Does a stock's price represent current liquidation of all shares?
"What if everyone decided to sell all the shares at a given moment, let's say when the stock is trading at $40? I imagine supply would outweigh demand and the stock would fall. Yes this is the case. Every large ""Sell"" order results in price going down and every large ""Buy"" order results in price going up. Hence typically when large orders are being executed, they are first negotiated outside for a price and then sold at the exchange. I am not talking about Ownership change event. If a company wants a change in ownership, the buyer would be ready to pay a premium over the market price to get controlling stake." "What if everyone decided to sell all the shares at a given moment, let's say when the stock is trading at $40? It would fall to the lowest bid price, which could be $0.01 if someone had that bid in place. Here is an example which I happened to find online:  Notice there are orders to buy at half the market price and lower... probably all the way down to pennies.  If there were enough selling activity to fill all of those bids you see, then the market price would be the lowest bid on the screen.  Alternatively, the bid orders could be pulled (cancelled), which would also let the price free-fall to the lowest bid even if there were few actual sellers. Bid-stuffing is what HFT (high frequency trading) algorithms sometimes do, which some say caused the Flash Crash of May 2010.  The computers ""stuff"" bids into the order book, making it look like there is demand in order to trigger a market reaction, then they pull the bids to make the market fall.  This sort of thing happens all the time and Nanex documents it http://www.nanex.net/FlashCrash/OngoingResearch.html Quote stuffing defined: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/q/quote-stuffing.asp I remember the day of the Flash Crash very well.  I found this video on youtube of CNBC at that time.  Watch from the 5:00 min mark on the video as Jim Crammer talks about PG easily not being worth the price of the market at that time.  He said ""Who cares?"", ""Its not a real price"", ""$49.25 bid for 50,000 shares if I were at my hedge fund.""  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86g4_w4j3jU You can value a stock how you want, but its only actually worth what someone will give you for it. More examples: Anadarko Petroleum, which as we noted in today's EOD post, lost $45 billion in market cap in 45 milliseconds (a collapse rate of $1 billion per millisecond), flash crashing from $90 all the way to an (allegedly illegal) stub quote of $0.01. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-05-17/how-last-second-flash-crash-pushed-sp-500-1667-1666 How 10,000 Contracts Crashed The Market: A Visual Deconstruction Of Last Night's E-Mini Flash Crash http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-12-21/how-10000-contracts-crashed-market-visual-deconstruction-last-nights-e-mini-flash-cr Symantec Flash-Crash Destroys Over $1.5 Billion In Less Than A Second http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-04-30/symantec-flash-crash-destroys-over-15-billion-less-second This sort of thing happens so often, I don't pay much attention anymore." Is the stock's price at any given moment the price at which all shares could be sold to new investors? No.  For the simple fact that the current bid/offer always have sizes associated. What you should be looking at is the consolidated price to buy/sell X shares (10bn doesn't really work as not everyone is willing to sell/buy). If you look at the spread of the consolidated price at your quantity level, you'd notice it would be in stark contrast to the spread of the best bid/offer but (by definition) that would be the price to buy or sell X shares to new investors. Edit Calculation of the consolidated price of X shares: You go through the order book and calculate the size-weighted average price until you covered X. Example: So the consolidated price for 3000 shares would be $39.80, the consolidated price for 2000 shares would be $39.90.
"I held shares in BIND Therapeutics, a small biotechnology company on the NASDAQ that was liquidated on the chapter 11 auction block in 2016. There were sufficient proceeds to pay the debts and return some cash to shareholders, with payments in 2016 and 2017. (Some payments have yet to occur.) The whole process is counter-intuitive and full of landmines, both for tax preparation & planning and receiving payments: Landmine 0: Some shareholders will sell in a panic as soon as the chapter 11 is announced.  This would have been a huge mistake in the case of BIND, because the eventual liquidation payments were worth 3 or so times as much as the share price after chapter 11.  The amount of the liquidation payments wasn't immediately calculable, because the company's intellectual property had to be auctioned. Landmine 1: The large brokerages (Vanguard, Fidelity, TDA, and others) mischaracterized the distributions to shareholders on form 1099, distributed to both shareholders and the IRS. The bankruptcy trustee considered this to be their responsibility. According to the tax code and to the IRS website, the liquidation is taxed like a sale of stock, rather than a dividend. ""On the shareholder level, a complete liquidation can be thought of as a sale of all outstanding corporate stock held by the shareholders in exchange for all of the assets in that corporation. Like any sale of stock, the shareholder receives capital gain treatment on the difference between the amount received by the shareholder in the distribution and the cost or other basis of the stock."" Mischaracterizing the distributions as dividends makes them wrongly ineligible to be wiped out by the enormous capital loss on the stock.  