points 1 week ago (5 children)

    The value of a stock IS what it was previously sold for. If it sells for $100, and there are 100 shares issued, the company has a total worth of +$10,000 from stocks.

    If the stock sells for 90 bucks, then the "wealth from stocks" goes down to +9,000 total since every share is now "worth" 90 dollars.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 1 week ago (2 children)

    Thanks. I'm seeing two conflicting stories in my mind.

    I'd the company is worth $10,000 and there are 100 shares. And if I sold 10 for $100 each the company is still worth $10,000?

    But who gets to calculate when the value goes down? Is it when someone offers me $90 and I accept? Why can't I just pretend to be two people and sell myself stock at $10 to artificially tank the price so I can buy the dip? Or do the reverse and pump the price up?

    Or maybe the first 10% to sell gets the best deal and the price auto-magically goes down because of 'market trend' and each next 10% gets increasingly screwed until the company is worthless?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 week ago

    Stock markets like NYSE are supposed to prevent certain types of manipulation if detected. Wash trades (trading with yourself) is one of the generally illegal methods to move prices.

    That second example is kinda true with stock classes and new share issuance (voting shares and non voting shares, among others). It's absolutely possible to give different types of investors more favorable terms.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Share_class
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stock_dilution
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preferred_stock

    But on open stock markets, what you have is simply the order book of bids on purchases versus bids on sales. When the two don't meet no sales happen (no volume), when a lot of people want to buy and sell you'll see a lot of jumps up and down as sellers go down a bit to meet buyers and buyers go up a bit to meet sellers, and this represents the volume. If sellers are more eager to sell in total then they'll push price down as a net effect, or vice versa pushing it up for buyers competing to buy.

    Current price is simply latest sale price. Total valuation is simply total shares multiplied by sale price. Yes, this isn't accurate at all in a basic mathematical sense as it doesn't capture nearly enough information on actual value in any sensible way.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 50 points 1 week ago (2 children)
  • [–] 41 points 1 week ago (13 children)

    Stock valuation has always seemed like play/imaginay money to me. Until I sell my stock and buy that large purchase, I treat mine like just a number.

    Imagine you're the richest person on the planet, and own 1 trillion monies in stock of Omnia Corporation. Can you buy 1 trillion ice cream cones for 1 money each? No, because you can't sell 1T stocks without utterly devastating the stock price… But you sure can take a loan backed by this imaginary money. Boggles my mind.

    I wish someone with economics background would correct my thinking.

  • source
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 child)

    You're not wrong, except the part where the money becomes more real once you sell the stock. All assets are like this -- if you lasso an asteroid that contains $45 umptillion of gold, you won't be able to sell it for $45 umptillion because you'll crash the gold market. Money has the same problem -- when the money supply grows, everyone has less money per money, which we call inflation.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 14 points 1 week ago (3 children)

    I don’t have economics background and think the same way as you do.

    They just create money out of thin air.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 week ago (2 children)

    Same with money. If the power goes out the can of tuna in the cupboard suddenly is worth more dead president paper. Maybe it was worth a dollar yesterday. But 2 weeks into no power I won't sell it to you for 5 dollars.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    I have a bachelors in economics and your pretty close except you’ve got realize that all money is like this. If you’ve got a us greenback in your pocket and if I decide it worthless to me, and you want something from me then all you’ve got is a small piece of art.
    All value is just agreements between people and money is just a method of keeping track of favours owed that we worked out thousands of years ago. In the example of a stock, all a stock is, is an agreement between the company that issues it and its holder, that the company will do you a favour (give you some money, a dividend) some time in the future, and keep doing it every time they have some extra favours to hand out.
    I may decide that the promise of those future favours are worth doing a lot of favours right now or only a few.
    Right now everyone who buys and sells stocks doesn’t think a lot of companies aren’t going to be able to a lot of favours in the future so the value in the stock market has gone down. But that doesn’t mean a trillion dollars has disappeared it just means that the offer of money is lower

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (3 children)

    To be fair the very idea of value of money is "imaginary". Even a bank note is nothing more than a promise.

