Former public employer that we have options in just sold
The deal is expected to close sometime in Q4. The fluctuation though the day is just noise. The price will reflect a discount to the full takeover value, reflecting the risk of the deal falling through.  Cashless exercise is a good idea if you don't wish to own any QVC shares.
"What drives the stock of bankrupt companies? Such stock is typically considered ""distressed assets"".  Technically, what drives it is what drives every stock - supply and demand. A more interesting question is of course, why would there be demand? First, who exerts the buying pressure on the stock? Typically, three types of entities: The largest ones are financial institutions specializing in distressed assets (frequently, alternatives specialists - hedge funds, private equity firms etc...). Usually, they invest in distressed debt or distressed preferred equity; but sometimes distressed equity as well. Why? We will discuss their motivations separately in this answer. Second one are existing equity holders.  Why? Short answer, behavioral psychology and behavioral economics. Many investors - especially non-professionals - insist on holding distressed stocks due to variety of investment fallacies (sunk cost etc...); usually constructing elaborate theories of why and how the company and the stock will recover Sometimes, people who buy into penny stock scams, pump and dump schemes etc... Why? ""There's a sucker born every minute."" - P.T. Barnum Let's find out why an investment professional would invest in distressed equity? First, the general process is always the same. Company's assets are used to pay off its liabilities; in accordance with applicable law. There are two ways this can be done - either through selling the company; OR through bankruptcy process. The liabilities are paid according to seniority. The seniority priorities rules are covered by 11 U.S. Code § 507 - Priorities A company in bankruptcy can have one of 2 outcomes: Buyout. Some buyer might decide that the company's assets are worth something to them as a whole; and buy the whole enterprise; rather than risk it being destroyed piecemeal in bankruptcy proceedings. In that case, the proceeds from the sale will be used to fund the liabilities as discussed above. This option is one of the possible reasons people might consider investing in distressed equity.  For example, if the company is in bankruptcy because it can't get enough financing right now, but is likely to have good profits in the future. The chances are, some buyer will buy it for a premium that includes those future profits; and that sale amount might possibly exceed the liabilities. Bankruptcy. The assets are sold and liabilities are covered according to priorities. In that case, the investors in distressed equity might be hoping that there are un-obvious assets whose value would also put the total assets above claimed liabilities. Additional possible beneficial factor is that unsecured debtors must file with the court in order to be paid; and the claim must be validated. Some might fail on either count; so total amount of liabilities might lessen once the bankruptcy process goes through. Assets Now, here's where things get interesting. Of course, companies have usual assets. Real estate, inventory, plants, cash, etc... These are all able to be sold to cover liabilities, and at first glance are possibly not enough to cover liabilities, leaving equity holders with nothing (and even that's not a certainty - bankruptcy is simply inability to service debt payments; and while it correlates to assetsliquid assets, not full asset valuation). But some assets are less sure, and are thus rarely included in such calculations. These may include: Chances of winning appeals if specific existing liabilities are results of litigation, e.g. tax appeals, court judgement appeals etc... Clawbacks and lawsuits against former executives, especially in cases where the company's financial distress resulted from executive malfeasance. I was personally involved in one such case as an equity holder, where the company assets were valued at $X; had liabilities of $X*2; but had a real possibility of winning about $X*3 in a lawsuit against former CEO accused of various malfeasance including fraud and insider trading. As such, the best case scenario was literally 100% profit on holding that distressed equity." "&gt; I didn't ask for those services or that infrastructure.   That sounds painfully like the ""I didn't ask to be born"" argument. I am sure you are mature enough to realize that we don't get to choose where we are born, or what responsibility we inherit. I am sure there are millions of people born in third world countries who would feel for your horrible plight!  &gt;  I can choose Crest toothpaste and you can still get Colgate.   Ahh, but either exist without society and the stability of civilization? While Democracy and a Republic are imperfect, they are a sight better than a Theocracy or a monarchy.   &gt; they are literally saying I think you should be forced to live under their rule/my beliefs. Which is immoral.   