Vanguard's error appeared on my own 1099, and the others were mentioned in an investor discussion on stocktwits.  However, Geoffrey L Berman, the bankruptcy trustee stated on twitter that while the payments are NOT dividends, the 1099s were the brokers' responsibility. Landmine 2: Many shareholders will wrongly attempt to claim the capital loss for tax year 2016, or they may have failed to understand the law in time for proper tax planning for tax year 2016. It does not matter that the company's BINDQ shares were cancelled in 2016.  According to the IRS website ""When a shareholder receives a series of distributions in liquidation, gain is recognized once all of the shareholder's stock basis is recovered. A loss, however, will not be recognized until the final distribution is received."" In particular, shareholders who receive the 2017 payment will not be able to take a capital loss for tax year 2016 because the liquidation wasn't complete.  Late discovery of this timing issue no doubt resulted in an end-of-year underestimation of 2016 overall capital gains for many, causing a failure to preemptively realize available capital losses elsewhere. I'm not going to carefully consider the following issues, which may or may not have some effect on the timing of the capital loss: Landmine 3: Surprisingly, it appears that some shareholders who sold their shares in 2016 still may not claim the capital loss for tax year 2016, because they will receive a liquidation distribution in 2017. Taken at face value, the IRS website's statement ""A loss, however, will not be recognized until the final distribution is received"" appears to apply to shareholders of record of August 30, 2016, who receive the payouts, even if they sold the shares after the record date.  However, to know for sure it might be worth carefully parsing the relevant tax code and treasury regs. Landmine 4: Some shareholders are completely cut out of the bankruptcy distribution. The bankruptcy plan only provides distributions for shareholders of record Aug 30, 2016.  Those who bought shares of BINDQ afterwards are out of luck. Landmine 5: According to the discussion on stocktwits, many shareholders have yet to receive or even learn of the existence of a form [more secure link showing brokers served here] required to accept 2017 payments.  To add to confusion there is apparently ongoing legal wrangling over whether the trustee is able to require this form. Worse, shareholders report difficulty getting brokers' required cooperation in submitting this form. Landmine 6: Hopefully there are no more landmines. Boom. DISCLAIMER: I am not a tax professional. Consult the tax code/treasury regulations/IRS publications when preparing your taxes.  They are more trustworthy than accountants, or at least more trustworthy than good ones." "You said your strategy was to put it into a index fund.  But then you asked about setting  stock limits.   I'm confused. Funds usually trade at their price at the end of the day, so you shouldn't try to time this at all. Just place your order. If you are buying ETFs, there is going to be so much volume on the market that your small trade is going to have no impact on the price. You should just place a market order. A market order is an order to buy or   sell a stock at the current market   price. A limit order is an order to buy or   sell a security at a specific price. In the US, when you place a trade with any broker, you can either place a limit order or a market order.  A market order just fills your order with the next best sellers in line.  If you place an order for 100 shares, the sellers willing to sell 100 shares at the lowest price will be matched with your order (sometimes you may get 50 shares at one price and 50 shares at a slightly different price).    If your stock has a lot of volatility and you place a market order for a small amount of shares,  you will get the best price. If you place a limit order, you specify the price at which you want to buy shares.  Your order will then only be filled with sellers willing to sell at that price or lower (i.e. they must be at least as good as you specified).  This means you could place an order at a limit that does not get filled (the stock could move in a direction away from your limit price).  If you really want to own the stock, you shouldn't use a limit order.  You shouldn't only use a limit order if you want to tell your broker ""I will only buy this stock at this price or better.""  p.s. Every day that passes is NOT a waste.  It's just a day that you've decided investing in cash is safer than investing in the market." It's been awhile since my last finance course, so school me here:  What is the market cap of a company actually supposed to represent? I get that it's the stock price X the # of shares, but what is that actually representing? Revenues? PV of all future revenues? PV of future cash flows?  