nicholsz

I worked there in 1998 as a games technician. We wiped down games once a day. We also used a lot of dangerous chemicals like lacquer thinner regularly.

Why has GME stayed over $100 / share since the short squeeze? Didn't everyone predict the meme push would be a flash in the pan and it would be right back down to $4?

It gets circular though, right? Like TSLA trades at a crazy high, astronomical P/E ratio because of a belief in future growth of the company, which really means a belief that people in the future will buy the stock for even more than it's being traded for now.

An early stage B2C software company will have a higher revenue multiple than a manufacturing company, because limits to growth and scale are much much lower.

It's never just the assets and holdings of a company that determines value (otherwise it would be impossible for GME to have traded for several years below $10 to begin with).

I think what I'm getting at is that this example seems to drive home for me that share price is more an emergent phenomena of collective perception, and only somewhat influenced by business fundamentals or holdings.

Maybe in a normative sense, share price "should" be determined by fundamentals, but it really seems the case that it's not. And logically so -- every business will one day eventually fail, but stocks are not all uniformly zero.

That's interesting. Then, in a sense, wrt this particular stock, there was a "democratization". In that the price is now determined just by a decentralized group of retail investors holding stock as a commodity, with hedge fund short sellers terrified to get involved in it?

I get what you're driving it, but a home is maybe a bad example, because I can live in a home, but I can't live in a stock, right?

What way is there to value a stock except what dividends it pays and how much you can sell it for later? At least at volumes that a retail investor would hold (as opposed to an activist investor or someone who wants to control the direction of the board e.g.)