Are buyouts always for higher than the market value of a stock?
"Buyouts are usually for more than the ORIGINAL value of a stock. That's because the price ""premium"" represents an incentive for holders to ""tender"" their shares to the would-be buyer. Sometimes in these situations, the stock price rises above the proposed buyout price, in anticipation of a higher takeover bid from a SECOND party (that may or may not materialize). To answer the other part of the question, does a bidder have a chance of taking over a dying company for less than the market price? That is a strategy sometimes referred to as a ""take under,"" and it has not been a notably successful strategy. That's because it goes against ""human nature"" (of the seller). ""Where there is life, there is hope."" They would seldom accept a lower price for ""sure"" survival, when the market is telling them that they are worth a higher price. Very few people realize that the market may disappear tomorrow. Think of all the homeowners who won't cut their price, but insist on bids that meet recent ""comps."" And if the company is really dying, the prospective buyer may be best served by waiting until it does, and then pick up the individual pieces at auction." 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. 1) Yes, buyouts are always higher than the trading price. 2) ANYTHING can be negotiated. There is no rule saying buyouts have to be higher.
"That article, like almost any article written by a non-expert and quoting only ""research"" from lobbying groups, hugely misses the point. The vast majority of orders that end up being cancelled are cancelled as a standard part of exchanges' official market-maker programs. Each exchange wants you and me to know that it has liquidity -- that when we go to buy or sell some stock, there will be someone waiting on the other side of the trade.  So the exchange pays (via lowered fees or even rebates) hundreds of registered market makers to constantly have orders resting in each product's order book within a few ticks of the current NBBO or the last trade price.  That way, if everyone else should suddenly disappear from the market, you and I will still be able to trade our shares for a price somewhat close to the last trade price. But market makers who are simply acting in this ""backstop"" role don't actually want to have their orders filled, because those orders will almost always lose them money. So as prices rise and fall (as much as tens of times per second), the market makers need to cancel their resting orders (so they don't get filled) and add new ones at new prices (so they meet their obligations to the exchange).  And because the number of orders resting in any given product's order book is vastly larger than the number of actual trades that take place in any given time period, naturally the number of cancellations is also going to hugely outweigh the number of actual trades.  As much as 97% to 3% (or even more). But that's completely fine! You and I don't have to care about any of that.  We almost never need the market makers to be there to trade with us.  They're only there as a backstop.  There's almost always plenty of organic liquidity for us to trade against.  Only in the rare case where liquidity completely dries up do we really care that the registered market makers are there.  And in those cases (ideally) the market makers can't cancel their orders (depending on how well the exchange has set up its market maker program). So, to answer your question, the effect of standard order cancellation on a stock is essentially none.  If you were to visualize the resting orders in a product's book as prices moved up and down, you would essentially see a Gaussian distribution with mean at the last trade price, and it would move up and down with the price.  That ""movement"" is accomplished by cancellations followed by new orders. P.S. As always, keep in mind that your and my orders almost never actually make it to a real stock exchange anymore.  Nowadays they are almost always sent to brokers' and big banks' internal dark pools.  And in there you and I have no idea what shenanigans are going on.  As just one example, dark pools allow their operators and (for a fee) other institutional participants access to a feature called last look that allows them to cancel their resting order as late as after your order has been matched against it! :( Regarding the question in your comment ... If Alice is sending only bona fide orders (that is, only placing an order at time T if, given all the information she has at time T, she truly wants and intends for it to be filled) then her cancellation at a later time actually adds to the effectiveness of and public perception of the market as a tool for price discovery (which is its ultimate purpose). [In the following example imagine that there are no such things as trading fees or commissions or taxes.] Let's say Alice offers to buy AAPL at $99.99 when the rest of the market is trading it for $100.00.  By doing so she is casting her vote that the ""fair value"" of a share of AAPL is between $99.99 and $100.00. After all, if she thought the fair value of a share of AAPL was higher --  say, between $100.00 and $100.01 -- then she should be willing to pay $100.00 (because that's below fair value) and she should expect that other people in the market will not soon decide to sell to her at $99.99. If some time later Alice does decide that the fair value of AAPL is between $100.00 and $100.01 then she should definitely cancel her order at $99.99, for exactly the reason discussed above.  She probably won't get filled at $99.99, and by sitting there stubbornly she's missing out (potentially forever) on the possibility to make a profit. Through the simple act of cancelling her $99.99 order, Alice is once again casting a vote that she no longer thinks that's AAPL's fair value.  She is (very slightly) altering the collective opinion of the entire market as to what a share of AAPL is worth.  And if her cancellation then frees her up to place another order closer to her perceived fair value (say, at $100.00), then that's another vote for her honest optinion about AAPL's price. Since the whole goal of the market is to get a bunch of particpants to figure out the fair value of some financial instrument (or commodity, or smart phone, or advertising time, etc.), cancellations of honest votes from the past in order to replace them with new, better-informed honest votes in the present can only be a good thing for the market's effectiveness and perceived effectiveness. It's only when participants start sending non-honest votes (non bona fide orders) that things start to go off the rails.  That's what @DumbCoder was referring to in his comment on your original question." "This is a great question.  