When a stock price goes down, does the money just disappears into thin air?
Yes and no. There is no actual money involved - just assumed value. Imagine you own a picture that you painted yourself, and all your friends agree it is worth 1000 $. You feel like you have a 1000 $-picture. Now a guy with some more knowledge visits you, and tells you that it is really only worth about a 100 $. Did you just lose 900 $? If yes, where did the money go? At any given time there are buy orders and there are sell orders.  Typically there is a little bit of space between the lowest sell order and the highest buy order, this is known as the bid/ask spread.  As an example say person A will sell for $10.10 but person B will only buy at $10.00.  If you have a billion shares outstanding just the space between the bid and ask prices represents $100,000,000 of market cap. Now imagine that the CEO is in the news related to some embezzlement investigation.  A number of buyers cancel their orders.  Now the highest buy order is $7.  There isn't money involved, that's just the highest offer to buy at the time; but that's a drop from $10 to $7.  That's a change in market cap of $3,000,000,000.  Some seller thinks the stock will continue to fall, and some buyer thinks the stock has reached a fair enterprise value at $7 billion ($7 per share).  Whether or not the seller lost money depends on where the seller bought the stock.  Maybe they bought when it was an IPO for $1.  Even at $7 they made $6 per share. Value is changing, not money.  Though it would be fun, there's no money bonfire at the NYSE. Cash changes hands when you buy or sell the stock. While you own the stock, you own it, not cash, so there is no cash to go anywhere. You spent your money when you bought. The seller got that money. It's gone. You hope that when you sell the stock, someone will give you more money for it than you spent. But they may give you less. Money doesn't magically appear either way, it comes from the buyer. After selling, you have the money -- however much you sold for -- and no longer have the stock. NOTE that this means the current value of a share of stock is interesting, but not really very relevant, unless you are actively buying or selling. What your portfolio is worth on paper is nothing more than an approximate snapshot at the moment you retrieve the data. It is not a promise of what will actually happen when you do sell. You buy a $100k sport car, but don't buy any insurance. You take a curve too fast and jump out just in time to see your car go off a cliff, like a chase movie. The value went from $100k to zero in seconds. Where did the $100k go? In short, thanks to the answers and comments posted so far.  No actual money is magically disappeared when the stock price goes down but the value is lost. The value changes of a stock is similar to the value changes of a house. The following is the long answer I came up with based on the previous answers and comments alone with my own understandings. Any experts who find any of the following is 200% out of place and wrong, feel free to edit it or make comments. Everything below only applies if the following are true: The stock price is only decreasing since the IPO because the company has been spending the money but not making profits after the IPO. The devaluation of the stock is not the result of any bad news related to the company but a direct translation of the money the company has lost by spending on whatever the company is doing. The actual money don’t just disappear into the thin air when the stock price goes down. All the money involved in trading this stock has already distributed to the sellers of this stock before the price went down.  There is no actual money that is literally disappeared, it was shifted from one hand to another, but again this already happened before the price went down.   For example, I bought some stocks for $100, then the price went down to $80. The $100 has already shifted from my hand to the seller before the price went down. I got the stock with less value, but the actual money $100 did not just go down to $80, it’s in the hand of the seller who sold the stock to me.  Now if I sell the stock to the same seller who sold the stock to me, then I lost $20, where did the $20 go? it went to the seller who sold the stock to me and then bought it back at a lower price. The seller ended up with the same amount of the stocks and the $20 from me. Did the seller made $20? Yes, but did the seller’s total assets increased? No, it’s still $100, $80 from the stocks, and $20 in cash. Did anyone made an extra $20? No. Although I did lost $20, but the total cash involved is still there, I have the $80 , the seller who sold the stock to me and then bought it back has the $20. The total cash value is still $100. Directly, I did lost $20 to the guy who sold me the stock when the stock has higher value and then bought it back at a lower price. But that guy did not increased his total assets by $20. The value of the stock is decreased, the total money $100 did not disappear, it ended up from one person holding it to 2 people holding it. I lost $20 and nobody gained $20, how is that possible? Assume the company of the stock never made any profit since it’s IPO, the company just keeps spending the money, to really track down where the $20 I lost is going, it is the company has indirectly spent that money. So who got that $20 I lost? It could be the company spent $20 for a birthday cake, the $20 went to the cake maker. The company never did anything to make that $20 back, so that $20 is lost. Again, assume the stock price only goes down after  its IPO, then buying this stock is similar to the buying a sport car example from JoeTaxpayer (in one of the answers), and buying an apple example from BrenBarn(in one of the comments from JoeTaxpayer’s answer).  Go back to the question, does the money disappears into the thin air when the value of the stock goes down? No, the money did not disappear, it switched hands. It went from the buyer of the stock to the company, and the company has spent that money. Then what happens when the stock price goes down because bad news about the company? I believe the actual money still did not just disappear. If the bad news turn out to be true that the company had indeed lost this much money, the money did not disappear, it’s been spent/lost by the company. If the bad news turn out to be false, the stock price will eventually go up again, the money is still in the hand of the company. As a summary, the money itself did not disappear no matter what happens, it just went from one wallet to another wallet in many different ways through the things people created that has a value. Price and value are two different things. Price is determined by supply and demand. Value does affect the demand. People are willing to pay more if they value the item more but value is not price.
