Why do people buy stocks at higher price in merger?
"Without any highly credible anticipation of a company being a target of a pending takeover, its common stock will normally trade at what can be considered non-control or ""passive market"" prices, i.e. prices that passive securities investors pay or receive for each share of stock. When there is talk or suggestion of a publicly traded company's being an acquisition target, it begins to trade at ""control market"" prices, i.e. prices that an investor or group of them is expected to pay in order to control the company.  In most cases control requires a would-be control shareholder to own half a company's total votes (not necessarily stock) plus one additional vote and to pay a greater price than passive market prices to non-control investors (and sometimes to other control investors). The difference between these two market prices is termed a ""control premium.""  The appropriateness and value of this premium has been upheld in case law, with some conflicting opinions, in Delaware Chancery Court (see the reference below; LinkedIn Corp. is incorporated in the state), most other US states' courts and those of many countries with active stock markets. The amount of premium is largely determined by investment bankers who, in addition to applying other valuation approaches, review most recently available similar transactions for premiums paid and advise (formally in an ""opinion letter"") their clients what range of prices to pay or accept. In addition to increasing the likelihood of being outbid by a third-party, failure to pay an adequate premium is often grounds for class action lawsuits that may take years to resolve with great uncertainty for most parties involved. For a recent example and more details see this media opinion and overview about Dell Inc. being taken private in 2013, the lawsuits that transaction prompted and the court's ruling in 2016 in favor of passive shareholder plaintiffs.  Though it has more to do with determining fair valuation than specifically premiums, the case illustrates instruments and means used by some courts to protect non-control, passive shareholders. ========== REFERENCE As a reference, in a 2005 note written by a major US-based international corporate law firm, it noted with respect to Delaware courts, which adjudicate most major shareholder conflicts as the state has a disproportionate share of large companies in its domicile, that control premiums may not necessarily be paid to minority shareholders if the acquirer gains control of a company that continues to have minority shareholders, i.e. not a full acquisition: Delaware case law is clear that the value of a dissenting [target company's]   stockholder’s shares is not to be reduced to impose a minority   discount reflecting the lack of the stockholders’ control over the   corporation. Indeed, this appears to be the rationale for valuing the   target corporation as a whole and allocating a proportionate share of   that value to the shares of [a] dissenting stockholder [exercising his appraisal rights in seeking to challenge the value the target company's board of directors placed on his shares]. At the same   time, Delaware courts have suggested, without explanation, that the   value of the corporation as a whole, and as a going concern, should   not include a control premium of the type that might be realized in a   sale of the corporation." There are kind of two answers here: the practical reason an acquirer has to pay more for shares than their current trading price and the economic justification for the increase in price. Why must the acquirer must pay a premium as a practical matter?  Everyone has a different valuation of a company.  The current trading price is the lowest price that any holder of the stock is willing to sell a little bit of stock for and the highest that anyone is willing to buy a little bit for. However, Microsoft needs to buy a controlling share.  To do this on the open market they would need to buy all the shares from people who's personal valuation is low, and then a bunch from people whose valuation is higher and so on.  The act of buying that much stock would push the price up by buying all the shares from people who are really willing to sell.  Moreover, as they buy more and more, the remaining people increase their personal valuation so the price would really shoot up.  Acquirers avoid this situation by offering to buy a ton of stock at a substantially higher, single price. Why is Linkedin suddenly worth more than it was yesterday? Microsoft is expecting to be able to use its own infrastructure and tools to make more money with Linkedin than Linkedin would have before.  In other words, they believe that the Linkedin division of Microsoft after the merger will be worth more than Linkedin alone was before the merger.  This synergistic idea is the theoretical foundation for mergers in general and the main reason people use to argue for a higher price. You could also argue that by expressing an interest in Linkedin, Microsoft may be telling us something it knows about Linkedin's value that maybe we didn't realize before because we aren't as smart and informed as the people on Microsoft's board.  