vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
Most funds keep a certain amount in cash at all times to satisfy outflows.  Net inflows will simply be added to the cash balance while net outflows subtract.  When the cash gets too low for the manager's comfort level (depends on the typical pattern of net inflows and outflows, as well as anticipated flows based on recent performance), the manager will sell some of his least favorite holdings, and when the cash gets too high he will buy some new holdings or add to his favorite existing holdings.  A passive fund works similarly, except the buys/sells are structured to minimize tracking error.
You have just answered your question in the last sentence of your question:  More volume just means more people are interested in the stock...i.e supply and demand are matched well. If the stock is illiquid there is more chance of the spread and slippage being larger. Even if the spread is small to start with, once a trade has been transacted, if no new buyers and sellers enter the market near the last transacted price, then you could get a large spread occurring between the bid and ask prices. Here is an example, MDG has a 50 day moving average volume of only 1200 share traded per day (obviously it does not trade every day).  As you can see there is already an 86% spread from the bid price. If a new bid price is entered to match and take out the offer price at $0.039, then this spread would instantly increase to 614% from the bid price.
It might mean Equal Weighted based on Market cap, rather than Price?  For instance, All of MSCIs indexes are based on security's market cap, but then a factor is applied to give them equal weights once a quarter.  From then on, weights will fluctuate based on market cap performance.    Edit.  Not sure why down voted, but you can check here http://www.msci.com/eqb/methodology/meth_docs/MSCI_Equal_Weighted_Indices_Methodology_May11.pdf  So each quarter weights are set to be equal, but then between quarters the weights fluctuate due to performance
The first statement is talking about a sudden sharp increase in volume (double or more of average volume) with a sudden increase in price. In other words, there has been a last rush to buy the stock exhausting all the current bulls (buyers), so the bears (sellers) take over, at least temporarily. Whilst the second statement is talking about a gradual increase in volume as the price up trends (thus the use of a volume oscillator). In other words (in an uptrend), the bulls (buyers) are gradually increasing in numbers sending the price higher, and new buyers keep entering the market. (The opposite is the case for a down-trend).
It's not about moving the market or liquidity the non current months have reduced liquidity, checking today.  ES_F June today the most recent 5 min bar has 809 volume. while the september has 10616 volume on the same bar.  2. Commision p/l should be subtracted as actual actual.  I'm not necessarily worried about moving the market or liquidity im more or less worried about slippage. As some good strategies can decay very fast due to it.
Depends on how you measure liquidity.  There's papers out there that approach this very question. Measured in order book spreads for a consolidated $100m trade, I'd say the second biggest market is FX swaps, followed or par'd by the money market (government bonds). If you disallow OTC venues, it's most definitely exchange listed government bonds. If, however, you happen to think in terms of sheer volume per time, the most liquid market phase could be considered the NYSE closing auction, as you can move billions in a matter of minutes, or expressed in speed terms: several m$/s (million dollars per second). You should pick a definition and we can provide you with a more accurate list of candidates and actual data.
"You might consider learning how the ""matching"" or ""pairing"" system in the market operates. The actual exchange only happens when both a buyer and a seller overlap their respect quotes. Sometimes orders ""go to market"" for a particular volume. Eg get me 10,000 Microsoft shares now. which means that the price starts at the current lowest seller, and works up the price list until the volume is met. Like all market it trades, it has it's advantages, and it's dangers. If you are confident Microsoft is going to bull, you want those shares now, confident you'll recoup the cost. Where if you put in a priced order, you might get only none or some shares. Same as when you sell. If you see the price (which is the price of the last completed ""successful"" trade. and think ""I'm going to sell 1000 shares"". then you give the order to the market (or broker), and then the same as what happened as before. the highest bidder gets as much as they asked for, if there's still shares left over, they go to the next bidder, and so on down the price... and the last completed ""successful"" trade is when your last sale is made at the lowest price of your batch. If you're selling, and selling 100,000 shares. And the highest bidder wants 1,000,000 shares you'll only see the price drop to that guys bid. Why will it drop (off the quoted price?). 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.
If you want your order to go through no matter what then you should be using market orders rather than limit orders. With limit orders you may get the price you are after or better but you are not guaranteed to get your order transacted. With a market order you are guaranteed to get you order transacted but may get a price inferior to what you were after. Most times this should only be a few cents but can get much larger in a fast moving or less liquid market. You should incorporate this slippage into your trading plan. Maybe a better option for you, if you are looking at + or - 0.5% from the last price, would be to use conditional triggers (stop buy and sell orders) with your market orders. Once the market moves in your direction your conditional order will be triggered and the stock will be bought at current market price.
