query: What's the formula for profits and losses when I delta hedge?

positive: You don't mention any specific numbers, so I'll answer in generalities. Say I buy a call option today, and I short the underlying stock with the delta. The value will be the value of the option you bought less the value of the stock you are short. (your premium is not included in the value since it's a sunk cost, but is reflected in your profit/loss) So, say I go out and adjust my portfolio, so I am still delta short in the underlying. It's still the value of your options, less the value of the underlying you are short. What is my PnL over this period? The end value of your portfolio less what you paid for that value, namely the money you received shorting the underlyings less the premium you paid for the option.

negative: Delta hedging is not the same as being delta neutral, what you just described is being delta neutral. There exist reasons for a retail trader to be conscious of delta when choosing an option.

negative: I don't know why a financial investor or a retail trader would do this. But I can guess why a market maker in options would do this. Let us say you buy an option from an option market maker and the market maker sold the option to you. He made a small profit in the bid-ask spread but now he is holding a short position in the option with unlimited risk exposure. So to protect himself, he will take an offsetting position in the underlying and become delta neutral, so that his position is not affected by the moves in the underlying. In the end, he can do this because he is not in the market to make money by betting on direction, unlike the rest of us poor mortals. He is making money from the bid-ask spread. So to ensure that his profits are not eroded by an adverse move in the underlying, he will continuously seek to be delta neutral. But once again, this is for a market maker. For market takers like us, I still don't understand why we would need to delta hedge.

negative: One possibility is to lock in gains by selling, where a selling price can attempt to be optimized by initiating a trailing stop loss order. You'll have to look at the pros and cons of that kind of order to see if it is right for you. Another possibility is to begin hedging with options contracts, if that security is optionable. Puts with the appropriate delta will cost over time against future gains in the stock's price, but will protect your wealth if the stock price falls from this high point. These possibilities depend on what your investment goals are. For instance, if you are buying no matter what price because you like the forward guidance of the company, then it changes your capital growth and preservation decisions.

negative: "Has anyone done this before? I'm sure someone has, but it doesn't completely remove any price risk.   Suppose you buy it at 10 and it drops to 5? Then you've lost 5 on the stock and have no realized gain on the option (although you could buy back the option cheaply and exist the position). To completely remove price risk you have to delta hedge.  At ATM option generally has a delta of 50%, meaning that the value of the option changes 0.50 for every $1 change in the stock. The downside to delta hedging is you can spend a lot on transaction fees and employ a lot of ""buy high, sell low"" transactions with a highly volatile stock."

negative: Yes, you've got it right.  The change in price is less meaningful as the instrument is further from the price of the underlying.  As the delta moves less, the gamma is much less. Gamma is to delta as acceleration is to speed.  Speed is movement relative to X, and acceleration is rate of change in speed.  Delta is movement relative to S, and gamma is the rate of change in delta. Delta changes quickly when it is around the money, which is another way of saying gamma is higher.  Delta is the change of the option price relative to the change in stock price.  If the strike price is near the market price, then the odds of being in or out of the money could appear to be changing very quickly - even going back and forth repeatedly. Gamma is the rate of change of the delta, so these sudden lurches in pricing are by definition the gamma.  This is to some extent a little mundane and even obvious.  But it's a useful heuristic for analyzing prices and movement, as well as for focusing analyst attention on different pricing aspects. You've got it right.  If delta is constant (zero 'speed' for the change in price) then gamma is zero (zero 'acceleration').

negative: "One thing I would like to clear up here is that Black Scholes is just a model that makes some assumptions about the dynamics of the underlying + a few other things and with some rather complicated math, out pops the Black Scholes formula. Black Scholes gives you the ""real"" price under the assumptions of the model. Your definition of what a ""real"" price entails will depend on what assumptions you make. With that being said, Black Scholes is popular for pricing European options because of the simplicity and speed of using an analytic formula as opposed to having a more complex model that can only be evaluated using a numerical method, as DumbCoder mentioned (should note that, for many other types of derivative contracts, e.g. American or Bermudan style exercise, the Black Scholes analytic formula is not appropriate). The other important thing to note here is that the market does not necessarily need to agree with the assumptions made in the Black Scholes model (and they most certainly do not) to use it. If you look at implied vols for a set of options which have the same expiration but differing strike prices, you may find that the implied vols for each contract differ and this information is telling you to what degree the traders in the market for those contracts disagree with the lognormal distribution assumption made by Black Scholes. Implied vol is generally the thing to look at when determining cheapness/expensiveness of an option contract. With all that being said, what I'm assuming you are interested in is either called a ""delta-gamma approximation"" or more generally ""Greek/sensitivities based profit and loss attribution"" (in case you wanted to Google some more about it). Here is an example that is relevant to your question. Let's say we had the following European call contract: Popping this in to BS formula gives you a premium of $4.01, delta of 0.3891 and gamma of 0.0217. Let's say you bought it, and the price of the stock immediately moves to 55 and nothing else changes, re-evaluating with the BS formula gives ~6.23. Whereas using a delta-gamma approximation gives: The actual math doesn't work out exactly and that is due to the fact that there are higher order Greeks than gamma but as you can see here clearly they do not have much of an impact considering a 10% move in the underlying is almost entirely explained by delta and gamma."

negative: "Firstly ""Most option traders don't want to actually buy or sell the underlying stock."" THIS IS COMPLETELY UTTERLY FALSE Perhaps the problem is that you are only familiar with the BUY side of options trading. On the sell side of options trading, an options desk engages in DELTA HEDGING. When we sell an option to a client. We will also buy an appropriate amount of underlying to match the delta position of the option. During the life time of the option. We will readjust our hedge position whenever the delta changes (those who follow Black Scholes will know that normally that comes from (underlying) price changes). However, we lose money on each underlying change (we have to cross the bid-ask spread for each trade). That is why we lose money when there is volatility. That is why we are said to be ""short VEGA"" or ""short volatility"". So one way to think about ""buying"" options, is that you are paying someone to execute a specific trading strategy. In general, those who sell options, are also happy to buy options back (at a discount of course, so we make a profit). But when doing so, we need to unroll our hedging position, and that again incurs a cost (to us, the bank). Finally. Since this is ""money"" stackexchange rather than finance. You are most likely referring to ""warrants"" rather than ""options"", which are listed on stock exchanges. The exchange in most regions give us very specific and restrictive regulations that we must abide by. One very common one is that we MUST always list a price which we are willing to buy the warrants back at (which may not be an unreasonable spread from the sell price). Since an Option is a synthetically created investment instrument, when we buy back the Option from the investor, we simply unwind the underlying hedging positions that we booked to synthesize the Options with. Source: I've worked 2 years on a warrant desk, as a desk developer."

negative: Sometimes hedging is used if you have a position and you feel the market is going against your position, so one would hedge that position in order to protect their capital and possible profits instead of closing the position and incurring capital gains tax. Personally if the market was going against a position I had open I would get out of that position and protect my capital/profits instead of using more capital to hedge against my position. I would rather take a profit and pay some capital gains tax than watch my profits turn into a loss or use up more capital to try and protect a bad position. Hedging can be useful in certain circumstances but I think if you feel the market is going against your position/s for the medium to long term you should just get out of your positions instead of hedging against them.

negative: Someone already mentioned that this is a risk-reversal, but as an aside, in the vol market (delta-hedged options) this is a fundamental skew trade. (buying calls, selling puts or vice versa). Initially vega neutral, the greek that this trade largely isolates is vanna (dvega/dspot or ddelta/dvol).

