vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
They could have different quotes as there are more than a few pieces here.  Are you talking a Real Time Level II quote or just a delayed quote?  Delayed quotes could vary as different companies would be using different time points in their data.  You aren't specifying exactly what kind of quote from which system are you using here. The key to this question is how much of a pinpoint answer do you want and how prepared are you to pay for that kind of access to the automated trades happening?  Remember that there could well be more than a few trades happening each millisecond and thus latency is something to be very careful here, regardless of the exchange as long as we are talking about first-world stock exchanges where there are various automated systems being used for trading. Different market makers is just a possible piece of the equation here.  One could have the same market maker but if the timings are different,e.g. if one quote is at 2:30:30 and the other is at 2:30:29 there could be a difference given all the trades processed within that second, thus the question is how well can you get that split second total view of bids and asks for a stock.  You want to get all the outstanding orders which could be a non-trivial task.
The point is that the bid and ask prices dictate what you can buy and sell at (at market, at least), and the difference between the two, or spread, contributes implicitly to your gains or losses. For example, say your $1 stock actually had a bid of $0.90 and an ask of $1.10; i.e. say that $1 was the last price. You would have to buy the stock at the ask price of $1.10, but now you can only sell that stock at the bid price of $0.90. Thus, you would need to make at least that $0.20 spread before you can make a profit.
BATS here means your data feed is coming from BATS only. You're not seeing up to date prices from NASDAQ, NYSE or any other of the ECNs. For a liquid equity like AAPL, BATS prices are typically up to date but for a less liquid listing, you wouldn't always see the NBBO. To get live feeds from every ECN, you have to pay. BATS is offering this information freely and that's why you're seeing it now. AAPL is listed on NASDAQ but you can trade pretty much everything on BATS, just like on other ECNs and exchanges.
"In the US, stocks are listed on one exchange but can be traded on multiple venues.  You need to confirm exactly what your data is showing: a) trades on the primary-listed exchange; or b) trades made at any venue. Also, the trade condition codes are important.  Only certain trade condition codes contribute towards the day's open/high/low/close and some others only contribute towards the volume data.  The Consolidated Tape Association is very clear on which trades should contribute towards each value - but some vendors have their own interpretation (or just simply an erroneous interpretation of the specifications). It may surprise you to find that the majority of trading volume for many stocks is not on their primary-listed exchange.  For example, on 2 Mar 2015, NASDAQ:AAPL traded a total volume across all venues was 48096663 shares but trading on NASDAQ itself was 12050277 shares. Trades can be cancelled.  Some data vendors do not modify their data to reflect these busted trades.   Some data vendors also ""snapshot"" their feed at a particular point in time of the data.  Some exchanges can provide data (mainly corrections) 4-5 hours after the closing bell.  By snapshotting the data too early and throwing away any subsequent data is a typical cause of data discrepancies.   Some data vendors also round prices/volumes - but stocks don't just trade to two decimal places. So you may well be comparing two different sets of trades (with their own specific inclusion rules) against the same stock.  You need to confirm with your data sources exactly how they do things. Disclosure: Premium Data is an end-of-day daily data vendor."
Summarized article: The NASDAQ announced it will offer $40 million to compensate clients who were disadvantaged by technical problems during Facebook's IPO on May 18.   NASDAQ's technical glitch caused a delay in the opening of first day trading of Facebook shares and traders experienced slow order confirmations.   NASDAQ said $13.7 million will be paid to its affected investment firms and the balance will be given to the firms as credit to reduce trading fees. The benefits would last as long as 6 months.   Investors who are eligible for compensation are those who placed orders to buy Facebook shares at $42 or less but were executed at an inferior price or those whose orders went through but were not immediately confirmed.  The New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) opposed the compensation offer saying the move would allow NASDAQ to undercut them on prices and would take market share from competing exchanges.   NASDAQ's compensation plan is subject to regulator approval.    Facebook shares are currently down 30% from the IPO price of $38.  *For more summarized news, subscribe to the [/r/SkimThat](http://www.reddit.com/r/SkimThat) subreddit*
They all basically mean the same thing - a type of debt than can be exchanged for (converted into) equity at some point. It's only the mechanics that can be different. A convertible bond is structured just like a regular bond - it (usually) pays periodic interest and has a face value that's due at maturity. The difference is that the bond holder has the option to exchange the debt for equity at some point during the life of the bond.  There can be restrictions on when that conversion is possible, and they typically define a quantity of equity (number of shares) that the bond can be converted into.  If the market price of the shares goes above a price that would make the shares more valuable than the bond, it's in the best interest of the bond holder to convert. A convertible note is typically used to describe a kind of startup financing that does not pay interest or have a face value that's redeemed, but instead is redeemed for equity as part of a later financing round.  Rather than specifying a specific number of shares, the bond holder receives equity at a certain discount to the rest of the market. So they both are debt instruments that can turn into equity investments, just through different mechanisms. A debenture is a fancy word for unsecured debt, and convertible debt could be used to described either structure above, so those terms could mean either type of structure.