You are right: if the combined value of all outstanding GOOG shares was $495B, and the combined value of all GOOGL shares was $495B, then yes, Alphabet would have a market cap of at least $990B (where I say at least only because I myself don't know that there aren't other issues that should be in the count as well). The respective values of the total outstanding GOOG and GOOGL shares are significantly less than that at present though. Using numbers I just grabbed for those tickers from Google Finance (of course), they currently stand thus:
IB will get you in the ballpark but Lightspeed obviously for the more low latency stuff. You can colo w Lightspeed at Nasdaq and can get direct market data feeds etc. that's not something I'd recco for someone starting out... Expensive for most budgets. Once you get going though, worth it. IB will let you work with opportunities on the 50-100ms level.  I don't think telling these guys to go with NewEdge from day one and colo globally would really help anyone get started algo trading. Wouldn't have the capital or scale. Trying to give actual useful advice to them.
Reading financial statements is important, in the sense that it gives you a picture of whether revenues and profits are growing or shrinking, and what management thinks the future will look like. The challenge is, there are firms that make computers read filings for them and inform their trading strategy. If the computer thinks the stock price is below the growth model, it's likely to bid the stock up. And since it's automated it's moving it faster than you can open your web browser. Does this mean you shouldn't read them? In a sense, no. The only sensible trading strategy is to assume you hold things for as long as their fundamentals exceed market value. Financial statements are where you find those fundamentals. So you should read them. But your question is, is it worth it for investors? My answer is no; the market generally factors information in quickly and efficiently. You're better off sticking to passive mutual funds than trying to trade. The better reason to learn to read these filings is to get a better sense of your employer, potential employers, competitors and even suppliers. Knowing what your margins are, what your suppliers margins and acquisitions are, and what they're planning can inform your own decision making.
Short answer: No, it only matters if you want to use covered calls strategies. The price of a share is not important. Some companies make stock splits from time to time so that the price of their shares is more affordable to small investors. It is a decision of the company's board to keep the price high or low. More important is the capitalization for these shares. If you have lots of money to invest, the best is to divide and invest a fixed pourcentage of your portfolio in each company you choose.  The only difference is if you eventually decide to use covered call strategies. To have a buy write on Google will cost you a lot of money and you will only be able to sell 1 option for every 100 shares. Bottom line: the price is not important, capitalization and estimated earnings are. Hope this answers your question.
Listing on NYSE has more associated overhead costs than listing on NASDAQ.  In the case of young technology companies, this makes NASDAQ a more attractive option. Perhaps the most important factor is that NYSE requires that a company has an independent compensation committee and an independent nominating committee while NASDAQ requires only that executive compensation and nominating decisions are made by a majority of independent directors.  No self-respecting, would-be-instant-billionare tech entreprenuer is going to want some independent committee lording it over their pay packet.  Additionally, listing on NYSE requires a company have stated guidance for corporate governance while NASDAQ imposes no such requirement.  Similarly, NYSE requires a company have an internal audit team while NASDAQ imposes no such requirement.   Fees on NYSE are also a bit higher than NASDAQ, but the difference is not significant. A good rundown of the pros/cons: http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/062215/what-are-advantages-and-disadvantages-listing-nasdaq-versus-other-stock-exchanges.asp
popularity that you are referring to is just known as liquidity when discussing markets. More liquid securities tend to trade more shares per day and have very tight bid/ask spreads as many investors are buying and selling the shares at one time.  Some larger securities, especially on exchanges, further enhance liquidity by providing market makers. These are individuals on the NYSE, for example, that will make the market in large securities by handling large orders and providing liquidity through their own book of capital. The individuals on the floor on the NYSE you often see on TV are those market makers. However, as trading becomes more electronic, market markers are becoming less and less required.  A previous comment suggested pink sheets are risky companies. This is not entirely factual. While the majority of pink sheets are very highly risky companies, many very solid international companies trade their ADRs (American Depository Receipt) on the pink sheets to avoid the high cost of setting up a large exchange at the NYSE and register and report through the SEC.  As a TD Ameritrade user, I would be willing to help you out if you have any other questions.
