The suggestion that AM is in a bubble begs us to define exactly what a bubble actually is. I prefer this definition:

"A surge in equity prices, often more than warranted by the fundamentals and usually in a particular sector, followed by a drastic drop in prices as a massive selloff occurs."

We know there was (and still is) a surge in prices. This is a matter of record and irrefutable. But this alone does not make a bubble.

The first question an investor must ask is whether or not the surge is warranted by fundamentals. This aspect has been hotly debated since before we at 2.0, and I expect can only be answered for any given timeframe or value in retrospect. Some people believe 5.0 is not warranted. Heck, if you scratch around enough you can still find people who think 2.0 is unwarranted. One thing is certain: there is nowhere near enough information about AM financial structure to even begin to do a proper analysis. The truth is that we really don't know the fundamentals, so we do not know if it warranted... period.

There has not been a drastic drop in prices. This is also a matter of record.

I would suggest that the recent volume of sales could well be considered massive. The volume of shares at auctions for direct shares has increased substantially recently, however, they did nothing but temporarily stabilize the prices. Likewise, volumes on the exchanges have accelerated as well, but once again, there are still plenty of buyers driving the prices even higher.

If we did not see the increased volumes of sales I might suspect a bubble forming as the trade was being pushed up because of a thinning of the market. But the number of liquid shares appears to be increasing without driving the price down. This is not a sign of a bubble, but rather, of an undervalued asset.