What does a contract's worth mean?
The amount stated is the total amount of money the customer will be paying to the company. How much profit that will translate into is dependent on the type of contract.  Some types of contracts: Cost plus fixed fee: they are paid what it costs to complete the contract plus a fee on top of that. That fee represents their profits. The costs will include salary, benefits, overhead, equipment, supplies. Firm fixed price: They perform the service, and they get paid a fixed amount. If their costs are higher than they forecast, then they may lose money. If they can be more efficient than they forecast, then they make more money. Time and materials: They are paid for completing each sub-task based on the number of hours it takes to complete each sub task, plus materials. This is used to hire a company to maintain a fleet of trucks. If the trucks are used a lot they will need more standard maintenance, plus additional repairs based on the type of use. They pay X for labor and Y for materials for an oil change, but A for labor and B for materials for a complete engine rebuild.  There are many variations on these themes. Some put the risk on the customer, some on the company.  How and when the company is paid is based on the terms of the contract. Some pay X% a month, others pay based on meeting milestones. Some pay based on the number of tasks completed in each time period. Some contracts run for a specific period of time, others have an initial period plus option years. The article may or may not specify if the quoted amount is the minimum amount of the contract or the maximum amount. The impact on the stock price is much more complex. Much more needs to be known about the structure of the contract, and who will be providing the service to determine if there will be profits. Some companies will bid to lose money, if it will serve as a bridge to another contract or to fill a gap that will allow them to delay layoffs. "$400M is the gross ""check"" the company will receive as payment for the project. The contract will specify payment schedule. And it can range from a payment per milestone achieved to a pay in full on completion.  The profit will hopefully be positive, but it's not impossible for a bid to underestimate the full cost, resulting in no profit at all. In theory, if you knew the expected profit from the deal, you should be able to estimate the value it adds to the company's value." It means $400m expected revenue, likely spread out over multiple years as it gets implemented, and not entirely guaranteed to happen as they still need to fulfill the contract. The impact on the stock price is complex - it should be positive, but nowhere close to a $400m increase in market cap. If the company is expected to routinely win such contracts, it may have no significant effect on the stock price, as it's already priced in - say, if analysts expect the company to win 1.2b contracts in this fiscal year, and now they've done 1/3 of that, as expected.
"Depositum irregulare is a Latin phrase that simply means ""irregular deposit."" It's a concept from ancient Roman contract law that has a very narrow scope and doesn't actually apply to your example. There are two distinct parts to this concept, one dealing with the notion of a deposit and the other with the notion of irregularity. I'll address them both in turn since they're both relevant to the tax issue. I also think that this is an example of the XY problem, since your proposed solution (""give my money to a friend for safekeeping"") isn't the right solution to your actual problem (""how can I keep my money safe""). The currency issue is a complication, but it doesn't change the fact that what you're proposing probably isn't a good solution. The key word in my definition of depositum irregulare is ""contract"". You don't mention a legally binding contract between you and your friend; an oral contract doesn't qualify because in the event of a breach, it's difficult to enforce the agreement. Legally, there isn't any proof of an oral agreement, and emotionally, taking your friend to court might cost you your friendship. I'm not a lawyer, but I would guess that the absence of a contract implies that even though in the eyes of you and your friend, you're giving him the money for ""safekeeping,"" in the eyes of the law, you're simply giving it to him. In the US, you would owe gift taxes on these funds if they're higher than a certain amount. In other words, this isn't really a deposit. It's not like a security deposit, in which the money may be held as collateral in exchange for a service, e.g. not trashing your apartment, or a financial deposit, where the money is held in a regulated financial institution like a bank. This isn't a solution to the problem of keeping your money safe because the lack of a contract means you incur additional risk in the form of legal risk that isn't present in the context of actual deposits. Also, if you don't have an account in the right currency, but your friend does, how are you planning for him to store the money anyway? If you convert your money into his currency, you take on exchange rate risk (unless you hedge, which is another complication). If you don't convert it and simply leave it in his safe, house, car boot, etc. you're still taking on risk because the funds aren't insured in the event of loss.  Furthermore, the money isn't necessarily ""safe"" with your friend even if you ignore all the risks above. Without a written contract, you have little recourse if a) your friend decides to spend the money and not return it, b) your friend runs into financial trouble and creditors make claim to his assets, or c) you get into financial trouble and creditors make claims to your assets. The idea of giving money to another individual for safekeeping during bankruptcy has been tested in US courts and ruled invalid. If you do decide to go ahead with a contract and you do want your money back from your friend eventually, you're in essence loaning him money, and this is a different situation with its own complications. Look at this question and this question before loaning money to a friend. Although this does apply to your situation, it's mostly irrelevant because the ""irregular"" part of the concept of ""irregular deposit"" is a standard feature of currencies and other legal tender. It's part of the fungibility of modern currencies and doesn't have anything to do with taxes if you're only giving your friend physical currency. If you're giving him property, other assets, etc. for ""safekeeping"" it's a different issue entirely, but it's still probably going to be considered a gift or a loan. You're basically correct about what depositum irregulare means, but I think you're overestimating its reach in modern law. In Roman times, it simply refers to a contract in which two parties made an agreement for the depositor to deposit money or goods with the depositee and ""withdraw"" equivalent money or goods sometime in the future. Although this is a feature of the modern deposit banking system, it's one small part alongside contract law, deposit insurance, etc. These other parts add complexity, but they also add security and risk mitigation. Your arrangement with your friend is much simpler, but also much riskier.  