There's No Such Thing As A "True Price" And Its A Good Thing Too

Every now and then its good to come across a reminder that some people do not understand the way markets work. Today we came across this little beauty from Mike Kinsley, who thinks he's proved that the stock market is irrational because, well, let's let Mike explain:

So, free-market capitalism has decreed three different values for this company. One is set by the stock market: the value of all the company's outstanding shares or "market capitalization." One is what the private investors are offering—usually a bit more than the market cap. And one is what the private investors sell the company for a blink of an eye later—which is usually a lot more than the other two. Which of these numbers is the true capitalist price? Which one represents the most sublime interaction of supply and demand? Anyone? Anyone?

Okay. Here's the thing, Mike. There are actually a lot more prices than you've listed here. Every time a stock trades hands it's because two individuals or institutions have a disagreement on its price value. Each day a stock trading on an exchange may have hundreds or thousands of prices. In fact, all free market exchanges represent the trading of goods of unequal value to the parties involved in the exchange. That's why they're trading one for the other. There's no such thing as "the true capitalist price" of anything. What we've got, instead, is the prices people are willing to pay for things, and the prices people are willing to accept to give up those things.

Does that mean that one side of every transaction is wrong and the other is right? Of course not. Different people have different tolerance for risk, different time horizons and different investment goals. The search for the "true capitalist price" assumes a uniformity of market actors that just doesn't match reality.

Update: Ted Frank has a less theoretical critique of the "infuriatingly stupid Kinsley essay":

Michael Kinsley notes that publicly-traded stocks are sometimes bought out and taken private, and that private equity managers sometimes make profit on these deals. He concludes that the free market does not work.

The non sequitur is appalling. It is apparently beyond Kinsley's comprehension that private equity managers could add value to a corporation through better management.

Kinsley acknowledges that private equity managers, by taking a company private, could be increasing the value of a corporation by avoiding the regulatory burdens that accompany public trading, but then again concludes that this shows that the free market can not work, rather than the obvious conclusion that the regulatory constraints on the free market are inefficient and create opportunities for profit through avoidance.

The Free Market Free-for-All [Slate]

Comments

Posted by Market Breaker, Nov 21, 2006 12:41PM

"Every time a stock trades hands it's because two individuals or institutions have a disagreement on the price."

One has to wonder how well you understand the markets. Everytime a trade occurs it is because the two parties AGREE on the price. What they DISAGREE on is the expected value / future prospects / what have you.

Posted by John Carney, Nov 21, 2006 12:45PM

Eh. That's a much better way of putting it. They disagree on value is what I should have said. Correcting that now.

Posted by Go Long, Nov 21, 2006 1:26PM

That's what I love about the markets. There's always some sucker on the other side of the trade who has a totally different view on the expected reward.

Posted by Nastybrutishandtall, Nov 21, 2006 1:47PM

"If A trades shoes for sacks of wheat owned by B, A does so because he prefers the wheat to the shoes, while B's preferences are precisely the opposite. If an exchange takes place, this implies not an equality of values, but rather a reverse inequality of values in the two parties making the exchange. If I buy a newspaper for 30¢ I do so because I prefer the acquisition of the newspaper to keeping the 30 cents, whereas the newsagent prefers getting the money to keeping the newspaper.

This double inequality of subjective valuations sets the necessary precondition for any exchange."
- Rothbard

Posted by John Carney, Nov 21, 2006 4:51PM

Nice citation, nasty. And exactly what I was getting at!

Post Your Comment