Because the quoted price is the LAST sale, clearly if there's someone still with an open bid on the market...then either he wants more shares than were available (the price stays same), or his bid wasn't as high as the last bid (so when you sale goes through, it will be at the price he's offering). Which is why being able to see the price queues is important on large traders. It is also why it can be important put stops and limits on your trades, een through you can still get gapped if you're unlucky. However putting prices (""Open Orders"" vs ""(at)Market Orders"") can mean that you're sitting there waiting for a bounce/spike while the action is all going on without you). safer but not as much gain (maybe ;) ) that's the excitement of the market, for every option there's advantages...and risks... (eg missing out) There are also issues with stock movement, shadowing, and stop hunting, which can influence the price. But the stuff in the long paragraphs is the technical reasons."
A rising tide lifts all ships   Most (but not all) stocks trend along with the general market. Some trend right along with the market (and have a beta at, or very near, one) some follow the Market, but are less sensitive (having a beta of less than one). Some are hypersensitive (and would have a beta of greater than one).  Beta defined  So most of the day to day movement of a stock is because the general market is moving (in the same direction). Of course, exceptional news about the company would cause its price to move independent of the general market. But more often than not the price of a stock moves just because the rest of the market is moving.
You should check with your broker. I asked my broker a similar question just 2 weeks ago. With their market orders they will be filled within 3 points from the current market bid/ask. If there is any remaining it will be placed as a limit order at 3 points away from the bid/ask price. For example, if the current ask is 100 @ $1.00 followed by 500 @ $1.01, 300 @ $1.02 and 100 @ $1.03; if you were to place a buy market order for 1000 shares you would get 100 filled at $1.00, 500 filled at $1.01, 300 filled at $1.02 and 100 filled at $1.03.  If, on the other hand, you were to place a buy market order for 2000 shares you would get 100 filled at $1.00, 500 filled at $1.01, 300 filled at $1.02 and 100 filled at $1.03, with the remaining 1000 of your order being placed as a limit order at $1.03. Again, check with your broker, as they may be different in how they treat their market orders.
Limit orders are generally safer than market orders. Market orders take whatever most-favorable price is being offered. This can be especially dangerous in highly volatile stocks which have a significant spread between the bid and ask. That being said, you want to be very careful that you enter the price you intend into a limit order. It is better to be a bit slower at entering your orders than it is to make a terrible mistake like the one you mention in your question.
) portret1 &lt;- returns%*%wghts portret1 &lt;- cbind(monthprc, portret1)[,3] colnames(portret1) &lt;- ""Optimal portfolio"" # Equal weights wghts &lt;- rep(1/8, 8) portret2 &lt;- returns%*%wghts portret2 &lt;- cbind(monthprc, portret2)[,3] colnames(portret2) &lt;- ""Equal weights portfolio"" png(""performance_both.png"", width = 800, height = 600) par(mfrow=c(2,2)) chart.CumReturns(portret1, ylim = c(0, 2)) chart.CumReturns(portret2, ylim = c(0, 2)) chart.Drawdown(portret1, main = ""Drawdown"", ylim = c(-0.06, 0)) chart.Drawdown(portret2, main = ""Drawdown"", ylim = c(-0.06, 0)) dev.off() https://imgur.com/sBHGz7s Adding gold changes the minimum variance mean return to 0.0116 and the variance stays about the same 0.0332. You can see how the weights change at different return and variance profiles in the picture. The takeaway is that adding gold decreases the return but does not do a lot for the risk of the portfolio. You also notice that silver does not get included in the minimum variance efficient portfolio (and neither does AMZN). https://imgur.com/rXPbXau We can also compare the optimal weights to an equally weighted portfolio and see that the latter would have performed better but had much larger drawdowns. Which is because it has a higher volatility, which might be undesirable. --- Everything below here is false, but illustrative. So what about the derivative part? Let us assume you bought an out of the money call option with a strike of 50 on MSFT at the beginning of the time series and held it to the end.
"My answer isn't a full one, but that's because I think the answer depends on, at minimum, the country your broker is in, the type of order you place (limit, market, algo, etc.,) and the size of your order. For example, I can tell from watching live rates on regular lot limit orders I place with my UK-based broker that they hold limit orders internally until they see a crossing rate on the exchange my requested stock is trading on, then they submit a limit order to that exchange.  I only get filled from that one exchange and this happens noticeably after I see my limit price print, and my fills are always better than my limit price. Whereas with my US-based broker, I can see my regular lotsize limit order in the order book (depth of book data) prior to any fills.  I will routinely be notified of a fill before I see the limit price print.  And my fills come from any number of US exchanges (NYSE, ARCA, BATS, etc.) even for the same stock. I should point out that the ""NBBO"" rule in the US, under SEC regulation NMS, probably causes more complications in handling of market and limit orders than you're likely to find in most countries."
