What does net selling or buying of a stock mean?
Consider the mechanic which actually drives the 'price' of a stock. In simplest terms, the 'price' of a stock is the price at which the most recent trade occurred. ie: if the price of IBM is $100/share, that means the last time someone bought IBM stock, they paid $100. Above and below the 'spot price', are dozens/hundreds/thousands of buyers and sellers who have placed orders that no one is yet willing to match. ie: if IBM's spot price is at $100, there could still be 10,000 people willing to sell for $101 (called the 'ask' price, for the lowest price someone is currently willing to sell at), and 15,000 willing to buy for $99 (called the 'bid' price, for the highest price someone is currently willing to buy for).  Until someone is willing to buy for $101, then no one will be able to sell at $101. Until someone is willing to sell for $99, no one will be able to buy for $99. Typically orders are placed in the market at a particular limit. Meaning that those orders to buy at $99/sell at $101 are already in the 'system', and will be matched immediately as soon as someone is willing to meet the price on the other side. Now consider general market economics: high demand drives up price, and high supply drives down price. If the details above for IBM were yesterday, and today some news came out that IBM was laying off employees, imagine that another 10,000 people who held shares wanted to sell. Now there would be 20,000 sellers and only 15,000 buyers. If those new sellers were aggressive about wanting to sell, they would have to drop their price to $99, to match the highest buyers in the market. Put together, this means that as more sellers enter the market, supply of shares increases, driving down price. Conversely, as more buyers enter the market, demand for shares increases, driving up share price. As a result of the above, you can say that (all else being equal) if price for a stock goes up, there were more buyers that day, and if price goes down, there were more sellers that day. On the face of it, that is not necessarily true, because you could have the same number of buyers and sellers, one side could have simply decreased/increased their acceptable price to match the other side. What does it mean when some one says that today there was a lot of net selling or buying in a stock. What does it mean because for every selling there is also a buying going on then how can you determine a selling or buying ? Generally if the price of stock has gone down compared to previous day, the trend is of selling. As the price can be volatile, there maybe few trades that are above close price of previous day, or below close price of previous day.  How can you calculate average trade price for a stock It is simple {sum of all [price*quantity]}/quantity. Related question Equity market inflow meaning "I'm not sure the term actually has a clear meaning. We can think of ""what does this mean"" in two ways: its broad semantic/metaphorical meaning, and its mechanical ""what actual variables in the market represent this quantity"". Net buying/selling have a clear meaning in the former sense by analogy to the basic concept of supply and demand in equilibrium markets. It's not as clear what their meaning should be in the latter sense. Roughly, as the top comment notes, you could say that a price decrease is because of net selling at the previous price level, while a price rise is driven by net buying at the previous price level. But in terms of actual market mechanics, the only way prices move is by matching of a buyer and a seller, so every market transaction inherently represents an instantaneous balance across the bid/ask spread. So then we could think about the notion of orders. Actual transactions only occur in balance, but there is a whole book of standing orders at various prices. So maybe we could use some measure of the volume at various price levels in each of the bid/ask books to decide some notion of net buying/selling. But again, actual transactions occur only when matched across the spread. If a significant order volume is added on one side or the other, but at a price far away from the bid/offer - far enough that an actual trade at that price is unlikely to occur - should that be included in the notion of net buying/selling? Presumably there is some price distance from the bid/offer where the orders don't matter for net buying/selling. I'm sure you'd find a lot of buyers for BRK.A at $1, but that's completely irrelevant to the notion of net buying/selling in BRK.A. Maybe the closest thing I can think of in terms of actual market mechanics is the comparative total volumes during the period that would still have been executed if forced to execute at the end of period price. Assuming that traders' valuations are fixed through the period in question, and trading occurs on the basis of fundamentals (which I know isn't a good assumption in practice, but the impact of price history upon future price is too complex for this analysis), we have two cases. If price falls, we can assume all buyers who executed above the last price in the period would have happily bought at the last price (saving money), while all sellers who executed below the last price in the period would also be happy to sell for more. The former will be larger than the latter. If the price rises, the reverse is true."
