What is the difference between trading and non-trading stock?
Every company has Stocks.   For the stocks to be traded via some stock exchange, the companies must follow the eligibility criteria and guidelines. Once done, these are then listed on the stock exchange and can be traded. The advantage [amongst others] of listing is liquidity and stocks can easily be bought and sold.  Some small companies or closely held companies may not want to list on stock exchange and hence are not traded. This does not mean they can't be bought and sold, they can be outside of the market, however the deals are complex and every deal has to be worked out. During the course of time a stock that is traded on a stock exchange, would either fail to meet the criteria or voluntarily choose not to be traded and follow the delisting process [either by stock exchange or by company]. After this the stocks are no longer traded on the exchange. "A non-trading stock or non-marketable security or unlisted security is one that does not trade continually on an exchange. For tax purposes, this can mean a whole new ball of wax which I would prefer the experts address with an edit to this answer or a new answer. For financial accounting purposes, this is when, say, one owns shares in an unlisted corporation and should be treated very carefully less one delude oneself. For trading stock, the value can be known immediately by checking any valid data provider's price and marking to market.  For non-trading stock, the value has to be ""marked to model"".  This can get one into Enron sized trouble. In this case, it's best to either leave the value of the stock at the purchase price and recognize gains upon sale, use a price from another honest transaction by third parties which are most likely difficult to attain, or to use some shorthand measure like applying the market P/E. Be wary of strangely high figures for value from the purchase price by using a market average, and don't throw away the shares just yet if a strangely low one arises.  This method can lead to strange results."
"And what exactly do I profit from the short? I understand it is the difference in the value of the stock. So if my initial investment was $4000 (200 * $20) and I bought it at $3800 (200 * $19) I profit from the difference, which is $200. Do I also receive back the extra $2000 I gave the bank to perform the trade? Either this is extremely poorly worded or you misunderstand the mechanics of a short position.  When you open a short position, your are expecting that the stock will decline from here.  In a short position you are borrowing shares you don't own and selling them.  If the price goes down you get to buy the same shares back for less money and return them to the person you borrowed from.  Your profit is the delta between the original sell price and the new lower buy price (less commissions and fees/interest).  Opening and closing a short position is two trades, a sell then a buy.  Just like a long trade there is no maximum holding period. If you place your order to sell (short) 200 shares at $19, your initial investment is $3,800.   In order to open your $3,800 short position your broker may require your account to have at least $5,700 (according to the 1.5 ratio in your question).  It's not advisable to open a short position this close to the ratio requirement.  Most brokers require a buffer in your account in case the stock goes up, because in a short trade if the stock goes up you're losing money.  If the stock goes up such that you've exhausted your buffer you'll receive what's known as a ""margin call"" where your broker either requires you to wire in more money or sell part or all of your position at a loss to avoid further losses.  And remember, you may be charged interest on the value of the shares you're borrowing. When you hold a position long your maximum loss is the money you put in; a position can only fall to zero (though you may owe interest or other fees if you're trading on margin).  When you hold a position short your maximum loss is unlimited; there's no limit to how high the value of something can go.  There are less risky ways to make short trades by using put options, but you should ensure that you have a firm grasp on what's happening before you use real money. The timing of the trades and execution of the trades is no different than when you take a plain vanilla long position.  You place your order, either market or limit or whatever, and it executes when your trade criteria occurs." Well I'm not going to advise whether it's a good idea to invest in this company (though often OTC is pretty scary), but it DOES have a product (vivio, an ad blocker), it did post financials and it's trading on the OTC-QB (which is better than the pink sheets), so you need to look these over and study up on the product to decide if it is overpriced or not.  What might have occurred (viz the Patriot Berry Farm becoming Cyberfort) is that the latter bought up the stock of the former (this is, I believe, called using a shell, which is not necessarily a bad thing) and is using this as a way to be registered, i.e. sell to non-accredited investors via the OTC market.  So I'm really just answering your third question:  yes, you have to do a lot of due diligence to see if buying this stock is a good deal or not.  It might be the next big thing.  