It's not surprising; anyone who thinks share price is something other than what investors are willing to pay has become someone's sucker.

And the industry could not exist without a strong foundation of suckers.

You’re not the only one saying this

https://finance.yahoo.com/markets/stocks/articles/buffett-to...

Attention matters when a stock is rising, fundamentals matter when a stock is falling.

Stock price does not need to match company value *in the short run*. But company value exerts a tug on the share price, it won't succeed in pulling the share price to the correct value but it will in time correct the swings. Think of walking a dog on a long leash--the dog will wander but will end up where the human goes. Or even well-behaved dogs without a leash.

The underlying fundamental value is dividends, and the assumption that they will eventually be paid, after a growth period. I think a lot of people have forgotten this.

The future of markets is a vibes exchange, where fortunes are won and lost based on social media engagement, viral media, and influencer CEOs.

In the new world order the winners are not value investors and rational actors. The winners are the outrageous, the titillating, anyone who can capture a bit of attention span.

You'd think Morgan Stanley would understand stuffing debt from one failing company into another semi-ok company.

Yahoo's total value was worse than the Alibaba stock they owned. Their web services had negative value.

Next step is to "acquire" Tesla and give himself full control again.

During the irrational slap-'AI'-on-everything to juice the stock.

Their current plan is the same as that shoe company that tried to rent out their warehouse space for AI compute.

Same plan as Meta, other than scammers using meta AI to scam our parents out of their money. (Meta makes billions off of this use case and really shouldn't)

When was that?