What does a stock's quoted value represent?
The quote price is simply the last price at which a trade completed. Price for the latest transaction. If the stock is selling for  $898.7 means that the stock is currently trading for  $898.7, and it will be your ask price of stock if you purchase currently. "Stock price is set to the price with the highest transaction volume at any given time.  The stock price you cited was only valid in the last transaction on a specific stock exchange. As such it is more of an ""historic"" value. Next trade will be done with the next biggest volume. Depending on the incoming bids and asks this could be higher or lower, but you can assume it will not be too far off if there is no crash underway. Simple example stock exchange:"
The two answers given previously provide excellent information. In relation to your statement: If I buy the above future contract, does that mean I pay $1581.90 on June 13th You cannot buy the futures contract at that price. The 'price' you are seeing quoted is not a dollar value, but rather a value in points. Each contract has a point value, and this varies from one contract to another according to the specifications set out by the exchange. The point value is in dollars, and it therefore acts as a multiplier for the 'price' that you've seen quoted. Let's look at an example for the E-Mini S&P futures. These trade electronically on the Globex exchange, the ECN order book of the CME, and carry the ticker symbol ES.  The ES contract has a point value of $50. If the quoted price for the ES is 1581.75, then its dollar value is 50 x 1581.75 = $79,087.50 So in order to buy this contract outright, with absolutely no use of leverage, then one theoretically requires $79,087 in one's account. In practice though, futures are traded on margin and so only a deposit amount is required at the time of purchase, as CQM has explained. "- In a quote driven market, must every investor trade with a market        maker? In other words, two parties that are both not market makers        cannot trade between themselves directly? In a way yes, all trades go through a market maker but those trades can be orders put in place by a ""person"" IE: you, or me. - Does a quote driven market only display the ""best"" bid and ask        prices proposed by the market makers? In other words, only the        highest bid price among all the market makers is displayed, and        other lower bid prices by other market makers are not? Similarly,        only the lowest ask price over all market makers is displayed, and        other higher ask prices by other market makers are not? No, you can see other lower bid and higher ask prices. - In a order-driven market, is it meaningful to talk about ""the current stock price"", which is the price of last transaction? Well that's kind of an opinion. Information is information so it won't be bad to know it. Personally I would say the bid and ask price is more important. However in the real world these prices are changing constantly and quickly so realistically it is easier to keep track of the quote price and most likely the bid/ask spread is small and the quote will fall in between. The less liquid a security is the more important the bid/ask is. -- This goes for all market types. - For a specific asset, will there be several transactions happened at    the same time but with different prices? Today with electronic markets, trades can happen so quickly it's difficult to say. In the US stock market trades happen one at a time but there is no set time limit between each trade. So within 1 second you can have a trade be $50 or $50.04. However it will only go to $50.04 when the lower ask prices have been exhausted.   - Does an order driven market have market makers?  By definition, no. - What are some examples of quote driven and order driven financial markets, in which investors are commonly trading stocks and derivatives, especially in U.S.? Quote driven market: Bond market, Forex. Order driven market: NYSE comes from an order driven market but now would be better classified as a ""hybird market"" Conclusion: If you are asking in order to better understand today's stock markets then these old definitions of Quote market or Order market may not work. The big markets in the real world are neither. (IE: Nasdaq, NYSE...) The NYSE and Nasdaq are better classified as a ""hybird market"" as they use more then a single tactic from both market types to insure market liquidity, and transparency. Markets these days are strongly electronic, fast, and fairly liquid in most cases. Here are some resources to better understand these markets: An Introduction To Securities Markets The NYSE And Nasdaq: How They Work Understanding Order Execution" "&gt; If a penny worth of copper is worth 1.8 cents and I choose to make it into a a coin with a value of 1 cent then my opportunity cost is .8 cents.  No, not at all. A coin represents value, it is not value (in terms of its denomination). A coin does however have value as facilitator of exchange of value, but that is in principle unrelated to that coin's denomination. So the value of a 1 cent coin (as a facility of exchange) is unknown. It is however easy to make the case that this unknown is very low, or even negative.  &gt; A gold coin back before fiat currencies was worth its weight in gold.  Gold is just very slightly different in this regard, and substantially the same. It is used to represent value, and has very low intrinsic value. It's just a naturally limited resource instead of an ""artificially"" limited one such as fiat currency. This would be immediately evident if by some freak act of nature there was an abundance of gold raining down on everyone tomorrow. Nobody would become rich (just some unfortunate people overloaded with gold assets would become poor). Gold teeth and jewelry would become cheaper, though I imagine the latter would go out of fashion quite quickly.  &gt; When I make the spending power less than the value the purpose of a fiat currency breaks down.  Not at all, there's in principle no relationship between ""value"" and denomination. You just need means of exchange that are cost-effective and practical. Single cents are becoming impractical and basically useless, and this would be just as true even if they cost .0001 cents each to produce." "This question drives at what value a shareholder actually provides to a corporation, and by extent, to the economy. If you subscribe for new shares (like in an Initial Public Offering), it is very straightforward to say ""I have provided capital to the corporation, which it is using to advance its business."" If you buy shares that already exist (like in a typical share purchase on a public exchange), your money doesn't go to the company. Instead, it goes to someone who paid someone who paid someone who paid someone (etc.) who originally contributed money to the corporation.  In theory, the value of a share price does not directly impact the operation of the company itself, apart from what @DanielCarson aptly noted (employee stock options are affected by share price, impacting morale, etc.). This is because in theory, the true value of a company (and thus, the value of a share) is the present value of all future cashflows (dividends + final liquidation). This means that in a technical sense, a company's share price should result from the company's value. The company's true value does not result from the share price. But what you are doing as a shareholder is impacting the liquidity available to other potential investors (also as mentioned by @DanielCarson, in reference to the desirability for future financing). The more people who invest their money in the stock market, the more liquid those stocks become. This is the true value you add to the economy by investing in stocks - you add liquidity to the market, decreasing the risk of capital investment generally. The fewer people there are who are willing to invest in a particular company, the harder it is for an investor to buy or sell shares at will. If it is difficult to sell shares in a company, the risk of holding shares in that company is higher, because you can't ""cash out"" as easily. This increased risk then does change the value of the shares - because even though the corporation's internal value is the same, the projected cashflows of the shares themselves now has a question mark around the ability to sell when desired. Whether this actually has an impact on anything depends on how many people join you in your declaration of ethical investing. Like many other forms of social activism, success relies on joint effort. This goes beyond the direct and indirect impacts mentioned above; if 'ethical investing' becomes more pronounced, it may begin to stigmatize the  target companies (fewer people wanting to work for 'blacklist' corporations, fewer people buying their products, etc.)." Thank you for replying. I'm not sure I totally follow though, aren't you totally at mercy of the liquidity in the stock? I guess I'm havinga hard time visualizing the value a human can add as opposed to say vwapping it or something. I can accept that you're right, just having a difficult time picturing it A company's stock value is indicative of the market's collective belief of the future of the company. The relationship of between price and book value will vary according to the quality of the company, the category of stock, etc. In extreme cases, say Bank of America, the stock trades at a fraction of book, because BOA's books are a fantasy by most people's reckoning. This fortune article is referenced in his either 2003 or 2004 annual report in which he does say that the market will not likely return much in the future and generally talks numbers. I am also a value investor, such that I can be in this environment and believe there is a bit of value in knowing where you think the market is headed but the real value is in underwriting each deal. In long, I agree with you "In this instance ""quotational"" is a reference to a market price quote, not a mathematical function.  Staunch ""value investors"" like Graham, Dodd, Munger, Buffett et al. believe there is a material difference between what security is ""worth"" and what the current market mood quotes as its price.   You, the investor, perform your analysis then derive a value for a security. If there has been no material change to an aspect of the security you analyzed then there hasn't been a change in that security's value, even if there has been a decline in the price quoted by the market, that is a ""quotational loss."""