How could strike price for new shares be higher than the market price
This can arise with very thinly traded stocks for large blocks of shares. If the market only has a few thousand dollars available at between 8.37 and 12.5 the price is largely meaningless for people who want to invest in hundreds of thousands/millions of dollars worth, as the quoted price can't get them anywhere near the number of shares they want. How liquid is the stock in question? Berkshire Hathaway issues first ever-negative coupon security from back in 2002 had this part: The warrants will give the holder the right to purchase either shares   of the Company's class A or class B common stock at the holder’s   option. The initial exercise price represents a 15% premium over the   closing price of the class A shares on the NYSE on May 21, 2002. The   Notes will pay holders a 3.0% interest rate per annum and holders will   pay 3.75% installment payments per annum on the warrants. The warrant   payments due from holders will be greater than the coupon on the   senior notes, effectively making SQUARZ the first negative coupon   security. Berkshire Hathaway will use the net proceeds from the   issuance for general corporate purposes, including possible   acquisitions, none of which are pending. This would be an example where the strike price was 15% higher than the closing price yet the security sold well.
"Also, in the next sentence, what is buyers commission? Is it referring to the share holder? Or potential share holder? And why does the buyer get commission?  The buyer doesn't get a commission.  The buyer pays a commission.  So normally a buyer would say, ""I want to buy a hundred shares at $20.""  The broker would then charge the buyer a commission.  Assuming 4%, the commission would be  So the total cost to the buyer is $2080 and the seller receives $2000.  The buyer paid a commission of $80 as the buyer's commission.   In the case of an IPO, the seller often pays the commission.  So the buyer might pay $2000 for a hundred shares which have a 7% commission.  The brokering agent (or agents may share) pockets a commission of $140.  Total paid to the seller is $1860.   Some might argue that the buyer pays either way, as the seller receives money in the transaction.  That's a reasonable outlook.  A better way to say this might be that typical trades bill the buyer directly for commission while IPO purchases bill the seller.  In the typical trade, the buyer negotiates the commission with the broker.  In an IPO, the seller does (with the underwriter).   Another issue with an IPO is that there are more parties getting commission than just one.  As a general rule, you still call your broker to purchase the stock.  The broker still expects a commission.  But the IPO underwriter also expects a commission.  So the 7% commission might be split between the IPO underwriter (works for the selling company) and the broker (works for the buyer).   The broker has more work to do than normal.  They have to put in the buyer's purchase request and manage the price negotiation.  In most purchases, you just say something like ""I want to offer $20 a share"" or ""I want to purchase at the market price.""  In an IPO, they may increase the price, asking for $25 a share.  And they may do that multiple times.  Your broker has to come back to you each time and get a new authorization at the higher price.  And you still might not get the number of shares that you requested.   Beyond all this, you may still be better off buying an IPO than waiting until the next day.  Sure, you pay more commission, but you also may be buying at a lower price.  If the IPO price is $20 but the price climbs to $30, you would have been better off paying the IPO price even with the higher commission.  However, if the IPO price is $20 and the price falls to $19.20, you'd be better off buying at $19.20 after the IPO.  Even though in that case, you'd pay the 4% commission on top of the $19.20, so about $19.97.   I think that the overall point of the passage is that the IPO underwriter makes the most money by convincing you to pay as high an IPO price as possible.  And once they do that, they're out of the picture.  Your broker will still be your broker later.  So the IPO underwriter has a lot of incentive to encourage you to participate in the IPO instead of waiting until the next day.  The broker doesn't care much either way.  They want you to buy and sell something.  The IPO or something else.  They don't care much as to what.   The underwriter may overprice the stock, as that maximizes their return.  If they can convince enough people to overpay, they don't care that the stock falls the day after that.  All their marketing effort is to try to achieve that result.  They want you to believe that your $20 purchase will go up to $30 the next day.  But it might not.   These numbers may not be accurate.  Obviously the $20 stock price is made up.  But the 4% and 7% numbers may also be inaccurate.  Modern online brokers are very competitive and may charge a flat fee rather than a percentage.  The book may be giving you older numbers that were correct in 1983 (or whatever year).  The buyer's commission could also be lower than 4%, as the seller also may be charged a commission.  If each pays 2%, that's about 4% total but split between a buyer's commission and a seller's commission." "The offering price is what the company will raise by selling the shares at that price.  However, this isn't usually what the general public sees as often there will be shows to drive up demand so that there will be buyers for the stock.  That demand is what you see on the first day when the general public can start buying the stock.  If one is an employee, relative or friend of someone that is offered, ""Friends and Family"" shares they may be able to buy at the offering price. Pricing of IPO from Wikipedia states around the idea of pricing: A company planning an IPO typically appoints a lead manager, known as   a bookrunner, to help it arrive at an appropriate price at which the   shares should be issued. There are two primary ways in which the price   of an IPO can be determined. Either the company, with the help of its   lead managers, fixes a price (""fixed price method""), or the price can   be determined through analysis of confidential investor demand data   compiled by the bookrunner (""book building""). Historically, some IPOs both globally and in the United States have   been underpriced. The effect of ""initial underpricing"" an IPO is to   generate additional interest in the stock when it first becomes   publicly traded. Flipping, or quickly selling shares for a profit, can   lead to significant gains for investors who have been allocated shares   of the IPO at the offering price. However, underpricing an IPO results   in lost potential capital for the issuer. One extreme example is   theglobe.com IPO which helped fuel the IPO ""mania"" of the late 90's   internet