Yep, you have it pretty much right.   The volume is the number of shares traded that day. The ticker is giving you the number of shares bought at that price in a given transaction, the arrow meaning whether the stock is up or down on the day at that price.   Institutional can also refer to pensions, mutuals funds, corporates; generally any shareholder that isn't an individual person. "Selling as well as buying a stock are part science and part art form.  I remember once selling a stock at its 52 week high too. That particular stock ""quadrupled"" in value over the next 52 weeks.  Mind you I made 50% ROI on the stock but my point is that none of us have a crystal ball on whether a particular stock will ever stop or start going up or stop or start going down. If someone had those answers they wouldn't be telling you they would be practicing them to make more money! Make up your mind what you want to make and stick by your decisions.  Bulls make money when stocks go up and Bears make money when they go down but pigs don't make money. -RobF" "Yes - this is exactly what it means.  No losses (negative earnings).   With today's accounting methods, you might want to determine whether you view earnings including or excluding extraordinary items.   For example, a company might take a once-off charge to its earnings when revising the value of a major asset.  This would show in the ""including"" but not in the ""excluding"" figure.   The book actually has a nice discussion in Chapter 12 ""Things to Consider About Per-Share Earnings"" which considers several additional variables to consider here too. Note that this earnings metric is different from ""Stock Selection for the Defensive Investor"" which requires 10 years. PS - My edition (4th edition hardback) doesn't have 386 pages so your reference isn't correct for that edition.  I found it on page 209 in Chapter 15 ""Stock Selection for the Enterprising Investor""." NSCC illiquid charges are charges that apply to the trading of low-priced over-the counter (OTC) securities with low volumes. Open net buy quantity represents the total unsettled share amount per stock at any given time during a 3-day settlement cycle. Open net buy quantity must be less than 5,000,000 shares per stock for your entire firm Basically, you can't hold a long position of more than 5 million shares in an illiquid OTC stock without facing a fee. You'll still be assessed this fee if you accumulate a long position of this size by breaking your purchase up into multiple transactions. Open net sell quantity represents the total unsettled share amount per stock at any given time during a 3-day settlement cycle. Open net sell quantity must be less than 10% percent of the 20-day average volume If you attempt to sell a number of shares greater than 10% of the stock's average volume over the last 20 days, you'll also be assessed a fee. The first link I included above is just an example, but it makes the important point: you may still be assessed a fee for trading OTC stocks even if your account doesn't meet the criteria because these restrictions are applied at the level of the clearing firm, not the individual client.  This means that if other investors with your broker, or even at another broker that happens to use the same clearing firm, purchase more than 5 million shares in an individual OTC stock at the same time, all of your accounts may face fees, even though individually, you don't exceed the limits. Technically, these fees are assessed to the clearing firm, not the individual investor, but usually the clearing firm will pass the fees along to the broker (and possibly add other charges as well), and the broker will charge a fee to the individual account(s) that triggered the restriction. Also, remember that when buying OTC/pink sheet stocks, your ability to buy or sell is also contingent on finding someone else to buy from/sell to. If you purchase 10,000 shares one day and attempt to sell them sometime in the future, but there aren't enough buyers to buy all 10,000 from you, you might not be able to complete your order at the desired price, or even at all. "....causes loses [sic] to others. Someone sells you a stock.  The seller receives cash.  You receive a stock certificate.  This doesn't imply a loss by either party especially if the seller sold the stock for more than his purchase price. A day trading robot can make money off of the price changes of a stock only if there are buyers and sellers of the stock at certain prices.  There are always two parties in any stock transaction: a buyer and a seller.  The day trading robot can make money off of an investment for 20 years and you could still make money if the investment goes up over the 20 years.  