And yes, there probably are taxes on what you're proposing because you're basically giving or loaning the money to your friend. Even if you say it's not a loan or a gift, the law may still see it that way. The absence of a contract makes this especially important, because you don't have anything speaking in your favor in the event of a legal dispute besides ""what you meant the money to be."" Furthermore, the money isn't necessarily safe with your friend, and the absence of a contract exacerbates this issue. If you want to keep your money safe, keep it in an account that's covered by deposit insurance. If you don't have an account in that currency, either a) talk to a lawyer who specializes in situation like this and work out a contract, or b) open an account with that currency. As I've stated, I'm not a lawyer, so none of the above should be interpreted as legal advice. That being said, I'll reiterate again that the concept of depositum irregulare is a concept from ancient Roman law. Trying to apply it within a modern legal system without a contract is a potential recipe for disaster. If you need a legal solution to this problem (not that you do; I think what you're looking for is a bank), talk to a lawyer who understands modern law, since ancient Roman law isn't applicable to and won't pass muster in a modern-day court." If upper and bollinger bands either converge (both bands are getting more and more close together) or diverge (both bands are getting more and more away from each other), does that mean the market is TRENDING? The answer is no. The divergence or convergence of BB-upper & lower band does not indicate if the market is trending or not. It only indicated if volatility is increasing or decreasing. Or is market trending only in case if both bands, upper and lower, are parallel and at the same time NOT horizontal? The answer is yes. To understand the reason consider that BB is constructed from a central Moving Average along with standard deviation. Upper Band=MA+2*SD, Lower Band=MA-2*SD. A moving average is a trend following indicator and volatility has nothing to do with trend (as SD only measures the price movement around the mean). Which essentially means BB has trend following qualities. The upper and lower bands remain more or less parallel in between band contraction and expansion. Refer below:   You shall see distinctly phases when BB bands are not parallel and are parallel and not horizontal. As mentioned above, when BB bands are expanding or contracting they do not give indication of the trend direction. When they are parallel, close or apart and not horizontal, they provide a good directional bias through the general slope. Though a more effective method to determine trend and its direction is the central MA of BB. Again, refer below:  Here you can see that some portion of the bands are parallel and more or less horizontal. The price action would tell you that the stock is now range-bound as opposed to trending. The primary use of the BB bands are to gauge volatility as @misantroop stated. The primary trend direction is usually derived from the central MA. "For person A to be protected (meaning able to recover some or all of the money should the other party try to welsh on the deal), the two of them must have entered into a valid, binding contract where both parties acknowledge and agree to the debt and the terms. Such a contract is subject to the Statute of Frauds, a collection of laws governing contracts which is mostly borrowed from English common law. The basics are that in all cases, a ""contract"" is only formed when both parties agree, technically when one party accepts an offer made by the other party. Both the offer and acceptance must be made sincerely. For a contract, once entered, to be enforceable, proof of the contract's existence and terms must itself exist. Certain types of transactions (real estate, large amounts of money) require contracts to be in written form, and witnessed by a trusted third party (in most cases this party is required to be a notary public). And contracts must have a certain amount of quid-pro-quo; contracts that provide a unilateral benefit can be thrown out on a case-by-case basis. A contract that simply states that Person B owes Person A money, without stating what benefit Person A had provided Person B in return for the money (in this case A gives B the money to begin with), is unenforceable. The benefits must of course be legal on both sides; a contract to deliver 5 tons of cocaine will not be upheld by any court in any free country, and neither will any contract attempting to enforce hush money, kickbacks, bribery etc (though some toe the line; one could argue that a signing bonus is tantamount to bribery). In some cases even seemingly benign clauses, like ""escape clauses"" allowing one party a ""free out"", can make the contract unenforceable as they could be abused to the severe detriment of one party. There are also jurisdiction-specific rules, such as limits on ""finance charges"" for debts not owed to a ""bank"" (a bar, for instance, cannot charge 10% on an outstanding tab in the United States). This is HUGE for your example, because if Person A had specified an interest rate in excess of the allowed rate for non-bank lenders, not only will the contract get thrown out even though Person B agreed to the terms, but Person A could find themselves on the hook for punitive damages payable to Person B, FAR in excess of the contracted amount. Given that the agreement meets all tests of validity for a contract, if either party fails to perform in accordance with the contract, causing a loss or ""tort"" for the other party, the injured party can sue. Generally the two options are ""strict performance"" (the injuring party is ordered by the court to comply exactly with the terms of the contract), or payment of net actual damages and dissolution of the