You are comparing apples and oranges: the charts show the capital appreciation excluding dividends. If you include dividends and calculate a total return over that period you see VSMAX up 132% vs. FSEVX up 129%, i.e. quite close. That residual difference is possibly due to a performance difference between the two benchmarks.
In sleepy markets, buyers and sellers cancel out, they just ""capture"" that spread which is the desired outcome when that business model functions well. There are two situations where the brokerage's might lose money and capital becomes very important. In extremely volatile markets, every one of their clients may want to sell for some reason, this forces the FX brokers to accumulate a large position in the opposite side that they have to offload. They will trade in the institutional market with other brokerages to net out their positions so that they are as close to flat as possible. In the process, since bid/ask spreads in the institutional market is tighter than within their own brokerage by design, they should still make money while not taking much risk. However, if they are not fast enough, or if they do not have enough capital, the brokerage's position might move against them too quickly which may cause them lose all their capital and go belly up. The brokerage is net flat, but there are huge offsetting positions amongst its clients. In the example of the Swiss Franc revaluation in early 2015, a sudden pop of 10-20% would have effectively meant that money in client accounts that were on the wrong side of the trade could not cover those on the other side. When this happens, it is theoretically the brokerage's job to close out these positions before it wipes out the value of the client accounts, however it would have been impossible to do so since there were no prices in between the instantaneous pop in which the brokerage could have terminated their client's losing positions, and offload the risk in the institutional market. Since it's extremely hard to ask for more money than exist in the client accounts, those with strong capital positions simply ate the loss (such as Oanda), those that fared worse went belly up. The irony here is that the more leverage the brokerage gave to their clients, the less money would have been available to cover losses in such an event. Using an example to illustrate: say client A is long 1 contract at $100 and client B is short 1 contract at $100. The brokerage is thus net flat. If the brokerage had given 10:1 leverage, then there would be $10 in each client's account. Now instantaneously market moves down $10.
Notice that there is no point selling some of the shares (at the 10% higher NAV) to get cash because you will be purchasing shares at the higher NAV too. You could, of course, sell shares of the stock mutual fund at the higher NAV and buy shares of some other fund available to you in the 401k plan. One advantage of doing this inside the 401k plan is that you don't have to pay taxes (now) on the 10% gain that you have made on the sale. Outside tax-deferred plans such as 401k and IRA plans, such gains would be taxable in the year of the sale. But note that selling the shares of the stock fund and buying something else indicates that you believe that the NAV of your stock mutual fund is unlikely to increase any further in the near future. A third possibility for your 401k being up by 10% is that the mutual fund paid a dividend or made a capital gains distribution in the two week period that we are discussing. The NAV falls when such events occur, but if you have chosen to reinvest the dividends and capital gains, then the number of shares that you own goes up. With the same example as before, the NAV goes up 10% in two weeks at which time a capital gains distribution occurs, and so the NAV falls back to where it was before. So, before the capital gains distribution, you owned 100 shares at $10 NAV which went up to $11 NAV (10% increase in NAV) for a net increase in 401k balance from $1000 to $1100. The mutual fund distributes capital gains in the amount of $1 per share sending the NAV back to $10, but you take the $100 distribution and plow it back into the mutual fund, purchasing 10 shares at the new $10 NAV. So now you own 110 shares at $10 NAV (no net change in price in two weeks) but your 401k balance is $1100, same as it was before the capital gains distribution and you are up 10%. Or, you could have chosen to invest the distributions into, say, a bond fund available in your 401k plan and still be up 10%, with no change in your stock fund holding, but a new investment of $100 in a bond fund.
"Trading on specific ECNs is the easy part - you simply specify the order routing in advance.  You are not buying or selling the *exact* same shares.  Shares are fungible - so if I simultaneously buy one share and sell another share, my net share position is zero - even if those trades don't settle until T+3.  PS ""The Nasdaq"" isn't really an exchange in the way that the CME, or other order-driven markets are.  It's really just a venue to bring market makers together.  It's almost like ""the internet,"" as in, when you buy something from Amazon, you're not buying it from ""the internet,"" but it was the internet that made your transaction with Amazon possible."
The product type and transaction direction are not linked.  When you short sell a stock, you are still dealing with shares of an equity security.  When you take delivery of a bond, you are buying that bond and holding a long position even though it's a debt security.
