Interesting, given he is such a prominent Economist I'm a little surprised by the simplicity of the analogy though.
It seems strange that he has reduced it to one where there is no objective value at all. As an equity at the first level is still about how the company will perform in the future, no? And thus has an objective value.
It seems strange that he has reduced it to one where there is no objective value at all. As an equity at the first level is still about how the company will perform in the future, no? And thus has an objective value.