If I buy a share from myself at a higher price, will that drive the price up so I can sell all my shares the higher price?
"This probably won't be a popular answer due to the many number of disadvantaged market participants out there but: Yes, it is possible to distort the markets for securities this way. But it is more useful to understand how this works for any market (since it is illegal in securities markets where company shares are involves).  Since you asked about the company Apple, you should be aware this is a form of market manipulation and is illegal... when dealing with securities. In any supply and demand market this is possible especially during periods when other market participants are not prevalent. Now the way to do this usually involves having multiple accounts you control, where you are acting as multiple market participants with different brokers etc. The most crafty ways to do with involve shell companies w/ brokerage accounts but this is usually to mask illegal behavior In the securities markets where there are consequences for manipulating the shares of securities. In other markets this is not necessary because there is no authority prohibiting this kind of trading behavior. Account B buys from Account A, account A buys from Account B, etc. The biggest issue is getting all of the accounts capitalized initially. The third issue is then actually being able to make a profit from doing this at all. Because eventually one of your accounts will have all of the shares or whatever, and there would still be no way to sell them because there are no other market participants to sell to, since you were the only one moving the price. Therefore this kind of market manipulation is coupled with ""promotions"" to attract liquidity to a financial product. (NOTE the mere fact of a promotion does not mean that illegal trading behavior is occurring, but it does usually mean that someone else is selling into the liquidity) Another way to make this kind of trading behavior profitable is via the derivatives market. Options contracts are priced solely by the trading price of the underlying asset, so even if your multiple account trading could only at best break even when you sell your final holdings (basically resetting the price to where it was because you started distorting it), this is fine because your real trade is in the options market. Lets say Apple was trading at $200 , the options contract at the $200 strike is a call trading at $1 with no intrinsic value. You can buy to open several thousand of the $200 strike without distorting the shares market at all,  then in the shares market you bid up Apple to $210, now your options contract is trading at $11 with $10 of intrinsic value, so you just made 1000% gain and are able to sell to close those call options. Then you unwind the rest of your trade and sell your $210 apple shares, probably for $200 or $198 or less (because there are few market participants that actually valued the shares for that high, the real bidders are at $200 and lower). This is hardly a discreet thing to do, so like I mentioned before, this is illegal in markets where actual company shares are involved and should not be attempted in stock markets but other markets won't have the same prohibitions, this is a general inefficiency in capital markets in general and certain derivatives pricing formulas. It is important to understand these things if you plan to participate in markets that claim to be fair. There is nothing novel about this sort of thing, and it is just a problem of allocating enough capital to do so." No, this isn't possible, especially not when you're trading a highly liquid stock like Apple. When you put in your buy order at $210, any other traders that have open limit sell orders with the correct parameters, e.g. price and volume, will have their order(s) filled. This will occur before you can put in your own sell order and purchase your own shares because the other orders are listed on the order book first. In the US, many tax-sheltered accounts like IRA's have specific rules against self-dealing, which includes buying and selling assets with yourself, so such a transaction would be prohibited by definition. Although I'm not entirely sure if this applies to stocks, the limitation described in the first paragraph still applies regardless. If this were possible, rest assured that high-frequency traders would take advantage of this tactic to manipulate share prices. (I've heard critics say that this does occur, but I haven't researched it myself or seen any data about it) Yes it is possible but with a caveat.  It is a pattern that can be observed in many lightly traded stocks that usually have a small market cap.  I am talking about a stock that trades less than 2,000 shares per day on average. The market maker will always compare the highest bid and the lowest ask. A trade will happen if the highest bid is at least as high as the lowest ask. Adding one share (or a million shares) at a higher asking price, here: $210 instead of $200, will not have any effect at all. Nobody will buy the share.  Adding a bid for one share (or a million shares) at a higher bid price will trigger a sale. If you bid $210 for one share, you will pay $210 for one of the shares that were offered at $200. If you have $210 million in cash and add a bid for 1,000,000 AAPL at $210, you will pay $210 for all shares with an ask of $200.00, then $200.01, then $200.02 until you either bought all shares with an ask up to $210, or until you bought a million shares.  With AAPL, you probably bid the price up to $201 with a million shares, so you made lots of people very happy while losing about 10 million dollars. So let's say this is a much smaller company.  You have driven the share price up to $210, but there is nobody else bidding above $200. So nobody is going to buy your shares. Until some people think there is something going on and enter higher bids, but then some people will take advantage of this and ask lower than your $210. And there will be more people trying to make cash by selling their shares at a good price than people tricked into bidding over $200, so it is most likely that you lose out.  (This completely ignores legality; attempting to do this would be market manipulation and in many countries illegal. I don't know if losing money in the process would protect you from criminal charges).