We can have the luxury of being able to talk about ""morality"" of govern and rule while living in civilized society. Kind of hard to imagine you making money on stock, when there is no infrastructure.   &gt; doesn't mean that without the military/DOD we wouldn't be where we are with drones.  True. However, it is hard to deny that the military first developed drones. That argument is similar to listening to a trust fund baby tell you how they would be just as rich as they are now even if they hadn't inherited millions... Or that a Christian would still be a Christian even if he were born in Iran... Statistics tell us otherwise.   &gt; A lot of my income comes from trading stocks   That is very cool, and something I find of interest. I want to get more into this, having made very small money with individual stocks. FNME after the crash, etc. Very simple stuff. I admire what you do. I though I don't think he is speaking about the same thing.   The speculation he was talking about was guys like Goldman Sachs, etc., basically sold off bad assets and then bet against them. Not to mention the implicit selling of fraudulent mortgages. However, these are the options I believe he was referring. I do not remember reading about a blanket option policy, especially seeing as crucial they are to the commodities market." "&gt;so I would like to ask you which, at this project, poor management skill of Oracle staffs or plan of Oregon are worse to be accused.  **I believe there is an increased burden on the employer (Oregon) to effectively manage the scope of the work required for the project that the contractor (Oracle) is working on**.  Otherwise, the contractor has plausible deniability for being able to provide deliver a quality working solution.  &gt;Or do you think that plan was made mainly by Oracle?  I think the plan was **mostly made by Oracle with the requirements given by Oregon**, and that's where things seem messy.  My gut tells me though that when an employer hires a contractor for the creation of a fully integrated enterprise system, that the employer essentially signs their financial life away to the project in a way that absolves the contractor of indirect or direct ""damages"" that come from the result of unforeseen implementation requirements or issues.  Oracle has been around long enough to know how to legally cover their asses.  If there is anything that Oregon may have traction on, it would be a few of their fraud claims, given that Oracle has made [two settlements](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oracle_corporation#Justice_Department_lawsuit) with federal agencies of ~$100 &amp; ~$200 million since 2011 which were from allegations of fraud or false claims.  Such claims by Oregon may be supported by the fact that they allegedly have a former Oracle employee who can substantiate the poor quality of the product they were giving to Oregon, but that blame might go back to Oregon's specifications which I have no insight into.  As someone who has witnessed a couple of employer and contractor relationships between public &amp; private entities, my hope out of all of this is that:  * Sales people for contractors think twice before over-promising technology solutions that their company can't fully deliver on given resource constraints or lack of employer specifications.  * Employers ""hiring"" such entities manage them, expectations, plus the overall project effectively while accepting personal accountability &amp; responsibility.  I think the only people who have a clear picture of what was going on were anyone from either party who were on the front lines of managing the project, developing the systems, or running them." "&gt; Why should I have to pay someone more to do a shittier job just because they're in a members only club?  Uh, you might not have to pay more, since many employers can just take a modest hit to their profit margin to treat their workers better than cattle. And, given the puny amounts they're paying their workers to begin with, I doubt your wallet will scream in pain if prices inch up a tiny bit to pay these plebes so they may live lives of regular poverty, instead of grinding poverty. Getting beyond the liquid bullshit your sentence has been marinated in, I'll assume you're merely asking why you should have to pay someone more to do the same job.  Essentially, the answer lies in the collusive power employers usually have to conspire to lower wages, because there are always fewer, usually far fewer, employers in any industry than there are employees. So the employers are always in an ""exclusive, members-only club."" The examples of employers combining to lower wages and salaries are so numerous that it's an embarrassment of riches as to which to choose, but I'll pick the refusal of major-league baseball to sign free agents in 1979, just to teach the players a lesson. This ended Rod Carew's career, among other things, even though the owners were later punished in court, so it does not please me.  