But since it's Microsoft that's doing the buying in this case, I'm going to go out on a limb and say this is not the main effect.  Given Microsoft's history, the idea that they buy expensive things because they have money to burn is more compelling than the idea that they have an insight into a company's value that we don't. Microsoft wants to buy a majority in the stock. To accomplish that, they have to offer a good price, so the current share owners are willing to sell. Just because the CEO of LinkedIN agreed to the deal doesn't really mean much, only that he is willing to sell his shares at that price. If he does not own 50%, he basically cannot complete the deal; other willing sellers are needed. If Microsoft could buy 50+% of the shares for the current market price, they would have just done that, without any negotiations. That is called a hostile take-over.
Options pricing is based on the gap between strike and the current market, and volatility. That's why the VIX, a commonly accepted volatility index, is actually just a weighted blend of S&P 500 future options prices.  A general rise in the price of options indicates people don't know whether it will go up or down next, and are therefore less willing to take that risk.  But your question is why everything underwater in the puts chain went higher, and that's simple: now that Apple's down, the probability of falling a few more points is higher. Especially since Apple has gone through some recent rough times, and stocks in general are seen as risky these days. "First, keep in mind that there are generally 2 ways to buy a corporation's shares: You can buy a share directly from the corporation. This does not happen often; it usually happens at the Initial Public Offering [the first time the company becomes ""public"" where anyone with access to the stock exchange can become a part-owner], plus maybe a few more times during the corporations existence. In this case, the corporation is offering new ownership in exchange for a price set the corporation (or a broker hired by the corporation).  The price used for a public offering is the highest amount that the company believes it can get - this is a very complicated field, and involves many different methods of evaluating what the company should be worth. If the company sets the price too low, then they have missed out on possible value which would be earned by the previous, private shareholders (they would have gotten the same share % of a corporation which would now have more cash to spend, because of increased money paid by new shareholders). If the company sets the price too high, then the share subscription might only be partially filled, so there might not be enough cash to do what the company wanted. You can buy a share from another shareholder. This is more common - when you see the company's share price on the stock exchange, it is this type of transaction - buying out other current shareholders. The price here is simply set based on what current owners are willing to sell at. The ""Bid Price"" listed by an exchange is the current highest bid that a purchaser is offering for a single share. The ""Ask Price"" is the current lowest offer that a seller is offering to sell a single share they currently own. When the bid price = the ask price, a share transaction happens, and the most recent stock price changes." "I understand you make money by buying low and selling high. You can also make money by buying high and selling higher, short selling high and buying back low, short selling low and buying back even lower. An important technique followed by many technical traders and investors is to alway trade with the trend - so if the shares are trending up you go long (buy to open and sell to close); if the shares are trending down you go short (sell to open and buy to close). ""But even if the stock price goes up, why are we guaranteed that there is some demand for it?""  There is never any guarantees in investing or trading. The only guarantee in life is death, but that's a different subject. There is always some demand for a share or else the share price would be zero or it would never sell, i.e zero liquidity. There are many reasons why there could be demand for a rising share price - fundamental analysis could indicated that the shares are valued much higher than the current price; technical analysis could indicate that the trend will continue; greed could get the better of peoples' emotion where they think all my freinds are making money from this stock so I should buy it too (just to name a few). ""After all, it's more expensive now."" What determines if a stock is expensive? As Joe mentioned, was Apple expensive at $100? People who bought it at $50 might think so, but people who bought at $600+ would think $100 is very cheap. On the other hand a penny stock may be expensive at $0.20. ""It would make sense if we can sell the stock back into the company for our share of the earnings, but why would other investors want it when the price has gone up?"" You don't sell your stocks back to the company for a share of the earnings (unless the company has a share-buy-back arrangement in place), you get a share of the earnings by getting the dividends the company distributes to shareholders. Other investor would