Book 28. For emerging companies like those on social media, most of their value lies in their brand, making it an interesting strategy to sell them at a price far below their actual share price.

Hello, this is Beta. The current investment environment (March 27, 2026) is excellent, with the Nikkei Stock Average rising and reaching a new all-time high. My previous article suggested that the investment environment might be outdated, but this article will discuss what you should invest in.

When you start a company and take it public, you can aim for profits from selling the shares by making them available on the market. If you own a majority of the shares, you have the right to dissolve the company through voting rights, and you can make decisions regarding the disposal of assets.

I know that in traditional business practices, owning a majority of shares and circulating a large number of those shares on the market allows for significant capital gains, or profits from selling. In this act of holding shares, the company as an asset definitely exists, and then the goodwill of the brand is added to it.

Owning shares in a company means you own a portion of that company's assets through your share allocation. For example, if a company has a building worth 10 billion yen, that asset is included in the market capitalization of the company's shares.

Now, consider the case of an industrial company going public. The company's owner owns a majority of the shares and releases the remaining shares onto the market. In return, they receive a large profit from the sale.

This raises a question. What if the shares traded on this market were sold not at their market value, but at a price far below half of that value? In the case of an industrial company, the portion sold at a price lower than the market value probably doesn't include much goodwill, which is the brand, but rather is likely compensated for by fixed assets such as factories, equipment, and buildings.

In other words, in industrial companies with little goodwill, selling shares at a price lower than the actual share price is treated the same as transferring actual fixed assets to the buyer free of charge.

On the other hand, for companies with high goodwill, such as IT companies, selling shares at a price lower than the actual share price may attract many buyers. This is because the portion of the shares sold at a price far below the actual share price is mostly goodwill and brand value.

For a popular company, if the goodwill portion—for example, the brand value is 10 billion yen and fixed assets such as buildings are also 10 billion yen—it would be interesting to try selling all of the shares, which have a market capitalization of 20 billion yen, for 10 billion yen instead of 20 billion yen.

For emerging companies like those in the social media space industry, the majority of their value lies in their brand and goodwill, so selling their shares at a price far below their actual share price would be an interesting experiment. For example, if you own 100% of the shares and sell 70% for next to nothing, the shares will be offered at a price far below their actual share price, which should attract many buyers.

If they retained their 30%, and the stock price surged by more than 3.3 times, their total shareholding would exceed the original market capitalization. Even the 70% of shares they sold for next to nothing would generate significant surplus profits if the proceeds from the sale were considered part of the company's cash flow. For a social media company, that 70% of shares might be almost entirely brand value. (To be continued)

Book 27. Why does the field known as scholarship exist in this world, and why has scholarship been able to exist as scholarship?

Hello. I'm Watanabe Ten. Nice to meet you. Today's topic is pricing. When you hear the word pricing, some of you might think of Say's Law. Say's Law is what is called an excess demand economy in economics, and it refers to an economy where people's desire to buy is greater than the desire to supply.

In this excess demand economy, we encounter a phenomenon called Say's Law. Say's Law states that in an economy, the more you supply, that is, the more you sell, the more you can sell. Let's say you are a factory producer with a certain quota to meet. You are required to produce this many products by this deadline.

In our typical economy, unsold goods would end up as inventory, sitting idle in warehouses. However, in Say's Law, there are no unsold goods; every product produced is sold.

In the real world and the theoretical world, we encounter a phenomenon called a divergence. Divergence is a phenomenon in which the difference gradually widens, and by the time a large gap has formed, a considerable amount of time has passed. In the academic world as well, we sometimes encounter a phenomenon in which the initial theory diverges significantly from the real world. Initially, assumptions such as the egoism of classical theory can be considered premises, but as the theory is built up, it gradually diverges from reality.

When we encounter the world of science and academia, we need to thoroughly understand why a particular theory is the way it is. If the initial premise is unrealistic, the subsequent arguments will gradually become increasingly unrealistic.

The initial process was probably driven by a desire to theorize about reality. However, through trial and error, that desire gradually turned into brute force. The theories became complex and sophisticated, becoming incomprehensible to ordinary people.