    The value of a stock is derived from the trust that someone will trade you for it. If the trust goes away, so does the value.

    Similarly, the value of a bank note is derived from the trust that someone will trade you for it. If the trust in a bank (bank run) or government (scarce money supply, solvency) or economy goes away, so too will the value of money, i.e. inflation.

    Even comodities and tangible goods have "imaginary" value, because these things can be under or over produced, which in turn changes how likely someone might want your good.

    That being said, the degree of imagination needed to trust the value of trade varies, and stocks are definitely close to the top of the imagination tree.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    The difference with stock being that if you have 1T monies, you can buy stuff worth 1T (after ice cream cones run out, buy a factory or switch to candy). With 1T of stock, you can't.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago

    No, but you can take a 2T loan using the 1T stock as collateral, and buy more things with the promise you buy it back.

    And you can even use the 2T loan to buy out competitors or otherwise invest in that 1T of stocks. And when it's worth 2T borrow 5T to pay off the loan and have 3T to invest.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago*

    A good currency serves two purposes: a good medium of exchange (easy to transact, easy to find someone willing to accept it in exchange for goods and services) and a stable store of value (worth ~the same yesterday as today). They are distinct purposes.

    You're describing the former (finding someone to trade with) but actually talking about the latter in your point about "imaginary value" of money (as distinct from stocks). So I'd offer a small addendum about the value of money being imaginary: the guarantor of a currency plays a huge role in making the value real, in the sense that they are obligated to accept it when you use it to pay taxes.

    Likewise commodities like gold are a somewhat stable store of value (disregarding supply shocks for the moment) in the sense that if everything goes to shit you can use them to make shiny baubles (or semiconductors).

    Notably this is not the case for stocks, which is why stocks aren't a good currency. (Also why crypto isn't a good currency but more like a stock).

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 40 points 1 week ago* (4 children)

    ELI5

    There are 10 Charizard Pokémon cards in existence (# of outstanding stock)

    Each card is worth $100 today, $1,000 total value

    Tomorrow the price falls to $90, $900 total value

    $100 was "wiped"

    If the charizard card is worth $80, $90, $100, or $110 will continue to play out.

    If it did the opposite and price of each card went to $110 then you could say $100 was "injected" into the market.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] -10 points 1 week ago (3 children)

    that’s a lot of words for blowin smoke up your ass

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 week ago (2 children)

    You shouldn't let a Charizard do that it's not safe

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 34 points 1 week ago (7 children)

    You buy 10 copies of a specific collectible card for $5 each. Everybody is willing to pay $5 for each card you own, so you theoretically have $50 in the form of trading cards.

    But then people want that card a lot for whatever reason. They want it so much you could sell yours for $8 each. So now, without having done anything, you have $80 in the form of trading cards.

    But then people decide your cards are actually lame and don't want to buy tgrm any more. If you were to sell them, you'd only get $1 each, so you only have $10 worth of trading cards. Thus, your cards are worth $70 less than they were, even though all the actual money is still out there and you have all the trading cards you originally bought.

    To rephrase, the value of your investment fell by $70.

    This is how stocks work. When the media reports that some money was wiped off the stock market, all the money still exists. It's just that people decided some stocks are lame and not worth buying, which means the owners of those stocks can't sell them for as much as they could have the previous day.

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 1 week ago (6 children)

    The point you're missing is that the loss is real for the investors holding those assets.

    If you bought ten cards for $5 each, you invested $50. When their market value rises to $80, you have an investment worth $80. If that value subsequently falls to $10, you've lost $70 in investment value. You can no longer sell those cards for what you could have sold them for yesterday.

    And if you were someone who bought those ten cards at $8 each, you've now lost $70 of your original $80 investment. That isn't hypothetical money. That's money you actually spent and can no longer recover by selling your cards.