In any case, good write up. Valuation of tech stocks is quite the gambit, and you've done a good job of dissecting it for a layman. That is mostly true, in most situations when there are more buy orders than sell orders (higher buy volume orders than sell volume orders), the price will generally move upwards and vice versa, when there are more sell orders than buy orders (higher sell volume orders than buy volume orders), the price will generally move downwards. Note that this does not always happen, but usually it does. You are also correct that for a trade to take place a buyer has to be matched with a seller (or the buy volume matched with the sell volume). But not all orders get executed as trades. Say there are 50 buy orders in the order book with a total volume of 100,000 shares and the highest buy order is currently at $10.00. On the other side there are only 10 sell orders in the order book with total volume of 10,000 shares and the lowest sell order is currently $10.05. At the moment there won't be a trade unless a new buyer or seller enters the market to match the opposing side, or an existing order gets amended upper or lower to match the opposing side. With more demand than supply in the order books what will be the most likely direction that this stock moves in? Most likely the price will move upwards. If a new buyer sees the price moving higher and then looks at the market depth, they would most likely place an order closer to the lowest sell order than the current highest buy order, say $10.01, to be first in line in case a market sell order is placed on the market. As new buy orders enter the market it drives the price higher and higher until the buy orders dry up. P/E is the number of years it would take for the company to earn its share price.  You take share price divided by annual earnings per share.  You can take the current reported quarterly earnings per share times 4, you can take the sum of the past four actual quarters earnings per share or you can take some projected earnings per share. It has little to do with a company's actual finances apart from the earnings per share.  It doesn't say much about the health of a company's balance sheet, and is definitely not an indicator for bankruptcy.  It's mostly a measure of the market's assumptions of the company's ability to grow earnings or maintain it's current earnings growth.   A share price of $40 trading for a P/E ratio of 10 means it will take the company 10 years to earn $40 per share, it means there's current annual earnings per share of $4.  A different company may also be earning $4 per share but trade at 100 times earnings for a share price of $400.  By this measure alone neither company is more or less healthy than the other.  One just commands more faith in the future growth from the market. To circle back to your question regarding a negative P/E, a negative P/E ratio means the company is reporting negative earnings (running at a loss).  Again, this may or may not indicate an imminent bankruptcy.  Increasing balance sheet debt with decreasing revenue and or earnings and or balance sheet assets will be a better way to assess bankruptcy risk. "The current stock price you're referring to is actually the price of the last trade.  It is a historical price – but during market hours, that's usually mere seconds ago for very liquid stocks. Whereas, the bid and ask are the best potential prices that buyers and sellers are willing to transact at: the bid for the buying side, and the ask for the selling side.  But, think of the bid and ask prices you see as ""tip of the iceberg"" prices.  That is: The ""Bid: 13.20 x200"" is an indication that there are potential buyers bidding $13.20 for up to 200 shares.  Their bids are the highest currently bid; and there are others in line behind with lower bid prices.  So the ""bid"" you're seeing is actually the best bid price at that moment.  If you entered a ""market"" order to sell more than 200 shares, part of your order would likely be filled at a lower price. The ""Ask: 13.27 x1,000"" is an indication that there are potential sellers asking $13.27 for up to 1000 shares.  Their ask prices are the lowest currently asked; and there are others in line behind with higher ask prices.  So the ""ask"" you're seeing is the best asking price at that moment.  If you entered a ""market"" order to buy more than 1000 shares, part of your order would likely be filled at a higher price. A transaction takes place when either a potential buyer is willing to pay the asking price, or a potential seller is willing to accept the bid price, or else they meet in the middle if both buyers and sellers change their orders. Note: There are primarily two kinds of stock exchanges.  The one I just described is a typical order-driven matched bargain market, and perhaps the kind you're referring to. The other kind is a quote-driven over-the-counter market where there is a market-maker, as JohnFx already mentioned.  In those cases, the spread between the bid & ask goes to the market maker as compensation for making a market in a stock.  For a liquid stock that is easy for the market maker to turn around and buy/sell to somebody else, the spread is small (narrow).  For illiquid stocks that are harder to deal in, the spread is larger (wide) to compensate the market-maker having to potentially carry the stock in inventory for some period of time, during which there's a risk to him if it moves in the wrong direction.    