There are two possibilities:
There was a trading halt in GOOG shares at that time
Data providers have screwed up
Since there is no GOOG trading halt listed on the Nasdaq Trading Halt page, one can only assume that this is a data provider issue. One could also reach the same conclusion by looking at Time & Sales.
Some firms are already pushing toward T+0.
At one broker, when users trade with other in house accounts, settlement is T+0.
Another broker offers T+1 settlement on some stocks so that when assigned on a covered call, one can buy new shares at current price, avoiding an assignment on the original shares which have a large capital gainand would therefore ...
As I mentioned in my comments above, a call warrant is a long term option (the right to buy the stock at the strike price but with a further expiration). In common usage, warrants are assumed to be call warrants unless specified as put warrants (the right to sell the stock at the strike price).
PTE's secondary offering consists of a unit which is ...
The warrants that are received along with secondary-stock-offerings are like free call-options. An investor that exercises a warrant has to pay a strike price but benefits from a gain in the stock price and that if the stock did gain beyond the strike price.
The secondary-stock-offerings can sell at a higher price than the current stock price because they ...
The CFTC, in its Commitment-of-Traders report, classifies traders as being commercial or non-commercial. A commercial trader is a hedger while a non-commercial trader is a speculator.
A bought-deal just means that the underwriter purchased the bonds (note that it purchased convertible bonds, not stock) and will sell them on the open market rather than the company selling them directly and the underwriter just just acting as an agent
Is the situation good news or bad news?
It's not that black and white. On one hand, the bonds were sold ...
There is actually a good reason to be buying at the slightly discounted rate. Because there is an open offer to buy shares for more than the stock market price, buying in a large enough volume can turn a net profit. In fact, an investment in the hundreds of euros would have turned enough of a profit to cover the related fixed fees.
This is of course ...
There's no way to definitively say why people were buying or selling at X, but here's a few possibilities:
A merger may take months to complete, so rather then holding stock that's already priced slightly below the merger price, accept a small haircut and reinvest the proceeds in other stocks that will have higher returns
There is a risk that the merger ...
Sure. Volatility is a measure of price movements in any direction, not necessarily levels. Actual volatility is measured by the magnitude of periodic changes of prices (how big the swings are). Imagine a calm sea where the tide is rising. There are no waves (volatility) but the level (price) is rising smoothly. Now imaging a turbulent sea. There are many ...
The pro of reducing market exposure is that if you are correct, you'll save yourself some money.
The cons of reducing market exposure and increasing bond exposure are:
- transaction fees if you still pay commissions
- B/A slippage
- taxes on non sheltered gains
- opportunity loss if the market continues up without you after you re-allocate
The typical ...
Deciding when to buy and sell based on market conditions is called "Timing the market". It's a 4-letter word in the broker business. We'll come back to that.
The President, via the Fed, absolutely is capable of pumping up the economy and creating a stock market "bubble". One incentive for a president to do this is an an approaching election, since the ...
The risk with reallocating into bonds include:
any costs associated with transactions
With regard to the latter, there can be any number of reasons the market could move in favorable direction and you will be chasing the market. Rare is the asset (stocks, bonds, gold, etc.) that is immune to war, politics, etc.
As to whether a decision ...
I believe you may have an invalid premise that the election of 2008 caused the down-turn in the economy. The timeline is as follows: the fall started in Oct 2007, had the record setting day "crash" on Sep 29, 2008, then Obama was elected in Nov 2008 and took office in Jan 2009, and the markets continued to fall until Mar 2009 when they began their ascent ...