negative: I used to be a trader at a desk that sold delta-one derivatives on listed indices (think swaps, ETFs). There is a LOT to do:   buy/ sell stocks according to redemptions or new orders; manage the currency exposure; indices rebalance their composition everyday based on stock corporate actions, dividends and index reviews - you need to be aware of each and everyone and rebalance your portfolio to account for it; manage your inventory to get the best repo rates possible; trade single stock swaps with foreign counterparties to get access to better tax rates on dividends; when you have a big order where certain stock orders may not get filled - you have to create a strategy for managing that risk; sometimes you hedge your positions using futures that expire every three months in which case you need to figure out the best times to roll your expiring futures; i could go on and on.  Basically, since the profit margins are so low, the market so competitive for such vanilla products, and the volumes so high, you have to really make your processes super efficient and error-proof. Trust me, there is a lot to be done!

negative: Theta is a variable in options pricing. Theta aka time decay decreases over time. The reason of this is that you have to think of the option as insurance. It is a hedge against actual holdings in an asset. Would you pay more or less for insurance that covers you for a year's time, would you pay more or less for insurance that covers you for a week? The answer is that the market will pay less for insurance that covers them for a lower period of time. This is one of several ways of thinking about it. There is also the probability that the option will be profitable at all, the further out in the future, the more likely it will be profitable and people will pay a premium for it. There are other variables in the black-scholes formula and it is the most widely used options pricing formula. But keep in mind, the geniuses that made up the formula blew up their hedge fund thinking they could sell the options at an inflated premium from their own formula to everyone. Ironic really.

negative: Typically a hedge fund makes money in two ways: An asset fee of around 2%, and a performance bonus of 20% of the profits.   This causes a huge deterioration of the funds growth, especially when you compound the difference over 20 or 30 years.   Funny enough, they don't have to put in 20% of losses, that's 100% on the pension to bear.

negative: If you haven't already, check out his earlier articles when he was at DealBreaker.com - GREAT stuff, my [favourite one](http://dealbreaker.com/2011/09/lets-just-go-ahead-and-assume-that-greek-letters-evil/) is when UBS had a delta one trader Kweku losing $2.1b from unauthorized/unreported trades in the midst of Dodd Frank/Volcker Rule was being discussed.   > A thing that you probably do is go borrow one million shares of UBS and sell them short. This is a sensible thing to do. Why is it sensible? Well, for one thing, your desk is called “delta one,” and you’ve written a derivative, and you want to delta hedge that derivative, and so you pull out a Black-Scholes calculator and plug in a lot of variables and get stuck but then you look at your business card and you’re like, oh, shit, the answer is “one,”

negative: "There is no opposite of a hedge, except not having a hedge at all. A ""hedge"" isn't directional. If you are short, you hedge by having something that minimizes your losses if you are wrong. If you are long, you hedge by having something that minimizes your losses if it decreases in value. If you own a house, you hedge by having insurance. There are ""hedged bets"" and ""unhedged bets"""

negative: The word 'hedge' emerges from early agriculture when farmers would ask the market for a minimum buy price for each crop they planted. They used this method to stop loss against any major losses.  Investors today use this strategy when they are unsure of what the market will do. A perfect hedge reduces your risk to nothing (except for the cost of the hedge).

negative: "So it's not always what degree of risk you want be exposed to, but what *type* of risk. So let's say you were happy with the S&P 500 ETF but you wanted to avoid oil stocks, so you combine that ETF with some derivatives that profit if oil goes down and you will outperform the S&P 500 on a net basis.  Hedge funds can be very crafty with what exposure they want. They include a LOT of different strategies, so it's kind of incorrect to group them into one ""asset class"" per se.  As for the question if hedge funds are worth it? Well if the market tanks, you might find your hedge fund's performance to be very positive (ex: Kyle Bass made big money with the crisis)."

negative: "To understand the VXX ETF, you need to understand VIX futures, to understand VIX futures you need to understand VIX, to understand VIX you need to understand options pricing formulas such as the ""Black Scholes"" formula Those are your prerequisites. Learn at your own pace. Short Answer: When you buy VXX you are buying the underlying are front month VIX futures. Limited by the supply of the ETF's NAV (Net Asset Value) units. It is assumed that the ETF manager is actually buying and selling more VIX front month futures to back the underlying ETF. Long Answer: Assume nobody knows what an options contract should be worth. Therefore formulas have been devised to standardize how to price an options contract. The Black-Scholes formula is widely used, one of the variables in this formula is ""Implied Volatility"", which basically accounts for the mispricing of options when the other variables (Intrinsic Value, delta, gamma, theta...) don't completely explain how much the option is worth. People are willing to pay more for options when the perception is that they will be more profitable, ""implied volatility"" tracks these changes in an option's demand, where the rest of the black-scholes formula creates a price for an option that will always be the same. Each stock in the market that also trades standardized options will have implied volatility which can be computed from the price of those options. The ""Volatility Index"" (VIX), looks at the implied volatility of MANY STOCK's options contracts. Specifically the ""implied volatility of out the money puts on the S&P 500"". If you don't know what that quoted part of the sentence means, then you have at least five other individual questions to ask before you re-read this answer and understand the relevance of these followup questions: Why would people buy out-the-money puts on the S&P 500? Why would people pay more for out-the-money puts on the S&P 500 on some days and pay less for them on other days? This is really the key to the whole puzzle. Anyway, now that we have this data, people wanted to speculate on the future value of the VIX. So VIX futures contracts began trading and with it there came a liquid market. There doesn't need to be anything physical to back a financial product anymore. A lot of people don't trade futures, retail investors have practically only heard of ""the stock market"". So one investment bank decided to make a fund that only holds VIX futures that expire within a month. (front month futures). They split that fund up into shares and listed it on the stock market, like alchemy the VXX was formed. Volatility studies are fascinating, and get way more complex than this now that the VXX ETF also has liquid options contracts trading on it too, and there are leveraged VIX ETF funds that also trade options"

negative: If we assume constant volatility, gamma increases as the stock gets closer to the strike price. Thus, delta is increasing at a faster rate as the stock reaches closer to ITM because gamma is the derivative of delta. As the stock gets deeper ITM, the gamma will slow down as delta reaches 1 or -1 (depends if a call or a put). Thus, the value of the option will change depending upon the level of the delta. I am ignoring volatility and time for this description.  See this diagram from Investopedia: Gamma

negative: "This doesn't make sense to me. Writing a covered call gives him a long delta position - the exact opposite of what he wants. And the tax losses won't turn a losing position into a winning one.  Is there something I'm missing?  Edit: Also, doesn't ""shorting against the box"" mean he has to have a long position, and short against that? That means you've got zero net delta, which isn't very useful at all..."

negative: Well for starters you want to rent it for more than the apartment costs you.  Aside from mortgage you have insurance, and maintenance costs.  If you are going to have a long term rental property you need to make a profit, or at a bare minimum break even.  Personally I would not like the break even option because there are unexpected costs that turn break even into a severe loss. Basically the way I would calculate the minimum rent for an apartment I owned would be: (Payment + (taxes/12) + (other costs you provide) + (Expected annual maintenance costs)) * 100% + % of profit I want to make. This is a business arrangement.  Unless you are recouping some of your losses in another manner then it is bad business to maintain a business relationship that is costing you money.  The only thing that may be worth considering is what comparable rentals go for in your area.  You may be forced to take a loss if the rental market in your area is depressed.  But I suspect that right now your condo is renting at a steal of a rate.  I would also suspect that the number you get from the above formula falls pretty close to what the going rate in your area is.

