I both agree and disagree with you. The concept of comparing AIG with GOOG and the 'over $600' comment is jibberish. The fact is that 'over $600' is artificial and reflective of the the reverse split. In reality, AIG did not trade $600 (as goog has). But we agree the absolute share price is near meaningless in value evaluations. BRKA is easily the highest priced stock, but that doesn't make it the best stock (although IMO it is a good stock).
On the other hand, to say that AIG is going to $150 to hand with GS (an absolute price) does say something. Not because of the absolute price given but because it must be considered relative to current. Thus claiming a $150 price implies a 2.5x increase. Of course even an increase with no time horizon given is of little value. (I.e. who care if AIG goes to $150 by the year 2275).
BTW, i am not commenting on the veracity of the specific comment that AIG is going to $150. That may or may not be true and is its own discusssion.
Then you're not disagreeing with anything I actually said, you're disagreeing with your misperception of what I said. My post addressed one topic and one topic only - comparing stocks based on absolute PPS is ignorant, on a *VERY* basic level, and that's what the OP was doing.
It was not a general response to all aspects of the content of the OP's post, and wasn't presented as such. When you start going off on other aspects of his post than the one I was talking about, you're neither agreeing nor disagreeing with me, you're not addressing anything I said. At not point did I comment one way or the other about whether AIG at 150 would be comparable to GS. The fact that GS and AIG happen to have very similar OS numbers and therefore would have similar market caps at the same PPS is pure happenstance and is not related to any part of my point. The OP was comparing AIG, GS, and GOOG among each other based on PPS, and AIG's PPS now against its PPS in the past, and the fact that one of those comparisons happens to more or less work only by means of coincidence is neither here nor there.
the institutional owners of the warrants will help drive the stock up for a long time, at least until the warrants can be exercised- which I suspect will be years. then there may be restrictions on the ability to dispose of the stock--it's a win win