I've participated in a deal like that as an employee, and I also know of friends and family who have been involved during a buyout.  In short:  The updated part of your question is correct: There is no single typical treatment.  What happens to unvested restricted stock units (RSUs), unvested employee stock options, etc. varies from case to case. Furthermore, what exactly will happen in your case ought to have been described in the grant documentation which you (hopefully) received when you were issued restricted stock in the first place. Anyway, here are the two cases I've seen happen before: Immediate vesting of all units.  Immediate vesting is often the case with RSUs or options that are granted to executives or key employees.  The grant documentation usually details the cases that will have immediate vesting.  One of the cases is usually a Change in/of Control (CIC or COC) provision, triggered in a buyout.  Other immediate vesting cases may be when the key employee is terminated without cause, or dies.  The terms vary, and are often negotiated by shrewd key employees. Conversion of the units to a new schedule.  If anything is more ""typical"" of regular employee-level grants, I think this one would be.  Generally, such RSU or option grants will be converted, at the deal price, to a new schedule with identical dates and vesting percentages, but a new number of units and dollar amount or strike price, usually so the end result would have been the same as before the deal. I'm also curious if anybody else has been through a buyout, or knows anybody who has been through a buyout, and how they were treated." According to this article: With an all-stock merger, the number of shares covered by a call option is changed to adjust for the value of the buyout. The options on the bought-out company will change to options on the buyer stock at the same strike price, but for a different number of shares. Normally, one option is for 100 shares of the underlying stock. For example, company A buys company B, exchanging 1/2 share of A for each share of B. Options purchased on company B stock would change to options on company A, with 50 shares of stock delivered if the option is exercised.  This outcome strongly suggests that, in general, holders of options should cash out once the takeover is announced, before the transactions takes place.  Since the acquiring company will typically offer a significant premium, this will offer an opportunity for instant profits for call option holders while at the same time being a big negative for put option holders.  However, it is possible in some cases where the nominal price of the two companies favours the SML company (ie. the share prices of SML is lower than that of BIG), the holder of a call option may wish to hold onto their options. (And, possibly, conversely for put option holders.) "The difference is in the interrelation between the varied investments you make. Hedging is about specifically offsetting a possible loss in an investment by making another related investment that will increase in value for the same reasons that the original investment would lose value. Gold, for instance, is often regarded as the ultimate hedge. Its value is typically inversely correlated to the rest of the market as a whole, because its status as a material, durable store of value makes it a preferred ""safe haven"" to move money into in times of economic downturn, when stock prices, bond yields and similar investments are losing value. That specific behavior makes investing in gold alongside stocks and bonds a ""hedge""; the increase in value of gold as stock prices and bond yields fall limits losses in those other areas. Investment of cash in gold is also specifically a hedge against currency inflation; paper money, account balances, and even debt instruments like bonds and CDs can lose real value over time in a ""hot"" economy where there's more money than things to buy with it. By keeping a store of value in something other than currency, the price of that good will rise as the currencies used to buy it decrease in real value, maintaining your level of real wealth. Other hedges are more localized. One might, for example, trade oil futures as a hedge on a position in transportation stocks; when oil prices rise, trucking and airline companies suffer in the short term as their margins get squeezed due to fuel costs. Currency futures are another popular hedge; a company in international business will often trade options on the currencies of the companies it does business in, to limit the ""jitters"" seen in the FOREX spot market caused by speculation and other transient changes in market demand. Diversification, by contrast, is about choosing multiple unrelated investments, the idea being to limit losses due to a localized change in the market. Companies' stocks gain and lose value every day, and those companies can also go out of business without bringing the entire economy to its knees. By spreading your wealth among investments in multiple industries and companies of various sizes and global locations, you insulate yourself against the risk that any one of them will fail.  If, tomorrow, Kroger grocery stores went bankrupt and shuttered all its stores, people in the regions it serves might be inconvenienced, but the market as a whole will move on. You, however, would have lost everything if you'd bet your retirement on that one stock. Nobody does that in the real world; instead, you put some of your money in Kroger, some in Microsoft, some in Home Depot, some in ALCOA, some in PG&E, etc etc. By investing in stocks that would be more or less unaffected by a downturn in another, if Kroger went bankrupt tomorrow you would still have, say, 95% of your investment next egg still alive, well and continuing to pay you dividends. The flip side is that if tomorrow, Kroger announced an exclusive deal with the Girl Scouts to sell their cookies, making them the only place in the country you can get them, you would miss out on the full possible amount of gains you'd get from the price spike if you had bet everything on Kroger.  