    The money is not "still there", the money transferred hands and you (or your retirement account) are holding the empty bag.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    The thing is though you haven't actually lost money or gained money until you sell the shares and until you do sell, you still have those shares so you could always get your money back if the stock goes back up. The only time you will lose money when holding stock is if the company goes out of buisiness

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 1 week ago

    If you believe the capitalist assertion that stock always go up, sure. If you're not close to retirement and aren't counting on those funds anytime soon, sure.

    I believe the AI circular financing bubble isn't meaningfully going to turn a corner and become profitable enough to pay the debts already accumulated, and once it truly pops that money will never come back to the average investor trusting the financial bros to put all their eggs into that overinflated basket.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 1 week ago (2 children)

    A stock is a part of a company. You still have have that part.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 1 week ago* (1 child)

    A stock is a piece of paper supposedly representing part of a company. You still have the paper.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 1 week ago

    There's nothing "supposedly" about it. It does represent a part of the ownership. If you own all the pieces of paper then you own the company.

    However much you paid for it and how much it's worth are completely different stories, but the stock is indeed the ownership.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 63 points 1 week ago (4 children)

    It was never there. It was just dreams and imagination.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 1 week ago (3 children)

    "future profits" or something

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 31 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    It's not real. It's just gambling for rich people. Occasionally they use it to steal from our retirement.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 25 points 1 week ago

    You're like a top poster of c/stocks, shouldn't you of all people know?

  • source
  • [–] 22 points 1 week ago

    Monopoly money is real and exists. That $1.8 trillion never did.

  • source
  • [–] 17 points 1 week ago*

    It didn't go anywhere, because it was never real. Market cap is not the same as cash. The fact that Apple stock multiplied by its price is trillion, doesn't mean you can sell trillion worth of apple stock and get trillion dollars in exchange. At that point price starts to respond to your transaction

  • source
  • [–] 16 points 1 week ago

    Functionally, to the people who shorted stocks or sold while it was still high. But more accurately, it goes nowhere; the "market value" isn't an actual number, it's just a shorthand for "how much all the people currently playing the stock market are willing to spend on stocks." They count up all the shares of every stock currently issued, multiply it by the amount people are willing to pay for those shares, and that's the market value. When it goes down, that money doesn't "go anywhere," because it never actually existed to begin with; it was just describing how much confidence people had in the market.

    The people who short stock or who sell high are the ones who have played the game so as to benefit when that confidence drops, so they get some actual money out of the deal; but they didn't "make" $1.8T yesterday. That's just how much less confident investors in the American stock market are.

  • source
  • [–] 29 points 1 week ago (3 children)

    It's on paper. It never existed to begin with. Just like saying the rock in a ditch I found is worth 200 million dollars. Then, when I couldn't sell it, I revalued it at only 100 million dollars. So, the extra 100 million didn't go anywhere. "Value" is a truly subjective thing which is encompassed by the old phrase "One man's trash is another man's treasure".

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 week ago (2 children)

    Damn you got a $100m rock? I'll give you $20 for it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (4 children)

    Imagine if I had a collectible Lex Luthor action figure which you really wanted - you would be willing to pay me $100 for it. Then you stopped thinking that superhero stuff was cool and didn't want the action figure anymore for more than $10. What has changed about the world is that I no longer have the option to get the $90 difference from you by selling the action figure, but only because you would keep the $90. No money went anywhere. However, market value was reduced. If my action figure and your money were all that existed in the world, then the world would no longer be a place with $200 of value. It would now only have $110 of value, and in that sense it would be a worse place to the extent that market value corresponds to happiness or abstract utility.

    Wealth is not a conserved quantity. You can reduce my wealth just by wanting what I have less, even if afterwards we both have exactly what we had before.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 week ago (3 children)

    That explanation right there is why a "wealth tax" is much more difficult to implement in any meaningful way that proponents of it like to admit

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago (2 children)

    But billionaires still want to live fancy lifestyles. Tax the methods they use to create cash flow, ban a lot of the tricks they use to manipulate stock valuation (the Tesla valuation is fake, etc), and a lot of that problem goes away. Like taxing the use of collateral in loans (easily treated as advance in capital gains tax on the asset you took a collateral on).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago (1 child)