A few reasons.  First, it's hard to buy a stock that has never gone up, and isn't necessarily wise to do so.  Even if you just wait for a stock go down, what if you wait and it goes up two dollars, then drops 10 cents?  Has it gone up or down?  When should you buy it? In general, your idea is correct, the higher the price the less you should want the stock.  But in some sense, the past price is irrelevant, you can't buy it at the past price.  You should buy it now if it's the best option now.  And that is based on your assessment of whether it's future prospects are worth the current price (and in fact enough worth enough to make buying the stock the best economic decision you can currently make). Finally, the price may have gone up for a reason.  The company may have done something, or some information about the company may have become known, that affects it's future prospects.  That might make it a better deal, perhaps even better than it was before the price increase. 1) Don't trade individual stocks. You expose yourself to unnecessary risk. 2) Pick a fund with low expenses that pays a dividend. Reinvest the dividend back into the fund.  To quote Einstein: The greatest power on earth is compound interest.  Something is wrong with the software of the site. It will not allow me to answer mark with another comment. So I have to edit this answer to be able to answer him.  @mark No, I am not hoping the price will go up. The price is only relevant in comparison to the dividend. It is the dividend that is important, not the price. The price is irrelevant if you never sell. Dividend paying securities are what you buy and hold. Then you reinvest the dividend and buy more of the security. As I am buying the security with the dividend I am actually pleasantly surprised when the price goes down. When the price goes down, but the dividend remains the same, I am able to buy more shares of the security withwith that dividend. So if the price goes down, and the dividend remains the same, it is a good thing.  Again, the site will not allow me to add another comment. @mark I profit from my investment, without selling, by receiving the dividend. I used to be a speculator, trying to get ahead of the market by 'buy low, sell high' but all that did was make money for the broker. I lost as much as I gained trying to do that. The broker made money on each transaction, regardless if I did or not. It took me decades to learn the lesson that 'buy and hold' of dividend paying securities is the way to go. Don't make my mistake. I now get, at least, 5.5% yeald on my investment (look at PGF, which forms the backbone of my investments). That is almost 0.5% per month. Each month that dividend is reinvested into PGF, with no commission. You can't beat that with a stick. They are not great points at all. What does this guy think happens to the money spent on stock buybacks? It just disappears?  People reinvest that money- sometimes in the stocks of other companies that *do* have good R&amp;D projects that they need to fund, sometimes in startups, sometimes in yachts, and sometimes in government bonds.   It's stupid to just expect companies to force R&amp;D spending if they cant find projects to actually work on. It's not better for the economy for a company to just go and waste a billion dollars on a ridiculous project that has no hope of actually being meaningful in the marketplace just so that this guy can feel good about R&amp;D spending as % of GDP. "You may look into covered calls.  In short, selling the option instead of buying it ... playing the house.   One can do this on the ""buying side"" too, e.g. let's say you like company XYZ.  If you sell the put, and it goes up, you make money.  If XYZ goes down by expiration, you still made the money on the put, and now own the stock - the one you like, at a lower price.  Now, you can immediately sell calls on XYZ.  If it doesn't go up, you make money.  If it does goes up, you get called out, and you make even more money (probably selling the call a little above current price, or where it was ""put"" to you at). The greatest risk is very large declines, and so one needs to do some research on the company to see if they are decent -- e.g. have good earnings, not over-valued P/E, etc.  For larger declines, one has to sell the call further out.  Note there are now stocks that have weekly options as well as monthly options.  You just have to calculate the rate of return you will get, realizing that underneath the first put, you need enough money available should the stock be ""put"" to you.   An additional, associated strategy, is starting by selling the put at a higher than current market limit price.  Then, over a couple days, generally lowering the limit, if it isn't reached in the stock's fluctuation.  I.e. if the stock drops in the next few days, you might sell the put on a dip.   Same deal if the stock finally is ""put"" to you.  Then you can start by selling the call at a higher limit price, gradually bringing it down if you aren't successful -- i.e. the stock doesn't reach it on an upswing. My friend is highly successful with this strategy. Good luck" Let's say a stock trades at $100 right now, and you can buy a $100 call option. When you buy the call option (and the money you paid is gone), one of two things can happen: The share price goes up, or the share price goes down.  