Why does Google Finance show the NASDAQ Composite way up but Yahoo! Finance shows it slightly down?
First - Google's snapshot -  Then - Yahoo -  I took these snapshots because they will not exist on line after the market opens, and without this context, your question won't make sense. With the two snapshots you can see, Yahoo shows the after hours trades and not just the official market close for the day. The amount it's down is exactly tracked from the close shown on Google. Now you know.
"Your ignorance of global finance and business is showing through.  &gt;Nothing ""conspiratorial"" - just standard tax optimization scheme as shown by  Google &amp; Apple.  The tech industry is fundamentally different from retailing.  That you can't see this is mind boggling.  There is nothing ""standard"" about the tax optimization schemes done by Apple and Google that can be copied by grocers.  Apple and Google have vast international operations with revenue coming from multiple countries.  They are asset light and have very high profit margins.  Grocery stores have very small / negligible international operations and are asset heavy.  Try also have very low profit margins.  &gt;From the point of supply and demand, they are actually overpaid - lots of desperate people that agree to the barest minimum allowed by law (and below that, if you include illegal aliens). Still doesn't mean they are paying the living wage.  Mentioning living wages in an argument about supply and demand tips off that you have no clue what you are talking about.  Living wage is irrelevant to the supply and demand for labor.  What you call ""desperation"" for a job dismissed many of the perfectly logical reasons why somebody may choose to work for a low wage.  You assume that the equilibrium wage for grocery store workers is below the minimum wage - falsely.  Walmart workers make more than minimum wage, on average, before benefits are taken into account.  Illegal aliens can't do most grocery store jobs because (1) they can't speak English, and (2) they probably can't do the math needed to be a cashier.  Teenagers (the vast majority of minimum wage workers) are increasingly choosing not to work.  The supply of people that are able to do these types of jobs is probably not much bigger than it is already.  &gt;20% are imported.  And they don't have to set up a ""supply chain"" - just the bare minimum to legally siphon funds into another company they own, be it via interest on credit, rent, intellectual property (i.e. franchise or trademark payments) or anything else.  This is laughable, do you really believe this?  Grocery stores have absolutely MASSIVE supply chain risk.  Arguably their entire value proposition is in supply chain.  You seem to think there's an evil cabal moving money around to screw people over.  This is left wing bullshit conspiracy stuff.  You sound like a left wing version of Alex Jones.  Show me clear evidence that a grocer is doing this, including references in their actual financial statements." I will assume that you are not asking in the context of high frequency trading, as this is Personal Finance Stack Exchange. It is completely acceptable to trade odd lots for retail brokerage customers. The odd lot description that you provided in your link, from Interactive Brokers is correct. But even in that context, it says, regarding the acceptability of odd lots to stock exchanges: The exception is that odd lots can be routed to NYSE/ARCA/AMEX, but   only as part of a basket order or as a market-on-close (MOC) order. Google GOOG is traded on the NASDAQ. Everything on the NASDAQ is electronic, and always has been. You will have no problem selling or buying less than 100 shares of Google.  There is also an issue of higher commissions with odd lots: While trading commissions for odd lots may still be higher than for   standard lots on a percentage basis, the popularity of online trading   platforms and the consequent plunge in brokerage commissions means   that it is no longer as difficult or expensive for investors to   dispose of odd lots as it used to be in the past. Notice what it says about online trading making it easier, not more difficult, to trade odd lots. "I'd put more money down and avoid financing. I personally don't think car debt is good debt and if you can't afford the car, you are better off with a cheaper car. Also, you should read up on the 0% offer before deciding to commit.   Here's one article that is slightly dated, but discusses some pros and cons of 0% financing. My main point though is that 0% financing is not ""free"" and you need to consider the cost of that financing before making the purchase.  Aside from the normal loan costs of having a monthly payment, possibly buying too much car by looking at monthly cost, etc., a 0% financing offer usually forces you to give the dealer/financing company any rebates that are due to you, in essence making the car cost more." "Short answer: google finance's market cap calculation is nonstandard (a.k.a. wrong). The standard way of computing the market capitalization of a firm is to take the price of its common stock and multiply by the number of outstanding common stock shares.  If you do this using the numbers from google's site you get around $13.4B.  This can be verified by going to other sites like yahoo finance and bloomberg, which have the correct market capitalization already computed. The Whole Foods acquisition appears to be very cut-and-dry.  Investors will be compensated with $42 cash per share. Why are google finance's numbers wrong for market cap?  Sometimes people will add other things to ""market capitalization,"" like the value of the firm's debt and other debt-like securities.  My guess is that google has done something like this.  Whole Foods has just over $3B in total liabilities, which is around the size of the discrepancy you have found." You bought 1 share of Google at $67.05 while it has a current trading price of $1204.11. Now, if you bought a widget for under $70 and it currently sells for over $1200 that is quite the increase, no? Be careful of what prices you enter into a portfolio tool as some people may be able to use options to have a strike price different than the current trading price by a sizable difference. Take the gain of $1122.06 on an initial cost of $82.05 for seeing where the 1367% is coming. User error on the portfolio will lead to misleading statistics I think as you meant to put in something else, right? This looks more like an aggregation problem. The Dividends and Capital Gains are on quite a few occassions not on same day and hence the way Yahoo is aggregating could be an issue. There is a seperate page with Dividends and capital gains are shown seperately, however as these funds have not given payouts every year, it seems there is some bug in aggregating this info at yahoo's end. For FBMPX http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/q/hp?s=FBMPX&b=2&a=00&c=1987&e=17&d=01&f=2014&g=v https://fundresearch.fidelity.com/mutual-funds/fees-and-prices/316390681 http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/q/pr?s=FBMPX The dividend is for a quarter of the year, three months. 80 cents is 3.9% of $20.51. Presumably the Div/yield changes as the stock price changes. On Yahoo, they specify that the yield is based on a particular stated date. So it's only the exact number if the stock trades at the price on that date. There are two very large negative factors that affect Yahoo's valuation.   The first is that their search business is in decline and continues to lose ground to Google and even Bing.  There's no sign that they have any plan or product in the works to offset this decline, so there's tremendous uncertainty about the company's forward-looking revenues. The second is that the company can't seem to decide what to do with its stake in Alibaba, clearly the company's most valuable asset.  It they sell it, the question then becomes what they plan to do with the proceeds.  Will they do share buybacks or offer a special dividend to reward investors?  Will they use some or all of the money to make strategic acquisitions that are revenue-enhancing?  Will they use it to develop new products/services?   Keep in mind one other thing here, too.  There's a world of difference between what something is valued at and what someone's willing to actually pay for it.  A patent portfolio is great and perhaps holds good value, assuming the buyer can find a way to monetize it.  How exactly was the valuation of the patents arrived at, and are they worthwhile enough for someone to pay anywhere close to that valuation?   There's more to this than meets the eye by using a first-blush look at asset valuation, and that's where the professionals come in.  My bet is that they have it right and there's something the rest of the market doesn't see or understand about it, hence questions like yours. I hope this helps. Good luck!