    Taxing the use of collateral in loans would hit anyone with a HELOC. Like I said, it's more complicated than proponents like to admit.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago

    As I've mentioned elsewhere that I talked about this, allowing for exceptions specific to improving the asset (home renovations, etc) and certain similar "pro-social" uses would be possible. Would require some basic audit to show what the money is used for (and set caps so you don't get billionaires "renovating yachts" via a friend's company)

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 20 points 1 week ago (5 children)

    Imaginary money when people who imagined it find out is imaginary:

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 1 week ago (4 children)
  • [–] 10 points 1 week ago

    Cotton eye Joe.

  • source
  • [–] 9 points 1 week ago (2 children)

    I still scroll through Reddit through redlib and it’s wild how often I see reposts from Reddit making its way word for word to Lemmy.

    https://redlib.catsarch.com/r/NoStupidQuestions/comments/1xjydck/18_trillion_wiped_out_from_the_us_stock_market/

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 week ago

    An example might be helpful.

    In the 1800s, aluminum was more valuable than gold. It was very difficult to produce and it was valued very highly. Then someone figured out a way to extract it from the ore much more efficiently, making it much easier to obtain and much more common. If you had owned a $500 chunk of aluminum, it had that value because of its rarity; other people recognized it as being more valuable because it was more difficult to get. When it became more common, its value could have dropped to $50 (I don't know how much the price actually dropped, but it was a lot).

    Where did the $450 go? Nowhere, because monetary value is based on how much people are willing to pay, and unlike a physical substance it is not necessarily conserved; it can be created or destroyed. This is also how stocks work.

    You can also create monetary value by transforming materials into a worked product (think knitting a sweater) or destroying something that took work to make (burning that same sweater). Unlike the stock market though, the price of physical goods is often based on their usefulness rather than speculation, so it tends to be more stable.

  • source
  • [–] 13 points 1 week ago (2 children)
  • [–] 6 points 1 week ago (5 children)

    I think one of the most common misconceptions about the money supply is that there are a fixed amount of dollars at any time, so if there were $6 trillion yesterday, you can expect there to be $6 trillion today. But this isn't true; the US money supply is specifically designed so that money comes into existence and vanishes out of existence all the time during the day. When you take out a mortgage, the money you get loaned didn't exist before it was loaned to you, in the same way the $1.8 trillion that was lost in the stock market yesterday simply no longer exists.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 week ago* (4 children)

    The mortgage example is a little bit different. True, that money "didn't exist" before you signed the loan (loans do increase the money supply), but it's still "real money" inasmuch as it's secured by the asset that is your home, and backed by the other assets that the bank holds (i.e. other people's secured mortgages), and pays out real, actual, spendable cash, since the builders still need money to buy two-by-fours, for instance. The person who pays the mortgage probably never actually touches any of that money, but it still has at least some basis in reality. Fractional reserve banking feels kind of stupid, but it's been around for long enough to be a plot point in It's A Wonderful Life, more or less with no major issues (aside from the obvious one).

    With the stock market (and pretty much all speculative markets), it's different. That money exists even less than it exists for a mortgage transaction; speculative markets don't increase the money supply the same way that bank loans do, because the money isn't based on anything in the real world at all.

    To illustrate: a stock can lose value without anything changing hands at all. If you buy a stock for a hundred real dollars on Monday and that company does something stupid on Tuesday, your share could lose half of its value even though nothing changed hands that day. If you sold that stock on Wednesday, you might get only $50 of real money back. "Where did the money go?" Nowhere. I mean, functionally, the person (or bank or whatever) from whom you bought the stock on Monday still has the other $50, but they didn't steal it; it's just that now, there's nobody who wants to spend $100 to buy it from you anymore. That money isn't secured by anything or backed by any objective source of value. It's entirely subject to whims and vibes, which economists call "market forces" to feel better about themselves.

