What price can *I* buy IPO shares for?
"If you participate in an IPO, you specify how many shares you're willing to buy and the maximum price you're willing to pay. All the investors who are actually sold the shares get them at the same price, and the entity managing the IPO will generally try to sell the shares for the highest price they can get. Whether or not you actually get the shares is a function of how many your broker gets and how your broker distributes them - which can be completely arbitrary if your broker feels like it. The price that the market is willing to pay afterward is usually a little higher. To a certain extent, this is by design: a good deal for the shares is an incentive for the big (million/billion-dollar) financiers who will take on a good bit of risk buying very large positions in the company (which they can't flip at the higher price, because they'd flood the market with their shares and send the price down).  If the stock soars 100% and sticks around that level, though, the underwriting bank isn't doing its job very well: Investors were willing to give the company a lot more money. It's not ""stealing"", but it's definitely giving the original owners of the company a raw deal. (Just to be clear: it's the existing company's owners who suffer, not any third party.) Of course, LinkedIn was estimated to IPO at $30 before they hiked it to $45, and plenty of people were skeptical about it pricing so high even then, so it's not like they didn't try. And there's a variety of analysis out there about why it soared so much on the first day - fewer shares offered, wild speculative bubbles, no one could get a hold of it to short-sell, et cetera. They probably could have IPO'd for more, but it's unlikely there was, say, $120/share financing available: just because one sucker will pay the price doesn't mean you can move all 7.84 million IPO shares for it." Some brokers have a number of shares they can offer their customers, but the small guy will get 100, not as many as they'd like. In the Tech bubble of the late 90's I was able to buy in to many IPOs, but the written deal from the broker is that you could not sell for 30 days or you'd be restricted from IPO purchases for the next 90. No matter what the stock opened at, there were a fair number of stocks thay were below IPO issue price after 30 days had passed. I haven't started looking at IPOs since the tech flameout, but had I gotten in to LinkedIn it would have been at that $45 price. Let's see if it stays at these levels after 30 days.  Edit - This is the exact cut/paste from my broker's site :  Selling IPO Shares: While XXX customers are always free to sell shares purchased in a public offering at any time, short holding periods of less than 31 calendar days will be a factor in determining whether XXX allocates you shares in future public offerings. Accordingly, if you sell IPO shares purchased in a public offering within 30 calendar days of such purchase, you will be restricted from participating in initial and secondary public offerings through XXX for a period of 3 months.  (I deleted the broker name) I honestly don't know if I'd have gotten any LI shares. Next interesting one is Pandora. It depends a large part on your broker's relationship with the issuing bank how early you can participate in the IPO round. But the nature of the stock market means the hotter the stock and the closer to the market (away from the issuing bank) you have to buy the higher the price you'll pay. The stock market is a secondary market, meaning the only things for sale are shares already owned by someone. As a result, for a hot stock the individual investor will have to wait for another investor (not the issuing bank) to trade (sell) the stock.
"So, the term ""ready market"" simply means that a market exists in which there are legitimate buy/sell offers, meaning there are investors willing to own or trade in the security. A ""spot market"" means that the security/commodity is being delivered immediately, rather at some predetermined date in the future (hence the term ""futures market"").  So if you buy oil on the spot market, you'd better be prepared to take immediate delivery, where as when you buy a futures contract, the transaction doesn't happen until some later date.  The advantage for futures contract sellers is the ability to lock in the price of what they're selling as a hedge against the possibility of a price drop between now and when they can/will deliver the commodity.  In other words, a farmer can pre-sell his grain at a set price for some future delivery date so he can know what he's going to get regardless of the price of grain at the time he delivers it.  The downside to the farmer is that if grain prices rise higher than what he sold them for as futures contracts then he loses that additional money.  That's the advantage to the buyer, who expects the price to rise so he can resell what he bought from the farmer at a profit. When you trade on margin, you're basically borrowing the money to make a trade, whether you're trading long (buying) or short (selling) on a security.  It isn't uncommon for traders to pledge securities they already own as collateral for a margin account, and if they are unable to cover a margin call then those securities can be liquidated or confiscated to satisfy the debt.  There still may even be a balance due after such a liquidation if the pledged securities don't cover the margin call. Most of the time you pay a fee (or interest rate) on whatever you borrow on margin, just like taking out a bank loan, so if you're going to trade on margin, you have to include those costs in your calculations as to what you need to earn from your investment to make a profit. When I short trade, I'm selling something I don't own in the expectation I can buy it back later at a lower price and keep the difference.  For instance, if I think Apple shares are going to take a steep drop at some point soon, I can short them.  So imagine I short-sell 1000 shares of AAPL at the current price of $112.  That means my brokerage account is credited with the proceeds of the sale ($112,000), and I now owe my broker 1000 shares of AAPL stock.  If the stock drops to $100 and I ""cover my short"" (buy the shares back to repay the 1000 I borrowed) then I pay $100,000 for them and give them to my broker.  