| |
 |
|
|
Finance & Stock Groups Forum Index » Mutual Funds » What if no one will BUY BACK my stock I am selling?
Page 1 of 1
|
| Author |
Message |
| Robert Blass |
 Posted: Sat Oct 11, 2008 7:05 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
No one has ever explained this one. I buy a stock @ $100 per share.
Once I see it is $200 I want to sell it to make a $100 profit.
What/who is buying my stock? Would we ever reach a point where NO ONE
would buy the stock you're wanting to sell whether it is a gain or
loss for them or you?
So if GOOG goes to $1Million per share then google would be forced by
law to buy all outstanding shares @ $1million per share? WOuldn't that
bankrupt google?
ALSO:WHat if I buy google @ $100 per share and the price later drops
to $0.01 per share? Is google forced to buy all shares back at one
penny per share?
I keep seeing/hearing people talk about selling their stock but WHO
the hell are these people selling too?
Santa Claus?
GM is @ $5 per share. If you bought every share you could afford,
mortage homes, sell cars and get a second job, bought ALL the shares
you could @ $5 per share and the stock just goes up HALF of it's
highest price in 2008 then you'd see a return of 5-fold!
THAT is why I say the whole market is no better than gambling at a
casino and shouldn't ever be put in a better light....
The only difference between a hooker and a stock broker is that the
hooker at least ADMITS to having sex for money.
be well....
We need conservatives in the white house because they lower our taxes
OH WAIT our net worth drops $4 trillion under Bush..LOL NM |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Steven L. |
| Posted: Sat Oct 11, 2008 9:35 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Robert Blass wrote:
Quote: No one has ever explained this one. I buy a stock @ $100 per share.
Once I see it is $200 I want to sell it to make a $100 profit.
What/who is buying my stock? Would we ever reach a point where NO ONE
would buy the stock you're wanting to sell whether it is a gain or
loss for them or you?
Such a stock is called "thinly traded." Generally, for established
companies with tens of thousands of shares, if there are sellers, there
are buyers. There were buyers buying WorldCom and Bear Stearns and
Lehman Brothers all the way down to their final bankruptcy.
In fact, Richard Band's Profitable Investing Newsletter had recommended
buying WorldCom when its stock price dropped to $10 per share.
Unfortunately, it kept dropping and went bankrupt shortly thereafter.
But for very small startup companies, or private placements that aren't
publicly traded, there are fewer outstanding shares being traded. And
yes, those stocks can be somewhat illiquid.
Quote: So if GOOG goes to $1Million per share then google would be forced by
law to buy all outstanding shares @ $1million per share?
No one forces GOOG to buy their own shares.
Quote: ALSO:WHat if I buy google @ $100 per share and the price later drops
to $0.01 per share? Is google forced to buy all shares back at one
penny per share?
No one forces GOOG to buy their own shares.
Quote: GM is @ $5 per share. If you bought every share you could afford,
mortage homes, sell cars and get a second job, bought ALL the shares
you could @ $5 per share and the stock just goes up HALF of it's
highest price in 2008 then you'd see a return of 5-fold!
Well, if you had been smart enough to have invested in Microsoft back
when it was this tiny little company making games, you would be a
gazillionaire now. That's why Bill Gates is a gazillionaire, along with
Paul Allen and the rest of the original Microsoft hackers.
Quote: THAT is why I say the whole market is no better than gambling at a
casino and shouldn't ever be put in a better light....
No, it's risky but it's not a gamble. A gamble is a pure game of
chance. But when you invest in a stock, you are betting on a company.
Presumably you have a REASON why you think that company will do well in
the future. Otherwise, you would not have bought the stock.
For example, it's not much of a gamble to invest in Coca-Cola's stock.
Their products have sold worldwide in every economic condition, and
there's no reason to believe that consumers will suddenly stop drinking
soft drinks.
True, in a bear market, all stocks can be dragged down. But the stock
market itself is a reflection of the nation's economy. When you invest
in the stock market (say through an S&P index fund), you are really
betting on 500 of America's top companies, which means you are betting
on America.