negative: Even experts have no real certainty what the market will do as a whole. 2/3's of managers fail to beat the market every year. I think this is mostly due to hedging and trying to meet their investors needs. If. You buy and hold a few index ETFs you will most likely beat actively managed accountsn that said, you will sacrifice liquidity if you want to avoid cyclical losses.

negative: You are correct that the price fixed when the contract is made is set and maybe there are a few institutions that don't actually bother to track the future after they initiate the contract.  But most parties likely track the contracts fairly carefully for a number of reasons.  The big deal is that while the price the contract is set, and if you did a perfect hedge maybe the value of the contract and the thing you are hedging is then fixed, the value of that futures contract by itself changes and this is important. The biggest reason is as JB mentions above most futures contracts settle up on a daily basis as the price of the underlying changes.  This happens to limit the losses when for large price changes and one party owes a bunch of money on a futures contract and (for that reason or a different one) goes bankrupt.  If the other party is using the contract to hedge a sale or asset maybe this risk is minimal but maybe that expected sale doesn't happen or maybe the party is using futures for speculation.  There is no way to know built into the contract if a party is really hedging or not so people naturally want to limit this default risk. There are many other reasons to track profit and loss as well: There are likely even more reasons as well that I'm missing but hopefully that gives you an idea.

negative: You could use  the Gordon growth model implied expected return: P = D/(r-g) --> r = D/P (forward dividend yield) + g (expected dividend growth). But obviously there is no such thing as a good market return proxy.

negative: Let's make a few assumptions: You have several ways of achieving (almost) that, in ascending complexity: Note that each alternative will have a cost which can be small (forwards, futures) or large (CFDs, debit) and the hedge will never be perfect, but you can get close. You will also need to decide whether you hedge the unrealised P&L on the position and at what frequency.

negative: "When you invest in an S&P500 index fund that is priced in USD, the only major risk you bear is the risk associated with the equity that comprises the index, since both the equities and the index fund are priced in USD. The fund in your question, however, is priced in EUR. For a fund like this to match the performance of the S&P500, which is priced in USD, as closely as possible, it needs to hedge against fluctuations in the EUR/USD exchange rate. If the fund simply converted EUR to USD then invested in an S&P500 index fund priced in USD, the EUR-priced fund may fail to match the USD-priced fund because of exchange rate fluctuations. Here is a simple example demonstrating why hedging is necessary. I assumed the current value of the USD-priced S&P500 index fund is 1,600 USD/share. The exchange rate is 1.3 USD/EUR. If you purchase one share of this index using EUR, you would pay 1230.77 EUR/share:  If the S&P500 increases 10% to 1760 USD/share and the exchange rate remains unchanged, the value of the your investment in the EUR fund also increases by 10% (both sides of the equation are multiplied by 1.1):  However, the currency risk comes into play when the EUR/USD exchange rate changes. Take the 10% increase in the price of the USD index occurring in tandem with an appreciation of the EUR to 1.4 USD/EUR:  Although the USD-priced index gained 10%, the appreciation of the EUR means that the EUR value of your investment is almost unchanged from the first equation. For investments priced in EUR that invest in securities priced in USD, the presence of this additional currency risk mandates the use of a hedge if the indexes are going to track. The fund you linked to uses swap contracts, which I discuss in detail below, to hedge against fluctuations in the EUR/USD exchange rate. Since these derivatives aren't free, the cost of the hedge is included in the expenses of the fund and may result in differences between the S&P500 Index and the S&P 500 Euro Hedged Index.  Also, it's important to realize that any time you invest in securities that are priced in a different currency than your own, you take on currency risk whether or not the investments aim to track indexes. This holds true even for securities that trade on an exchange in your local currency, like ADR's or GDR's. I wrote an answer that goes through a simple example in a similar fashion to the one above in that context, so you can read that for more information on currency risk in that context.  There are several ways to investors, be they institutional or individual, can hedge against currency risk. iShares offers an ETF that tracks the S&P500 Euro Hedged Index and uses a over-the-counter currency swap contract called a month forward FX contract to hedge against the associated currency risk. In these contracts, two parties agree to swap some amount of one currency for another amount of another currency, at some time in the future. This allows both parties to effectively lock in an exchange rate for a given time period (a month in the case of the iShares ETF) and therefore protect themselves against exchange rate fluctuations in that period.  There are other forms of currency swaps, equity swaps, etc. that could be used to hedge against currency risk. In general, two parties agree to swap one quantity, like a EUR cash flow, payments of a fixed interest rate, etc. for another quantity, like a USD cash flow, payments based on a floating interest rate, etc. In many cases these are over-the-counter transactions, there isn't necessarily a standardized definition.  For example, if the European manager of a fund that tracks the S&P500 Euro Hedged Index is holding euros and wants to lock in an effective exchange rate of 1.4 USD/EUR (above the current exchange rate), he may find another party that is holding USD and wants to lock in the respective exchange rate of 0.71 EUR/USD. The other party could be an American fund manager that manages a USD-price fund that tracks the FTSE. By swapping USD and EUR, both parties can, at a price, lock in their desired exchange rates.  I want to clear up something else in your question too. It's not correct that the ""S&P 500 is completely unrelated to the Euro."" Far from it. There are many cases in which the EUR/USD exchange rate and the level of the S&P500 index could be related. For example: Troublesome economic news in Europe could cause the euro to depreciate against the dollar as European investors flee to safety, e.g. invest in Treasury bills. However, this economic news could also cause US investors to feel that the global economy won't recover as soon as hoped, which could affect the S&P500.  If the euro appreciated against the dollar, for whatever reason, this could increase profits for US businesses that earn part of their profits in Europe. If a US company earns 1 million EUR and the exchange rate is 1.3 USD/EUR, the company earns 1.3 million USD. If the euro appreciates against the dollar to 1.4 USD/EUR in the next quarter and the company still earns 1 million EUR, they now earn 1.4 million USD. Even without additional sales, the US company earned a higher USD profit, which is reflected on their financial statements and could increase their share price (thus affecting the S&P500). Combining examples 1 and 2, if a US company earns some of its profits in Europe and a recession hits in the EU, two things could happen simultaneously. A) The company's sales decline as European consumers scale back their spending, and B) the euro depreciates against the dollar as European investors sell euros and invest in safer securities denominated in other currencies (USD or not). The company suffers a loss in profits both from decreased sales and the depreciation of the EUR.  There are many more factors that could lead to correlation between the euro and the S&P500, or more generally, the European and American economies. The balance of trade, investor and consumer confidence, exposure of banks in one region to sovereign debt in another, the spread of asset/mortgage-backed securities from US financial firms to European banks, companies, municipalities, etc. all play a role.  One example of this last point comes from this article, which includes an interesting line: Among the victims of America’s subprime crisis are eight municipalities in Norway, which lost a total of $125 million through subprime mortgage-related investments. Long story short, these municipalities had mortgage-backed securities in their investment portfolios that were derived from, far down the line, subprime mortgages on US homes. I don't know the specific cities, but it really demonstrates how interconnected the world's economies are when an American family's payment on their subprime mortgage in, say, Chicago, can end up backing a derivative investment in the investment portfolio of, say, Hammerfest, Norway."