Let's look at quantum mechanics. Initially, it was probably just a desire to mathematically represent the gradation of light, that is, the shades of light and shadow. I think they tackled this difficult problem of light gradation by adding quadratic equations with variables to avoid making the formulas too complicated.

However, as time progressed, we began to realize that the foundations of our understanding were already shaky, starting with the first observational experiments, such as the observation of light, or the probabilistic theory known as Schrödinger's cat, including differential equations and the famous Schrödinger equation.

Quantum mechanics is a probability theory because velocity and position cannot be determined simultaneously, and light itself does not travel at an observable speed, so the theory is developed within the realm of imagination.

The person who created the famous theory of relativity also worked on analyzing light through thought experiments in his mind. This person is also one of the founders of quantum mechanics, but I believe that even the price formula and this observable economic phenomenon remained in the realm of thought experiments for a long time.

Just as economics theorized its price formula based on the utility of demand or the desire for something, science, for a long time, has also tried to mathematically represent reality through brute force. By manipulating these mathematical formulas, it was possible to apply them to various things, in this case, through induction and deduction.

In this context, induction and deduction refer to the process of formulating laws through induction—that is, expressing reality simply through mathematical formulas—and then finding value in applying those formulas to various economic phenomena and other areas, in other words, in deduction.

I would simply say: Why is this world so strange? Why does a field called scholarship exist in this world, and why has scholarship been able to be scholarship? Scholarship also starts with a simple structure, but why do we still spend so much time merely mimicking reality?

Let's return to the original topic. In the world of Say's Law, the pricing formula, prices would probably be very low. This is because if there is no inventory and no waste, there is no need to pass on the cost to the customer. However, the real world is different from Say's Law; at least in modern times, many products are discarded without ever being purchased.

In this miserable world, one glimmer of hope lies in eliminating waste and approaching Say's Law. If Say's Law includes a certain level of demand, then it could be considered a utopia. In that sense, the idea that everything you make will sell might embody one fundamental principle of the world. That's all. Thank you. This is Watanabe Ten.

第２７冊。なぜ、この世界に学問と呼ばれる領域が存在して、学問が学問たり得たのでしょうか。 Why does the field known as scholarship exist in this world, and why has scholarship been able to exist as scholarship?

 こんにちは。渡辺天です。お願いします。今回のテーマは価格付けです。価格付けというとセーの法則を思い浮かぶ人もいるでしょう。セーの法則とは、経済学で言うところの超過需要経済であり、人々が欲しいと思う気持ちが供給したいという気持ちより多い経済を言います。

僕たちは、この超過需要経済でセーの法則という現象に出くわします。セーの法則とは、供給すれば、つまり売れば売るだけ売れる経済のことを指します。今、あなたは工場の生産者として一定のノルマを請け負っていることとしましょう。これだけの製品をこれだけの納期で生産してほしい、と。

普通、僕たちのいる経済であれば、生産しても売れない商品は在庫となって倉庫に眠ってしまうでしょう。一方、セーの法則の世界では、売れ残りの商品がなく、生産した商品がすべて売れることになります。

現実の世界と理論の世界では、一種の乖離という現象に出くわします。乖離とは、少しずつ差が広がっていく現象であって、多くの差ができる頃にはかなりの時間が進んでいることであると言えます。学問の世界でも最初の理論から現実世界とは大きく乖離していく現象に出くわすことがあります。最初は古典派の利己主義といった仮定といえる前提が理論を積み重ねるに連れ、段々と現実から乖離していくといった現象です。

僕たちは科学や学問という世界に出会うとき、なぜ、その理論がその理論であるか、よく理解する必要があるということです。最初の設定が無理な話であると、その後の話もだんだんと無理が積み重なっていくことになります。

最初の過程はきっと現実というものを理論化したいという欲求だったのでしょう。しかし、その欲求も試行錯誤を重ねて次第に力技となっていきます。理論も複雑で高度なものとなり、普通の一般の人では理解できないものとなっていきます。

量子力学を見ましょう。最初は、ただ光というもののグラデーション、つまり濃淡を数式化したいという欲求だったのでしょう。数式が難しくならないように変数ｘ変数の２次式の足し算でこの光のグラデーションという難題に取り組んだことだと思います。

