How can the ROE on a stock be more than 100%?
An operating margin will not compare with ROE. If a company has even a small margin on a large turnover and has a comparative lower shareholder equity, it ROE will be much higher. One ratio alone can not analyse a company. You need a full set of ratios and figures. A company's Return on Equity (ROE) is its net income divided by its shareholder's equity.  The shareholder's equity is the difference between total assets and total liabilities, and is not dependent on the stock price. What it takes to have a ROE over 100% is to have the income be greater than the equity.  This might happen for a variety of reasons, but one way a high ROE happens is if the shareholder's equity (the divisor) is small, which can occur if past losses have eroded the company's capital (the original invested cash and retained earnings).  If the equity has become a small value, the income for some period might exceed it, and so the ROE would be over 100%. Operating margin is not closely related to ROE.  Although operating income is related to net income, to calculate the margin you divide by sales, which is completely unrelated to shareholder's equity.  So there is no relationship with ROE to be expected.  Operating margin is primarily dependent on market conditions, and can be substantially different in different industries.
"First of all, the annual returns are an average, there are probably some years where their return was several thousand percent,  this can make a decade of 2% a year become an average of 20% . Second of all, accredited investors are allowed to do many things that the majority of the population cannot do. Although this is mostly tied to net worth, less than 3% of the US population is registered as accredited investors. Accredited Investors are allowed to participate in private offerings of securities that do not have to be registered with the SEC, although theoretically riskier, these can have greater returns. Indeed a lot of companies that go public these days only do so after the majority of the growth potential is done. For example, a company like Facebook in the 90s would have gone public when it was a million dollar company, instead Facebook went public when it was already a 100 billion dollar company. The people that were privileged enough to be ALLOWED to invest in Facebook while it was private, experienced 10000% returns, public stock market investors from Facebook's IPO have experienced a nearly 100% return, in comparison. Third, there are even more rules that are simply different between the ""underclass"" and the ""upperclass"". Especially when it comes to leverage, the rules on margin in the stock market and options markets are simply different between classes of investors. The more capital you have, the less you actually have to use to open a trade. Imagine a situation where a retail investor can invest in a stock by only putting down 25% of the value of the stock's shares. Someone with the net worth of an accredited investor could put down 5% of the value of the shares. So if the stock goes up, the person that already has money would earn a greater percentage than the peon thats actually investing to earn money at all. Fourth, Warren Buffett's fund and George Soros' funds aren't just in stocks. George Soros' claim to fame was taking big bets in the foreign exchange market. The leverage in that market is much greater than one can experience in the stock market. Fifth, Options. Anyone can open an options contract, but getting someone else to be on the other side of it is harder. Someone with clout can negotiate a 10 year options contract for pretty cheap and gain greatly if their stock or other asset appreciates in value much greater. There are cultural limitations that prompt some people to make a distinction between investing and gambling, but others are not bound by those limitations and can take any kind of bet they like." "Investopedia explains how a stock split impacts the stock's options: Each option contract is typically in control of 100 shares of an underlying security at a predetermined strike price. To find the new coverage of the option, take the split ratio and multiply by the old coverage (normally 100 shares). To find the new strike price, take the old strike price and divide by the split ratio. Say, for example, you own a call for 100 shares of XYZ with a strike price of $75. Now, if XYZ had a stock split of 2 for 1, then the option would now be for 200 shares with a strike price of $37.50. If, on the other hand, the stock split was 3 for 2, then the option would be for 150 shares with a strike price of $50. So, yes, a 2 for 1 stock split would halve the option strike prices.  Also, in case the Investopedia article isn't clear, after a split the options still control 100 shares per contract. Regarding how a dividend affects option prices, I found an article with a good explanation: As mentioned above, dividends payment could reduce the price of a stock due to reduction of the company's assets. It becomes intuitive to know that if a stock is expected to go down, its call options will drop in extrinsic value while its put options will gain in extrinsic value before it happens. Indeed, dividends deflate the extrinsic value of call options and inflate the extrinsic value of put options weeks or even months before an expected dividend payment.  Extrinsic value of Call Options are deflated due to dividends not only because of an expected reduction in the price of the stock but also due to the fact that call options buyers do not get paid the dividends that the stock buyers do. This makes call options of dividend paying stocks less attractive to own than the stocks itself, thereby depressing its extrinsic value. How much the value of call options drop due to dividends is really a function of its moneyness. In the money call options with high delta would be expected to drop the most on ex-date while out of the money call options with lower delta would be least affected. If a stock is expected to drop by a certain amount, that drop would already have been priced into the extrinsic value of its put options way beforehand. This is what happens to put options of dividend paying stocks. This effect is again a function of options moneyness but this time, in the money put options raise in extrinsic value more than out of the money put options. This is because in the money put options with delta of close to -1 would gain almost dollar or dollar on the drop of a stock. As such, in the money put options would rise in extrinsic value almost as much as the dividend rate itself while out of the money put options may not experience any changes since the dividend effect may not be strong enough to bring the stock down to take those out of the money put options in the money. So, no, a dividend of $1 will not necessarily decrease an option's price by $1 on the ex-dividend date.  