contract. In your example, if Person A had lent Person B money, strict performance would mean payment of the debt in the installments agreed, at the rate agreed; actual damages would be payment of the outstanding balance plus current interest charges (without any further penalty). Notice that it's ""net"" damages; if Person A was to issue the loan in installments, and missed one, causing Person B to suffer damages from the loss of expected cash flow directly resulting in their failure to pay according to the terms, then Person B's proven damages are subtracted from A's; very often, the plaintiff in a suit to recover money can end up owing the defendant for a prior failure to perform. There are further laws governing bankruptcy; basically, if the other person cannot satisfy the contract and cannot pay damages, they will pay what they can, and the contract is terminated with prejudice (""no blood from a turnip"")." "Horseshit, for one it isn't the CEO that has to be a minority in these preference contracts it's the shareholders so we know you're full of shit.  Second, no company is *banned* under any of these schemes because of the race of even shareholders. Even the suggestion is fucking ridiculous because that would clearly violate the 14th amendment.   The federal gov and state governments have TONS of vendors for which a small percentage they've decided they want to make a conscious effort of hiring minority and women owned contractors. THIS DOES NOT MEAN THEY WILL NOT ACCEPT WHITE CONTRACTORS. It means that after bids are submitted they might still consider a minority or women owned bid that doesn't come in at the lowest price. In any case it's usually a small sliver of total contracts. If you're wondering why they do this for minorities and women, they do it for a bunch of different categories including veterans and small businesses. It's a feel good story.  Your company did not lose a contract because your CEO is white, that is just a fucking lie. Your company might have lost a bid to a woman or minority owned contractor. To which, I say ""tough."" You might have lost the contract anyway to another bidder. Maybe your work wasn't as good as you say. We have no way to know without knowing your bid and their bid and if they are in fact minority owned.  So as of now you're just some guy bitching about losing his job on the internet. Go somewhere with that bullshit." If you read the article you'd actually see that it provides a ton of value. You think I would write 2,000+ words for no reason? I spend a lot of time on articles like this and to be honest find it annoying how the reddit community always jumps to conclusions. Do your homework and actually read. Not just speaking to you but often the community in general makes this mistake. If you want to see who I am, see here: https://www.linkedin.com/in/nathanresnick/ Book value = sell all assets and liquidate company . Then it's the value of company on book. Price = the value at which it's share gets bought or sold between investors.  If price to book value is less than one, it shows that an 100$ book value company is being traded at 99$ or below. At cheaper than actually theoretical price. Now say a company has a production plant . Situated at the most costliest real estate . Yet the company's valuation is based upon what it produces, how much orders it has etc while real estate value upon which plant is built stays in book while real investors don't take that into account (to an extend). A construction company might own a huge real estate inventory. However it might not be having enough cash flow to sustain monthly expense. In this scenario , for survival,i the company might have to sell its real estate at discount. And market investors are fox who  could smell trouble and bring price way below the book value  Hope it helps That's different in that nobody pays him 46 million dollars in wages or salary. He is self employed and negotiates individual fees for his performances. This guy is almost certainly worth 46 million a year because he negotiates many fees amongst many paying clients. It's possible that a person receiving 1 salary from one employer is being overpaid but if you are dealing with dozens of employers it's unlikely that they are *all* overpaying market rates. "We measure the value of gold by comparing it to other things. Sorry, but there is no better answer than that. There is no gold standard (pun intended) by which objects can be measured in value because ""value"" is a subjective term. It would be comparable to asking how funny is an object. Different objects are funny to different people. Even if we gathered all the really ""funny"" object together, there is no guaranty those objects would be funny next year - unless we all agreed they were as part of a social contract. Which is basically what we do with currency. While gold does not need a social contract in order for it to retain its value, this is only because it is has been (1) very useful and (2) rare. If either of these two factors change, the value of gold will change - which it has on several occasions. WARRING: Rant about ""Intrinsic Value"" of gold below. Gold has no ""intrinsic"" value. None whatsoever.  ""Intrinsic value"" makes just as much sense as a ""cat dog"" animal. ""Dog"" and ""cat"" are referring to two mutually exclusive animals, therefore a ""cat dog"" is a nonsensical term. Intrinsic Value: ""The actual value of a company or an asset based on an underlying perception of its true value ..."" Intrinsic value is perceived, which means it is worth whatever you, or a group of people, think it is. Intrinsic value has nothing, I repeat, absolutely nothing, to do with reality.  The most obvious example of this is the purchase of a copy-right. You are assigning an intrinsic value to a copy-right by purchasing it. However, when you purchase a copy-right you are not buying ink on a page, you are purchasing an idea. Someone's imaginings that, for all intensive purposes, doesn't even exist in reality! By definition, things that do not exist do not have ""intrinsic"" properties - because things that don't exist, don't have any natural properties at all. ""Intrinsic"" according to Websters Dictionary:  ""Belonging to the essential nature or constitution of a thing ... (the intrinsic brightness of a star)."" An intrinsic property of an object is something we know that exists because it is a natural property of that object. Suns emit light, we know this because we can measure the light coming from it. It is not subjective. ""Intrinsic Value"" by definition is the OPPOSITE of ""Intrinsic"""