What is the practical usage for selling with a stop-limit order? If we reach a stop-loss point we are likely to sell to protect from a bigger loss. What situation would need to add a limit order on that?
Personal Finance & Money Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people who want to be financially literate. It only takes a minute to sign up.Sign up to join this community
If one wants to have a bound on the loss percentages that are acceptable, this is would be a way to enforce that. For example, suppose someone wants to have a 5% stop-loss but doesn't want this to be worse than 10% as if the stock goes down more than 10% then the sell shouldn't happen. Thus, if the stock opened in a gap down 15% one day, this triggers the stop-loss and would exit at too low of a price as the gap was quite high as I wonder how familiar are you with how much a stock's price could change that makes the prices not be as continuous as one would think. At least this would be my thinking on a volatile stock where one may want to try to limit losses if the stock does fall within a specific range.
One practical application would be to protect yourself from a "flash crash" type scenario where a stock suddenly plunges down to a penny due to transient market glitches.
If you had a stop-loss order that executed at a penny (for a non-penny stock) it would be probably be voided by the exchange, but you might not want to take that risk.
An important thing that many people fail to realize is that the number of shares outstanding in a stock, times the current market price of those shares, does not represent anything related to the total value of those shares. If a company has one million shares outstanding and its total value is $10 million, then the real worth of each share is $10. If few people feels like buying or selling, but a few people think the company is worth $50 million and offer $50/share, that could raise the market price to $50/share, but it wouldn't mean that the company became worth five times as much; it would merely mean the stock was overpriced.
If, after the price went to $50/share, all the owners of the stock put in stop-loss orders at $45. Note that the real $10/share "real value" of their stock would never have changed. If the people who thought the stock was worth $50 decided to get out of the market, and nobody else was willing to offer more than $10, that would instantly drop the price to $10. The fact that a million shares of stock have stop-loss orders at $45 wouldn't magically generate buyers for those stocks at that price. Indeed, unchecked stop-loss orders would have the reverse effect, since many people who would have been willing if not eager to buy the stock if it had been available for less than $10/share would instead be trying to sell it below that price.
It's too bad people think that the number of shares outstanding times the current market price represents some kind of "meaningful quantity". If the present cash value of all future payouts associated with a share of stock is $10, then someone who buys a share of stock for less than that makes money off the seller; someone who pays more loses money to the seller. Many people think they can lose money to the seller and still come out okay if the price goes higher, but what that really means is that they're hoping to find a bigger sucker--a game where it's guaranteed that some people will have losses they don't recoup.