It depends on whether it's a call or put option, and whether the option is ""in the money"" or ""out of the money"" and by how much." Can a company not bargain with a dying company for example and buy a   falling stock at lower than market value? Of course. If the shareholders agree to it. But why would they, if the market value is higher, agree to sell to someone who offers less? If there's a compelling reason - it can happen. It might happen during a hostile takeover, for example. In the case of buying the company for more than market value, are the   stocks bought for significantly more, or slightly more than the   current market value? Again, depends on how valuable the shareholders think the company is. If the shareholders think that the company has a potential which has not yet affected the stock price, they'll want a higher premium (and they'd think that, otherwise why would they hold the stock?). How much higher? Depends on the bargaining abilities of the sides. At twenty-two, you can have anywhere between 100%-70% of your securities portfolio in equities. It is reasonable to start at 100% and reduce over time.  The one thing that I would mention with that is that your target at retirement should be 70% stocks/30% bonds.  You should NEVER have more than 30% bonds.  Why?  Because a 70/30 mix is both safer than 100% bonds and will give a higher return.  Absent some market timing strategy (which as an amateur investor, you should absolutely avoid) or some complicated balancing scheme, there is never a reason to be at more than 30% bonds.   A 50/50 mix of stocks and bonds or a 100% bonds ratio not only returns less than the 70/30 mix, it is actually riskier.  Why?  Because sometimes bonds fall.  And when they do, stocks generally gain.  And vice versa.  Because of this behavior, the 70/30 mix is less likely to fall than 50% or 100% bonds.   Does that mean that your stock percentage should never drop below 70%?  No.  If your portfolio contains things other than stocks and bonds, it is reasonable for stocks to fall below 70%.  The problem is that when you drop stocks below 70%, you should drop bonds below 30% as well.  So you keep the stock to bond ratio at 7:3.   If you want to get a lower risk than a 70/30 mix, then you should move into cash equivalents.  Cash equivalents are actually safer than stocks and bonds either individually or in combination.  But at twenty-two, you don't really need more safety.   At twenty-two, the first thing to do is to build your emergency fund.  This should be able to handle six months of expenses without income.  I recommend making it equal to six months of your income.  The reason being that it is easy to calculate your income and difficult to be sure of expenses.  Also, you can save six months of income at twenty-two.   Are you going to stay where you are for the next five years?  At twenty-two, the answer is almost certainly no.  But the standard is the five year time frame.  If you want a bigger place or one that is closer to work, then no.  If you stay somewhere at least five years, then it is likely that the advantages to owning rather than renting will outweigh the costs of switching houses.  Less than five years, the reverse is true.  So you should probably rent now.   You can max out your 401k and IRA now.  Doing so even with a conservative strategy will produce big returns by sixty-seven.  And perhaps more importantly, it helps keep your spending down.  The less you do spend, the less you will feel that you need to spend.   Once you fill your emergency fund, start building savings for a house.  I would consider putting them in a Real Estate Investment Trust (REIT).  A REIT will tend to track real estate.  Since you want to buy real estate with the results, this is its own kind of safety.  It fell in value?  Houses are probably cheap.  Houses increasing in price rapidly?  A REIT is probably growing by leaps and bounds.  You do this outside your retirement accounts, as you want to be able to access it without penalty. "This is a great question precisely because the answer is so complicated. It means you're starting to think in detail about how orders actually get filled / executed rather than looking at stock prices as a mythical ""the market"". ""The market price"" is a somewhat deceptive term. The price at which bids and asks last crossed & filled is the price that prints. I.e. that is what you see on a market price data feed. ] In reality there is a resting queue of orders at various bids & asks on various exchanges.  (source: Larry Harris. A size of 1 is 1H = 100 shares.) So at first your 1000H order will sweep through the standing queue of fills. Let's say you are trading a low-volume stock. And let's say someone from another brokerage has set a limit order at a ridiculous price. Part of your order may sweep through and part of it get filled at a ridiculously high price. Or maybe either the exchange or your broker / execution mechanism somehow will protect you against the really high fill. (Let's say your broker hired GETCO, who guarantees a certain VWAP.) Also people change their bids & asks in response to what they see others do. Your 1000H size will likely be marked as a human counterparty by certain players. Other players might see that order differently. (Let's say it was a 100 000H size. Maybe people will decide you must know something and decide they want to go the same direction as you rather than take the opportunity to exit. And maybe some super-fast players will weave in and out of the filling process itself.) There is more to it because, what if some of the resting asks are on other venues? What if both you and some of the asks match with someone who uses the same broker as you? Not only do exchange rules come into play, but so do national regulations. tl;dr: You will get filled, with price slippage. If you send in a big buy order, it will sweep through the resting asks but also there are complications." "A company doesn't offer up 100% of its shares to the market.  There's a float amount of varying significance, maybe 30% of the shares are put up for public offer.  Generally some amount of current shareholders will pledge some or all of their shares for offer to the public.  This may be how the venture capital, private equity or other current investors cash out their initial investment.  The company may issue new shares in order to raise money for some initiative.  It may be a combination of existing shares and new. Additionally, a company may hold some ""treasury shares"" on its balance sheet.  In this instance fluctuations in the share price directly affect the health of the balance sheet. As far as incentive goes, stock options to management and C-Suite employees keep everyone interested in an increasing stock price." There's an explanation of what that means a few lines farther down that page: It looks like they keep a record of ~600 days of their previous implied volatility calculations, but some symbols might not have that much valid data.  So when they report the current IV as a percentile of all those previous IVs, they want you to know exactly how reliable that measurement is. If they only have 30 days of past IV calculations, then the percentile doesn't mean all that much.  On the other hand, if they have 600 days of past IV calculations, then the current percentile is pretty significant. Outside of software that can calculate the returns:  You could calculate your possible returns on that leap spread as you ordinarily would, then place the return results of that and the return results for the covered call position side by side for any given price level of the stock you calculate, and net them out. (Netting out the dollar amounts, not percentage returns.)  Not a great answer, but there ya go. Software like OptionVue is expensive