negative: So far the answer is: observe the general direction of the market, using special tools if needed or you have them available (.e.g. Bollinger bands to help you understand the current trend) at the right time per above, do the roll with stop loss in place (meaning roll at a pre-determined max loss), and also a trailing stop loss if the roll works in your favor, to capture the profits on the roll. This trade was a learning experience.  I sold the option at $20 thinking I'd get back in later in the day with the further out option at a good price, as the market goes back and forth.  The underlying went up and never came back.  I finally gritted my teeth and bought the new option at 23.10 (when it would have cost me about 20.20 before), i.e. a miss/loss of $3 on $20. The underlying continued to rise, from that point (hasn't been back), and now the option price is $29. Of course one needs to make sure the Implied Volatility of the option being left and the option going to is good/fair, and if not, either roll further out in time, nearer in time, our up / down the strike prices, to find the right target option.  After doing that, one might do the strategy above, i.e. any good trade mgmt type strategy:  seek to make a good decision, acknowledge when you were wrong (with stop loss), and act. Or, if you're right, cash in smartly (i.e. trailing stops).

negative: "And what exactly do I profit from the short? I understand it is the difference in the value of the stock. So if my initial investment was $4000 (200 * $20) and I bought it at $3800 (200 * $19) I profit from the difference, which is $200. Do I also receive back the extra $2000 I gave the bank to perform the trade? Either this is extremely poorly worded or you misunderstand the mechanics of a short position.  When you open a short position, your are expecting that the stock will decline from here.  In a short position you are borrowing shares you don't own and selling them.  If the price goes down you get to buy the same shares back for less money and return them to the person you borrowed from.  Your profit is the delta between the original sell price and the new lower buy price (less commissions and fees/interest).  Opening and closing a short position is two trades, a sell then a buy.  Just like a long trade there is no maximum holding period. If you place your order to sell (short) 200 shares at $19, your initial investment is $3,800.   In order to open your $3,800 short position your broker may require your account to have at least $5,700 (according to the 1.5 ratio in your question).  It's not advisable to open a short position this close to the ratio requirement.  Most brokers require a buffer in your account in case the stock goes up, because in a short trade if the stock goes up you're losing money.  If the stock goes up such that you've exhausted your buffer you'll receive what's known as a ""margin call"" where your broker either requires you to wire in more money or sell part or all of your position at a loss to avoid further losses.  And remember, you may be charged interest on the value of the shares you're borrowing. When you hold a position long your maximum loss is the money you put in; a position can only fall to zero (though you may owe interest or other fees if you're trading on margin).  When you hold a position short your maximum loss is unlimited; there's no limit to how high the value of something can go.  There are less risky ways to make short trades by using put options, but you should ensure that you have a firm grasp on what's happening before you use real money. The timing of the trades and execution of the trades is no different than when you take a plain vanilla long position.  You place your order, either market or limit or whatever, and it executes when your trade criteria occurs."

negative: "derivatives!  learn about how they are priced, traded, and used within a portfolio for hedging and speculating.  there are calculators for ""net present value calculations,"" and you are never going to walk into an interview and say, ""Hey! I can look at a formula and price something."""

negative: You can statistically estimate the maximal loss/gain over a period of time T by the highest loss/gain during any of the same length time intervals in during the life of the stock. Using logarithmic prices to be more accurate.

negative: There are several ways to protect against (or even profit from) a market correction. Hedge funds do this by hedging, that is, buying a stock that they think is strong and selling short a paired stock that is weak. If you hold, say, a strong retail company in your portfolio, you might sell short an equal weight of a weak retail company.  These are like buying insurance on your portfolio. If you own 300 shares of XYZ, currently trading at $68, you buy puts at a level at a strike price that lets you sleep at night. For example, you might buy 3 XYZ 6-month puts with a strike price of $60. A disadvantage is that the puts are wasting assets, that is, their time premium (which you paid for at the outset) becomes zero at expiration. (This is why it is like insurance. You wouldn't complain that your insurance premium was lost when you purchase insurance on your house and the house doesn't burn down, would you? Of course not. The purpose of the insurance is to protect your investment.) Note that as these puts are married, they only protect your portfolio. Instead of profiting from a correction, you would merely protect your portfolio during a correction. (No small feat!) If your portfolio is similar to the market, you can buy S&P index puts. If your market reflects a lot of technology, you can buy technology sector puts.  Say you have a portfolio of $80K that reflects the market. You could buy out-of-the-market puts (again reflecting your tolerance for loss). Any losses in your portfolio after the puts go in-the-money would be (more or less) offset by gains in the puts.  An advantage is that the bid/ask spread is smaller for the S&P. You would pay less for the protection. Also, the S&P puts are cash settled (meaning you get money put in your account on the business day after expiration day). A disadvantage is that the puts do not linearly go up as the market drops. (Delta hedging is a big deal in and of itself.) Another disadvantage is that they are wasting assets (see the Married puts section, previous). While the S&P puts can be used to maintain your market portfolio in the midst of a correction, you could purchase more puts than needed. If you had correctly timed the market, then your portfolio with puts would increase. (Your mileage may vary; some have predicted an imminent market crash way too often.) Collars involve selling out-of-the-money calls and using the premiums to buy out-of-the-money puts. There are many varieties of collars, but the most straightforward is to sell 1 call and buy 1 put for every 100 shares. (This can also be done for index puts and calls.) This has the effect of simultaneously: You get your insurance for almost free. But again, it is protecting your portfolio.  As the name implies, you make money when the market goes bearish.  Bear put spreads involve buying puts at a close strike price and selling an equal number of puts at a lower strike price than the first. You have a defined maximum loss (the premium you paid for the higher put minus the premium you received for the lower put). You have a defined maximum gain (the difference between strikes minus the defined maximum loss).  Buy S&P 500 index puts. If you buy deep out-of-the-money puts, it won't cost much, but you have little probability of it paying off. But if they go in-the-money, there could be a sizable payoff. This is similar to putting one chip on red 18 on the roulette wheel. But rather than paying off 35:1, it is a variable payoff. If you're $1 in the money, you just get $100. If you're $12 in the money, you have a $1200 payoff.  If you buy at-the-money puts, it will cost a lot, and your probability will be about 1 in 2 that you will pay off. In our roulette analogy, this is like putting 30 chips on the Even bet of the roulette wheel. The variable payoff is as in the previous paragraph. But you're more likely to get a payoff. And you will lose it all of the roulette ball lands on an Odd number, 0, or 00. (That is, the underlying of your put goes up or stays the same.) If your research shows you what good stocks to buy, it may also tell you which stocks are ripe for a fall. You could short-sell these stocks or buy puts on them.  Similar to short-selling stocks or buying puts, you could sell short overpriced sectors or buy puts on them. There are ETFs that will allow you benefit from falling prices without needing to have a margin agreement or options agreement in place.  Sorry to have a lengthy answer. Many other answers emphasize that one shouldn't try to time the market. But that is not the OP's question. Provided here are both:

negative: "You'd need to know the delta and the theta of the option. You can either calculate them yourself using a model like Black-Scholes (assuming you have a market price and can imply a volatility, and know the other factors that go into the model) or, you can see if your broker quotes ""greeks"" as well (mine does). The delta is the sensitivity (rate of change in value) to the underlying stock price, and the theta is the sensitivity to time passing (usually expressed in $/day).  So if your option has a delta of .5 and a theta of -.04, when one day passes and the underlying stock goes up $3, the option will gain roughly $1.50 due to the underlying stock price and lose $0.04 due to time passing."

negative: You should use the Gordon Growth model, but you are using the wrong rate.  required return = rf + market premium x Beta  rm = 0,12, premium = 0,08 --> rf = 0,04 thus rr = 0.04 + 0.08 * 1.5 = 0.16  then you get $15/(0.16-0.05) = $136,36


query: Why don't share prices of a company rise every other Friday when the company buys shares for its own employees?