I keep the difference ($12,000) between what I sold them for and what I paid to buy them back, minus any brokerage fees and fees the broker may charge me for short-selling. In conclusion, a margin trade is using someone else's money to make a trade, whether it's to buy more or to sell short.  A short trade is selling shares I don't even own because I think I can make money in the process. I hope this helps." To clarify something: FB did not inflate their share price, Morgan Stanley did.  Every company on the IPO wants a billion dollars a share, but thats not possible so they take what the market will give them, FB played their cards right. MS didn't disclose that their analysts (not auditors) changed their minds.  For fun stuff: read up on ETF arbitrage with HFT, this kinda stuff happens everyday on a micro scale. "Investopedia's explanation of overbought: An asset that has experienced sharp upward movements over a very short period of time is often deemed to be overbought. Determining the   degree in which an asset is overbought is very subjective and can   differ between investors. Technicians use indicators such as the relative strength index, the stochastic oscillator or the money flow index to identify securities   that are becoming overbought. An overbought security is the opposite of one that is oversold. Something to consider is the ""potential buyers"" and ""potential sellers"" of a stock. In the case of overbought, there are many more buyers that have appeared and driven the price to a point that may be seen as ""unsustainably high"" and thus may well come down soon if one looks at the first explanation. For oversold, consider the flip side of this. A real life scenario here would be to consider airline tickets where a flight may be ""overbooked"" that could also be seen as ""oversold"" in that more tickets were sold than seats that are available and thus people will be bumped as not all tickets can be honored in this case. For a stock scenario of ""oversold"" consider how IPOs work where several buyers have to exist to buy the shares so the investment bank isn't stuck holding them which sends up the price since the amount wanted by the buyers may be more than what can be sold. The price shifts in bringing out more of one side than the other is the point you are missing. In shifting the price up, this attracts more sellers to satisfy the buyers. However, if there is a surge of buyers that flood the market, then there could be a perception that the security is overbought in the sense that there may be few buyers left for the security and thus the price may fall in the near term. If the price is coming down, this attracts more buyers to achieve the other side. The potential part is what you don't see and I wonder if you can imagine this part of the market. The airline example I give as an example as you don't seem to think either side of buying or selling can be overloaded. In the case of an oversold flight, there were more seats sold than available so yes it is possible. Stocks exist in finite quantities as there are only X shares of a company trading at any one time if you look into the concept of a float." "There are two distinct questions that may be of interest to you. Both questions are relevant for funds that need to buy or sell large orders that you are talking about. The answer depends on your order type and the current market state such as the level 2 order book. Suppose there are no iceberg or hidden orders and the order book (image courtesy of this question) currently is:  An unlimited (""at market"") buy order for 12,000 shares gets filled immediately: it gets 1,100 shares at 180.03 (1,100@180.03), 9,700 at 180.04 and 1,200 at 180.05. After this order, the lowest ask price becomes 180.05 and the highest bid is obviously still 180.02 (because the previous order was a 'market order'). A limited buy order for 12,000 shares with a price limit of 180.04 gets the first two fills just like the market order: 1,100 shares at 180.03 and 9,700 at 180.04. However, the remainder of the order will establish a new bid price level for 1,200 shares at 180.04. It is possible to enter an unlimited buy order that exhausts the book. However, such a trade would often be considered a mis-trade and either (i) be cancelled by the broker, (ii) be cancelled or undone by the exchange, or (iii) hit the maximum price move a stock is allowed per day (""limit up""). Funds and banks often have to buy or sell large quantities, just like you have described. However they usually do not punch through order book levels as I described before. Instead they would spread out the order over time and buy a smaller quantity several times throughout the day. Simple algorithms attempt to get a price close to the time-weighted average price (TWAP) or volume-weighted average price (VWAP) and would buy a smaller amount every N minutes. Despite splitting the order into smaller pieces the price usually moves against the trader for many reasons. There are many models to estimate the market impact of an order before executing it and many brokers have their own model, for example Deutsche Bank. There is considerable research on ""market impact"" if you are interested. I understand the general principal that when significant buy orders   comes in relative to the sell orders price goes up and when a   significant sell order comes in relative to buy orders it goes down. I consider this statement wrong or at least misleading. First, stocks can jump in price without or with very little volume. Consider a company that releases a negative earnings surprise over night. On the next day the stock may open 20% lower without any orders having matched for any price in between. The price moved because the perception of the stocks value changed, not because of buy or sell pressure. Second, buy and sell pressure have an effect on the price because of the underlying reason, and not necessarily/only because of the mechanics of the market. Assume you were prepared to sell HyperNanoTech stock, but suddenly there's a lot of buzz and your colleagues are talking about buying it. Would you still sell it for the same price? I wouldn't. I would try to find out how much they are prepared to buy it for. In other words, buy pressure can be the consequence of successful marketing of the stock and the marketing buzz is what changes the price." Sure.. its possible, its exactly what activist investors do (with institutional money - e.g. pension funds, family foundations).  