vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
At any point of time, buyer wants to purchase a stock at lesser price and seller wants to sell the stock at a higher price.  Let's consider this scenario  Company XYZ is trading at 100$, as stated above buyer wants to purchase at lower price and seller at higher price, this information will be available in Market depth, let's consider there are 5 buyers and 5 sellers, below are the details of their orders Buyers List Sellers List Highest order in buyers list will contain the bid price and bid quantity, Lowest order in Sellers list will contain the offer price and offer quantity. Now, if I want to buy 50 Stocks of company XYZ, need to place an order first, it can be either limit or Market. Limit Order : In this order, I will mention the price(buy price) at which I wish to buy, if there is any seller selling the stock less than or equal to price I have mentioned, then the order will be executed else it will be added to buyers list Market Order : In this order, I will not mention the price, if I wish to purchase 50 Stocks, then it will find the lowest offer price and buy stocks, in our case it will be 101. if I wish to purchase 200 Stocks, then it will find the lowest offer price and buy stocks, in our case it will be 2 transactions, since entire request cannot be accommodated in single order Usually the volume(Ask Volume and Offer Volume) being displayed are all Limit orders and not Market orders, Market orders are executed immediately. This is just an example, However several transactions are executed within a second, hence we will get to know the exact value only after the order is completed(executed)
This is to protect your position in specific highly volatile market conditions.  If the stock is free falling and you only have a stop order at $90, it's possible that this order could be filled at $50 or even less. The limit is to protect you from that, as there are certain very specific times where it's better to just hold the stock instead of taking a huge loss (ie when price is whipsawing).
The question is how low would you have had to lower your limit order price if the price for WBC kept on falling and you had to sell that day? There are risks with whichever type of order you use. You need to determine what the purpose of your order is. Is it to get in or out of the market as soon as possible with the possibility of giving a little bit back to the market? Or is it to get the price you want no matter how long it takes you? That is you are willing to miss out on buying the shares (can miss out on a good buy if the price keeps rising for weeks or months or even years) or you are willing to miss out on selling them right now and can wait for the price to come back up to the price you were willing to sell at (where you may miss out on selling the shares at a good price and they keep on falling and you give back all your profits and more). Just before the onset of the GFC I sold some shares (which I had bought a few years earlier at $3.40) through a market order for $5.96. It had traded just above $6 a few days earlier, but if instead of a market order I had placed a limit order to sell at $6.00 or more I would have missed out on the sale. The price never went back up to $6 or above, and the following week it started dropping very quickly. It is now trading at about $1.30 and has never gone back above $2.00 (5.5 years later). So to me placing a limit order in this case was very risky.
I would be using stop limit orders for stocks that are not too volatile. If you look at the chart and there are not many gaps especially after peaks, then you have more chance of being filled at your specified stop loss level using a stop limit order. If the stock is very volatile and has a large or many gaps down after most peak, then I would consider using a stop market order to make sure you do get out even if it is somewhat past your desired stop level. One think to consider is to avoid trading very volatile stocks that gap often. This is what I do, and using stop limit orders my stop level is achieved more than 95% of the time.
"An order is your command to the broker to, say, ""sell 100 shares of AAPL"". An executed order (or partially executed order) is when all (or some) of that command is successfully completed. A transaction is an actual exchange of shares for money, and there may be one or more transactions per executed order.  For example, the broker might perform all of the following 5 transactions in order to do what you asked: On the other hand, if the broker cannot execute your order, then 0 transactions have taken place. The fee schedule you quote is saying that no matter how many transactions the broker has to perform in order to fill your order -- and no matter what the share prices are -- they're only going to charge you $0.005 per share ($0.50 in this example of 100 shares), subject to certain limits. However, as it says at the top of the page you linked, Our Fixed pricing for stocks, ETFs (Exchange Traded Products, or ETPs) and warrants charges a fixed amount per share or a set percent of trade value, and includes all IB commissions, exchange and most regulatory fees with the exception of the transaction fees, which are passed through on all stock sales. certain transaction fees are passed through to the client.  The transaction fee you included above is the SEC fee on sales.  Many (but not all) transaction fees DO depend on the prices of the shares involved; as a result they cannot be called ""fixed"" fees. For example, if you sell 100 shares of AAPL at $150 each, But if you sell 100 shares of AMZN at $940 each, So the broker will charge you the same $0.50 on either of those orders, but the SEC will charge you more for the expensive AMZN shares than for the cheaper AAPL shares. The reason this specific SEC fee mentions aggregate sales rather than trade value is because this particular SEC fee applies only to the seller and not to the buyer.  So they could have written aggregate trade value, but they probably wanted to highlight to the reader that the fee is only charged on sells."