positive: Let's take an example: IBM has about 430,000 employees worldwide.  Assume the average yearly salary is $80K (it's probably less, since a lot of jobs are offshore).  If every employee took 10% of their pay as stock, that's $132 million every two weeks.  But IBM's market capitalization is about $153 billion, so stock purchases would be less than 0.1% of that.

positive: This is an old question that has an accepted answer, but it has gotten bumped due to an edit and the answers given are incorrect. I am assuming this means that every other Friday, the company is going into the open public market, buying those shares and then giving it out to the employees. No. Companies will internally hold shares that it intends to offer employees as additional compensation. There are no open market transactions, so the market price of the stock does not change (at least not due to buying pressure).  The only net effect is an equivalent expense for the compensation, but that should already be accounted for in the share price as normal operating expenses. These share may come through an initial buyback from the market, but more common is that when companies issue new shares they keep some internally for exactly this situation.  If they issued new shares every pay period, it would dilute the existing shares several times a quarter which would be difficult to account for.

positive: Many companies actually just issue new shares for employee compensation instead of buying back existing ones. So actually, the share price should go down because the same value is now diluted over more shares. In addition, this would not necessarily affect companies with many employees than those with fewer employees because companies with more employees tend to be bigger and thus have more shares (among which the change in demand would be distributed). Also, I think many companies do not issue shares to employees every pay day, but just e.g. once every quarter.

positive: Pre-Enron many companies forced the 401K match to be in company shares. That is no longer allowed becasue of changes in the law. Therefore most employees have only a small minority of their retirement savings in company shares. I know the ESOP and 401K aren't the same, but in my company every year the number of participants in the company stock purchase program decreases. The small number of participants and the small portion of their new retirement funds being in company shares would mean this spike in volume would be very small.  The ESOP plan for my employer takes money each paycheck, then purchases the shares once a quarter. This delay would allow them to manage the purchases better. I know with a previous employer most ESOP participants only held the shares for the minimum time, thus providing a steady steam of shares being sold.

negative: What most respondents are forgetting, is when a company allows its employees to purchase its shares at a discount with their salary, the employee is usually required to hold the stock for a number of years before they can sell them. The reason the company is allowing or promoting its employees to purchase its shares at a discount is to give the employees a sense of ownership of the company. Being a part owner in the company, the employee will want the company to succeed and will tend to be more productive. If employees were allowed to purchase the shares at a discount and sell them straight away, it would defeat this purpose. Your best option to decide whether or not to buy the shares is to work out if the investment is a good one as per any other investment you would undertake, i.e. determine how the company is currently performing and what its future prospects are likely to be. Regarding what percentage of pay to purchase the shares with, if you do decide to buy them, you need to work that out based on your current and future budgetary needs and your savings plan for the future.

negative: There are two sources for shares that employees buy through ESOPs. A company can simply buy the shares on the open market. The company must pay for the stock, but the employee then pays the company for the shares. If employees get a discount on the ESOP shares, the company would pay for that percentage directly. The company can choose to issue new shares. These new shares dilute the ownership of all the other current stockholders. While #2 is common when companies issue stock options, I'd be surprised to see it with an ESOP. In most cases, employees are limited in the amount of their salary they can devote towards the ESOP. If that limit is 10% and the discount that the employees get is 10%, the cost on a per-employee basis would only be 1% of that employees salary, which is a small expense.

negative: "This could be another reason.  ""Companies buy their own stock in the market place to reduce the number of shares outstanding, and thus boosts the earnings per share. It also boosts the stock price, which benefits management that has stock options. "" Taken from this article. http://www.forbes.com/sites/investor/2014/01/06/the-most-reliable-indicator-of-an-approaching-market-top/ and this article ""Why are stock rising?"" may help as well.  http://www.forbes.com/sites/investor/2013/12/23/why-are-stocks-rising/"

negative: "Many companies (particularly tech companies like Atlassian) grant their employees ""share options"" as part of their compensation. A share option is the right to buy a share in the company at a ""strike price"" specified when the option is granted. Typically these ""vest"" after 1-4 years so long as the employee stays with the company. Once they do vest, the employee can exercise them by paying the strike price - typically they'd do that if the shares are now more valuable. The amount they pay to exercise the option goes to the company and will show up in the $2.3 million quoted in the question."

negative: "That's a pretty good question for a six-year-old! In addition to the good answers which point out that expectations are priced in, let's deny the premises of the question: Sales do not increase the value of a company; a company could be, for example, losing money on every sale. Share prices are (at least in theory) correlated with profits.  So let's suppose that company X is unprofitable 320 days a year and is relying upon sales in late November and December to be in the black for the year. (Hence ""black Friday"".)  Carefully examine the supposition of this scenario: we have a company that is so unprofitable that it must gamble everything on successfully convincing bargain hunting consumers in a weak economy to buy stuff they don't actually need from them and not a competitor. Why would this inspire investor confidence? There are plenty of companies that fail to meet their sales targets at Christmas, for plenty of reasons."

negative: Owning a stock via a fund and selling it short simultaneously should have the same net financial effect as not owning the stock.  This should work both for your personal finances as well as the impact of (not) owning the shares has on the stock's price. To use an extreme example, suppose there are 4 million outstanding shares of Evil Oil Company.  Suppose a group of concerned index fund investors owns 25% of the stock and sells short the same amount.   They've borrowed someone else's 25% of the company and sold it to a third party.  It should have the same effect as selling their own shares of the company, which they can't otherwise do.  Now when 25% of the company's stock becomes available for purchase at market price, what happens to the stock?  It falls, of course.   Regarding how it affects your own finances, suppose the stock price rises and the investors have to return the shares to the lender.  They buy 1 million shares at market price, pushing the stock price up, give them back, and then sell another million shares short, subsequently pushing the stock price back down. If enough people do this to effect the share price of a stock or asset class, the managers at the companies might be forced into behaving in a way that satisfies the investors.  In your case, perhaps the company could issue a press release and fire the employee that tried to extort money from your wife's estate in order to win your investment business back.  Okay, well maybe that's a stretch.

negative: So far buying of own by own companies like Apple, is concerned it will surely raise the price of the script. At some level, the share prices are a factor of supply and demand at a given price. Apple being a very demanded script, its supply in the market goes down with the buy back. After a while, this will surely make the script price rise. It also depends at what price the buy back is affected. If the buy back is done at a right price, it will help the existing shareholder. If a very high price is paid, it will erode shareholders wealth.  Hence each buy back needs to be studies separately. There are several and at times complex variables which determines if the buy back is good for continuing shareholders or not.

negative: "After the initial public offering, the company can raise money by selling more stock (equity financing) or selling debt (e.g. borrowing money).  If a company's stock price is high, they can raise money with equity financing on more favorable terms.  When companies raise money with equity financing, they create new shares and dilute the existing shareholders, so the number of shares outstanding is not fixed. Companies can also return money to shareholders by buying their own equity, and this is called a share repurchase.  It's best for companies to repurchase their shared when their stock price is low, but ""American companies have a terrible track record of buying their own shares high and selling them low."" The management of a company typically likes a rising stock price, so their stock options are more valuable and they can justify bigger pay packages."