For the last 230 years, that's been a good bet.
If you're not optimistic about America's long-term future, then don't
invest in American stocks.
--
Steven L.
Email: sdlitvin@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Andrew Koenig |
| Posted: Sat Oct 11, 2008 6:08 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Robert Blass" <blame@messenger.xcx> wrote in message
news:rh50f4hq6tbtpd5i478v51reapk20i48r5@xxx.org...
Quote: No one has ever explained this one. I buy a stock @ $100 per share.
Once I see it is $200 I want to sell it to make a $100 profit.
What/who is buying my stock? Would we ever reach a point where NO ONE
would buy the stock you're wanting to sell whether it is a gain or
loss for them or you?
When people say that the price of a stock is $200, that means that the last
time someone bought it and someone else sold it, that transaction took place
at $200.
It is possible that if you offer to sell yours for $200, you won't be able
to do so because the previous buyer was the last one willing to pay that
price. However, it's also possible that you might bet more than $200 if you
offer it at the higher price. That's why it's called a market.
Quote: So if GOOG goes to $1Million per share then google would be forced by
law to buy all outstanding shares @ $1million per share? WOuldn't that
bankrupt google?
No one is forced by law to buy anything. If the price is $1 million, that
means that *someone* is willing to pay $1 million for a share of Google.
Quote: ALSO:WHat if I buy google @ $100 per share and the price later drops
to $0.01 per share? Is google forced to buy all shares back at one
penny per share?
No one is forced by law to buy anything, or to sell it, for that matter.
Quote: I keep seeing/hearing people talk about selling their stock but WHO
the hell are these people selling too?
Santa Claus?
Other people who are willing to bet against the sellers that the stock will
be worth more in the future.
Quote: GM is @ $5 per share. If you bought every share you could afford,
mortage homes, sell cars and get a second job, bought ALL the shares
you could @ $5 per share and the stock just goes up HALF of it's
highest price in 2008 then you'd see a return of 5-fold!
Indeed. And if the company goes bankrupt, so would you.
Quote: THAT is why I say the whole market is no better than gambling at a
casino and shouldn't ever be put in a better light....
The only difference between a hooker and a stock broker is that the
hooker at least ADMITS to having sex for money.
Your analogy is mistaken -- it does not stand up under examination.
In a casino, the casino itself (usually called "the house") skims a small
portion off every bet. For example, on a roulette wheel, there are possible
outcomes of each spin: a number from 1 through 36, 0, or 00. If you bet on
an even number, then you win if you get 2, 4, ... 36, and you lose if you
get 1, 3, ..., 35; but you also lose if you get 0 or 00. So the odds of
winning are *always* less than probability dictates, and the house always
winds up winning in the long run.
In the stock market, shares you own are parts of businesses that create
wealth. That wealth makes the businesses themselves more valuable unless
they return that wealth to their shareholders in the form of dividends. The
shareholders profit from that wealth creation either way.
So in a casino, your bets have a large random factor superimposed on a
steady downward slope imposed by the house's margin.
In the stock market, your bets have a large random factor superimposed on a
steady *upward* slope imposed by the wealth created by the businesses that
the stocks represent.
In a casino, if you keep betting long enough to damp out the randomness, you
will always lose.
In the stock market, if you keep betting long enough to damp out the
randomness, you will always win.
In both cases, the only real question is the definition of "long enough."
Quote: We need conservatives in the white house because they lower our taxes
OH WAIT our net worth drops $4 trillion under Bush..LOL NM
I suggest that you read a book by Benoit Mandelbrot called "The
(Mis)Behavior of Markets." He makes a convincing case that markets have
much more randomness in them than most people--including most
economists--realize, and that ordinary statistical methods are not adequate
to deal with this kind of randomness.
Blaming the occupant of the White House for such events makes about as much
sense as blaming someone who tosses a coin that comes up heads when you
wanted tails. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Robert Blass |
| Posted: Sat Oct 11, 2008 7:04 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sat, 11 Oct 2008 14:08:04 GMT, "Andrew Koenig" <ark@acm.org> sayd
the following:
Quote: Blaming the occupant of the White House for such events makes about as much
sense as blaming someone who tosses a coin that comes up heads when you
wanted tails.