TD will only sell the stock for you if there's a buyer. There was a buyer, for at least one transaction of at least one stock at 96.66. But who said there were more? Obviously, the stocks later fell, i.e.: there were not that many buyers as there were sellers. What I'm saying is that once the stock passed/reached the limit, the order becomes an active order. But it doesn't become the only active order. It is added to the list, and to the bottom of that list. Obviously, in this case, there were not enough buyers to go through the whole list and get to your order, and since it was a limit order - it would only execute with the limit price you put. Once the price went down you got out of luck.  That said, there could of course be a possibility of a system failure. But given the story of the market behavior - it just looks like you miscalculated and lost on a bet.
"Assuming you are executing your order on a registered exchange by a registered broker, your order will be filled at the best bid price available.  This is because brokers are legally obliged to get the best price available. For example, if the market is showing a bid of 49.99 and an offer of 50.01 and you submit an order to offer 1000 shares at 5.00, your order will be filled at 49.99.  This is assuming the existing bids are for enough shares to fill all of the 1000 shares being offered.  If the share you are offering lacks the necessary liquidity to fill the order - i.e., the 49.99 bid is for less than 1000 shares and the ""level two"" bids are not enough to fill the remaining shares, then the order would be posted in the market as an offer to sell the balance (1000 - shares filled at 49.99 and those filled at level two bids) at 5.00.   I'm pretty sure that the scenario you are describing would be described as market manipulation and it would be against the law."
As the comments say it is still arbitrage. Arbitrage has nothing to do with the speed of execution or the type of order placed, it is commonly associated with automated trading but is not limited to it, which might be where the confusion comes in. The speed of execution is important for arbitrage trading because it lowers Execution risk  Here is some reading you might find interesting: They are pretty extensive. Statistical Arbitrage in High Frequency Trading Based on Limit Order Book Dynamics A limit order book model for latency arbitrage. How riskless is “riskless” arbitrage?
"The risk of market orders depends heavily on the size of the market and the exchange. On big exchange and a security which is traded in hue numbers you're likely that there are enough participants to give you a ""fair"" price. Doing a market order on a security which is hardly dealed you might make a bad deal. In Germany Tradegate Exchange and the sister company the bank Tradegate AG are known to play a bit dirty: Their market is open longer than Frankfurt (Xetra) and has way lower liquidity. So it can happen that not all sell or buy orders can be processes on the Exchange and open orders are kept. Then Tradegate AG steps in with a new offer to full-fill these trades selling high or buying low. There is a German article going in details on wiwo.de either German or via Google Translate"
Rule 610 (Google for it) stands that if Bid and Ask are the same, the market is considered Locked, and the exchange must stop all trading. So the same person can't quote the same bid and ask price. However, HFTs have found ways to circumvent this limitation when exchanges created special order types for them, e.g. Spam-and-Cancel
if I put a limit sell at $22.00 now, will it not sell until it's at $22.00 and I will continue to keep the stock? Basically yes. But note that brokers generally don't allow such limit orders to persist indefinitely. The default may even be that they're only valid until the end of the day, and usually the maximum validity is 30 or 60 days.
Also, people aren't obligated to put in their order: Maybe there's a trader who intends to trade a large volume when the price hits a certain level, like a limit order, but he elected to not put in a limit order and instead watch the ticker and react in real time. Then you will see a huge order suddenly come in out of nowhere. So while the order book is informative, what you are asking is actually fundamentally impossible to know fully, unless you can read the minds of every interested trader. As others said, in ""normal"" securities (meaning traded at a major exchange, especially those in the S&P500) you simply can't move the price, the market is too deep. You would need millions of dollars to budge the price, and if you had that much money, you wouldn't be asking here on a QA site, you would have a professional financial advisor (or even a team) that specializes in distributing your large transaction over a longer time to minimize the effect on the market. With crazier stocks, such as OTC and especially worthless penny stocks with market caps of $1 mil or less, what you say is a real problem (you can end up paying multiples of the last ticker if not careful) and you do have to be careful about it. Which is why you shouldn't trade penny stocks unless you know what you're doing (and if you're asking this question here, you don't)."
"I can think of the following situations in which one could see a trade occur between the visible best bid & offer: 1) on a public exchange, people have posted hidden limit orders with either bid prices above the best visible bid or offers below the best visible offer, and incoming orders have executed against this hidden liquidity[1]; 2) some orders may have been matched in dark pools which offer ""mid-point matching"" where buy and sell orders are matched using the mid-point of the best available publicly posted bid and offer as the reference price, and which executed trades are then reported to the public markets; or 3) some internalising broker has traded off exchange directly with a client and is now reporting the trade to the public as is often required. Now how exactly any of the above situations indicates that a ""trend is about to come to an end"", I do not know. [1] Exchanges often match orders on a price/visibility/time basis, whereby the orders are prioritised by price (better prices get to trade first), then by visibility (visible orders get to trade first) then by time (first come, first serve)."