The day trading robot doesn't ""rob"" you of any profit." As stock prices have declined, the net worth of people has come down. Imagine owning a million shares of a stock worth $100/share. This is worth $100,000,000. Now, if the stock is suddenly trading at $50/share then some would say you have lost $50,000,000. The value of the stock is less. The uncertainty is always there as there are differences between one day's close and another day's open possibly. The sale price is likely to be near the last trade is what is being used here. If you place a market order to sell your stock, the price may move between the time the order is placed and when it is filled. There are limit orders that could be used if you want to control the minimum price you get though you give up that the order has to be filled as otherwise people could try to sell shares for millions of dollars that wouldn't work out well. "In the case of mutual funds, Net Asset Value (NAV) is the price used to buy and sell shares. NAV is just the value of the underlying assets (which are in turn valued by their underlying holdings and future earnings). So if a fund hands out a billion dollars, it stands to reason their NAV*shares (market cap?) is a billion dollars less. Shareholder's net worth is equal in either scenario, but after the dividend is paid they are more liquid. For people who need investment income to live on, dividends are a cheap way to hold stocks and get regular payments, versus having to sell part of your portfolio every month.  But for people who want to hold their investment in the market for a long long time, dividends only increase the rate at which you have to buy. For mutual funds this isn't a problem: you buy the funds and tell them to reinvest for free. So because of that, it's a prohibited practice to ""sell"" dividends to clients." Great question! It can be a confusing for sure -- but here's a great example I've adapted to your scenario: As a Day Trader, you buy 100 shares of LMNO at $100, then after a large drop the same day, you sell all 10 shares at $90 for a loss of $1,000. Later in the afternoon, you bought another 100 shares at $92 and resold them an hour later at $97 (a $500 profit), closing out your position for the day. The second trade had a profit of $500, so you had a net loss of $500 (the $1,000 loss plus the $500 profit).  Here’s how this works out tax-wise: The IRS first disallows the $1,000 loss and lets you show only a profit of $500 for the first trade (since it was a wash). But it lets you add the $1,000 loss to the basis of your replacement shares. So instead of spending $9,200 (100 shares times $92), for tax purposes, you spent $10,200 ($9,200 plus $1,000), which means that the second trade is what caused you to lose the $500 that you added back (100 x $97 = $9,700 minus the 100 x $102 = $10,200, netting $500 loss). On a net basis, you get to record your loss, it just gets recorded on the second trade. The basis addition lets you work off your wash-sale losses eventually, and in your case, on Day 3 you would recognize a $500 final net loss for tax purposes since you EXITED your position. Caveat: UNLESS you re-enter LMNO within 30 days later (at which point it would be another wash and the basis would shift again). Source: http://www.dummies.com/personal-finance/investing/day-trading/understand-the-irs-wash-sale-rule-when-day-trading/ "Selling short is simply by definition the selling, then later re-buying of stock you don't initially own. Say you tally your entire portfolio balance: the quantity of each stock you own, and your cash assets. Let's call this your ""initial position"". We define ""profit"" as any increase in assets, relative to this initial position. If you know a particular stock will go down, you can realize a profit by selling some of that stock, waiting for the price to go down, then buying it back. In the end you will have returned to your initial position, except you will have more cash. If you sell 10 shares of a stock valued at £1.50, then buy them back at £1.00, you will make a £5.00 profit while having otherwise returned to your previous position. If you do the same, but you initially owned 1000 shares, sold just 10 of those, then bought 10 back, that's still a profit of £5.00. Selling short is doing the same thing, but with an initial and ending balance of 0 shares. If you initially own 0 shares, sell 10, then buy 10 back, you return to your initial position (0 shares) plus a profit of £5.00. (And in practice you must also pay a borrowing fee to do this.) The advantage of selling short is it can be done with any stock, not just those currently owned." "The Business Dictionary has three definitions of ""turnover"".  When it comes to share dealing, the most likely one is the total value of shares traded on the stock exchange in a given period." The difference is ordinary income. If the price drops and you sell for exactly what you paid, you have an income of D and a capital loss of D which usually cancel each other, but not always. For example, if you already have over $3000 in losses, this loss won't help you, it will carry forward.  The above changes a bit if you hold the stock for 2 years after the beginning of the purchase period. If sold between your purchase price and fair market the day you bought, the gain is only the difference, no gain to fair market + loss.   Pretty convoluted. Your company should have provided you with a brief FAQ / Q&A to explain this.  