The "somebody else is willing to buy that share" is not exactly satisfying because it turns into a Greater Fool theory sort of thing.
The liquidation angle also doesn't really work because large companies generally don't liquidate themselves, and either way, it would be for way less than the value of their material assets.
The way I make sense of it for regular stocks is because big (e.g. Adobe) can come and buy someone smaller (e.g. Figma) which will distribute cash to me. This works because there is an end to the game of hot potato where the holder wins.
This however, doesn't work for Meta. If you want to acquire Meta, the *only* shares that matter are Zuck's supervoting shares. If you buy all of them except Zuck's, you don't really have anything. If you only buy Zuck's, you have everything.
So why should I be paying to buy anything except Zuck's shares? Nobody ultimately wants them, except to sell them to someone else.
The liquidation angle also doesn't really work because large companies generally don't liquidate themselves, and either way, it would be for way less than the value of their material assets.
The way I make sense of it for regular stocks is because big (e.g. Adobe) can come and buy someone smaller (e.g. Figma) which will distribute cash to me. This works because there is an end to the game of hot potato where the holder wins.
This however, doesn't work for Meta. If you want to acquire Meta, the *only* shares that matter are Zuck's supervoting shares. If you buy all of them except Zuck's, you don't really have anything. If you only buy Zuck's, you have everything.
So why should I be paying to buy anything except Zuck's shares? Nobody ultimately wants them, except to sell them to someone else.