era. Underwritten by Bear Stearns on November 13, 1998, the   IPO was priced at $9 per share. The share price quickly increased   1000% after the opening of trading, to a high of $97. Selling pressure   from institutional flipping eventually drove the stock back down, and   it closed the day at $63. Although the company did raise about $30   million from the offering it is estimated that with the level of   demand for the offering and the volume of trading that took place the   company might have left upwards of $200 million on the table. The danger of overpricing is also an important consideration. If a   stock is offered to the public at a higher price than the market will   pay, the underwriters may have trouble meeting their commitments to   sell shares. Even if they sell all of the issued shares, the stock may   fall in value on the first day of trading. If so, the stock may lose   its marketability and hence even more of its value. This could result   in losses for investors, many of whom being the most favored clients   of the underwriters. Perhaps the best known example of this is the   Facebook IPO in 2012. Underwriters, therefore, take many factors into consideration when   pricing an IPO, and attempt to reach an offering price that is low   enough to stimulate interest in the stock, but high enough to raise an   adequate amount of capital for the company. The process of determining   an optimal price usually involves the underwriters (""syndicate"")   arranging share purchase commitments from leading institutional   investors. Some researchers (e.g. Geoffrey C., and C. Swift, 2009) believe that   the underpricing of IPOs is less a deliberate act on the part of   issuers and/or underwriters, than the result of an over-reaction on   the part of investors (Friesen & Swift, 2009). One potential method   for determining underpricing is through the use of IPO Underpricing   Algorithms. This may be useful for seeing the difference in that ""theglobe.com"" example where the offering price is $9/share yet the stock traded much higher than that initially." Changes in implied volatility are caused by many things, of course, and it is tough to isolate the effect you are describing, but let's try to generalize for a moment. Implied volatility is generally a measure of how much expect uncertainty there is about the future price of the stock.  Uncertainty generally is higher in periods including earnings announcements because it is significant new information about the company's fortunes can make for significant changes in the price. However, you could easily have the case where the earnings are good and for some reason the market is very certain that the earnings will be good and near a certain level.  In that case the price would rise, but the implied volatility could well be lower because the market believes that there will be no significant new information in the earnings announcement. "An important thing that many people fail to realize is that the number of shares outstanding in a stock, times the current market price of those shares, does not represent anything related to the total value of those shares.  If a company has one million shares outstanding and its total value is $10 million, then the real worth of each share is $10.  If few people feels like buying or selling, but a few people think the company is worth $50 million and offer $50/share, that could raise the market price to $50/share, but it wouldn't mean that the company became worth five times as much; it would merely mean the stock was overpriced. If, after the price went to $50/share, all the owners of the stock put in stop-loss orders at $45.  Note that the real $10/share ""real value"" of their stock would never have changed.  If the people who thought the stock was worth $50 decided to get out of the market, and nobody else was willing to offer more than $10, that would instantly drop the price to $10.  The fact that a million shares of stock have stop-loss orders at $45 wouldn't magically generate buyers for those stocks at that price.  Indeed, unchecked stop-loss orders would have the reverse effect, since many people who would have been willing if not eager to buy the stock if it had been available for less than $10/share would instead be trying to sell it below that price. It's too bad people think that the number of shares outstanding times the current market price represents some kind of ""meaningful quantity"".  If the present cash value of all future payouts associated with a share of stock is $10, then someone who buys a share of stock for less than that makes money off the seller; someone who pays more loses money to the seller.  Many people think they can lose money to the seller and still come out okay if the price goes higher, but what that really means is that they're hoping to find a bigger sucker--a game where it's guaranteed that some people will have losses they don't recoup." Initially, Each company has 10k shares. Company B has $500k money and possibly other assets. Every company has stated purpose. It can't randomly buy shares in some other firm.   Company A issued 5k new shares, which gives it $500k money. Listed companies can't make private placements without regulatory approvals. They have to put this in open market via Public issue or rights issue. Company B does the same thing, issuing 5k shares for $500k money. Company A bought those 5k shares using the $500k it just got There is no logical reason for shareholder of Company B to raise 5K from Company A for the said consideration. This would have to increase. One should also point out that you make a major assumption in that the high of the day doesn't occur on a gap up in morning trading. It's unlikely that you'd fill at a reasonable price, thereby throwing your strategy into disarray. Slippage is tied to volatility, so when volatility increases the spread will also increase. There is no perfect formula to figure out slippage but from observations, it might make sense to look at the bar size in relation to previous bars to determine slippage (assuming fixed periods). This is because when there is a sudden spike in price, it's usually due to stop order triggering or a news event and those will increase the volatility dramatically in seconds. My guess is that both the blue and pinkish lines are hand drawn by someone. The blue line indicates 'higher lows' while the pinkish line represents 'higher highs'. Together they form a trading channel in which you can expect future prices to be (unless there is some unanticipated event that occurs).  Edit: since the price broke out above the trading channel at the start of the year (and is verified by the increase in volume at that time) something must have occurred to increase the value of the stock.  Edit2: this news likely explains the breakout in price. Edit3: this chart shows that the stock price is now 'seeking equilibrium'. The price will, likely, be volatile over the next few days or weeks.