In some industries, unions are unnecessary - medicine and law come to mind - but these workers still have wage-hiking and incompetence protecting mechanisms: consider the AMA's efforts to close teaching hospitals and limit doctor supply, or the seeming inability of state bar associations to investigate anything less than the grossest incompetence of their members. It's just that the AMA and the bar association are not called ""unions.""  But back to the issue of Walmart unionization: unions, though prone to excess when they are too strong, have been the only means of leveling the playing field between ownership and employees in ways that have made life livable for all of us today. Want an example? The 40-hour week, which would never have become customary, let alone been given legal force, if it were up to the employers and the free-market fairy with her magical market pixie dust. Today, employees in industries never unionized enjoy the benefits of overtime pay, decent working conditions, Saturdays off, and healthcare, such as it is, thanks to union representatives who were beaten by Pinkerton thugs, and then returned to be beaten so many times that the bosses finally gave in and made America a decent place to live for those who were labor, and not just capital.  It has been proven over and over again throughout history that, given the chance, the wealthy will treat the rest of us like s-h-i-t unless we occasionally fight back collectively. If labor becomes cheaper under the free market, employers will eventually attempt to pay workers only enough to reproduce, unless there are so many workers already that this is unnecessary, and nothing more. Knowing what societies are like when this occurs - think 19th-century industrial Europe or modern Venezuela - I'm not eager to live in such a society.  When workers are treated like dirt, you usually end up paying more anyway, in home security systems, public safety costs, and salaries for corpse-removal crews to keep the city streets clean.  TLDR: Fuck you, you ignorant fuck." "I highly doubt this was a mistake. In the event of a corporate merger/buyout, changes to employee 401(k) plans are usually hashed out as part of the M&A agreement. The choices made in the agreement depend on numerous factors, so it may be difficult to predict what happens to your plan in situations like this. A quick online search reveals a few articles, e.g. this one from expertplan.com, that list the three most common consequences for retirement plans: It sounds like the company that purchased your employer agreed to immediately vest employees in employer 401(k) contributions as part of the purchase agreement. Without knowing the details of the merger/buyout, I can't say this for sure, but this sounds like a plausible way to keep employees of the purchased company content.  Rather than roll it over, does it make sense to wait for that company to be purchased, in the hopes that a similar ""mistake"" occurs? Since this doesn't sound like a mistake, but rather a part of the buyout agreement, I don't think it's something you should count on in the future. It may be very likely, or it could be a relatively rare occurrence that happened to be part of this purchase agreement. I don't believe the Employee Retirement Income Security Act regulates what can or can't be done to your 401(k) in a buyout, except that the company is required to inform you of any changes (and obviously, the new 401(k) plan must conform to ERISA as well)." I don't know about his department, but many PDs/government agencies begin offering pensions at the 10 year mark.  Those pensions are generally based off of how much you made while you were working.  It's quite possible that between he has his wife, they are getting $50-$60k per year in pension.  Government pensions are fucking GREAT.  Of course, they also bankrupt governments, but that's tomorrow's problem!  Weeeee! Most plans yes, but it depends on your specific plan's provisions. You want to get a Summary Plan Description for your specific plan. Speak with HR (assuming you have one, or whoever is in charge at your company) and request a Summary Plan Description (they are legally required to provide you with one if you ask, although there may be a small cost to you for printing). It will tell you in there when distributions may be made following severance of employment as it pertains to your specific plan. An excerpt from the doc submitted to the IRS for plan approval -  option g would be the choice that's available, and participant should watch out for.  This is the response (a small excerpt, the full doc ran 2 pages and had private information) -  It confirms the full document (the plan itself) was approved. It's quite alright, it's been over a decade since he passed so I'm not particularly sensitive about it any more.  I'll have a look at investopedia, but what I'm mainly interested in is private equity. I wanted to ask directly about that, but I feel that I need a frame of reference to understand what's going on. As in, I doubt I'd be able to really get private equity without first having an understanding of public trading.  Is this subreddit really that reputable? I've learned to not really trust reddit, for the most part. Is there some kind of curation here?