"Each candlestick in a candlestick chart represents the open, close, high and low for a period of time. If you are looking at a daily chart it represents the open price, close price, high price and low price for that day. If you are looking at an hourly chart, then a single candlestick represents the open, close, high and low prices for an hour. If looking at a weekly chart, then a single candlestick will represent the opening price on Monday morning, the closing price on Friday afternoon, and the highest and lowest price for that week. The diagram below represents the two main types of candle sticks.  When the price closes higher than they open for the period of the candlestick it is called a bullish candle and the main body is usually represented in green. When the price closes lower than they open for the period of the candlestick it is called a bearish candle and the main body is usually represented in red. In a bullish candle with a large real body and small shadows or wicks, where prices open near the low of the period and close near the top of the period, it represents a very bullish period (especially if volume is high). An example of this situation could be when good news is released to the market and most market participants want to buy the shares driving prices higher during the period. An example of a bullish candle with a small real body and a large upper shadow or wick could be when market participants start buying early during the period, then some negative news comes out or prices reach a major resistance level, then prices drop from their highs but still close higher than the open. The large upper shadow represents some indecision in prices moving higher. In a bearish candle with a large real body and small shadows or wicks, where prices open near the high of the period and close near the low of the period, it represents a very bearish period (especially if volume is high). An example of this situation could be when bad news is released to the market and most market participants want to sell the shares driving prices lower during the period. An example of a bearish candle with a small real body and a large lower shadow or wick could be when market participants start selling early during the period, then some positive news comes out or prices reach a major support level, then prices move up from their lows but still close lower than the open. The large lower shadow represents some indecision in prices moving lower. These are just some examples of what can be derived from looking at candlestick charts. There are plenty more and too much to include in this answer.  Another type of candle is the Doji, represented in the diagram below.  The Doji Candle represents indecision in the market. Prices open then move up to the high of the period then start falling past the open before reversing again and closing either at the open or very close to the open. The market participants can't decide whether the price should move up or down, so prices end up closing very close to where they opened. A doji Candle close to a market high or low could represent a turning point in the short term trend and could mean that over the next period or two prices could reverse and go in the opposite direction. There are many more definitions for candlestick charts, and I would recommend an introductory book on candlestick charting, like one from the ""Dummies"" series. The main things to keep in mind as a beginner it that a strong bullish candle with small shadows and large real body could represent further price movement upwards, a strong bearish candle with small shadows and large real body could represent further movement downwards, and any candle with large shadows could represent indecision and a reversal from the direction of the large shadow." Consider the mechanic which actually drives the 'price' of a stock. In simplest terms, the 'price' of a stock is the price at which the most recent trade occurred. ie: if the price of IBM is $100/share, that means the last time someone bought IBM stock, they paid $100. Above and below the 'spot price', are dozens/hundreds/thousands of buyers and sellers who have placed orders that no one is yet willing to match. ie: if IBM's spot price is at $100, there could still be 10,000 people willing to sell for $101 (called the 'ask' price, for the lowest price someone is currently willing to sell at), and 15,000 willing to buy for $99 (called the 'bid' price, for the highest price someone is currently willing to buy for).  Until someone is willing to buy for $101, then no one will be able to sell at $101. Until someone is willing to sell for $99, no one will be able to buy for $99. Typically orders are placed in the market at a particular limit. Meaning that those orders to buy at $99/sell at $101 are already in the 'system', and will be matched immediately as soon as someone is willing to meet the price on the other side. Now consider general market economics: high demand drives up price, and high supply drives down price. If the details above for IBM were yesterday, and today some news came out that IBM was laying off employees, imagine that another 10,000 people who held shares wanted to sell. Now there would be 20,000 sellers and only 15,000 buyers. If those new sellers were aggressive about wanting to sell, they would have to drop their price to $99, to match the highest buyers in the market. Put together, this means that as more sellers enter the market, supply of shares increases, driving down price. Conversely, as more buyers enter the market, demand for shares increases, driving up share price. As a result of the above, you can say that (all else being equal) if price for a stock goes up, there were more buyers that day, and if price goes down, there were more sellers that day. On the face of it, that is not necessarily true, because you could have the same number of buyers and sellers, one side could have simply decreased/increased their acceptable price to match the other side. If a company is valued correctly, then paying dividends should lower the share price, and buying back shares should leave the share price unchanged.  If the share price is $100, and the company pays a $10 dividend, then either its cash goes down by $10 per share, it is has to borrow money for the same amount, or some mixture. Either way, the value of the company has gone down by $10 per share.  