My friends at Fairmark have an article that explains the ESPP process clearly, Tax Reporting for Qualifying Dispositions of ESPP Shares. Selling stock means selling a portion of ownership in your company.  Any time you issue stock, you give up some control, unless you're issuing non-voting stock, and even non-voting stock owns a portion of the company. Thus, issuing (voting) shares means either the current shareholders reduce their proportion of owernship, or the company reissues stock it held back from a previous offering (in which case it no longer has that stock available to issue and thus has less ability to raise funds in the future).  From Investopedia, for exmaple: Secondary offerings in which new shares are underwritten and sold dilute the ownership position of stockholders who own shares that were issued in the IPO. Of course, sometimes a secondary offering is more akin to Mark Zuckerberg selling some shares of Facebook to allow him to diversify his holdings - the original owner(s) sell a portion of their holdings off.  That does not dilute the ownership stake of others, but does reduce their share of course. You also give up some rights to dividends etc., even if you issue non-voting stock; of course that is factored into the price presumably (either the actual dividend or the prospect of eventually getting a dividend).  And hopefully more growth leads to more dividends, though that's only true if the company can actually make good use of the incoming funds. That last part is somewhat important.  A company that has a good use for new funds should raise more funds, because it will turn those $100 to $150 or $200 for everyone, including the current owners.  But a company that doesn't have a particular use for more money would be wasting those funds, and probably not earning back that full value for everyone. The impact on stock price of course is also a major factor and not one to discount; even a company issuing non-voting stock has a fiduciary responsibility to act in the interest of those non-voting shareholders, and so should not excessively dilute their value. "netting means to combine cash inflows and outflows (e.g. debits/credits, payments/receipts, income/expense) by subtracting the sum of all outflows from the sum of all inflows, creating one transaction.   For example, if you make two trades in one day with your broker - one to buy a security for $100 and one to sell it for $110 - rather then you sending your broker $100 and them sending you $110, the transactions are ""netted"" - meaning they will send you the ""net"" amount of $10 ($110 inflow - $100 outflow). In a more general sense (""netting of instructions"") it would mean to combine all instructions and only apply the ""net"" effect - e.g. one step forward, two steps back would combine to a ""net"" one step back.  Most likely it will apply to the exchange of money, but it could be applied more broadly. Note that there doesn't have to be both inflows and outflows. You can also ""net"" multiple inflows (or outflows) into one transaction by just adding them all up, but typical business usage is to reduce the number of transactions by combining inflows and outflows." Basic arbitrage is the (near-)simultaneous purchasing and selling of things that are convertible.   The classic example is the international trading of equities. If someone in London wants to purchase a hundred shares of Shell for 40 GBP ea. and someone in New York wants to sell you a hundred shares of Shell for 61 USD ea., you can buy the shares from the guy in New York, sell them to the guy in London and convert your GBP back in to USD for a profit of $41.60 minus fees.  Now, if after you buy the shares in New York, the price in London goes down, you'll be left holding 100 shares of Shell that you don't want. So instead you should borrow 100 shares in London and sell them at the exact same time that you buy the shares in New York, thus keeping your net position at 0. In fact, you should also borrow 4000GBP and convert them to USD at the same time, so that exchange rate changes don't get you. Nobody tracks a single company's net assets on a daily basis, and stock prices are almost never derived directly from their assets (otherwise there would be no concept of 'growth stocks').  Stocks trade on the presumed current value of future positive cash flow, not on the value of their assets alone. Funds are totally different.  They own nothing but stocks and are valued on the basis on the value of those stocks.  (Commodity funds and closed funds muddy the picture somewhat, but basically a fund's only business is owning very liquid assets, not using their assets to produce wealth the way companies do.) A fund has no meaning other than the direct value of its assets.   Even companies which own and exploit large assets, like resource companies, are far more complicated than funds: e.g. gold mining or oil extracting companies derive most of their value from their physical holdings, but those holdings value depends on the moving price and assumed future price of the commodity and also on the operations (efficiency of extraction etc.) Still different from a fund which only owns very liquid assets.