want to buy the stock when the price has gone up because they think it will go up further and they can make some money out of it. Some of the reasons for this are explained above." Remember that shares represent votes at the shareholders' meeting. If share price drops too far below the value of that percentage of the company, the company gets bought out and taken over. This tends to set a minimum share price derived from the company's current value. The share price may rise above that baseline if people expect it to be worth more in the future, or drop s bit below if people expect awful news. That's why investment is called speculation. If the price asked is too high to be justified by current guesses, nobody buys. That sets the upper limit at any given time. Since some of this is guesswork, the market is not completely rational. Prices can drop after good news if they'd been inflated by the expectation of better news, for example. In general, businesses which don't crash tend to grow.  Hence the market as a whole generally trends upward if viewed on a long timescale. But there's a lot of noise on that curve; short term or single stocks are much harder to predict. "Simple answer is because the stocks don't split. Most stocks would have a similar high price per share if they didn't split occasionally.  Why don't they split? A better way to ask this is probably, why DO most stocks split? The standard answer is that it gives the appearance that stocks are ""cheap"" again and encourages investors to buy them. Some people, Warren Buffett (of Berkshire Hathaway) don't want any part of these shenanigans and refuse to split their stocks. Buffett also has commented that he thinks splitting a stock also adds unnecessary volatility." You are misunderstanding what makes the price of a stock go up and down. Every time you sell a share of a stock, there is someone else that buys the stock.  So it is not accurate to say that stock prices go down when large amounts of the stock are sold, and up when large amounts of the stock are bought.  Every day, the amount of shares of a stock that are bought and sold are equal to each other, because in order to sell a share of stock, someone has to buy it. Let me try to explain what actually happens to the price of a stock when you want to sell it. Let's say that a particular stock is listed on the ticker at $100 a share currently.  All this means is that the last transaction that took place was for $100; someone sold their share to a buyer for $100. Now let's say that you have a share of the stock you'd like to sell.  You are hoping to get $100 for your share.  There are 2 other people that also have a share that they want to sell.  However, there is only 1 person that wants to buy a share of stock, and he only wants to pay $99 for a share.  If none of you wants to sell lower than $100, then no shares get sold.  But if one of you agrees to sell at $99, then the sale takes place.  The ticker value of the stock is now $99 instead of $100. Now let's say that there are 3 new people that have decided they want to buy a share of the stock.  They'd like to buy at $99, but you and the other person left with a share want to sell at $100.  Either one of the sellers will come down to $99 or one of the buyers will go up to $100.  This process will continue until everyone that wants to sell a share has sold, and everyone who wants to buy a share has bought.  In general, though, when there are more people that want to sell than buy, the price goes down, and when there are more people that want to buy than sell, the price goes up. To answer your question, if your selling of the stock had caused the price to go down, it means that you would have gotten less money for your stock than if it had not gone down.  Likewise, if your buying the stock had caused it to go up, it just means that it would have cost you more to buy the stock.  It is just as likely that you would lose money doing this, rather than gain money. "Most likely because they don't know what they're talking about. They all have a belief without evidence that information set X is internalised into the price but information set Y is not. If there is some stock characteristic, call it y, that belongs to set Y, then that moves the gauge towards a ""buy"" recommendation. However, the issue is that no evidence has been used to determine the constituents of X and Y, or even whether Y exists in any non-trivial sense." The people who cause this sort of sell-off immediately are mostly speculators, short-term day-traders and the like. They realize that, because of the lowered potential for earnings in the future, the companies in question won't be worth as much in the future. They will sell shares at the elevated price, including sometimes shares that they borrow for the explicit purpose of selling (short selling), until the share price is more reasonable. Now, the other question is why the companies in question won't sell for as much in the future: Even if every other company in the world looks less attractive all at once (global economic catastrophe etc) people have other options. They could just put the money in the bank, or in corporate bonds, or in mortgage bonds, or Treasury bonds, or some other low-risk instrument, or