Would selling significantly below market affect the value of a stock
"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." "That amount of shares is too low to create ""ripples"" in the market. Usually you don't specify the price to sell the stock, unless you are personally on the floor trading the securities. And even then, with a volume of $50,000 it would just mean you threw away $45,000. For most people it would mean setting a $5 sell order, and the broker would understand that as ""sell this security so long the price is above $5"". When you get to the trading volume required to influence the price, usually you are also bound by some regulations banning some moves. One of them is the Pump and Dump, and even if you are suggesting the opposite, it might be in preparation of this scam. Also, the software used for High Frequency Trading (what all the cool kids[a] in Wall Street are using these days) employ advanced (and proprietary) heuristics to analyze the market and make thousands of trades in a short interval of time. On HTF's speed: Decisions happen in milliseconds, and this could result in big market moves without reason.  So a human trader attempting to manipulate the market versus these HTF setups, would be like a kid in a tricile attempting to outrun the Flash (DC comics). [a] Cool Kid: not really kids, more like suited up sharks. Money-eating sharks."
The company's value (which should be reflected in the share price) is not how much money it has in the bank, but something along the lines of 'how much money will it make between now and the end of times' (adjusted for time value of money and risk). So when you purchase a share of a company that has, say, little money in the bank, but expects to make 1M$ profit this year, 2M$ for the following 3 years, and say, nothing after, you are going to pay your fraction of 7M$ (minus some discount because of the risk involved). If now they announce that their profits were only 750k$, then people may think that the 2M$ are more likely to be 1.5M$, so the company's value would go to ~ 5M$. And with that, the market may perceive the company as more risky, because its profits deviated from what was expected, which in turn may reduce the company's value even further. Stock values are generally reflective of a company's overall potential; and to some extent investor confidence in the prospect of a continued growth of that potential. Sales over such a short period of time such as a single weekend do not noticeably impact a stock's valuation.  A stock's value has more to do with whether or not they meet market expectations for sales over a certain period of time (generally 1 quarter of a year) than it does that they actually had sales (or profits) on any given day. Of course, catastrophic events, major announcements, or new product releases do sometimes cause significant changes in a stock's value.  For this reason you will often see stocks have significant volatility in periods around earnings announcements, merger rumors, or when anything unexpected happens in the world that might benefit or hurt their potential sales and growth. But overall a normal, average weekend of sales is already built into the price of a stock during normal trading. 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. In simplest terms, when a company creates new shares and sells them, it's true that existing shareholders now own a smaller percentage of the company.  However, as the company is now more valuable (since it made money by selling the new shares), the real dollar value of the previous shares is unchanged. That said, the decision to issue new shares can be interpreted by investors as a signal of the company's strategy and thereby alter the market price;  this may well affect the real dollar value of the previous shares.  But the simple act of creating new shares does not alter the value in and of itself. Unless other people believe you have a reason for selling at a lower price, your sale probably has no lasting effect at all on the market. Of course, if people see you dump a few million dollars' worth of shares at a discount, they may be inclined to believe you have a reason. But if you just sell a few, they will conclude the reason is just that you needed cash in a hurry. "Generally, a share of stock entitles the owner to all future per-share dividends paid by the company, plus a fraction of the company's assets net value in the event of liquidation.  If one knew in advance the time and value of all such payouts, the value of the stock should equal the present cash value of that payout stream, which would in turn be the sum of the cash values of all the individual payouts. As time goes by, the present cash value of each upcoming payout will increase until such time as it is actually paid, whereupon it will cease to contribute to the stock's value. Because people are not clairvoyant, they generally don't know exactly what future payouts a stock is going to make.  A sane price for a stock, however, may be assigned by estimating the present cash value of its future payments.  If unfolding events would cause a reasonable person to revise estimates of future payments upward, the price of the stock should increase.  If events cause estimates to be revised downward, the price should fall. In a sane marketplace, if the price of a stock is below people's estimates of its payouts' current cash value, people should buy the stock and push the price upward.  If it is above people's estimates, they should sell the stock and push the price downward.  Note that in a sane marketplace, rising prices are a red-flag indicator for people to stop buying.  Unfortunately, sometimes bulls see a red flag as a signal to charge ahead.  When that happens, prices may soar through the roof, but it's important to note that the value of the stock will still be the present cash value of its future payouts.  If that value is $10/share, someone who buys a share for $50 basically gives the seller $40 that he was not entitled to, and which the buyer will never get back.  The buyer might manage to convince someone else to pay him $60 for the share, but that simply means the new buyer is giving the the previous one $50 that he wasn't entitled to either.  If the price falls back to $10, calling that fall a ""market correction"" wouldn't be a euphemism, but rather state a fact: the share was worth $10 before people sold it for crazy prices, and still worth $10 afterward.  It was the market price that was in error. The important thing to focus on as a sane investor is what the stock is actually going to pay out in relation to what you put in.  