Or it might not. It certainly is the case that low trading volume allows a relatively small trade to really change the stock price, so the penny stocks do tend to be easier to 'inflate'. Side comment:  the bid/ask spreads are pretty big, with a best bid of 0.35 and best ask of 0.44. There are several reasons why this may happen and I will update as I get more information from you. Volumes on that stock look low (supposing that they are either in a factor between 1s and 1000s) so it could well be that there was no volume on that day. If no trades occur then open, high and low are meaningless as they are statistics based on trades that occur that day and no trades occur. Remember that there has to be volume to get a price. The stock may have been frozen by either the exchange or the company for the day. This could be for various reasons including to prevent some illegal activity. In that case no trades were made because the market for that stock was closed. Another possibility is that all trades that day were cancelled by the exchange. The exchange may cancel all trades if there is unusual, potentially fraudulent or other illegal activity on the stock. In this case the last price for that day existed but was rolled back by the exchange and never occurred. This is a rare situation. Although I can't find any holidays on that date it is possible that this is how your data provider marks market holidays. It would be valid to ignore the data in that case as being from a non-market day. I cannot tell if this is possible without knowing exchange information. There is a possibility that some data providers don't receive data for a day or that it gets corrupted. It may be worth checking another source to ensure the integrity of the data that you are receiving. Whichever reason is true, the data provider has made the close equal to the previous day's close as no price movements occurred. Strictly the closing price is the price of the last trade made for that day and so should be null (and open, high and low should be null too and not 0 otherwise the price change on day is very large!). Therefore, to keep integrity, you have a few choices: A stock is only worth what someone is willing to pay for it. If it trades different values on different days, that means someone was willing to pay a higher price OR someone was willing to sell at a lower price.  There is no rule to prevent a stock from trading at $10 and then $100 the very next trade... or $1 the very next trade. (Though exchanges or regulators may halt trading, cancel trades, or impose limits on large price movements as they deem necessary, but this is beside the point I'm trying to illustrate). Asking what happens from the close of one day to the open of the next is like asking what happens from one trade to the next trade... someone simply decided to sell or pay a different price.  Nothing needs to have happened in between. "Check your math... ""two stocks, both with a P/E of 2 trading at $40 per share lets say, and one has an EPS of 5 whereas the other has an EPS of 10 is the latter a better purchase?"" If a stock has P/E of 2 and  price of $40 it has an EPS of $20. Not $10. Not $5." "With stocks, you can buy or sell. If you sell first, that's called 'shorting.' As in ""I think linkedin is too high, I'm going to short it."" With options, the terminology is different, the normal process is to buy to open/sell to close, but if you were shorting the option itself, you would first sell to open, i.e you are selling a position to start it, effectively selling it short. Eventually, you may close it out, by buying to close.  Options trading is not for the amateur. If you plan to trade, study first and be very cautious." Can't totally agree with that. Volatility trading is just one trading type of many. In my opinion it doesn't depend on whether you are a professional trader or not.  As you might have heard, retail traders are said to create 'noise' on the market, mainly due to the fact that they aren't professional in their majority. So, I would assume, if an average retail trader decided to trade volatility he would create as much noise as if would have been betting on stock directions. Basically, most types of trading would require a considerable amount of effort spent on fundamental analysis of the underlying be it volatility or directional trading. Arbitrage trading would be an exception here, I guess. However, volatility trading relies more on trader's subjective expectations about future deviations, whereas trading stock directions requires deeper research of the underlying. Is it a drawback or an advantage? I.d.k. On the other hand-side volatility trading strategies cover both upward and downward movements, but you can set similar hedging strategies when going short or long on stocks, isn't it? To summarise, I think it is a matter of preference. Imagine yourself going long on S&P500 since 2009. Do you think there are many volatility traders who have outperformed that? "I'd argue the two words ought to (in that I see this as a helpful distinction) describe different activities:   ""Investing"":  spending one's money in order to own something of value.  This could be equipment (widgets, as you wrote), shares in a company, antiques, land, etc.  It is fundamentally an act of buying. ""Speculating"":  a mental process in which one attempts to ascertain the future value of some good.  Speculation is fundamentally an act of attempted predicting.   Under this set of definitions, one can invest without speculating (CDs...no need for prediction) and speculate without investing (virtual investing).  In reality, though, the two often go together.  The sorts of investments you describe are speculative, that is, they are done with some prediction in mind of future value.   The degree of ""speculativeness"", then, has to be related to the nature of the attempted predictions.  I've often seen that people say that the ""most speculative"" investments (in my use above, those in which the attempted prediction is most chaotic) have these sorts of properties: And there are probably other ideas that can be included. Corrections/clarifications welcome! P.S. It occurs to me that, actually, maybe High Frequency Trading isn't speculative at all, in that those with the fastest computers and closest to Wall Street can actually guarantee many small returns per hour due to the nature of how it works.  I don't know enough about the mechanics of it to be sure, though."