negative: The same applies if you were looking for a business to buy: would you pay more for a business that is doing well making increasing profits year after year, or for a business that is not doing so well and is losing money. A share in a company is basically a small part of a company which a shareholder can own. So would you rather own a part of a company that is increasing profits year after year or one that is continuously losing money? Someone would buy shares in a company in order to make a better return than they could make elsewhere. They can make a profit through two ways: first, a share of the company's profits through dividends, and second capital gains from the price of the shares going up. Why does the price of the shares go up over the long term when a company does well and increases profits? Because when a company increases profits they are making more and more money which increases the net worth of the company. More investors would prefer to buy shares in a company that makes increasing profits because this will increase the net worth of the company, and in turn will drive the share price higher over the long term. A company's increase in profits creates higher demand for the company's shares. Think about it, if interest rates are so low like they are now, where it is hard to get a return higher than inflation, why wouldn't investors then search for higher returns in good performing companies in the stock market? More investors' and traders' wanting some of the pie, creates higher demand for good performing stocks driving the share price higher. The demand for these companies is there primarily because the companies are increasing their profits and net worth, so over the long term the share price will increase in-line with the net worth. Over the short to medium term other factors can also affect the share price, sometime opposite to how the company is actually performing; however this is a whole different answer to a whole different question.

negative: Not directly Nintendo, but: A company would want its share price to be high if it wants to sell its stock, e.g. on IPO or on subsequent offerings. However, if they want to buy back some shares, it would be in their interest to get more stock for the buck. There may of course be derivative values associated with a high share price, e.g. if they bet on the price or have agreements with investors for particular milestones to be reached. Employees might hold shares and be motivated by share price increases, so a decrease may not be desired, unless they are into some kind of insider trading (buy low, sell high). And last, over-valued share prices may undermine trust in a company, and failing to inform shareholders sufficiently may be outright illegal. Besides those reasons related to law, funding, sales, public relations and company image, companies should be pretty much independent from their own share prices, in contrast to share distribution.

negative: "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."

negative: This question is very open ended. But I'll try to answer parts of it. An employer can offer shares as part of a compensation package. Instead of paying cash the employer can use the money to buy up shares and give them to the employees. This is done to keep employees for longer periods of time and the employer may also want to create more insider ownership for a number of reasons. Another possibility is issuance of secondary offerings that are partially given to employees. Secondary offerings often lower the price of the shares in the market and create an incentive for employees to stay until the stock price rises. All of these conditions can be stipulated, look up golden handcuffs. Usually stock gifts are only given to a few high level employees and as part of a bonus package. It is very unusual to see a mature company regularly give away large amounts of stock, as this is a frowned upon practice. Start ups often pay their employees with stock up until the company is acquired or goes public.

negative: "Think about the implications if the world worked as your question implies that it ""should"":  A $15 share of stock would return you (at least) $15 after 3 months, plus another $15 after 6 months, plus another after 9 and 12 months.  This would have returned to you $60 over the year that you owned it (plus you still own the share).  Only then would the stock be worth buying?  Anything less than $60 would be too little to be worth bothering about for $15? Such a thing would indeed be worth buying, but you won't find golden-egg laying stocks like that on the stock market.  Why?  Because other people would outbid your measly $15 in order to get this $60-a-year producing stock (in fact, they would bid many hundreds of dollars).  Since other people bid more, you can't find such a deal available. (Of course, there are the points others have brought up: the earnings per share are yearly, not quarterly, unless otherwise noted.  The earnings may not be sent to you at all, or only a small part, but you would gain much of their value because the company should be worth about that much more by keeping the earnings.)"

negative: "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."

negative: how do they turn shares into cash that they can then use to grow their business? Once a Company issues an IPO or Follow-On Public Offer, the company gets the Money. Going over the list of question tagged IPO would help you with basics. Specifically the below questions; How does a company get money by going public in an IPO? Why would a company care about the price of its own shares in the stock market? Why would a stock opening price differ from the offering price?  From what I've read so far, it seems that pre-IPO an investment bank essentially buys the companies public shares, and that bank then sells them on the open market. Is the investment bank buying 100% of the newly issued public shares? And then depositing the cash equivalent into the companies bank account? Additionally, as the stock price rises and falls over the lifetime of the company how does that actually impact the companies bank balance? Quite a bit on above is incorrect. Please read the answers to the question tagged IPO. Once an IPO is over, the company does not gain anything directly from the change in shareprice. There is indirect gain / loss.

negative: The holders of the shares have to agree to sell them to management in a share repurchase.  Typically, share repurchases are done in the open market, causing market activity to increase the share price marginally.  This is how the company returns the value to shareholders.  The company could also negotiate a price with a mutual fund, or founder, for a large block.     If they get close to the point of purchasing all outstanding shares, this would be exactly the same as the management of the company taking the company private, buying out all existing shareholders.   To prevent a single holdout from keeping say the very last share for one million dollars or the like on the open market, they would generally propose to the board of directors the buyout terms with a price per share, and most corporate charters are written such that the directors' vote binds minority shareholders to buyout or merger decisions.  Michael Dell famously took Dell Computer private in 2013, raising external money to offer a fair price to the board, which accepted it, letting him take it back to private status.

negative: Companies do both quite often.  They have opposite effects on the share price, but not on the total value to the shareholders.  Doing both causes value to shareholders to rise (ie, any un-bought back shares now own a larger percentage of the company and are worth more) and drops the per-share price (so it is easier to buy a share of the stock).  To some that's irrelevant, but some might want a share of an otherwise-expensive stock without paying $700 for it. As a specific example of this, Apple (APPL) split its stock in 2014 and also continued a significant buyback program: Apple announces $17B repurchase program, Oct 2014 Apple stock splits 7-to-1 in June 2014. This led to their stock in total being worth more, but costing substantially less per share.

negative: "When you buy a share of stock, you are almost always buying from someone who previously purchased that share and now wants to sell it. The money -- minus broker's fee -- goes to that other investor, which may be a person, a company (rarely the company that issued the stock, but that will occasionally be the case), an investment fund, the ""market maker"" for that stock (websearch for definition of that term), or anyone else. They owned a small percentage of the company; you bought it from them and gave them the money for it, just as you would buy anything else. You don't know or care who you bought from; they don't know or care who they sold to; the market just found a buyer and seller who could agree on the price. There are a very few exceptions to that. The company may repurchase some of its own shares and/or sell them again, depending on its own financial needs and obligations. For example, my own employer has to purchase its own shares periodically so it has enough on hand to sell to employees at a slight discount  through the Employee Stock Ownership Program. But you generally don't know that's who you're selling to; it happens like any other transaction. And during the Initial Public Offering, if you're lucky/privileged enough to get in on the first wave of purchases, you're buying from the investment bank that's managing this process ... though that's an almost vanishingly rare case for ""retail"" investors like us; we're more likely to get the shares after someone has already pushed the price up a bit. But really, when you buy a share the money goes to whoever you bought it from, and that's all you can know or need to know."

negative: Not necessarily.  You only need to raise prices to maintain current profit margins.  Assuming you aren't living on a paper thin profit margin, you can give your employees a raise and suffer a lower profit margin.  Now, that could have other negative consequences on your stock value and shareholders might be upset, but that is a different discussion.