If the share price goes up, you profit. If the share price goes down, you don't lose! Because once the shares are below $100, you don't exercise the call option, and you don't lose any money.  So if you have a share that is rock solid at $100, you don't make money. If you have a share where the company owner took some ridiculous risk, and the shares could go to $200 or the company could go bankrupt, then you have a 50% chance to make $100 and a 50% chance to not lose anything. That's much more preferable. In the U.S. it is typical that a stock brokerage account can be set up to buy stock with up to half the cost being borrowed from the broker.  This is called a margin account.  The stock purchased must remain in the account until sold (or the loan is paid off), as it serves as built-in collateral for the loan.  If the market price for the stock goes down too much, you will be required to add money, or the stock will be sold to cover the loan. See this question for some more information. Why is the stock trading at only $5 per share? The share price is the perceived value of the company by people buying and selling the stock. Not the actual value of the company and all its assets. Generally if the company is not doing well, there is a perceived risk that it will burn out the money fast. There is a difference between its signed conditional sale and will get money and has got money. So in short, it's trading at $5 a share because the market doesn't feel like it's worth $12 per share. Quite a few believe there could be issues faced; i.e. it may not make the $12, or there will be additional obligations, i.e. employees may demand more layoff compensation, etc. or the distribution may take few years due to regulatory and legal hurdles. The only problem is the stock exchange states if the company has no core business, the stock will be suspended soon (hopefully they can release the $12 per share first). What will happen if I hold shares in the company, the stock gets suspended, and its sitting on $12 per share? Can it still distribute it out? Every country and stock markets have laid out procedures for de-listing a company and closing a company. The company can give $10 as say dividends and remaining later; or as part of the closure process, the company will distribute the balance among shareholders. This would be a long drawn process. "Many people assume that if the price of something is $10 and they have 1,000 of that thing, they should expect to be able to sell them for something around $10,000.  Such an assumption may hold much of the time, but it doesn't always.  Worse, the cases where it fails to hold are often those where it would be relied upon most heavily.  Such an assumption should thus be considered dangerous. In a liquid market, the quantity of a something that people would be willing to buy at something close to the market price will be large relative to the quantity that people would seek to sell in the short term.  If at some moment in time one person in the market was willing to immediately buy 500 shares at $9.98 and another was willing to immediately buy 750 at $9.97, someone seeking to sell 1,000 shares could immediately receive $997.50 for them (selling 500 to the first person and 500 to the second, who would then be ready to buy 250 more from the first person who was willing to sell for $9.97).  Such behavior would be in line with what many people's assumptions. In an illiquid market, however, the quantity of something that people would be willing to buy near market price could be surprisingly low.  This is more often a problem in the marketplace of things like collectibles than of stocks, but the same thing can happen in the stock market.  If there's one potential buyer for a stock who thinks it's overpriced but has potential and would be worth $9.50, but that person only has $950 to spend, and nobody else thinks the stock would be worth more than $0.02/share, then until people sold a total of 100 shares the price would be $9.50, but after that the price would drop instantly to $0.02.  There would be no ""cushioning"" of the fall.  If the person with 1,000 shares was first in line, he'd get to sell 100 shares for $950 to the aforementioned seller, but would be unable to get more than $18 for the remaining 900. A major danger with markets is that markets which are perceived as liquid attract people to the buying side, while those which are seen as illiquid repel people.  The danger in the latter is obvious (having people flee a seemingly-illiquid market will reduce its liquidity further) but the former is just as bad.  Having people flock to a market because of its perceived liquidity will increase its liquidity, but can also create a ""false price floor"", causing demand to appear much stronger than it actually is.  Unless real demand increases to match the false price floor, the people who buy at the higher price will never be able to recoup their investment."