As somebody working in Equity research for one of the top ranked ER producing firms in NA, i'm a little surprised to see so many people down on sellside ER.  It absolutely has value, although it is not as directly tangible as somebody sitting at a desk cold calling and closing sales. Every day we are sending out a huge amount of advisory information to our sales and trading guys, as well as our clients. Our MD and analysts are on the phone constantly with guys on the other end looking to make decisions and wanting clarification.  My group in particular works in a sector where differentiating between a huge number or relatively similar firms that all require incredibly high capital investments is the name of the game, and as such finding ER analysts who can really pick out the important subtle details is very important for identifying real value.  I'll agree that being able to sell is important, but that's always something you have to be good at no matter what it is you're doing. Even in interviews with a hospital you have to sell yourself.  This got a bit long but is SS ER dying? Absolutely not. Is there going to be a concentrating focus on a smaller number of quality analysts? Possibly.  I'm a junior guy, so who knows where this industry is going. All I know is that compared to my friends in entry level roles in S&amp;T and IB, the technical knowledge i'm picking up with regards to my sector is leaps and bounds ahead of them and will give me a great deal of optionality going into the future as to where I want to take my career.  I really like being in ER, and i respect the people I'm lucky enough to work with and I don't think that the guys who really know how to pick the winners are going anywhere.
"Strategy would be my top factor.  While this may be implied, I do think it helps to have an idea of what is causing the buy and sell signals in speculating as I'd rather follow a strategy than try to figure things out completely from scratch that doesn't quite make sense to me. There are generally a couple of different schools of analysis that may be worth passing along: Fundamental Analysis:Fundamental analysis of a business involves analyzing its financial statements and health, its management and competitive advantages, and its competitors and markets. When applied to futures and forex, it focuses on the overall state of the economy, interest rates, production, earnings, and management. When analyzing a stock, futures contract, or currency using fundamental analysis there are two basic approaches one can use; bottom up analysis and top down analysis. The term is used to distinguish such analysis from other types of investment analysis, such as quantitative analysis and technical analysis. Technical Analysis:In finance, technical analysis is a security analysis methodology for forecasting the direction of prices through the study of past market data, primarily price and volume. Behavioral economics and quantitative analysis use many of the same tools of technical analysis, which, being an aspect of active management, stands in contradiction to much of modern portfolio theory. The efficacy of both technical and fundamental analysis is disputed by the efficient-market hypothesis which states that stock market prices are essentially unpredictable. There are tools like ""Stock Screeners"" that will let you filter based on various criteria to use each analysis in a mix.  There are various strategies one could use.  Wikipedia under Stock Speculator lists: ""Several different types of stock trading strategies or approaches exist including day trading, trend following, market making, scalping (trading), momentum trading, trading the news, and arbitrage.""  Thus, I'd advise research what approach are you wanting to use as the ""Make it up as we go along losing real money all the way"" wouldn't be my suggested approach. There is something to be said for there being numerous columnists and newsletter peddlers if you want other ideas but I would suggest having a strategy before putting one's toe in the water."
You could go with either of: Choosing this you'd pretty much have minimized your risk by using the whole world asa market.
"Maria, there are a few questions I think you must consider when considering this problem. Do fundamental or technical strategies provide meaningful information? Are the signals they produce actionable? In my experience, and many quantitative traders will probably say similar things, technical analysis is unlikely to provide anything meaningful. Of course you may find phenomena when looking back on data and a particular indicator, but this is often after the fact. One cannot action-ably trade these observations. On the other hand, it does seem that fundamentals can play a crucial role in the overall (typically long run) dynamics of stock movement. Here are two examples, Technical: suppose we follow stock X and buy every time the price crosses above the 30 day moving average. There is one obvious issue with this strategy - why does this signal have significance? If the method is designed arbitrarily then the answer is that it does not have significance. Moreover, much of the research supports that stocks move close to a geometric brownian motion with jumps. This supports the implication that the system is meaningless - if the probability of up or down is always close to 50/50 then why would an average based on the price be predictive? Fundamental: Suppose we buy stocks with the best P/E ratios (defined by some cutoff). This makes sense from a logical perspective and may have some long run merit. However, there is always a chance that an internal blowup or some macro event creates a large loss. A blended approach: for sake of balance perhaps we consider fundamentals as a good long-term indication of growth (what quants might call drift). We then restrict ourselves to equities in a particular index - say the S&P500. We compare the growth of these stocks vs. their P/E ratios and possibly do some regression. A natural strategy would be to sell those which have exceeded the expected return given the P/E ratio and buy those which have underperformed. Since all equities we are considering are in the same index, they are most likely somewhat correlated (especially when traded in baskets).
There's an interesting paper, Does Investor Attention Affect Stock Prices? (Sandhya et al), where researchers look at related stock tickers.  When a large cap, better-known stock jumps, smaller firms with similar symbols also rise.   Pretty nuts -- I interviewed the author of the paper [here](http://www.tradestreaming.com/?p=3745). There's also a transcript.
