T-mobile stock: difference between TMUSP vs TMUS
"The difference between TMUSP and TMUS is that the ""with P"" ticker is for a TMobile Preferred Stock offering.  The ""without P"" ticker is for TMobile common stock.  The difference between the apparent percentage yields is due to Yahoo! Stock misreporting the dividend on the preferred stock for the common stock, which has not paid a dividend (thanks Brick for pointing this out!) Preferred stock holders get paid first in the event of liquidation, in most scenarios they get paid first.  They sometimes get better returns.  They typically lack voting rights, and after a grace period, they may be recalled by the company at a fixed price (set when they were issued). Common stock holders can vote to alter the board of directors, and are the epitome of the typical ""I own a trivial fraction of the company"" model that most people think of when owning stocks. As the common stock is valued at much less, it appears that the percent yield is much higher, but in reality, it's 0%."
&gt;Why not give extra tax breaks for the sale of stock purchased during a public offering (since that goes to helping the company) but not for secondhand (less necessary) trading  Because secondary trading determines how easy it is for companies to raise additional money and it also allows the company to manipulate private vs publicly held stakes in their company.  &gt;Should we give big tax breaks to people who lend businesses money?  There's a difference between lending money and investing in a corporation. Furthermore the income tax code when it comes to lending money via bonds is a complete mess. Corporate bond coupons are taxed like regular income (although the principal return is, of course, tax free). Federal and munis are taxed differently. There is also the advantage that you do get a tax break in the event of default, so any additional risk you take on has some marginal tax benefits. If you are using T-mobile you don't have to put $100 in each year to keep your minutes for a year.  Once you spend $100 you get a year with any additional minutes you buy.  Buying them $100 at a time is the cheapest way - but when you renew you can renew with only $50 or $30 and you have a year to use them from the last time you bought. I did this this year - only put $50 on each phone because we don't use $100 worth in a year. According to Active Equity Management by Zhou and Jain: When a stock pays dividend, the adjusted price in Yahoo makes the following adjustment: Let T be the ex-dividend date (the first date that the buyers of a stock will not receive the dividend) and T-1 be the last trading day before T. All prices before T are adjusted by a multiplier (C_{T-1} - d_T)/C_{T-1}, where C_{T-1} is the close price at T-1 and d_T is the dividend per share. This, of course means that the price before T decreases. People that argue for an FTT, whether they know it or not, are directly advocating for savers to have reduced stock market returns, making it even harder to save for retirement.  Make no mistake - a financial transactions tax would disproportionately hurt middle class savers the most.  In almost every article I see advocating an FTT, the authors have a profound misunderstanding about how financial markets work.  They focus on jealousy politics (target the rich!) and dismiss the hugely detrimental effects on the market as obscure academic objections.  FFTs impose a DIRECT cost on ALL investors in four major ways: (1) larger bid/ask spreads, (2) higher volatility, (3) reduced capital mobility, and obviously (4) the tax itself.  All of these things are BAD for any investor.  Advocates for FFT essentially want the stock market to be less efficient.  Even investors that make NO trades during the year will see the returns drop on their ETFs, mutual funds, index funds, that they are accumulating for retirement.  Why?  Institutional funds (Vanguard, Fidelity, etc) churn billions of dollars during the normal course of business handling buy/sell orders, portfolio rebalancing, unit creation/elimination.  Increased bid/ask spreads make these transactions more expensive, higher volatility makes them more risky, reduced capital mobility reduces volumes available to trade, and the tax adds to the cost.  All of these effects show up as reduced returns on a typical fund.  Vanguard put the reduced returns on the order of 1% depending on fund style - in other words, hundreds of thousands of dollars in lost savings compounded over a middle class working career.  For a middle class saver, that could mean the difference between retiring at a reasonable age or never being able to retire!  But don't take my word on it.  [There are an extensive number of studies and statements from both academia and industry on this subject, all saying the same thing.](https://modernmarketsinitiative.org/topics/ftt/)  When Vanguard says an FTT will hurt investors, people should listen.  Vanguard is perhaps the most consumer friendly investment firm in history, single-handedly responsible for bringing investing costs down near zero.  They have done more for middle class investors than virtually any other firm. "No it does not.  Candlesticks really have nothing to do with this, a stock price can open different then the previous day's close. Examining the chart of TSLA provides an example it closed on 1/18 at 238.8 it opened on 1/19 at 243.7 In candlestick parlance is is known as a ""gap up""." Its different because, at least with both stock options and futures, the product is going to eventually get that money.  The difference is that you don't have to spend that money directly on that product right now, allowing you to invest far more then you can afford since you are going to cover that option or sell that contract long before you are ever going to be on hook for actually buying all those stocks or barrels of oil you were trading.  It's actually a good way for a middle class investor to become really wealthy, because if he is good all he needs is to save only about 10,000 to invest and he can invest like he's investing 100,000.  Obviously there's more risk too, but give and take i guess. As Ross says, SPX is the index itself. This carries no overheads. It is defined as a capitalization-weighted mixture of the stocks of (about) 500 companies. SPY is an index fund that tries to match the performance of SPX. As an index fund it has several differences from the index: "The gap up/down and rapid movement immediately following market open is due to overnight futures activity. In your example, SP500 on June 20, 2016 saw a 20-point gap up at market open. This was because the SP500 futures were trading 20 points higher at 9:30 AM than at its close on Friday. The index will always ""catch up"" with futures at market open. You can see that below. The top chart is the E-mini SP500 futures from Sunday night to Monday. Beneath it is the SP500 index."