Stock Market and Gambling

The entrepreneur characterized by Mises is (1) who bears the loss, or benefits from the gains, of capital goods (2) uses his insight to direct the allocation of capital goods into new or different lines of production according to what he believes most urgently satisfies the needs of consumers.

I take it as a concession to my point that you are not citing any direct effects, but must appeal to what is indirect. My point is that the secondary trading of shares of the ownership of companies in a stock market does not directly result in any reallocation of capital goods into new or different lines of production. I will agree that the actions of an share holder in directing the affairs of a company (e.g. electing the board) or first time purchases of company stock does directly result in any reallocation of capital goods into new or different lines of production.

Of course since everything affects everything else there always will be indirect affects. What I am failing to see, however, is how the design of the stock market is intended to relate the sales of secondary purchases to any specific direction in the allocation of capital goods into the various potential lines of production. In other words, it is not the price of the sale of stock that brings about the allocation of capital goods, it is only the actions investors take in exercising their property rights to direct the usage of that property as they see fit.

Here again is what nirgrahamUK posted before:

DD5 thanks for pointing me back to the prior post. Although I read through many of the prior posts, this one was not among those I selected to read - but had I done so it would have answered my questions. I appreciate your reply.

Why are you trying to seperate the two identities, it makes no difference. In the secondary market, a company printing new shares and selling them, is identical to a counter-fitter issuing new shares and selling them.

The Company/Counterfitter transfers money from the existing shareholders to its own book. Dont try to confuse things by adding motives.

I didnt imply a counter-fitter for this simple reason. I implied the simple addition of new stock onto the market

First of all, they cannot issue new shares at the new market price, for it was the original investor who moved it from 100.1 to 100.2, You are now assuming that new people will enter the market and buy at 100.2 this is just a silly mistake.

Im starting to think you have never bought a share, If issuing new stock increased the share price why would companies not issue infinite stock.

This is obvious supply and demand, an increase in the supply of shares means the price level must re-adjust downwards.

Nope just the opposite, in order for the share value to maintain parity with its book value, the price of the share must go down, because now there is more shares in circulation.

Yep damn right.

Why introduce new capital, and why assume it will generate profits.

Im focusing on how companies can tap into the secondary market by creating new shares. Im not trying to say that issuing new stock is bad and that it ceteris paribus hurts shareholders in the long run. Sure a company could raise 1million in IPO’s and then buy a magical box that increases its value 10 trillion fold. Im only trying to make the point that when an individual/group of individuals raise the stock price X amount, the company can now tap X amount of new funds.

Yes this maybe true, but it is not my argument, I was merely addressing another poster, who said:

So to reiterate, when an investor drives up the price buy buying new stock in the secondary market, the company can now issue shares and drive the price back towards its previous point. Effectively transferring wealth from the secondary market to its own books. This is why many companies try very hard to maintain there stock price. Its not because it helps people better understand the price (I doubt they care,) or because the existence of a secondary market drives up the price (I cant even put in words the obvius error in that line of thought.) Its because new buyers coming into the market driving up the price allows them to tap more money from the market.

Thus secondary investors ARE making an investment that benefits the company.

If IPO’s were fast enough they could replace the stocks the initial investor bought and no-one would no the difference. The only thing that would happen is that instead of the price increasing from 100.1 to 100.2, it would stay at 100.1 and they would have to earn more money to maintain there Dividends.

Motive is not the difference I was after. The key is who gets the money.

If the company gets the money it adds value to the company and also to the existing and new shareholders since they are the company. There is no diluting of value what so ever involved in this scenario.
If a third party get the money from new shares it adds no value to the company and the stock value will get dilluded case the now money don’t go into the company which the stocks represent.

Why wouldn’t they? If that investor thought the company was worth that much surley there will be others who do that too…

Prices often go up after companies announce that they will emit new shares. Which anyone who ever traded one should know.
The last one that happened on stocks I owned the price went up 7% in just a few hours after they announces they would issue new shares.
A rapid change like this is most likely because investors believe that the company will underestimate the future price used when they calculate the issuing price of the rights to buy new shares. But an expectation that the company will perform better (in terms of relative return) with more capital will also drive the price up.

Further more new shares don’t go directly in to the second hand market. First rights to buy the new shares are issued and offered to existing share owners, these rights can be traded for a while before the new shares are issued. These rights are also priced in such a way as to prevent any price diluting of the stock from taking place.

You see first rights to buy new shares are offered to the current owners, if they don’t want to buy them they get offered to the public. Then these rights get traded in the secondary market for quite a while so that when the new shares are finally issued the price of a new share + the price of a right to buy one will hopefully equal the price the old stock is trading at. This is all elaborately devised by some pretty brilliant people exactly to avoid short-term price fluctuations from stuff like supply shocks when issuing new shares.

Companies don’t issue infinite shares cause it decreases the ownership power of each share, and also they obviously wouldn’t need infinite capital.

For the same reason companies get rid of capital by paying dividends they wouldn’t want to take it in by issuing new shares. At some point it can no longer be allocated efficiently and it decreases the relative return the investors get on there investment. Then it will drive down the price cause the returns look bad, but that isn’t relevant if they actually need the new funds.

Cause if it wouldn’t increase profits and the returns on total assets in the long run the company wouldn’t issue new shares. Unless it is a scam that simply fund there operations in this manner, there are a few of these micro-caps…

Except:

  1. They could still raise the money before if there is any interest in the company. It is just a matter how many stocks they have to issue.
  2. What if those was the only buyers at that high price? Now they already have all the shares they want and won’t buy any new ones…
  3. All you are saying is someone want to buy the company at price X. It matters little if they get served by secondary market first or directly by the company.

Or this person could just buy new stocks.

Yes they do transfer wealth from new investments into there own books. That is kinda what issuing shares is all about.

It is not because they may sometime in the future possibly issue new shares that companies take care of there stock value.

As someone pointed out the company IS the shareholders.
Big wonder they try to keep the market value of there property high and fire any administration that fail to do so…