I'd think that liquidity and speed are prioritized (even over retail brokers and in come cases over PoP) for institutional traders who by default have large positions.  When the going gets tough, these guys are out and the small guys - trading through average retail brokers - are the ones left holding the empty bag.
History...  No company has maintained such a high market cap over an extended amount of time.   Not only that, but is Apple worth a trillion dollars?  In a generation will their products be as popular?  They're worth significantly more than Exxon Mobil at this point...  If Apple's market cap does go to a trillion dollars its an upside of 60 percent or so.  Or I can invest in a company like Lenovo whose market cap is 11 billion and is expanding like crazy.  If their valuation goes up even to the 50 billion mark, that's an upside of nearly 400 percent.  Plus there's the whole supply/demand dynamic for a stock that is already widely owned, how much more money can new investors put into it?  When will all the funds who hold massive quantities sell?  Etc...  There are many reasons why no company has maintained a trillion dollar valuation....    Honestly it shocks me that people who frequent a finance message board don't understand these things.
It really varies based on the stock (volatility is the main determining factor), and whether you are talking about temporary or permanent price impact,  how long you are trading, etc. The below paper fits a functional form to a set of Citigroup data and estimates for a 10% dtv trade in a large cap like IBM the price would move on the order of 30bps. Presumably smallcaps would be more expensive. Their estimate seems a bit low to me but I'm more familiar with futures, so maybe it's not unreasonable  https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&amp;source=web&amp;rct=j&amp;ei=JjDsU_L-CI33yQSh4oKQDA&amp;url=http://www.math.nyu.edu/~almgren/papers/costestim.pdf&amp;cd=3&amp;ved=0CCQQFjAC&amp;usg=AFQjCNGN6LmPb9sHR5dljcJJ2rV4bNE4Jg&amp;sig2=WYhcCUFr8WcRfetA24wXLg
"It is indeed, mostly because the various factors you need to take into account will change depending on the company. An Australian mining co funding a new settlement or harbor has nothing in common with a small European packaging company looking to acquire a competitor, except they both need to raise money.  As far as I know, to become ""proficient"" in that field, the only way is to go through heaps of case studies, which won't be found easily outside of the financial world (sell side research, conversation with experienced buy side analysts/PMs/traders or sell side cap markets pros).   It is niche knowledge with a narrow focus and a high potential for value added, hence, not really widely shared.  The good news though is that it isn't really that complex, it just takes (lots of) work and being in the right place (internship or entry level position in a market or M&amp;A oriented bank)."
Like the old Perrier-San Pelegrino case study?  Market Basket offers a much much better experience then the local Shaws, A&amp;Ps, Stop and Shops and other crap.  I think product differentiation should help them out to gain back customers.  Also, people want to be part of the story, which in this case involves a triumphant return of the CEO.
"Below is just a little information on this topic from my small unique book ""The small stock trader"": The most significant non-company-specific factor affecting stock price is the market sentiment, while the most significant company-specific factor is the earning power of the company. Perhaps it would be safe to say that technical analysis is more related to psychology/emotions, while fundamental analysis is more related to reason – that is why it is said that fundamental analysis tells you what to trade and technical analysis tells you when to trade. Thus, many stock traders use technical analysis as a timing tool for their entry and exit points. Technical analysis is more suitable for short-term trading and works best with large caps, for stock prices of large caps are more correlated with the general market, while small caps are more affected by company-specific news and speculation…: Perhaps small stock traders should not waste a lot of time on fundamental analysis; avoid overanalyzing the financial position, market position, and management of the focus companies. It is difficult to make wise trading decisions based only on fundamental analysis (company-specific news accounts for only about 25 percent of stock price fluctuations). There are only a few important figures and ratios to look at, such as: perhaps also: Furthermore, single ratios and figures do not tell much, so it is wise to use a few ratios and figures in combination. You should look at their trends and also compare them with the company’s main competitors and the industry average. Preferably, you want to see trend improvements in these above-mentioned figures and ratios, or at least some stability when the times are tough. Despite all the exotic names found in technical analysis, simply put, it is the study of supply and demand for the stock, in order to predict and follow the trend. Many stock traders claim stock price just represents the current supply and demand for that stock and moves to the greater side of the forces of supply and demand. If you focus on a few simple small caps, perhaps you should just use the basic principles of technical analysis, such as: I have no doubt that there are different ways to make money in the stock market.