So when OBAMA assumes office in 2009 we can be assured no one will
blame 'the white house' for the stock market's performance?
or will it be the 'old tune' of dem=bad and gop=good for the economy/
???? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Andrew Koenig |
| Posted: Sat Oct 11, 2008 11:33 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Robert Blass" <blame@messenger.xcx> wrote in message
news:9vj1f4pjafop9v53ncjkl6a096rcb5mn3b@xxx.org...
Quote: So when OBAMA assumes office in 2009 we can be assured no one will
blame 'the white house' for the stock market's performance?
Well, no -- of course not. People will always look for someone to blame for
everything. That doesn't make them right. Or wrong, for that matter.
My point is that markets have a huge random component to them, and that
looking for someone to blame for that randomness is seeking patterns where
none exist. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| -herb |
| Posted: Sat Oct 18, 2008 12:04 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Steven L." <sdlitvin@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:U5SdnVKYsJe5pm3VnZ2dnUVZ_o_inZ2d@earthlink.com...
Quote: Robert Blass wrote:
No one has ever explained this one. I buy a stock @ $100 per share.
Once I see it is $200 I want to sell it to make a $100 profit.
What/who is buying my stock? Would we ever reach a point where NO ONE
would buy the stock you're wanting to sell whether it is a gain or
loss for them or you?
Such a stock is called "thinly traded." Generally, for established
companies with tens of thousands of shares, if there are sellers, there
are buyers. There were buyers buying WorldCom and Bear Stearns and Lehman
Brothers all the way down to their final bankruptcy.
In fact, Richard Band's Profitable Investing Newsletter had recommended
buying WorldCom when its stock price dropped to $10 per share.
Unfortunately, it kept dropping and went bankrupt shortly thereafter.
But for very small startup companies, or private placements that aren't
publicly traded, there are fewer outstanding shares being traded. And
yes, those stocks can be somewhat illiquid.
So if GOOG goes to $1Million per share then google would be forced by
law to buy all outstanding shares @ $1million per share?
No one forces GOOG to buy their own shares.
ALSO:WHat if I buy google @ $100 per share and the price later drops
to $0.01 per share? Is google forced to buy all shares back at one
penny per share?
No one forces GOOG to buy their own shares.
GM is @ $5 per share. If you bought every share you could afford,
mortage homes, sell cars and get a second job, bought ALL the shares
you could @ $5 per share and the stock just goes up HALF of it's
highest price in 2008 then you'd see a return of 5-fold!
Well, if you had been smart enough to have invested in Microsoft back when
it was this tiny little company making games, you would be a gazillionaire
now. That's why Bill Gates is a gazillionaire, along with Paul Allen and
the rest of the original Microsoft hackers.
THAT is why I say the whole market is no better than gambling at a
casino and shouldn't ever be put in a better light....
No, it's risky but it's not a gamble. A gamble is a pure game of chance.
But when you invest in a stock, you are betting on a company. Presumably
you have a REASON why you think that company will do well in the future.
Otherwise, you would not have bought the stock.
For example, it's not much of a gamble to invest in Coca-Cola's stock.
Their products have sold worldwide in every economic condition, and
there's no reason to believe that consumers will suddenly stop drinking
soft drinks.
True, in a bear market, all stocks can be dragged down. But the stock
market itself is a reflection of the nation's economy. When you invest in
the stock market (say through an S&P index fund), you are really betting
on 500 of America's top companies, which means you are betting on America.
For the last 230 years, that's been a good bet.
If you're not optimistic about America's long-term future, then don't
invest in American stocks.
I heard John Bogle (a very old man who's lived through many booms and busts)
liken the day to day trading in the stock market as gamblers competing with
ganblers. He dismisses it completely and points out that over time the
stock market returns the same as the companies trading on it. That's what
is worth paying attention to.
-herb |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
Page 1 of 1
All times are GMT
The time now is Fri Dec 05, 2008 9:21 am
|
|
|