Why don't you look at the actual funds and etfs in question rather than seeking a general conclusion about all pairs of funds and etfs?  For example, Vanguard's total stock market index fund (VTSAX) and ETF (VTI).  Comparing the two on yahoo finance I find no difference over the last 5 years visually.  For a different pair of funds you may find something very slightly different.   In many cases the index fund and ETF will not have the same benchmark and fees so comparisons get a little more cloudy.  I recall a while ago there was an article that was pointing out that at the time emerging market ETF's had higher fees than corresponding index funds.  For this reason I think you should examine your question on a case-by-case basis.  Index fund and ETF returns are all publicly available so you don't have to guess.
A stop order can be used to both enter or exit a position. A stop loss is used to set the price you want to get out if the price reaches that level. Whilst a stop buy or entry order is used to get into a position if the price reaches your desired level for entry. The stop order just means that you want to place your order at that level, you then need to specify if you are buying to open, selling to open, buying to close or selling to close your position at the stop level.
Are you really talking about share price, or share value? Because what about stock splits? Market Cap stays the same, but the price per share is lowered. This is so that the stock is more liquid and accessible to a greater number of investors. This encourages people to invest in the stock though. I can't really think of any reasons why a company would want to lower their share value or discourage people from investing unless they are trying to reacquire shares. Returning value to the shareholders is the #1 priority of any publicly traded company.
As I write this, the NASDAQ Composite is at 2790.00, down 6.14 points from yesterday. To calculate the percentage, you take 6.14 and divide by yesterday's close of 2796.14 to yield 0.22%. In your example, if SPY drops from 133.68 to 133.32, you use the difference of -0.36 and divide by the original, i.e. -0.36/133.68 = -0.27%. SPY is an ETF which you can invest in that tracks the S&P 500 index. Ideally, the index would have dropped the same percentage as SPY, but the points would be different (~10x higher). To answer your question about how one qualifies a point, it completely depends on the index being discussed. For example, the S&P 500 is a market-capitalization weighted index of the common stock of 500 large-cap US public companies. It is as if you owned every share of each of the 500 companies, then divide by some large constant to create a number that's easily understood mentally (i.e. 1330). The NASDAQ Composite used the same methodology but includes practically all stocks listed on the NASDAQ. Meanwhile, the Dow Jones Industrial Average is a price-weighted index of 30 large-cap companies. It's final value is modified using a divisor known as the Dow Divisor, which accounts for stock splits and similar events that have occurred since a stock has joined the index. Thus, points when referring to an index do not typically represent dollars. Rather, they serve as a quantitative measure of how the market is doing based on the performance of the index constituents. ETFs like SPY add a layer of abstraction by creating an investible vehicle that ideally tracks the value of the underlying index directly. Finally, neither price nor index value is related to volume. Volume is a raw measurement of the total number of shares traded for a given stock or the aggregate for a given exchange. Hope this helps!
The actual price is represented on charts and not the change in price as a percentage, because it is the actual price which is used in all other parts of analysis (both technical and fundamental), and it is the actual figure the security is bought and sold at. A change in price has to be relative to a previous price at a previous time, and we can easily work out the change in price over any given time period. I think what you are concerned about is how to compare a certain actual price change in low priced securities to the same actual price change in a higher priced securities.  For example: $1.00 rise in a $2.00 stock representing a 50% increase in price; $1.00 rise in a $10.00 stock representing a 10% increase in price. On a standard chart both of these look the same, as they both show a $1.00 increase in price. So what can we do to show the true representation of the percentage increase in price? It is actually quite simple. You view the chart using a log scale instead of a standard scale (most charting packages should have this option). What may look like a bubble on a standard scale chart, looks like a healthy uptrend on a log scale chart and represents a true picture of the percentage change in price. Example of Standard Price Scale VS LOG Price Scale on a Chart Standard Price Scale  On the standard scale the price seems to have very little movement from Mar09 to Jan12 and then the price seems to zoom up after Jan12 to Mar13. This is because a 4% increase (for example) of $0.50 is only $0.02, whilst a 4% increase of $7.00 $0.28, so the increases seem much bigger at the end of the chart. LOG Price Scale  On the LOG chart however, these price changes seem to be more evenly displayed no matter at what price level the price change has occurred at. This thus give a better representation of how fast or slow the price is rising or falling, or the size of the change in price.
Is it possible that mutual funds account for a significant portion of this volume. Investors may decide to buy or sell anytime within a 24 hour period, but the transaction only happened at the close of the market. Therefore at 3:59 pm the mutual fund knows if they will be buying or selling stocks that day.  As nws pointed out the non-market hours are longer and therefore accumulate more news event. Some financial news is specifically given during the time the market is closed. Therefore the reaction to that news has to either be in the morning when the market opens or in the late afternoon if they are trying to anticipate the news.  Also in the US market the early morning trader may be reacting to European market activities.