Finally ... if you wanted to buy 1000 shares, you could enter a market order, in which case as described above you'll pay $13.27.  If you wanted to buy your shares at no more than $13.22 instead, i.e. the so-called ""current"" price, then you would enter a limit order for 1000 shares at $13.22.  And more to the point, your order would become the new highest-bid price (until somebody else accepts your bid for their shares.)  Of course, there's no guarantee that with a limit order that you will get filled; your order could expire at the end of the day if nobody accepts your bid." "What will happen if the stock price just continues to decline?  Nothing. What would happen if folks just stop trading it? Nothing. What if the company goes private? Then they will have to buy you out based on some agreed upon price, as voted by the board and (potentially) approved by the shareholders. Depending on the corporation charter, the board may not be required to seek the shareholders' approval, but if the price the board agreed upon is unreasonable you can sue and prevent the transaction. How do they decide the fair value of the outstanding stocks? Through a process called ""valuation"", there are accounting firms which specialize in this area of public accounting." In short, thanks to the answers and comments posted so far.  No actual money is magically disappeared when the stock price goes down but the value is lost. The value changes of a stock is similar to the value changes of a house. The following is the long answer I came up with based on the previous answers and comments alone with my own understandings. Any experts who find any of the following is 200% out of place and wrong, feel free to edit it or make comments. Everything below only applies if the following are true: The stock price is only decreasing since the IPO because the company has been spending the money but not making profits after the IPO. The devaluation of the stock is not the result of any bad news related to the company but a direct translation of the money the company has lost by spending on whatever the company is doing. The actual money don’t just disappear into the thin air when the stock price goes down. All the money involved in trading this stock has already distributed to the sellers of this stock before the price went down.  There is no actual money that is literally disappeared, it was shifted from one hand to another, but again this already happened before the price went down.   For example, I bought some stocks for $100, then the price went down to $80. The $100 has already shifted from my hand to the seller before the price went down. I got the stock with less value, but the actual money $100 did not just go down to $80, it’s in the hand of the seller who sold the stock to me.  Now if I sell the stock to the same seller who sold the stock to me, then I lost $20, where did the $20 go? it went to the seller who sold the stock to me and then bought it back at a lower price. The seller ended up with the same amount of the stocks and the $20 from me. Did the seller made $20? Yes, but did the seller’s total assets increased? No, it’s still $100, $80 from the stocks, and $20 in cash. Did anyone made an extra $20? No. Although I did lost $20, but the total cash involved is still there, I have the $80 , the seller who sold the stock to me and then bought it back has the $20. The total cash value is still $100. Directly, I did lost $20 to the guy who sold me the stock when the stock has higher value and then bought it back at a lower price. But that guy did not increased his total assets by $20. The value of the stock is decreased, the total money $100 did not disappear, it ended up from one person holding it to 2 people holding it. I lost $20 and nobody gained $20, how is that possible? Assume the company of the stock never made any profit since it’s IPO, the company just keeps spending the money, to really track down where the $20 I lost is going, it is the company has indirectly spent that money. So who got that $20 I lost? It could be the company spent $20 for a birthday cake, the $20 went to the cake maker. The company never did anything to make that $20 back, so that $20 is lost. Again, assume the stock price only goes down after  its IPO, then buying this stock is similar to the buying a sport car example from JoeTaxpayer (in one of the answers), and buying an apple example from BrenBarn(in one of the comments from JoeTaxpayer’s answer).  Go back to the question, does the money disappears into the thin air when the value of the stock goes down? No, the money did not disappear, it switched hands. It went from the buyer of the stock to the company, and the company has spent that money. Then what happens when the stock price goes down because bad news about the company? I believe the actual money still did not just disappear. If the bad news turn out to be true that the company had indeed lost this much money, the money did not disappear, it’s been spent/lost by the company. If the bad news turn out to be false, the stock price will eventually go up again, the money is still in the hand of the company. As a summary, the money itself did not disappear no matter what happens, it just went from one wallet to another wallet in many different ways through the things people created that has a value.