If the share price is $100, and the company buys back 10 percent of its shares, then it also has to find the money, just as for the dividend, and the value of the company goes down by 10 percent. However, the number of shares also goes down by 10 percent, so the amount of value per share is the same, and the share price should stay unchanged.  Now there are psychological effects. Many people like getting paid dividends, so they will want to own shares of a company paying dividends, so the share price goes up. Similar with a share buyback; the fact that someone buys huge amounts of shares drives the price up. Both effects are purely psychological.  A buyback has another effect if the shares are not valued correctly. If the company is worth $100 per share but for some reason the shareprice is down to $50, then after the buyback the value per share has even gone up. Basically the company buys from stupid investors, which increases the value for clever investors holding on to their shares. If the shareprice were $200, then buying back shares would be a stupid move for the company. "Seems like you are concerned with something called assignment risk. It's an inherent risk of selling options: you are giving somebody the right, but not the obligation, to sell to you 100 shares of GOOGL. Option buyers pay a premium to have that right - the extrinsic value. When they exercise the option, the option immediately disappears. Together with it, all the extrinsic value disappears. So, the lower the extrinsic value, the higher the assignment risk. Usually, option contracts that are very close to expiration (let's say, around 2 to 3 weeks to expiration or less) have significantly lower extrinsic value than longer option contracts. Also, generally speaking, the deeper ITM an option contract is, the lower extrinsic value it will have. So, to reduce assignment risk, I usually close out my option positions 1-2 weeks before expiration, especially the contracts that are deep in the money. edit: to make sure this is clear, based on a comment I've just seen on your question. To ""close out an options position"", you just have to create the ""opposite"" trade. So, if you sell a Put, you close that by buying back that exact same put. Just like stock: if you buy stock, you have a position; you close that position by selling the exact same stock, in the exact same amount. That's a very common thing to do with options. A post in Tradeking's forums, very old post, but with an interesting piece of data from the OCC, states that 35% of the options expire worthless, and 48% are bought or sold before expiration to close the position - only 17% of the contracts are actually exercised! (http://community.tradeking.com/members/optionsguy/blogs/11260-what-percentage-of-options-get-exercised) A few other things to keep in mind: certain stocks have ""mini options contracts"", that would correspond to a lot of 10 shares of stock. These contracts are usually not very liquid, though, so you might not get great prices when opening/closing positions you said in a comment, ""I cannot use this strategy to buy stocks like GOOGL""; if the reason is because 100*GOOGL is too much to fit in your buying power, that's a pretty big risk - the assignment could result in a margin call! if margin call is not really your concern, but your concern is more like the risk of holding 100 shares of GOOGL, you can help manage that by buying some lower strike Puts (that have smaller absolute delta than your Put), or selling some calls against your short put. Both strategies, while very different, will effectively reduce your delta exposure. You'd get 100 deltas from the 100 shares of GOOGL, but you'd get some negative deltas by holding the lower strike Put, or by writing the higher strike Call. So as the stock moves around, your account value would move less than the exposure equivalent to 100 shares of stock." As said by others, buying shares of a company will not support it directly. But let's think about two example companies: Company A, which has 90 % stocks owned by supporters, and Company B, which has only 1 % of stocks owned by supporters. Both companies release bad news, for example profits have decreased. In Company B, most investors might want to sell their stock quickly and the price will plummet. In Company A, the supporters continue believing in the company and will not want to sell it. The price will drop less (usually, but it can drop even more if the sellers of Company A are very desperate to get rid of the stock). So, why is it important for the company to have a high stock price? In the short-term, it's not important. One example is that the company can release more stocks and receive more financing by doing that. Other reasons are listed here: http://www.investopedia.com/articles/basics/03/020703.asp "It's impossibly difficult to time the market. Generally speaking, you should buy low and sell high. Picking 25% as an arbitrary ceiling on your gains seems incorrect to me because sometimes you'll want to hold a stock for longer or sell it sooner, and those decisions should be based on your research (or if you need the money), not an arbitrary number. To answer your questions: If the reasons you still bought a stock in the first place are still valid, then you should hold and/or buy more. If something has changed and you can't find a reason to buy more, then consider selling. Keep in mind you'll pay capital gains taxes on anything you sell that is not in a tax-deferred (e.g. retirement) account. No, it does not make sense to do a wash sale where you sell and buy the same stock. Capital gains taxes are one reason. I'm not sure why you would ever want to do this -- what reasons were you considering? You can always sell just some of the shares. See above (and link) regarding wash sales. Buying more of a stock you already own is called ""dollar cost averaging"". It's an effective method when the reasons are right. DCA minimizes variance due to buying or selling a large amount of shares at an arbitrary single-day price and instead spreads the cost or sale basis out over time. All that said, there's nothing wrong with locking in a gain by selling all or some shares of a winner. Buy low, sell high!" If the shares rise in value 50% over the next few years, you will have the same return that I would see if I bought 100 or 1000 shares.  The only issue with a small purchase is that even a $5 commission is a high percent. But the rest of the math is the same. The tax is only payable on the gain you make  i.e the difference between the price you paid and the price you sold at. In your cse no tax is payable if you sell at the same price you bought at