Why are there so many stock exchanges in the world?
"Nearly every country has its own exchange because so many countries have their own currency, and currency permeates every part of an exchange's business.   Generally, an exchange will support transaction and settlement only in local currency.  Securities (except those that explicitly enable FX trading) are denominated and will trade in a single currency-- you can only buy a share of IBM in U.S. dollars.  Securities trading always seeks to be a clean, frictionless, scalable process, and adding cross-currency translation to the mix would just complicate things.  So it's one exchange, one currency. In most countries, citizens and even businesses are largely restricted to having bank accounts in local currency.  There are various political reasons for this, but there it is:  it is difficult or impossible to open a domestic bank account in a foreign-denominated currency.  A public company headquartered in a given country will be required to publish financial statements in local currency, will be more likely to do business with the local citizenry and businesses in that currency, and so will likely look for investors from that same pool-- which generally means listing in local currency, which means on an exchange in that country. There are exceptions, of course.  Big multinationals do business all over the world, and many seek investors all over the world as well.  Mechanisms have been created to permit this (American Depositary Receipts or ADRs, for example).  But once again, cross-currency translation makes things more complicated, so ADRs and their like are only practical for very big international players. As to why there may be many exchanges in a single country, IMO Nick R has it right.  Read ""Flash Boys""; many market makers profit from trading between exchanges, and so have an interest in there being many of them.  And in the U.S., regulators have expressed an interest in ""innovation"" in the exchange space, and so permit them.  There is also an argument to be made against having a single ""Too Big To Fail"" exchange just like the argument for banks, but I wouldn't call that a ""reason"" for the current state of affairs." Stock exchanges have been undergoing a period of consolidation for the past hundred years for the exact reasons you mentioned. The existence of digital trading, harmonized laws and regulations, and fewer relevant currencies have made it more practical for mergers and acquisitions between exchanges. Stock exchanges are most often times private companies that compete with other exchanges, so that also promotes the existence of many exchanges. "Why are there so many stock exchanges in the world?  The simple answer is that there is a lot of money to be made by charging fees to facilitate the trading of securities, but there are other factors at play here relating to new technologies. Trading volumes have increased rapidly in recent years.  According to this ITG data, in 1997, 6.5 billion shares were traded on US exchanges.  By 2015 this number had increased to 40.8 billion shares.  There are a number of reasons for this rapid increase in volumes.  Most significant would be the introduction of new technologies that allow for high volume, high frequency trading. This increase in activity has be accompanied by an increase in the number of stock exchanges.  As CQM points out in his answer, there has been considerable consolidation in the ownership of ""legacy"" exchanges.  For example, the NYSE merged with EuroNext in 2007, and the combined group is now owned by the Intercontinental Exchange, which also owns numerous smaller stock exchanges as well as a number of derivative/commodities exchanges. However, this consolidation in ownership has been more than matched by the creation of many ""virtual"" exchanges.   In North America these virtual exchanges are called ""Alternative Trading Systems"".  In Europe, they are called ""Multilateral Trading Facilities"".   These new virtual exchanges, sometimes referred to as ""dark pools"", have begun to significantly eat away at the volumes of the legacy exchanges.  If you look at the ITG data (linked above), you will see that the total volume of shares traded on legacy exchanges actually peaked in 2008, and has since then has decreased.  This coincides roughly with the appearance of the virtual exchanges and the new high frequency trading methods.  According to this paper from the SEC site, dated 2013, Alternative Trading Systems accounted for 11.3% of total volumes in 2012.  This will have increased rapidly in the years since 2012.  It is this loss of business that has prompted the consolidation in the ownership of the legacy exchanges. These new exchange are ""conceptually the same"" as the legacy exchanges and must play by the same regulatory rules."
Keep in mind that the exchanges do not hold, buy, or sell the stock - people (or funds) do.  All the exchange does is facilitate the sale of stock from one entity to another. So the shares outstanding (and market cap) for a company are set regardless of how many exchanges the stock is listed on.  The company typically indicates the number of shares outstanding in its financial statements.  I do not know if the exchange itself keeps track of shares outstanding; it may just report whatever the company publishes. So theoretically, if you wanted to buy all of the stock of a company, you could do it all in one exchange, provided that all the existing holders of the stock were willing to sell you their shares.  There are many issues with that, though, which I don't think are germane to your question. "If you sell a stock, with no distributions, then your gain is taxable under §1001.  But not all realized gains will be recognized as taxable.  And some gains which are arguably not realized, will be recognized as taxable. The stock is usually a capital asset for investors, who will generate capital gains under §1(h), but dealers, traders, and hedgers will get different treatment.  If you are an investor, and you held the stock for a year or more, then you can get the beneficial capital gain rates (e.g. 20% instead of 39.6%).  If the asset was held short-term, less than a year, then your tax will generally be calculated at the higher ordinary income rates.  There is also the problem of the net investment tax under §1411.  I am eliding many exceptions, qualifications, and permutations of these rules. If you receive a §316 dividend from a stock, then that is §61 income.  Qualified dividends are ordinary income but will generally be taxed at capital gains rates under §1(h)(11).  Distributions in redemption of your stock are usually treated as sales of stock.  Non-dividend distributions (that are not redemptions) will reduce your basis in the stock to zero (no tax due) and past zero will be treated as gain from a sale. If you exchange stock in a tax-free reorganization (i.e. contribute your company stock in exchange for an acquirer's stock), you have what would normally be considered a realized gain on the exchange, but the differential will not be recognized, if done correctly. If you hold your shares and never sell them, but you engage in other dealings (short sales, options, collars, wash sales, etc.) that impact those shares, then you can sometimes be deemed to have recognized gain on shares that were never sold or exchanged. A more fundamental principle of income tax design is that not all realized gains will be recognized.  