negative: "I think you've got basics, but you may have the order / emphasis a bit wrong. I've changed the order of the things you've learned in to what I think is the most important to understand: Owning a stock is like owning a tiny chunk of the business Owning stock is owning a tiny chunk of the business, it's not just ""like"" it. The ""tiny chunks"" are called shares, because that is literally what they are, a share of the business. Sometimes shares are also called stocks. The words stock and share are mostly interchangeable, but a single stock normally means your holding of many shares in a business, so if you have 100 shares in 1 company, that's a stock in that company, if you then buy 100 shares in another company, you now own 2 stocks. An investor seeks to buy stocks at a low price, and sell when the price is high. Not necessarily. An investor will buy shares in a company that they believe will make them a profit. In general, a company will make a profit and distribute some or all of it to shareholders in the form of dividends. They will also keep back a portion of the profit to invest in growing the company. If the company does grow, it will grow in value and your shares will get more valuable. Price (of a stock) is affected by supply/demand, volume, and possibly company profits The price of a share that you see on a stock ticker is the price that people on the market have exchanged the share for recently, not the price you or I can buy a share for, although usually if people on the market are buying and selling at that price, someone will buy or sell from you at a similar sort of price. In theory, the price will be the companies total value, if you were to own the whole thing (it's market capitalisation) divided by the total number of shares that exist in that company. The problem is that it's very difficult to work out the total value of a company. You can start by counting the different things that it owns (including things like intellectual property and the knowledge and experience of people who work there), subtract all the money it owes in loans etc., and then make an allowance for how much profit you expect the company to make in the future. The problem is that these numbers are all going to be estimates, and different peoples estimates will disagree. Some people don't bother to estimate at all. The market makers will just follow supply and demand. They will hold a few shares in each of many companies that they are interested in. They will advertise a lower price that they are willing to buy at and a higher price that they will sell at all the time. When they hold a lot of a share, they will price it lower so that people buy it from them. When they start to run out, they will price it higher. You will never need to spend more than the market makers price to buy a share, or get less than the market makers price when you come to sell it (unless you want to buy or sell more shares than they are willing to). This is why stock price depends on supply and demand. The other category of people who don't care about the companies they are trading are the high speed traders. They just look at information like the past price, the volume (total amount of shares being exchanged on the market) and many other statistics both from the market and elsewhere and look for patterns. You cannot compete with these people - they do things like physically locate their servers nearer to the stock exchanges buildings to get a few milliseconds time advantage over their competitors to buy shares quicker than them."

negative: I haven't seen any of the other answers address this point – shares are (a form of) ownership of a company and thus they are an entitlement to the proceeds of the company, including proceeds from liquidation. Imagine an (extreme, contrived) example whereby you own shares in a company that is explicitly intended to only exist for a finite and definite period, say to serve as the producers of a one-time event. Consider a possible sequence of major events in this company's life: So why would the shares of this hypothetical company be worth anything? Because the company itself is worth something, or rather the stuff that the company owns is worth something, even (or in my example, especially) in the event of its dissolution or liquidation. Besides just the stuff that a company owns, why else would owning a portion of a company be a good idea, i.e. why would I pay for such a privilege? Buying shares of a company is a good idea if you believe (and are correct) that a company will make larger profits or capture more value (e.g. buy and control more valuable stuff) than other people believe. If your beliefs don't significantly differ from others then (ideally) the price of the companies stock should reflect all of the future value that everyone expects it to have, tho that value is discounted based on time preference, i.e. how much more valuable a given amount of money or a given thing of value is today versus some time in the future. Some notes on time preference: But apart from whether you should buy shares in a specific company, owning shares can still be valuable. Not only are shares a claim on a company's current assets (in the event of liquidation) but they are also claims on all future assets of the company. So if a company is growing then the value of shares now should reflect the (discounted) future value of the company, not just the value of its assets today. If shares in a company pays dividends then the company gives you money for owning shares. You already understand why that's worth something. It's basically equivalent to an annuity, tho dividends are much more likely to stop or change whereas the whole point of an annuity is that it's a (sometimes) fixed amount paid at fixed intervals, i.e. reliable and dependable. As CQM points out in their answer, part of the value of stock shares, to those that own them, and especially to those considering buying them, is the expectation or belief that they can sell those shares for a greater price than what they paid for them – irrespective of the 'true value' of the stock shares. But even in a world where everyone (magically) had the same knowledge always, a significant component of a stock's value is independent of its value as a source of trading profit. As Jesse Barnum points out in their answer, part of the value of stocks that don't pay dividends relative to stocks that do is due to the (potential) differences in tax liabilities incurred between dividends and long-term capital gains. This however, is not the primary source of value of a stock share.

negative: RonJohn is right, all shares are owned by someone.  Depending on the company, they can be closely held so that nobody wants to sell at a given time.  This can cause the price people are offering to rise until someone sells.  That trade will cause an adjustment in the ticker price of that stock.  Supply and demand at work.  Berkshire Hathaway is an example of this.  The number of shares is low, the demand for them is high, the price per share is high.

negative: "A company has 100,000 shares and 100,000 unexercised call options (company issued). Share price and strike price both at $1. What country is this related to?   I ask because, in the US, most people I know associate a ""call"" option with the instrument that is equivalent to 100 shares.   So 100,000 calls would be 10,000,000 shares, which exceeds the number of shares you're saying the company has.   I don't know if that means you pulled the numbers out of thin air, or whether it means you're thinking of a different type of option? Perhaps you meant incentive stock options meant to be given to employees?  Each one of those is equivalent to a single share.  They just aren't called ""call options"". In the rest of my answer, I'm going to assume you meant stock options. I assume the fact that these options exist will slow any price increases on the underlying shares due to potential dilution? I don't think the company can just create stock options without creating the underlying shares in the first place.  Said another way, a more likely scenario is that company creates 200,000 shares and agrees to float 50% of them while reserving the other 50% as the pool for incentive employee stock.  They then choose to give the employees options on the stock in the incentive pool, rather than outright grants of the stock, for various reasons.  (One of which is being nice to the employees in regards to taxes since there is no US tax due at grant time if the strike price is the current price of the underlying stock.) An alternative scenario when the company shares are liquidly traded is that the company simply plans to buy back shares from the market in order to give employees their shares when options are exercised.  In this case, the company needs the cash on hand, or cash flow to take money from, to buy those shares at current prices. Anyway, in either case, there is no dilution happening WHEN the options get exercised.  Any dilution happened before or at the time the options were created.   Meaning, the total number of shares in the company was already pre-set at an earlier time.  As a result, the fact that the options exist in themselves will not slow price changes on the stock. However, price changes will be impacted by the total float of shares in the company, or the impact to cash flow if the company has to buy shares to redeem its option commitments.   This is almost the same thing you're asking about, but it is technically different as to timing. If this is the case, can this be factored into any option pricing models like black-scholes? You're including the effect just by considering the total float of shares and net profits from cash flow when doing your modelling."

negative: No. Not directly. A company issues stock in order to raise capital for building its business. Once the initial shares are sold to the public, the company doesn't receive additional funds from future transactions of those shares of stock between the public.  However, the company could issue more shares at the new higher price to raise more capital.

negative: Companies pay their employees in stocks and stock options, so they have an incentive towards increasing a company's share price. There are many elements that go into a stock's price. For example, if you hold a stock for eternity you should be indifferent if the expected present value of all its future dividends (i.e. earnings) equals the price you paid for it. Also, buy-back policies and voting rights determine stock price as well. The theory is that since shareholders want return on their investments they would promote company executives in such a way that their incentives are aligned to increase the share price.