しかし、時代が進むにつれて微分方程式やかの有名なシュレディンガー方程式など、最初の観測実験と呼ばれる光の観測から、あるいはシュレディンガーの猫と呼ばれる確率論の話から土台が揺らいでいたことに気づくことになるのです。

量子力学が確率論であるのは、なぜかというと速度や位置が同時に確定しないからで、そもそも光というものが観測できるスピードのものでないので、想像の域で理論を展開しているからです。

あの有名な相対性理論を生み出した某氏も頭の中の思考実験により光というものの解析に取り組んできたのです。その某氏も量子力学の生みの親の一人ですが、僕は価格式に至っても、この観測可能な経済現象にしても長らく思考実験の域を出なかったのではないかと考えています。

経済というものが需要という効用により、あるいは欲しいという欲求により、その価格式を理論化していたように、科学も長らく力技で現実を数式化してきたのではないでしょうか。その数式化したものを操れば、色々なものに、ここでは帰納と演繹に対応することができたと思います。

ここで言う、帰納と演繹とは、帰納という法則化、つまり現実を数式化してシンプルに表すことから、その数式を色々な経済現象などに適応して応用する、つまり演繹化することに価値を見出したのだと思います。

僕は一重に言うでしょう。なぜ、この世界はこのように数奇なのか。なぜ、この世界に学問と呼ばれる領域が存在して、学問が学問たり得たのでしょうか。学問も最初は単純な構造から始まっていますが、なぜ未だに現実をなぞることに多くを費やしているのか。

最初のテーマに戻ります。価格式のセーの法則の世界では、価格は恐らくとても安価なものでしょう。在庫が存在せず、廃棄がなければ、価格転嫁する必要がないからです。しかし、現実世界はセーの法則とは違い、少なくとも現代では多くの商品が買われることもなく廃棄されていきます。

この無惨な世界に一つの希望は廃棄をなくし、セーの法則に近づけることで、セーの法則がある程度の需要を含んでいるのであれば、一つの理想郷であったと言えることです。その点では、商品を作れば、すべて売れるということに世界の一つの理が体現されているのかもしれませんね。以上です。ありがとうございました。渡辺天でした。

page 3 !! You may have spent the last five years living the same routine, but the day will come when the things you've diligently built up over those five years will be recognized. -R86plusA-

Hello. This is Ten Watanabe from R86plusA. What is the purpose of a human life?

From infancy to old age, a person begins at zero and ends at zero. During this time, what is gained, and what is lost?

It's human nature to want to acquire as much as possible while you're alive. There's no stability in a life lived haphazardly. I'm not sure if "stability" is the right word, but even people who treat their lives like a gamble might be seeking the stability of possessing many things.

Stability is good, but it's not good if it holds you back. Growth follows stability, and stability follows growth. People are likely seeking a sense of stability in society.

People want things to be predictable and for things to proceed in a natural way. They hope that no unforeseen events occur when people seek stability. They earnestly hope that they can avoid accidents through their own efforts.

I feel uneasy about living day to day without building anything substantial. I don't need to climb Mount Everest, but I want to aim to be one of the top-ranking mountains in my country.

If you gain experience successfully, you have the potential to conquer even the highest mountain. Some people might lose motivation when told to build things up little by little. Whether you become motivated or discouraged when told you have to work hard for another five years depends on the individual.

Amidst all of that, the day will come when the hard work you've diligently put in over five years will be recognized. You may have felt like you were going about your daily life as usual, but five years will surely feel like a very long time.

The more intense your efforts become, the more you are at the mercy of the passage of time. However, if you continue to perform brilliantly on stage five years from now, you will eventually reap significant rewards. At that point, you will be faced with two choices.

The question now is whether to seek stability and play it safe, or to continue for another five years and challenge yourself to reach an even higher peak. Humans are not simple creatures. When fortunate enough to be faced with these two choices, whether to play it safe or to push forward will vary from person to person.

As for myself, I want to live a moderate life, neither playing it safe nor going on the offensive. If I've been able to persevere for five years, then it shouldn't be impossible to persevere for another five years ten years from the start.

While athletes face age-related limitations due to declining physical abilities, intellectual abilities have the advantage of becoming more refined with experience.