    When people talk about "market value," it's those whims and vibes they're talking about: how much people are willing to pay for shares. There are X-million shares out there which people are willing to buy for $Y each; multiply those two numbers and you get the total market value. So when a market "loses value," it doesn't mean that any actual money has gone anywhere, it means that nobody wants to spend that much to buy into the market anymore; Y has just gotten smaller. If every bank account in the world was suddenly frozen and no money could move anywhere, the market could (and almost certainly would) still lose value.

    Now, in all likelihood a good chunk of money has actually gone somewhere in addition; the people who shorted the stock and who sold early while it was still worth a lot are the ones who have it now. But that's not where it was lost, because that's not what "market value" actually measures.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 week ago (3 children)

    This is generally good analysis, but I think you overestimate how different legally a claim on the ongoing usage of a piece of real estate is to an ongoing share of corporate ownership and by extension profits, and underestimating how much speculation distorts real estate markets relative to the stock market.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago (2 children)

    Yeah, all ownership and money is made up, and the value of everything is more-or-less arbitrary. But for the sake of this question, the value of one is more real than the other.

    For one thing, the transactions representing "market value" are not all going to happen today. The combined value of every company's shares on US exchanges is something like $75T, and on a really really good day maybe like $1T is going to actually change hands. If all of it ever did, the market value would probably fluctuate, but it would stay about the same because all of those shares are still out there and they all have a selling price.

    But for your house, well, you may well actually sell it today. If you do, you will actually (yes, insert all the asterisks here) get all of that money out of your asset, and after that the asset is worth nothing to you because you don't own it anymore. Its value is real and attainable.

    That value fluctuates with speculation, sure; but if the economy were to collapse, having a house to live in is still of use. A piece of paper saying you own a hundred-millionth of a corporation which no longer exists isn't, save as tinder. That gives real estate some floor of value that a stock could never have; it's very unlikely that they would ever stop tracking the fact that you own a home just because the value went to zero, but they regularly delist companies from the NYSE and NASDAQ.

    And the other thing is, I've done a pretty poor job of pointing out that we're talking about two different types of valuations here: one is the valuation of an entire market, while the other is the valuation of a specific asset owned by an individual. When talking about the $75T valuation of the stock market (and its $1.8T loss), we're talking about the former; its analogy in real estate isn't a single house, it's the housing market as a whole. But when talking about a single mortgage, the analogy is to a single stock share.

    When the market lost $1.8T in value, the only individuals who lost any money were the ones who had the misfortune to sell when the price was lower than they paid for it; but their losses didn't contribute to that valuation loss (other than indirectly), they were an effect of it. It's entirely possible for an individual to lose money in a bull market or make money in a bear market.

    On the other hand, if your individual home loses value, it has...well, um, lost value. If you sell it when its value is lower than what you paid for it, regardless of how great the market as a whole is, there's no way for you to make money in that transaction (yes, asterisk, I'm sure there are ways in which that might still be a financially beneficial choice, yada yada). Its value directly means something to you in a way that the market value doesn't.

    Anyway, I've used a lot of words but not been super clear, so I guess I should stop for now.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 week ago

    It’s unrealized money that disppeared

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 1 week ago

    This is why I stick to commodities: physical materials with real uses. Sure there can be tulip events but there is still a physical item being exchanged.

  • source
  • [–] 9 points 1 week ago (3 children)

    Money isn't real. It's something imaginary we agree on.

    I told my child this (about 7 yo at the time, too young probably). He said "how is it imaginary if it's green paper?"

    Honestly that's the best follow up.

    It is green paper. It's just that it's only something other than that if we agree on it's value.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 week ago

    Simplistic answer is that equity holders sold and turned some of their equity into cash.

    Slightly more nuanced answer is that when people tried to sell, they couldn't get as much as they wanted (paper value of the equity) so accepted a lower price.

    Eli5: I have two gumballs that I paid $10 each for. They're "worth" $20 combined. I go to sell one but no one will give me $10, i have to accept $6 instead. Now that's the "worth" of each gumball. Two gumballs now are $12. Price discovery means that all gumballs lost 40% of value(tm)

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 1 week ago

    Nope, not behind my couch!

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 1 week ago (1 child)
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›