Hi,
I understand your point of view on this (I think)
your valuation theory is either tautological (it is because I define it that way, so therefore it cannot be disputed) or commodity based, which assumes near-perfect substitutibility, of either the item / service itself, or product type.
My only point is that there are "value adders" or "value detractors" which are purely subjective, maybe purely personal, and for the most part are "intangible" which effect how ONE individual may value something. The cumulative value (NOT in financial or quantitive sense!) of these "values" can then create "a great buy" (no point to waste words on a crappy buy, the transaction wouldn't get done, right?) for ONE individual versus "the market" (everyone else)
These values I am calling "intrinsic value" - accept that definition or not, makes no difference to me.
Literally,
delta=difference in (in this case) buy - sell, or ask-bid.
spread=same as above
I don't see how they are malapropos, but if that seems funny to you, I'll laugh with you.
Haha.
On the other points, I agree with you. But if there is no such thing as "intrinsic value"=something of value ABOVE and BEYOND the BOM plus labour plus burdening costs plus "reasonably profits" we are all fools for buying it, and for that matter, for hanging around here or anywere else talking and obsessing about about anything except commodities.