I thought we were talking about shareholders, not speculators.
Your premise of "the only way economics make sense is if you assume that everything is valued at its real value at any time -- not just when it changes hands" is absurd on its face; one only need look back nine or ten years for confirmation of this. If what you say were true, Bear Stearns would still exist, and you would have to claim that those real estate hedge funds were at their "real value" both in 2006 and in 2007 even though the latter was pennies on the dollar. Is it any comfort to say, "well, that stock collapsed but I at least I bought it at its 'real value' that it had up until yesterday?"
Unless your point is that economics cannot possibly make any sense, I suppose.
Bear stearns had pledged 104% of their capital. They weren’t the only one in such a condition, and in this sense it is unfair, but the closing down was justified.
The law was changed from “mark to market” (the standard evaluation for decades) to “Mark to fantasy” specifically so that many bankruptcies would not need to be declared - but without a $700B injection at the time, many more would have happened.
You cannot have consistent book keeping if two entities can book the same item at the same time for materially different values at the same time. It is as simple as that.
Your premise of "the only way economics make sense is if you assume that everything is valued at its real value at any time -- not just when it changes hands" is absurd on its face; one only need look back nine or ten years for confirmation of this. If what you say were true, Bear Stearns would still exist, and you would have to claim that those real estate hedge funds were at their "real value" both in 2006 and in 2007 even though the latter was pennies on the dollar. Is it any comfort to say, "well, that stock collapsed but I at least I bought it at its 'real value' that it had up until yesterday?"
Unless your point is that economics cannot possibly make any sense, I suppose.