IRC §1001(c) says that all realized gains are recognized, except as otherwise provided; that ""otherwise"" is substantial and far-ranging." In an ideal world Say on 24th July the share price of Apple was $600. Everyone knows that they will get the $ 2.65 on 16th August. There is not other news that is affecting the price. You want to go in and buy the shares on 16th Morning at $600 and then sell it on 17th August at $600. Now in this process you have earned sure shot $2.65/- Or in an ideal world when the announcement is made on 24th July, why would I sell it at $600, when I know if I wait for few more days I will get $2.65/- so i will be more inclined to sell it at $602.65 /- ... so on 16th Aug after the dividend is paid out, the share price will be back to $600/- In a real world, dividend or no dividend the share price would be moving up or down ... Notice that the dividend amount is less than 1% of the stock price ... stock prices change more than this percentage ... so if you are trying to do what is described in paragraph one, then you may be disappointed as the share price may go down as well by more than $2.65 you have made "First, keep in mind that there are generally 2 ways to buy a corporation's shares: You can buy a share directly from the corporation. This does not happen often; it usually happens at the Initial Public Offering [the first time the company becomes ""public"" where anyone with access to the stock exchange can become a part-owner], plus maybe a few more times during the corporations existence. In this case, the corporation is offering new ownership in exchange for a price set the corporation (or a broker hired by the corporation).  The price used for a public offering is the highest amount that the company believes it can get - this is a very complicated field, and involves many different methods of evaluating what the company should be worth. If the company sets the price too low, then they have missed out on possible value which would be earned by the previous, private shareholders (they would have gotten the same share % of a corporation which would now have more cash to spend, because of increased money paid by new shareholders). If the company sets the price too high, then the share subscription might only be partially filled, so there might not be enough cash to do what the company wanted. You can buy a share from another shareholder. This is more common - when you see the company's share price on the stock exchange, it is this type of transaction - buying out other current shareholders. The price here is simply set based on what current owners are willing to sell at. The ""Bid Price"" listed by an exchange is the current highest bid that a purchaser is offering for a single share. The ""Ask Price"" is the current lowest offer that a seller is offering to sell a single share they currently own. When the bid price = the ask price, a share transaction happens, and the most recent stock price changes." The stock market's principal justification is matching investors with investment opportunities.  That's only reasonably feasible with long-term investments.  High frequency traders are not interested in investments, they are interested in buying cheap and selling expensive.  Holding reasonably robust shares for longer binds their capital which is one reason the faster-paced business of dealing with options is popular instead.  So their main manner of operation is leeching off actually occuring investments by letting the investors pay more than the recipients of the investments receive. By now, the majority of stock market business is indirect and tries guessing where the money goes rather than where the business goes. For one thing, this leads to the stock market's evaluations being largely inflated over the actual underlying committed deals happening.  And as the commitment to an investment becomes rare, the market becomes more volatile and instable: it's money running in circles. Fast trading is about running in front of where the money goes, anticipating the market.  But if there is no actual market to anticipate, only people running before the imagination of other people running before money, the net payout converges to zero as the ratio of serious actual investments in tangible targets declines. By and large, high frequency trading converges to a Ponzi scheme, and you try being among the winners of such a scheme.  But there are a whole lot of people competing here, and essentially the net payoff is close to zero due to the large volumes in circulation as opposed to what ends up in actual tangible investments. It's a completely different game with different rules riding on the original idea of a stock market.  So you have to figure out what your money should be doing according to your plans. It's because a lot of the QE money is parked in excess reserves at the fed. They pay a high enough interest rate to prevent outflows into the rest of the market. We are seeing huge amounts of price inflation in certain asset classes. Things like cryptocurrency and the stock market. "n1. go to tradeworx.com and you can read some papers.  2. Revenues of hft have gone down substantially. About 15 years ago the total market was around 7 billion, it has dropped to 1 billion this year.  3. ""no goods or valuable services are produced.- That is false. hft provides liquidity and low spreads. There is a reason why you can buy or sell a share of a stock and the spread is 1 penny. One of the main reasons to go public is to have the secondary market liquid.   There is a reason you can instantly sell or buy a stock... Do you realize you used to have to actually call your broker and he had to negotiate an order on the floor? hft makes the markets more efficient. The average person can sign up an online acct and trade/invest for basically nothing. Why do you think that is?  finally who are you to say how I can or can not allocate my money. If I develop my own strategy that trades every second why can't I?" "(Note: out of my depth here, but in case this helps...) While not a direct answer to your question, I'll point out that in the inverse situation - a U.S. investor who wants to buy individual stocks of companies headquartered outside US - you would buy ADRs, which are $-denominated ""wrapper"" stocks.  They can be listed with one or multiple brokerages. One alternative I'd offer the person in my example would be, ""Are you really sure you want to directly buy individual stocks?""  One less targeted approach available in the US is to buy ETFs targeted for a given country (or region).   Maybe there's something similar there in Asia that would eliminate the (somewhat) higher fees associated with trading foreign stocks."