The overarching point was that over 99% of trading is between third parties and therefore the money doesn't go to the issuing company... although it does affect the share price.
And ya, lots of companies and governments have that much cash on hand. No one is going to issue shares just to build a new office complex. Who would invest in that strategy?
I can see the prospectus for the reissue: Hey investors! We want a shiny new HQ, and YOU can help us get it! No, it won't make us more profit. No, it doesn't help our stock price (issuing shares dilutes the current shares - so it actually hurts existing investors) It won't help us grow the business or increase market cap. But hey, it's shiny! Invest in us - we don't know how to handle money!
You have it backwards. When you're quoting your worst quote is the one that trades. The aggressor gets the best price. The only way quoting tells you what people are willing to buy and sell at is when the quote gets matched by the exchange and you get a trade. But then you've already trades. Note that anyone quoting (market making) is competing with a lot of other liquidity. This makes the prices better for aggressive traders, not for the passive market makers.
Making money market making is really hard. Your quotes are exposed and out of your hands. When a big change in value occurs you have very lttile time to react before your quotes get filled and you now hold losing postions. Positions that you have to either hedge or unwind, at a loss. This is why there is a large number of orders that go unfilled... but every quote was bona fide at the time it was submitted. The margins in market making are so tiny that they are forced to react on the smallest time scales. But those small margins make trading cheaper for the rest of us.
If you buy a share of ship making company X from me at an exchange, how do you think that money benefits company X? In fact, now you own, quite literally, a share of X. If the company gets liquidated you get a proportion of the assets. When you buy directly from the company, then yes that money, aside from fees, goes into that company. E.g. an IPO, or any kind of offering. The ship making company is able to make more ships buy selling them for a profit. You could even get a piece of the profit if the company pays dividends. The company could even buy back all its shares, for the now current stock price... possibly (likely) at a loss to the company - but that's why it's like a loan. Even your bond idea was wrong - you can trade bonds with third parties too.
When you buy a share, you buy it from someone. You give him money and he transfers ownership of the stock to you. He got the money, not the "market". Saying the other guy is a trader doesn't explain anything - it just adds more buyers and sellers. You're not "adding" money to a "market". What do you think that even means? The market is basically the movement of financial instruments. It's not a big bucket of money.
Humans will tend to agree with those they identify with, and especially with groups they *chose*. In this case, I suspect that a large number of people simply agree with the program because they voted for Obama. Not consciously, but nevertheless.
Slashdot Mirror
There are other ways to get preferred shares, but none of this changes my point. As a shareholder you own a share of the company.
This is all besides the point anyway.
The overarching point was that over 99% of trading is between third parties and therefore the money doesn't go to the issuing company... although it does affect the share price.
You *DID* say to *build* a ship...
And ya, lots of companies and governments have that much cash on hand. No one is going to issue shares just to build a new office complex. Who would invest in that strategy?
I can see the prospectus for the reissue:
Hey investors! We want a shiny new HQ, and YOU can help us get it!
No, it won't make us more profit.
No, it doesn't help our stock price (issuing shares dilutes the current shares - so it actually hurts existing investors)
It won't help us grow the business or increase market cap.
But hey, it's shiny!
Invest in us - we don't know how to handle money!
Didn't I say "The ship making company is able to make more ships buy selling them for a profit."?
Are you trying to suggest that every ships parts were purchased with investor money?
Did I mention "common"?
By definition a share is an ownership stake in the company.
You have it backwards. When you're quoting your worst quote is the one that trades. The aggressor gets the best price.
The only way quoting tells you what people are willing to buy and sell at is when the quote gets matched by the exchange and you get a trade. But then you've already trades.
Note that anyone quoting (market making) is competing with a lot of other liquidity. This makes the prices better for aggressive traders, not for the passive market makers.
Making money market making is really hard. Your quotes are exposed and out of your hands. When a big change in value occurs you have very lttile time to react before your quotes get filled and you now hold losing postions. Positions that you have to either hedge or unwind, at a loss. This is why there is a large number of orders that go unfilled... but every quote was bona fide at the time it was submitted.
The margins in market making are so tiny that they are forced to react on the smallest time scales.
But those small margins make trading cheaper for the rest of us.
High frequency quoting without intent to trade is:
1. A certain loss
2. Illegal
3. Prevented by exchanges.
You don't have any idea what you're talking about.
If you buy a share of ship making company X from me at an exchange, how do you think that money benefits company X?
In fact, now you own, quite literally, a share of X. If the company gets liquidated you get a proportion of the assets.
When you buy directly from the company, then yes that money, aside from fees, goes into that company. E.g. an IPO, or any kind of offering.
The ship making company is able to make more ships buy selling them for a profit. You could even get a piece of the profit if the company pays dividends.
The company could even buy back all its shares, for the now current stock price... possibly (likely) at a loss to the company - but that's why it's like a loan.
Even your bond idea was wrong - you can trade bonds with third parties too.
When you buy a share, you buy it from someone. You give him money and he transfers ownership of the stock to you. He got the money, not the "market".
Saying the other guy is a trader doesn't explain anything - it just adds more buyers and sellers.
You're not "adding" money to a "market". What do you think that even means?
The market is basically the movement of financial instruments. It's not a big bucket of money.
The soviet union oppressed everyone.
Even if you do consider that to be "atheists oppressing the religious" that would clearly be the exception.
Since the exception proves the rule, you proved my point. :)
It's funny how those two parties want you to think that.
I'm not even close to libertarian, and I agree with him.
Exactly this.
Talk about over complicating things.
Only vote your favorite.
If you have more than one favorite, then I don't care what criteria you use.
Stupid smart people.
It would be nice I'd there were some kind of severe penalty for not attempting to implement the campaign promises.
I agree with GP.
Vote your top.
Anything else plays into the hands of the biparty.
So you'd rather vote for 1 evil than 0.
Fuck that.
I'm beginning to believe that this "vote for the lesser of two evils" is propaganda from Ds and Rs.
I completely agree with this POV.
I've never heard of an atheist violently suppressing religion.
Even if it has happened, that would clearly be the exception.
And some people continue to buy into the rhetoric that it helps keep us safe.
This isn't about safety. It's about control.
Go slower in curvier areas? Those areas are probably stops anyway. In rural areas straightening the path is easier.
Good point.
At this point I'm sick of both. Do over please.
I agree with this. I'm totally for either:
Not voting
Or preferably, voting independent.
Humans will tend to agree with those they identify with, and especially with groups they *chose*. In this case, I suspect that a large number of people simply agree with the program because they voted for Obama. Not consciously, but nevertheless.
...hmmm... didn't the NSA start out as a secret agency??