If they believed this, they wouldn't be selling at the current spot, sellers would all be putting their asks ~46% above spot (discounting time value of money), and the market would move.

That risk and upside is already priced in if you believe in market efficiency.

> If they believed this, they wouldn't be selling at the current spot…

They’re not. You’re mixing up the market as a whole and the owners of a majority of shares.

The ask price is the lowest ask. If you buy a lot of something, you reach further into the order book and the price is going to be higher. If you want a 51% stake, then a lot higher.

This is a great explanation. Thanks for this.

I have a dumb question. Most of my money is in index funds. Would there ever be a price where my shares would be sold?

Depends on the index fund and the rules / guidance they follow to balance.

Many of them are passive, and only adjust once a quarter or once a year. Additionally, big spikes by one stock match drops in other stocks, aka they're not likely to make a big sale because one stock (twitter) had a good day.

just search into porsche failed takover of vw

I don't believe in market efficiency.

The market is large and has plenty of participants with different strategies. There are people selling at the going price, and there are people who are not. The trading price is a good reference price, but it's not the "right price" for everyone.

>> The trading price is a good reference price, but it's not the "right price" for everyone.

But it's the only price based on facts rather than opinion.

it is also the price of what is currently for sale, most shares of most companies are not actively for sale at their current price.

Every market participant has a buy price and a sell price for one share influenced by their personal opinions and the state of the whole market; each at a different level and trading price is only calculated on actual trades. So all the shareholders that are unwilling to sell for any of the current offers do not influence it.

Yet if you were to buy 100% of the shares then you would eventually have to climb up to their price.

This is an interesting point I never really thought about. There is a distribution of buy prices and another distribution of sell prices. But if we plot these on the price axis there will be NO overlap because all shares in that region have been traded. I wonder if there's a way to sample these distributions to get the bigger picture.

OK...

I don't anyone would find your squishy confidence it's worth 50% more than current value any more credible than shorters who think it's worth 50% less. Both seem like fringe opinions without much foundation.

> I don't anyone would find your squishy confidence it's worth 50% more than current value any more credible than shorters who think it's worth 50% less

It's not my opinion that TWTR is worth 50% more. Please don't understand it as such. It's an example of what someone long TWTR could be thinking when they simultaneously hold their position and want to reject the Musk takeover.

I don't think it's worth continuing this thread anymore though. Have a great day.

But isn’t that the point of a market? Some people have goods they don’t want, other people want those goods. So they buy and sell.

Every time a stock trades, there’s a single price. And that price is the price one person is willing to sell at, and another is willing to buy at.

That’s how markets work.

Market trends to me are essentially a combination of mood swings and adversarial networks.

My guess is Musk and a few key players are acting in a logical way and the rest of the price action is made up of emotional response.

It’s anyones guess what the endgame here is, but one thing is for sure, Musk muddying the waters spells trap to me. I’m swimming the other way.

Asks above 5% or so current price usually get rejected by brokers.

Price is what you pay, value is what you get.

And in return for the price you pay you get the asset. So price == value in the world of stocks

Kinda.

If you can buy 1 share at $1, that means that yes.

But a controlling interest in something almost always requires more than 1 share. It may require millions or billions of shares.

And once folks figure out that they’re the couple percent that will block that controlling interest, their own prices tend to change.

That volume of shares also means you can't just buy from the person who is happy to sell right now, you need to convince folks who don't plan to sell ever, or aren't in a hurry, or don't need money right now. Their prices tend to be different too.

And just like buying a tank of gas is different than buying an oil field, the value propositions and likely price discussions are different.

If you can buy an oil field of gas one tank at a time, more power to you - but you’ll likely quickly discover it doesn’t scale the way you want.