On the subject of illiquidity in the trade of stock, I think one...

On the subject of illiquidity in the trade of stock, I think one needs to distinguish between "good" and "bad" illiquidity.

"Bad" illiquidity is when it is impossible at any time to buy shares in any meaningful amounts (for example, to build a $1m position, in the case of a small, or micro-cap fund, or a high net worth individual).

But that isn't the case for FID, where at certain times turnover in the stock does rise appreciably, for example in March this year and September last year when a few hundred thousands of shares traded each day for a while.

"Good" illiquidity means that it does not require much in the way of net buying to restore the stock to reasonable valuation levels following any meaningful sell-offs.

So I feel FID's liquidity is just right for someone who feels that the long-term earnings of the company will be meaningfully higher than they are today, because along the way bouts of selling will impact the share price, thereby providing excellent opportunities to add to holdings, while there is sufficient liquidity to attract decent sized investors to subsequently restore value, so that the stock doesn't remain permanently undervalued.

In other words, illiquid enough to fall quite hard on indiscriminate selling, but not that illiquid for no one to subsequently care.

.