negative: "Why only long term investments? What do they care if I buy and sell   shares in a company in the same year? Simple, your actually investing when you hold it for a long term. If you hold a stock for a week or a month there is very little that can happen to change the price, in a perfect market the value of a company should stay the same from yesterday to today so long as there is no news(a perfect market cannot exist). When you hold a stock for a long term you really are investing in the company and saying ""this company will grow"". Short term investing is mostly speculation and speculation causes securities to be incorrectly valued. So when a retail investor puts money into something like Facebook for example they can easily be burned by speculation whether its to the upside or downside. If the goal is to get me to invest my money, then why not give apply   capital gains tax to my savings account at my local bank? Or a CD   account? I believe your gains on these accounts are taxed... Not sure at what rate. If the goal is to help the overall health of business, how does it do   that? During an IPO, the business certainly raises money, but after   that I'm just buying and selling shares with other private   shareholders. Why does the government give me an incentive to do this   (and then hold onto it for at least a year)? There are many reasons why a company cares about its market price: A companies market cap is calculated by price * shares outstanding. A market cap is basically what the market is saying your company is worth. A company can offer more shares or sell shares they currently hold in order to raise even more capital. A company can offer shares instead of cash when buying out another company. It can pay for many things with shares. Many executives and top level employees are payed with stock options, so they defiantly want to see there price higher. these are some basic reasons but there are more and they can be more complex."

negative: Not necessarily. You can set any rules that you like, and you can get capital from other sources. In our company's case, you have to work there for a year before you are eligible to join the co-op. The buy in is given as an interest free loan taken through payroll deduction. We don't get to share the profits generated by the labor of people who are not members of the company. Those stay as retained earnings. We can take on loans as well as outside investment as long as the outside investors aren't given voting rights (via restricted preferred stock).

negative: "It's been said before, but to repeat succinctly, a company's current share price is no more or less than what ""the market"" thinks that share is worth, as measured by the price at which the shares are being bought and sold. As such, a lot of things can affect that price, some of them material, others ethereal. A common reason to own stock is to share the profits of the company; by owning 1 share out of 1 million shares outstanding, you are entitled to 1/1000000 of that company's quarterly profits (if any). These are paid out as dividends. Two key measurements are based on these dividend payments; the first is ""earnings per share"", which is the company's stated quarterly profits, divided by outstanding shares, with the second being the ""price-earnings ratio"" which is the current price of the stock divided by its EPS. Your expected ""yield"" on this stock is more or less the inverse of this number; if a company has a P/E ratio of 20, then all things being equal, if you invest $100 in this stock you can expect a return of $5, or 5% (1/20). As such, changes in the expected earnings per share can cause the share price to rise or fall to maintain a P/E ratio that the pool of buyers are willing to tolerate. News that a company might miss its profit expectations, due to a decrease in consumer demand, an increase in raw materials costs, labor, financing, or any of a multitude of things that industry analysts watch, can cause the stock price to drop sharply as people look for better investments with higher yields. However, a large P/E ratio is not necessarily a bad thing, especially for a large stable company. That stability means the company is better able to weather economic problems, and thus it is a lower risk. Now, not all companies issue dividends. Apple is probably the most well-known example. The company simply retains all its earnings to reinvest in itself. This is typically the strategy of a smaller start-up; whether they're making good money or not, they typically want to keep what they make so they can keep growing, and the shareholders are usually fine with that. Why? Well, because there's more than one way to value a company, and more than one way to look at a stock. Owning one share of a stock can be seen quite literally as owning a share of that company. The share can then be valued as a fraction of the company's total assets.  Sounds simple, but it isn't, because not every asset the company owns has a line in the financial statements. A company's brand name, for instance, has no tangible value, and yet it is probably the most valuable single thing Apple owns. Similarly, intellectual property doesn't have a ""book value"" on a company's balance sheet, but again, these are huge contributors to the success and profitability of a company like Apple; the company is viewed as a center of innovation, and if it were not doing any innovating, it would very quickly be seen as a middleman for some other company's ideas and products. A company can't sustain that position for long even if it's raking in the money in the meantime. Overall, the value of a company is generally a combination of these two things; by owning a portion of stock, you own a piece of the company's assets, and also claim a piece of their profits. A large company with a lot of material assets and very little debt can be highly valued based solely on the sum of its parts, even if profits are lagging. Conversely, a company more or less operating out of a storage unit can have a patent on the cure for cancer, and be shoveling money into their coffers with bulldozers."

negative: "Something to note is that when a company announces a share buyback program there is usually a time frame and amount of shares that are important details as it isn't like the company will make one big buy back of stock generally.  Rather it may take months or even years as noted in the Wikipedia article about share repurchases. Wikipedia covers some of the technical details here but to give a specific set of answers: When a company announces a share buyback program, who do they actually   buy back the shares from?  From the Wikipedia link: ""Under US corporate law there are five primary methods of stock repurchase: open market, private negotiations, repurchase 'put' rights, and two variants of self-tender repurchase: a fixed price tender offer and a Dutch auction."" Thus, there are open market and a couple of other possibilities. Openly traded shares on a stock exchange?  Possibly, though there are other options. Is there a fixed price that   they buy back at? Sometimes.  I'd think a ""fixed price tender offer"" would imply a fixed price though the open market way may take various prices. If I own shares in that company, can I get them to buy back my shares? Selective Buy-Backs is noted in Wikipedia as: ""In broad terms, a selective buy-back is one in which identical offers are not made to every shareholder, for example, if offers are made to only some of the shareholders in the company. In the US, no special shareholder approval of a selective buy-back is required. In the UK, the scheme must first be approved by all shareholders, or by a special resolution (requiring a 75% majority) of the members in which no vote is cast by selling shareholders or their associates. Selling shareholders may not vote in favor of a special resolution to approve a selective buy-back. The notice to shareholders convening the meeting to vote on a selective buy-back must include a statement setting out all material information that is relevant to the proposal, although it is not necessary for the company to provide information already disclosed to the shareholders, if that would be unreasonable."" Thus it is possible, though how probable is another question. While not in the question, something to consider is how the buybacks can be done as a result of offsetting the dilution of employees who have stock options that may exercise them and spread the earnings over more shares, but this is more on understanding the employee stock option scenario that various big companies use when it comes to giving employees an incentive to help the stock price."

negative: There are a few reasons, dependent on the location of the company.  The first, as you mentioned is that it means that the employee is invested in the companies success - in theory this should motivate the employee to work hard in order to increase the value of their holdings. Sometimes these have a vestment period which requires that they hold the stock for a certain amount of time before they are able to sell, and that they continue working at the company for a certain amount of time. The second, is that unlike cash, providing stocks doesn't come out of the companies liquid cash. While it is still an expense and does devalue the shares of other shareholders, it doesn't effect the daily working capital which is important to maintain to ensure business continuity. And the third, and this is for the employee, is tax reasons. In particular for substantial amounts. Of course this is dependent on jurisdiction but you can often achieve lower tax rates on receiving shares vs a cash equivalent sum, as you can draw out the money over time lowering your tax obligation each year, or other methods which aren't possible to look into now. Hope this helps.

negative: Options granted by an employer to an employee are generally different that the standardized options that are traded on public stock option exchanges.  They may or may not have somewhat comparable terms, but generally the terms are fairly different. As a holder of an expiring employee option, you can only choose to exercise it by paying the specified price and receiving the shares, or not.  It is common that the exercise system will allow you to exercise all the shares and simultaneously sell enough of the acquired shares to cover the option cost of all the shares, thus leaving you owning some of the stock without having to spend any cash.  You will owe taxes on the gain on exercise, regardless of what you do with the stock. If you want to buy publicly-traded options, you should consider that completely separately from your employer options other than thinking about how much exposure you have to your company situation.  It is very common for employees to be imprudently overexposed to their company's stock (through direct ownership or options).

negative: Not quite.  Every security issued by the company defines what it gets. If you want to go straight to common stock, the shareholders are in fact owners of the company: after everyone else gets paid, no matter what is left, it belongs to the common shareholders.