"Are there any known protections against obvious typos in the stock systems themselves? Do you know of stock exchanges which flags or rejects obviously wrong buy or sell orders (e.g., selling something for 0.1% of its highest buy order, or buying something at 1000 times the current sell order)? Does the stock exchange ""community"" have some sort of ""rules of conduct"" for this? Yes and No. Most Stock Exchanges for certain set of stocks have circuit breakers that are more to restrict panic selling or artificial drop in prices. The kind of controls you are mentioning can't be put on individual trades; as stock exchanges are meant to guarantee / provide neutral ground for the price to be determined by demand / supply. There are quite a few companies that have quickly lost value and become worthless with a day or two. Hence it becomes difficult to determine if something is error by an individual or not. Once an order is submitted to the exchange, it can't afford the to and fro to verify ... as even few seconds make a different in volatile markets. The kind of errors reported are difficult for an individual to make as he would not own the kind of stocks and the stock broker will stop the trade from being placed."
"You can place the orders like you suggested.  This would be useful in a market that is moving quickly where you want to be reasonably sure of execution but don't want the full exposure of a market order.  This won't jump your spot in the queue though in the sense that you won't get ahead of other orders that are ""ready"" for execution just because you have crossed the spread aggressively."
Set a good till cancel GTC order, and partial fills will just roll over to the market session if it doesn't fill completely during the first market session It is a very low probability that each share will only be taken one at a time. It isn't a low probability that it will fill in two or three orders, but this is all a factor of how liquid the stocks you bought are. Also your limit order price is also a factor in this
If you find a particular stock to be overvalued at $200 for example and a reasonable value at $175, you can place a limit order at the price you want to pay. If/when the stock price falls to your desired purchase price, the transaction takes place. Your broker can explain how long a limit order can stay open. This method allows you to take advantage of flash crashes when some savvy stock trader decides to game the market. This tactic works better with more volatile or low-volume stocks. If it works for an S&P500 tracking ETF, you have bigger problems. :) Another tactic is to put money into your brokerage cash account on a regular basis and buy those expensive stocks & funds when you have accumulated enough money to do so. This money won't earn you any interest while it sits in the cash account, but it's there, ready to be deployed at a moment's notice when you have enough to purchase those expensive assets.
"Certain brokers allow for hidden orders to be placed in the market. It is as simple as that. Refer to Interactive Brokers as one example. If you press on the "" i "" next to ""Hidden"" you will get the following description.  Some brokers may represent the hidden orders by an * next to the price level. Sometimes large orders are place as these hidden orders to avoid large movements in the stock price (especially if the stock is illiquid as per your observation)."
Usually backtests for (long-term) strategies are evaluated on a end-of-day basis where you only consider close prices. If your strategy performs well in these backtests, hopes are that if you use a market-on-close (MOC) order your performance will not diverge too much from the backtest. The fact that it won't diverge much is important if you keep backtesting the strategy along with the real trading to see regime changes or similar.  If you used end-of-day prices for the backtests but some arbitrary intraday market order, you'd have some difficulties to explain deviations between the two. What it is:  MOC orders can be submitted during the day, but they won't be executed until shortly before the market (or more precise the current session) closes.
I think that if the price does not go very far up, then your order will open on 101, because you are setting a limit order, if suddenly the price goes up very quickly or with a gep even, then you may not be given a position. But this is with a limit order and it is better to check with the broker. There are also warrants in which you can adjust the price range, for example, from 101 to 103, and at a sharp price jump, it is possible for you and would not give a position at a price of 101, but perhaps 103 would get.
"This is called a Contingent Order and is set up so if one order is filled (in this case) the other order is cancelled.  It's a common desire that one would wish to have a stop-loss in place but also a targeted sell price for their in-the-money sell point.  Your broker will tell you all you need to know about how to enter this, if you explain you'd like to place a contingent order. (As Victor noted below, your specific order would be a ""One Cancels Other"" or ""OCO"") Great first question, welcome to Money,SE."