Even intellectual ability sometimes requires physical strength, but there are diverse ways to fight, including both. What will remain after 5, 10, 20, or 30 years? We may be faced with a choice.

page 2 !! Because it's a world of self-satisfaction, the result of dividing by 1 to average out one sample—so to speak, one person is both ordinary and special—can be anything. -R86plusA-

Hello. This is Ten Watanabe from R86plusA. I have a living bible.

In religious terms, this could be a renowned monk, or even the founder of a top-tier company. As they age, they accumulate more experience and generate new ways of thinking.

When that person speaks, everyone listens intently. A living Bible can be said to be someone who, having weathered the storms of everyday society, neither falls nor runs off, but simply fulfills their mission.

What is a mission? It is a destiny assigned to a person, a life only they can fulfill. Those with a mission make many sacrifices. They are people who live unique lives, not ordinary lives.

Was that mission something that descended from heaven? Or was it something that they truly wished to achieve in order to survive in everyday society?

Each person's destiny is different. There is no superiority or inferiority among them. However, it is abundantly clear that a stronger mission will prevail over others.

There's no way that a mission achieved through relentless effort and dedication won't be realized. Once it's achieved, a new mission will surely stand before you. By carefully accomplishing each of these missions one by one, you will move closer to your ideal state.

Having ideals is good, but it's not essential. Even if your actions seem like spur-of-the-moment solutions, as long as you have a general idea, the results of your actions will eventually settle into their intended form. Comparing your personal goals to those of others is meaningless; they are ultimately a matter of self-satisfaction.

However, because it's self-satisfaction, it's like dividing one sample by 1 to average out the idea that you are both ordinary and special. One person's result divided by 1 can be anything. Someone thinks they are special because they are doing something special.

Even beautiful people cannot remain beautiful without any effort. If that's the case, then it's impossible that someone living an extraordinary life isn't putting in some effort.

In the sense of living one's own life, one can only judge one's own life subjectively, because one has not lived any other person's life.

Furthermore, those who believe their own lives are unique to them and that their own thoughts are their living bible are truly fortunate.

There's no point in comparing yourself to others. Since no two people are exactly alike, comparing them is pointless because the standards are completely different.

Before you get consumed by petty jealousy or pride, I want you to stop and think: Why is that person special? That person does special things in order to be special.

If you can understand that, you should be able to make your own life something special without interfering in other people's lives. Of course, you should only listen to other people's opinions, including mine, as reference.

So, what will you accomplish next? That might be the problem you're currently facing.

page 1 !! First point! In my opinion, there are many things that are most important to human beings, but among them, the most important is "memory," and without memory, that is, knowledge, we can't do anything. -R86plusA-

Hello. This is Ten Watanabe from R86plusA. I have a living bible.

In religious terms, this could be a renowned monk, or even the founder of a top-tier company. As they age, they accumulate more experience and generate new ways of thinking.

When that person speaks, everyone listens intently. A living Bible can be said to be someone who, having weathered the storms of everyday society, neither falls nor runs off, but simply fulfills their mission.

What is a mission? It is a destiny assigned to a person, a life only they can fulfill. Those with a mission make many sacrifices. They are people who live unique lives, not ordinary lives.

Was that mission something that descended from heaven? Or was it something that they truly wished to achieve in order to survive in everyday society?

Each person's destiny is different. There is no superiority or inferiority among them. However, it is abundantly clear that a stronger mission will prevail over others.

There's no way that a mission achieved through relentless effort and dedication won't be realized. Once it's achieved, a new mission will surely stand before you. By carefully accomplishing each of these missions one by one, you will move closer to your ideal state.

Having ideals is good, but it's not essential. Even if your actions seem like spur-of-the-moment solutions, as long as you have a general idea, the results of your actions will eventually settle into their intended form. Comparing your personal goals to those of others is meaningless; they are ultimately a matter of self-satisfaction.

However, because it's self-satisfaction, it's like dividing one sample by 1 to average out the idea that you are both ordinary and special. One person's result divided by 1 can be anything. Someone thinks they are special because they are doing something special.

Even beautiful people cannot remain beautiful without any effort. If that's the case, then it's impossible that someone living an extraordinary life isn't putting in some effort.

In the sense of living one's own life, one can only judge one's own life subjectively, because one has not lived any other person's life.