It's not necessary to look only at present price/earnings ratios, since some stocks may pay little or nothing today but pay handsomely next year.  What's important, however, is that there be a reasonable likelihood that in the foreseeable future the stock will pay dividends sufficient to justify its cost." Buy and sell orders always include the price at which you buy/sell. That's how the market prices for stocks are determines. So if you want to place a buy order at 106, you can do that. When that order was fulfilled and you have the stock, you can place a sell order at 107. It will be processed as soon as someone places a buy order at 107. Theoretically you can even place sell orders for stocks you haven't even bought yet. That's called short selling. You do that when you expect a stock to go down in the future. But this is a very risky operation, because when you mispredict the market you might end up owing more money than you invested. No responsible banker will even discuss this with you when you can not prove you know what you are doing. In general, how does a large open market stock sale affect prices? A very general answer, all other things being equal, the price will move down. However there is nothing general. It depends on total number of shares in market and total turn over for that specific shares. The order book for the day etc. What is the maximum percentage of a company you could sell per day before the trading freezes, and what factors matter? Every stock exchange has rules that would determine when a particular stock would be suspended from trading, generally a 10-20% swing [either ways]. Generally highly liquid stock or stock during initial listing are exempt from such limits as they are left to arrive the market price ...  A large sell order may or may not swing the price for it to get suspended. At times even a small order may do ... again it is specific to a particular stock. You are right that Facebook really doesn't get impacted as they got their $38. However it would make it slightly more difficult for Facebook to raise more money in future as large investors would be more cautious. This can keep the price lowers than it actually needs to be. Quite a few companies try to list the IPO at lower price so that it keeps going up and have more positive effect overall there by making it easier for future borrowings. See related question Why would a company care about the price of its own shares in the stock market? Knowing the answer to this question is generally not as useful as it may seem.  The stock's current price is the consensus of thousands of people who are looking at the many relevant factors (dividend rate, growth prospects, volatility, risk, industry, etc.) that determine its value.  A stock's price is the market's valuation of the cash flows it entitles you to in the future.  Researching a stock's value means trying to figure out if there is something relevant to these cash flows that the market doesn't know about or has misjudged.  Pretty much anything we can list for you here that will affect a stock's price is something the market knows about, so it's not likely to help you know if something is mispriced.  Therefore it's not useful to you. If you are not a true expert on how important the relevant factors are and how the market is reacting to them currently (and often even if you are), then you are essentially guessing.  How likely are you to catch something that the thousands of other investors have missed and how likely are you to miss something that other investors have understood?  I don't view gambling as inherently evil, but you should be clear and honest with yourself about what you are doing if you are trying to outperform the market. As people become knowledgeable about and experienced with finance, they try less and less to be the one to find an undervalued stock in their personal portfolio.  Instead they seek to hold a fully diversified portfolio with low transactions costs and build wealth in the long term without wasting time and money on the guessing game.  My suggestion for you is to transition as quickly as you can to behave like someone who knows a lot about finance. The satisfaction from gains packs less of an emotional impact than the fear of loss. It's very difficult for many people to overcome this fear, so when prices begin to fall, many investors sell to minimize their potential loss. This causes a further drop, which can lead to more selling as other investors reach their emotional threshold for loss. This emotion-based selling keeps the market inefficient in the short term. If there aren't enough value investors waiting to scoop up the stock at the new discount, it can stay undervalued for a long time. Fair value can mean many different things depending on the context. And it has nothing to do with the price at which your market order would be executed. For example if you buy market, you could get executed below 101 if there are hidden orders, at 101 if that sell order is large enough and it is still there when your order reaches the market, or at a higher price otherwise. What is essential is that company you are selling is transparent enough. Because it will provide additional liquidity to market. When I decide to sell, I drop all volume once at a time. Liquidation price will be somewhat worse then usual. But being out of position will save you nerves for future thinking where to step in again. Cold head is best you can afford in such scenario. In very large crashes, there could be large liquidity holes. But if you are on upper side of sigmoid, you will be profiting from selling before that holes appear. Problem is, nobody could predict if market is on upper-fall, mid-fall or down-fall at any time. Day traders see a dip, buy stocks, then sell them 4 mins later when the value climbed to a small peak. What value is created? Is the company better off from that trade? The stocks were already outside of company hands, so the trade doesn't affect them at all. You've just received money from others for no contribution to society. A common scenario is a younger business having a great idea but not enough capital funds to actually get the business going. So, investors buy shares which they can sell later on at a higher value. The investor gets value from the shares increasing over time, but the business also gets value of receiving money to build the business. "Stocks with a low average daily trading volume (""thinly traded stocks"") will also tend to have higher spreads. So you'll tend to pay more when you buy and get less when you sell."