Crowdsourcing probably implies an average &lt;$100 donation per contributor in your mind however, so you'd need a lot of contributors (as opposed to an institution writing a $1B check out of the box)  As a benchmark, you can start agitating even without owning shares, but it probably lends credibility to have a few percentage points.  As of today, GS's market cap is $46B, JPM's market cap is $122B, BAML's market cap is $77B... so you'd need at least $1B of capital to buy a percentage point or two.  At $100 per ticket. that's 10M individual donors. Any retail equity brokerage will give you access to the NYSE, and thus Facebook shares as they become available.  However, it is important to note that you nor any retail investor will be able to purchase FB at the IPO prices ($33-38 IIRC).  The only people who will be able to buy in at that price are the underwriting investment banks and major investors who have subscribed to the IPO.  You, and all the other retail investors will only be able to buy in as those major investors offer shares on the secondary market.   This being Facebook, there will probably be a significant premium over the IPO price, both due to demand and systemic underpricing of IPOs to encourage the opening 'pop'.   So, if you're intent on buying in at the IPO, pay close attention as the date approaches.  Look at how the recent big IPOs have performed (GRPN, LNKD come to mind).  Know how much you're willing to commit and what price you want.  However, no one is going to know what the opening market price will be come Friday morning.  Be watching your financial data source / analysis of choice and be prepared to make a judgement. "The offering price is what the company will raise by selling the shares at that price.  However, this isn't usually what the general public sees as often there will be shows to drive up demand so that there will be buyers for the stock.  That demand is what you see on the first day when the general public can start buying the stock.  If one is an employee, relative or friend of someone that is offered, ""Friends and Family"" shares they may be able to buy at the offering price. Pricing of IPO from Wikipedia states around the idea of pricing: A company planning an IPO typically appoints a lead manager, known as   a bookrunner, to help it arrive at an appropriate price at which the   shares should be issued. There are two primary ways in which the price   of an IPO can be determined. Either the company, with the help of its   lead managers, fixes a price (""fixed price method""), or the price can   be determined through analysis of confidential investor demand data   compiled by the bookrunner (""book building""). Historically, some IPOs both globally and in the United States have   been underpriced. The effect of ""initial underpricing"" an IPO is to   generate additional interest in the stock when it first becomes   publicly traded. Flipping, or quickly selling shares for a profit, can   lead to significant gains for investors who have been allocated shares   of the IPO at the offering price. However, underpricing an IPO results   in lost potential capital for the issuer. One extreme example is   theglobe.com IPO which helped fuel the IPO ""mania"" of the late 90's   internet era. Underwritten by Bear Stearns on November 13, 1998, the   IPO was priced at $9 per share. The share price quickly increased   1000% after the opening of trading, to a high of $97. Selling pressure   from institutional flipping eventually drove the stock back down, and   it closed the day at $63. Although the company did raise about $30   million from the offering it is estimated that with the level of   demand for the offering and the volume of trading that took place the   company might have left upwards of $200 million on the table. The danger of overpricing is also an important consideration. If a   stock is offered to the public at a higher price than the market will   pay, the underwriters may have trouble meeting their commitments to   sell shares. Even if they sell all of the issued shares, the stock may   fall in value on the first day of trading. If so, the stock may lose   its marketability and hence even more of its value. This could result   in losses for investors, many of whom being the most favored clients   of the underwriters. Perhaps the best known example of this is the   Facebook IPO in 2012. Underwriters, therefore, take many factors into consideration when   pricing an IPO, and attempt to reach an offering price that is low   enough to stimulate interest in the stock, but high enough to raise an   adequate amount of capital for the company. The process of determining   an optimal price usually involves the underwriters (""syndicate"")   arranging share purchase commitments from leading institutional   investors. Some researchers (e.g. Geoffrey C., and C. Swift, 2009) believe that   the underpricing of IPOs is less a deliberate act on the part of   issuers and/or underwriters, than the result of an over-reaction on   the part of investors (Friesen & Swift, 2009). One potential method   for determining underpricing is through the use of IPO Underpricing   Algorithms. This may be useful for seeing the difference in that ""theglobe.com"" example where the offering price is $9/share yet the stock traded much higher than that initially." "The answer to your question has to do with the an explanation of ""shares authorized, issued and outstanding."" Companies, in their Articles of Incorporation, specify a maximum number of shares they are authorized to issue. For example purposes let's assume Facebook is authorized to issue 100 shares. Let's pretend they have actually issued 75 shares, but only 50 are outstanding (aka Float, i.e. freely trading stock in the market) and stock options total 25 shares. So if someone owns 1 share, what percentage of Facebook do they own? You might think 1/100, or 1%; you might think 1/75, or 1.3%; or you might think 1/50, or 2%.  2% is the answer, but only on a NON-diluted basis. So today someone who owns 1 share owns 2% of Facebook. Tomorrow Facebook announces they just issued 15 shares to Whatsapp to buy the company.  Now there are 65 shares outstanding and 90 issued. Now someone who owns 1 share of Facebook own only 1/65, or 1.5% (down from 2%)! P.S. ""Valuation"" can be thought of as the price of the stock at the time of the purchase announcement."