Furthermore, those who believe their own lives are unique to them and that their own thoughts are their living bible are truly fortunate.

There's no point in comparing yourself to others. Since no two people are exactly alike, comparing them is pointless because the standards are completely different.

Before you get consumed by petty jealousy or pride, I want you to stop and think: Why is that person special? That person does special things in order to be special.

If you can understand that, you should be able to make your own life something special without interfering in other people's lives. Of course, you should only listen to other people's opinions, including mine, as reference.

So, what will you accomplish next? That might be the problem you're currently facing.

Book 26. I think stereotypes are a good thing, and depending on how they are used, they can be interesting and be as the basis for new discoveries.

 Hello. I'm Ten Watanabe. Thank you. Today's topic is economics. I'd like to talk about the relationship between sales volume and production volume.

Sales volume refers to the amount of goods or products sold. Both goods and products have different meanings, and in the field of economics, they are used differently, so if you're interested, please look up their meanings. I'm sure it'll be interesting.

The quantity sold is interesting to you because the quantity sold is demand. Economics, at least microeconomics, does not have the concept or idea of ​​quantity sold.

However, if we bring in the concept of sales volume, the more you sell, the greater the demand and need, and it is natural to think that you should produce and sell more. In other words, it is common sense to think that when there is a need for sales volume, production volume will increase.

Here, I would like to talk about common sense. Common sense refers to strong fixed ideas, or stereotypes, that are ingrained in us through our everyday lives and can be considered stigmas. These stereotypes are so firmly rooted in our minds that when we try to think in a new way, they get in the way of coming up with that new way of thinking.

Stereotypes are surprisingly useful ways of thinking. When classifying something or making a snap judgment, they can save a lot of time because they allow you to classify it instantly. I have always been skeptical of stereotypes.

As a blogger, I am also an artist, a writer, and a bit of a creator. The thing I fear most when blogging is running out of new ideas. Getting stuck in a rut usually happens when you get stuck in a stereotype and can no longer think of new things.

I know that common sense is extremely inconvenient when it comes to making great discoveries, and that there is value in temporarily setting aside common sense.

Even in this topic of economics, there was macroeconomics, a field of economics founded by Keynes, but in order to address the problems that arose when trying to combine macroeconomics and microeconomics, known as the microfoundations of macroeconomics, the mainstream Keynesian economics of the time was abandoned.

I studied new economics quite a while ago, so my memory is a bit hazy, but it became a science of prediction, such as the New Keynesian model, and it abandoned previous economic policies, namely macroeconomics, which treated the economic adjustment function of built-in stabilizers as the main economic policy.

It can be said that macroeconomics was a case of abandoning the accepted economic thinking and starting afresh with new theories such as the New Keynesian model. However, I do not think that Keynes's macroeconomics was a completely superior theory and was by no means meaningless.

This time we talked about Keynesian economics and common sense, but I think common sense is not something that exists. Just as common sense is common sense, stereotypes do not stop stereotypes. The difference between common sense and stereotypes is related to prejudice.

Common sense is an orthodox way of thinking that takes a middle path, but stereotypes are more rigid ideas than orthodox, and many of them contain prejudice. Just as common sense is the direct path of the royal road, stereotypes include direct views, but also prejudices that deviate from that.

In that sense, our common sense is not a biased way of thinking, but rather it is the mainstream, and so it is difficult to discard it. I think that this mainstream way of thinking should be preserved.

Conservative thinking is necessary, but stereotypical thinking that includes prejudice is also necessary in some cases. This is because prejudice is randomness and nurtures the seeds of new creativity. I believe your generation is a good generation. Just as it was in my generation, your generation should also be one in which new discoveries will renew society for the better.

We may be living in the same era, but we are also living in different eras, because we have different ways of thinking, different senses, and different sensory organs. However, as I've said at length, I would say that stereotypes are a good thing.

While stereotypes are strong ideas that can be discriminatory in themselves, I think it's interesting that, depending on how they're used, they can serve as the basis for new discoveries. I'd like to take some time to think again about the difference between seemingly conservative stereotypes and new discoveries.

If I have the opportunity, I would like to delve deeper into this point in the next rewrite. I will find the answer by then. That's all. Thank you for your growth. This was Watanabe Ten.