"Why would people sell below the current price, and not within the range of the bid/ask? There are many scenarios where this is deliberate but all of them boil down to the fact that the top level's bid doesn't support the quantity you're trying to sell (or is otherwise bogus[1]). One scenario as an example: You're day-trading both sides but at the end of the day you accumulated a rather substantial long position in a stock.  You don't want to (or aren't allowed to[2]) be exposed overnight, however.  What do you do? You place an order that is highly likely to go through altogether.  There's several ways to achieve that but a very simple one is to look at the minimum bid level for which the bid side is willing to take all of your shares, then place a limit order for the total quantity at that price.  If your position doesn't fit into the top level bid that price will well be lower than the ""current"" bid. Footnotes: [1] Keyword: quote stuffing [2] Keyword: overnight margin (aka positional margin, as opposed to intraday margin), this is highly broker dependent, exchanges don't usually distinguish between intraday and overnight margins, instead they use the collective term maintenance margin"
No, this isn't possible, especially not when you're trading a highly liquid stock like Apple. When you put in your buy order at $210, any other traders that have open limit sell orders with the correct parameters, e.g. price and volume, will have their order(s) filled. This will occur before you can put in your own sell order and purchase your own shares because the other orders are listed on the order book first. In the US, many tax-sheltered accounts like IRA's have specific rules against self-dealing, which includes buying and selling assets with yourself, so such a transaction would be prohibited by definition. Although I'm not entirely sure if this applies to stocks, the limitation described in the first paragraph still applies regardless. If this were possible, rest assured that high-frequency traders would take advantage of this tactic to manipulate share prices. (I've heard critics say that this does occur, but I haven't researched it myself or seen any data about it)
why not just use a conditional order (http://www.investopedia.com/university/intro-to-order-types/conditional-orders.asp)? Like a one triggers one order? an order like this lets you place a buy order for the stock and if its executed another order is automatically placed. you could choose to let your second order be a stop order. so here's a company that offers stuff like this as an ex. (https://www.tradeking.com/education/tools/one-triggers-other-order)
"That article, like almost any article written by a non-expert and quoting only ""research"" from lobbying groups, hugely misses the point. The vast majority of orders that end up being cancelled are cancelled as a standard part of exchanges' official market-maker programs. Each exchange wants you and me to know that it has liquidity -- that when we go to buy or sell some stock, there will be someone waiting on the other side of the trade. So the exchange pays (via lowered fees or even rebates) hundreds of registered market makers to constantly have orders resting in each product's order book within a few ticks of the current NBBO or the last trade price. That way, if everyone else should suddenly disappear from the market, you and I will still be able to trade our shares for a price somewhat close to the last trade price. But market makers who are simply acting in this ""backstop"" role don't actually want to have their orders filled, because those orders will almost always lose them money. So as prices rise and fall (as much as tens of times per second), the market makers need to cancel their resting orders (so they don't get filled) and add new ones at new prices (so they meet their obligations to the exchange). And because the number of orders resting in any given product's order book is vastly larger than the number of actual trades that take place in any given time period, naturally the number of cancellations is also going to hugely outweigh the number of actual trades. As much as 97% to 3% (or even more). But that's completely fine! You and I don't have to care about any of that. We almost never need the market makers to be there to trade with us. They're only there as a backstop. There's almost always plenty of organic liquidity for us to trade against. Only in the rare case where liquidity completely dries up do we really care that the registered market makers are there. And in those cases (ideally) the market makers can't cancel their orders (depending on how well the exchange has set up its market maker program). So, to answer your question, the effect of standard order cancellation on a stock is essentially none.
"How are derivatives like covered warrants or CFDs different from the bucket shops that were made illegal in the US? After reading up a little on the topic, the core difference seems to be that bucket shops were basically running betting pools, with everyone betting against the operator, whereas CFDs and similar derivatives are traded between speculators and the operator merely provides a market and checks the liquidity of participants. A CW seems to be a different matter that I'm not fully sure I understand (at least the description of Wikipedia seems to contradict your statement about not trade being performed on the underlying security). Should I worry that some regulator decides that my ""market maker"" is an illegal gambling operation? Not really. Nations with a mature financial industry (like Japan) invariably have heavy regulations that mandate constant auditing of institutions that sell financial instruments. In Japan, the Financial Services Agency is in charge of this. It's almost impossible that they would let an institution operate and later decide that its basic business model is illegal. What is possible are mainly two scenarios:"
He can buy at 69.95 or 69.70 or whatever because he already has all the shares. The HFT bought at a cheaper price earlier. The HFT has all the shares. Now he's testing the guy who won't go above 70.00 with small orders. When he sees that this guy is willing to buy 10 at 70.00 the HFT makes a limit order of all the shares in the market at 70.00 when he got them all already at 69.95.  Whatever doesn't get bought up goes back into the market at the price the HFT originally bought at. The HFT was in line ahead of the guy who won't go above 70.00 as soon as he saw him buying. Like at the horse race, remember?