something crazy like gold. If the expected return on a stock doesn't justify the price, you're unlikely to find someone paying that price. So you don't actually need to have a huge sell-off to lower the price. You just need a sell-off that's big enough that you run out of people willing to pay elevated prices. I'm confused. Are you asking why or telling us that you're bullish? Yes the stock will go up for a merger at a premium, but buying in now only gives you ~0.5% gain if it closes at $21.50. They won't trade over 21.50 unless a competing bid comes in or the bid is increased. If the price has gone up from what it was when the person bought, he may sell to collect his profit and spend the money. If someone intends to keep his money in the market, the trick is that you don't know when the price of a given stock will peak. If you could tell the future, sure, you'd buy when the stock was at its lowest point, just before it started up, and then sell at the highest point, just before it started down. But no one knows for sure what those points are. If a stockholder really KNOWS that demand is increasing and the price WILL go up, sure, it would be foolish to sell. But you can never KNOW that. (Or if you have some way that you do know that, please call me and share your knowledge.) "This is a classic correlation does not imply causation situation.  There are (at least) three issues at play in this question: If you are swing- or day-trading then the first and second issues can definitely affect your trading.  A higher-price, higher-volume stock will have smaller (percentage) volatility fluctuations within a very small period of time. However, in general, and especially when holding any position for any period of time during which unknowns can become known (such as Netflix's customer-loss announcement) it is a mistake to feel ""safe"" based on price alone. When considering longer-term investments (even weeks or months), and if you were to compare penny stocks with blue chip stocks, you still might find more ""stability"" in the higher value stocks.  This is a correlation alone — in other words, a stable, reliable stock probably has a (relatively) high price but a high price does not mean it's reliable. As Joe said, the stock of any company that is exposed to significant risks can drop (or rise) by large amounts suddenly, and it is common for blue-chip stocks to move significantly in a period of months as changes in the market or the company itself manifest themselves. The last thing to remember when you are looking at raw dollar amounts is to remember to look at shares outstanding.  Netflix has a price of $79 to Ford's $12; yet Ford has a larger market cap because there are nearly 4 billion shares compared to Netflix's 52m." People buy stocks with the intention of making money.  They either expect the price to continue to rise or that they will get dividends and the price will not drop (enough) to wipe out their dividend earnings. The main thing you're missing is that while you bear all the costs of manipulating the market, you have no special ability to capture the profits yourself. You make money by buying low and selling high. But if you want to push the price up, you have to keep buying even though the price is getting high. So you are buying high. This gives everyone, including you, the opportunity to sell high and make money. But you will have no special ability to capture that -- others will see the price going up and will start selling within a tiny fraction of a second. You will have to keep buying all the shares they keep selling at the artificially inflated price. So as you keep trying to buy more and more to push the price up enough to make money, everyone else is selling their shares to you. You have to buy more and more shares at an inflated price as everyone else is selling while you are still buying. When you switch to selling, the price will drop instantly, since there's nobody to buy from you at the inflated price. The opportunity you created has already been taken -- by the very people you were trading with. Billions have been lost by people who thought this strategy would work. Because people bought their shares under the premise that they would make more money and if the company completely lied about that they will be subject to several civil and criminal violations. If people didn't believe the company was going to make more money, they would have valued their shares lower during the IPO by not forming much of a market at all. Companies do both quite often.  They have opposite effects on the share price, but not on the total value to the shareholders.  Doing both causes value to shareholders to rise (ie, any un-bought back shares now own a larger percentage of the company and are worth more) and drops the per-share price (so it is easier to buy a share of the stock).  To some that's irrelevant, but some might want a share of an otherwise-expensive stock without paying $700 for it. As a specific example of this, Apple (APPL) split its stock in 2014 and also continued a significant buyback program: Apple announces $17B repurchase program, Oct 2014 Apple stock splits 7-to-1 in June 2014. This led to their stock in total being worth more, but costing substantially less per share.