Hindsight's always 20/20; I could have spent some beer money to buy Bitcoins when they were changing hands for pennies apiece, and I'd be a multi-millionaire right now. You can't think that way when investing, because it's ""survivor bias""; you see the successes topping the index charts, not the failures. You could just as easily have invested in any of the hundreds of Internet startups that don't last a year." "First, you mentioned your brother-in-law has ""$100,000 in stock options (fully vested)"". Do you mean his exercise cost would be $100,000, i.e. what he'd need to pay to buy the shares? If so, then what might be the estimated value of the shares acquired? Options having vested doesn't necessarily mean they possess value, merely that they may be exercised. Or did you mean the estimated intrinsic value of those options (estimated value less exercise cost) is $100,000? Speaking from my own experience, I'd like to address just the first part of your question: Have you treated this as you would a serious investment in any other company? That is, have you or your brother-in-law reviewed the company's financial statements for the last few years? Other than hearing from people with a vested interest (quite literally!) to pump up the stock with talk around the office, how do you know the company is: BTW, as an option holder only, your brother-in-law's rights to financial information may be limited. Will the company share these details anyway? Or, if he exercised at least one option to become a bona-fide shareholder, I believe he'd have rights to request the financial statements – but company bylaws vary, and different jurisdictions say different things about what can be restricted. Beyond the financial statements, here are some more things to consider: The worst-case risk you'd need to accept is zero liquidity and complete loss: If there's no eventual buy-out or IPO, the shares may (effectively) be worthless. Even if there is a private market, willing buyers may quickly dry up if company fortunes decline. Contrast this to public stock markets, where there's usually an opportunity to witness deterioration, exit at a loss, and preserve some capital. Of course, with great risk may come great reward. Do your own due diligence and convince yourself through a rigorous analysis — not hopes & dreams — that the investment might be worth the risk." "You are probably going to hate my answer, but... If there was an easy way to ID stocks like FB that were going to do what FB did, then those stocks wouldn't exist and do that because they would be priced higher at the IPO. The fact is there is always some doubt, no one knows the future, and sometimes value only becomes clear with time. Everyone wants to buy a stock before it rises right? It will only be worth a rise if it makes more profit though, and once it is established as making more profit the price will be already up, because why wouldn't it be? That means to buy a real winner you have to buy before it is completely obvious to everyone that it is going to make more profit in the future, and that means stock prices trade at speculative prices, based on expected future performance, not current or past performance. Now I'm not saying past and future performance has nothing in common, but there is a reason that a thousand financially oriented websites quote a disclaimer like ""past performance is not necessarily a guide to future performance"". Now maybe this is sort of obvious, but looking at your image, excluding things like market capital that you've not restricted, the PE ratio is based on CURRENT price and PAST earnings, the dividend yield is based on PAST publications of what the dividend will be and CURRENT price, the price to book is based on PAST publication of the company balance sheet and CURRENT price, the EPS is based on PAST earnings and the published number of shares, and the ROI and net profit margin in based on published PAST profits and earnings and costs and number of shares. So it must be understood that every criteria chosen is PAST data that analysts have been looking at for a lot longer than you have with a lot more additional information and experience with it. The only information that is even CURRENT is the price. Thus, my ultimate conclusive point is, you can't based your stock picks on criteria like this because it's based on past information and current stock price, and the current stock price is based on the markets opinion of relative future performance. The only way to make a good stock pick is understand the business, understand its market, and possibly understand world economics as it pertains to that market and business. You can use various criteria as an initial filter to find companies and investigate them, but which criteria you use is entirely your preference. You might invest only in profitable companies (ones that make money and probably pay regular dividends), thus excluding something like an oil exploration company, which will just lose money, and lose it, and lose some more, forever... unless it hits the jackpot, in which case you might suddenly find yourself sitting on a huge profit. It's a question of risk and preference. Regarding your concern for false data. Google defines the Return on investment (TTM) (%) as: Trailing twelve month Income after taxes divided by the average (Total Long-Term Debt + Long-Term Liabilities + Shareholders Equity), expressed as a percentage. If you really think they have it wrong you could contact them, but it's probably correct for whatever past data or last annual financial results it's based on." "Some technical indicators (e.g. Williams %R) indicate whether the market is overbought or oversold.   ... Every time a stock or commodity is bought, it is also sold. And vice versa. So how can anything ever be over-bought or over-sold? But I'm sure I'm missing something. What is it? You're thinking of this as a normal purchase, but that's not really how equity markets operate. First, just because there are shares of stock purchased, it doesn't mean that there was real investor buyer and seller demand for that instrument (at that point in time).  Markets have dedicated middlemen called Market Makers, who are responsible to make sure that there is always someone to buy or sell; this ensures that all instruments have sufficient liquidity.  Market Makers may decide to lower their bid on a stock based on a high number of sellers, or raise their ask for a high number of buyers. During an investor rush to buy or sell an instrument (perhaps in response to a news release), it's possible for Market Makers to accumulate a large number of shares, without end-investors being involved on both sides of the transaction.  This is one example of how instruments can be over-bought or over-sold. Since Williams %R creates over-bought and over-sold signals based on historical averages of open / close prices, perhaps it's better to think of these terms as ""over-valued"" and ""under-valued"".  Of course, there could be good reason for instruments to open or close outside their expected ranges, so Williams %R is just a tool to give you clues... not a real evaluation of the instrument's true value." I'm confused. Are you asking why or telling us that you're bullish? Yes the stock will go up for a merger at a premium, but buying in now only gives you ~0.5% gain if it closes at $21.50. They won't trade over 21.50 unless a competing bid comes in or the bid is increased.