Imo these two sentences contradict each other. I don't want to write a sermon on the difference between the type of investor who is interested in market value (who more often than not is actually a speculator) versus the long-term investor. But for the long-term 'value investor' market value is largely irrelevant. If your independent analysis of the company leads you to believe that it is worth, say, $1 per share minimum...then 60c is a non-starter. It is irrelevant that it happens to be 2x the current market value.
When I say that I do not care about the quoted value of the businesses I own - I am not kidding. I literally don't care. Appreciate that there will be many holders of Sky shares that don't share my perspective, but I don't think I am alone either.
Efficient Market Theory and Modern Portfolio Theory works very well for those who own a basket of stocks without any real understanding of the underlying companies that make up the basket. For them, all that matters at any given point in time is the quoted value of the portfolio. So at any given point of time, the total market value
is the value of the portfolio. If they could get 60c per share it would be a huge boon (they wouldn't pause to ask themselves how Sky TV could suddenly be worth twice what it was 'worth' yesterday - it wouldn't be relevant to them).
But for those who have analysed the company, and have purchased a share of the business based on a sound understanding of the business (which includes understanding the wider industry, competitors, threats, opportunities etc...) the market value of the stock is completely irrelevant (other than being a buying opportunity when it seems low relative to intrinsic value or a selling opportunity if it is ridiculously high relative to intrinsice value).
I fit into that category. I wouldn't be itnerested in a price unless it at least approached IV. And I am not alone.
Ah, Christ! I ended up writing a sermon in the end didn't I?! :D