For the simple reason that market corrections are not absolutes: the only thing that a correction down to 440B tells us is that it hasn’t been corrected down to 0 yet.
It may never be, but that’s just to say that “it’s still valued” is not a good argument for “it’s correctly valued.”
Sometimes things have an intrinsic value, often because of some utility that they provide. Sometimes the only value is the belief that someone else will pay more for it. [1] When it's the latter there's a difference between the real value and the perceived value. This is why we use the term "correction" to describe a situation where the perceived price falls to match the "correct" price.
We can have essentially no idea what each contribution to the whole is worth while being certain that the whole must, over the long term, be less than value X.
You're misunderstanding something here. It's reasonable and very common to say that the true value of a financial asset is different than its market price; anyone who makes an investment in something is expressing the thesis that the current market price is lower than it will be in the future.
It may never be, but that’s just to say that “it’s still valued” is not a good argument for “it’s correctly valued.”
reply