Stocks and Bankruptcy
As Mhoran said, the risks of buying a bankrupt company are huge, and even successful bankruptcy turnarounds don't involve keeping the same stock. For instance, the GM bankruptcy was resolved by the company more or less selling all its valuable assets (brands, factories, inventory) to a new version of itself, using that money to pay off what liabilities it could, and then dissolving. The new company then issued new stock, and you had to buy the new stock to see it rise; the old stock became worthless. AA could have gone the same way; Delta could have bought it out of bankruptcy and consumed it outright, with any remaining shareholders being paid off at market value. That's probably the best the market was hoping for. Instead, the deal is a much more equal merger; AMR brings a very large airport network and aircraft fleet to the table, and Delta brings its cash, an also-considerable fleet and network, and a management team that's kept that airline solvent. The stockholders, therefore, expect to be paid off at a much higher per-share price, either in a new combined stock, in Delta stock, or in cash. "When they entered Bankruptcy they changed their stock symbol from AAMR to AAMRQ. The Q tells investors that the company i in Bankruptcy. This i what the SEC says about the Q: ""Q"" Added To Stock Ticker Symbol When a company is involved in bankruptcy proceedings, the letter ""Q""   is added to the end of the company's stock ticker symbol. In most   cases, when a company emerges from bankruptcy, the reorganization plan   will cancel the existing equity stock and the old shares will be   worthless. Given that risk, before purchasing stock in a bankrupt   company, investors should read the company's proposed plan of   reorganization. For more information about the impact of bankruptcy   proceedings on securities, please read our online publication,   Corporate Bankruptcy. The risks are they never recover, or that the old shares have nothing to do with new company. Many investors don't understand this. Recently some uninformed investors(?) tried to get a jump on the Twitter IPO by purchasing share of what they thought was Twitter but was instead the bankrupt company Tweeter Home Entertainment. Shares of Tweeter Home Entertainment, a Boston-based consumer   electronics chain that filed for bankruptcy in 2007, soared Friday in   a case of mistaken identity on Wall Street. Apparently, some investors confused Tweeter, which trades under the   symbol TWTRQ, with Twitter and piled into the penny stock. Tweeter, which trades over the counter, opened at 2 cents a share and   jumped as much as 15 cents — or 1,800 percent — before regulators   halted trading. Almost 15 million shares had changed hands at that point, while the   average daily volume is closer to 150,000. Sometimes it does happen that the new company does give some value to the old investors, but more often then not the old investors are completely wiped out."
according to the Options Industry council ( http://www.optionseducation.org/tools/faq/splits_mergers_spinoffs_bankruptcies.html ) put options  the shares (and therefore the options) may continue trading OTC but if the shares completely stop trading then: if the courts cancel the shares, whereby common shareholders receive nothing, calls will become worthless and an investor who exercises a put would receive 100 times the strike price and deliver nothing. The reason for this is that it is not the company whose shares you have the option on that you have a contract with but the counterparty who wrote the option. If the counterparty goes bankrupt then you may not get paid out (depending on assets available at liquidation - this is counterparty risk) but, unless the two are the same, if the company whose shares you have a put option on declares bankruptcy then you will get paid Absolutely true, but in a bankruptcy situation the best OP can do is win a judgment for breach of contract/fiduciary duty/whatever against Refco, and then get a levy on some assets. He's still just a lien creditor who will be paid after all the secureds in bankruptcy.  As MF Global is demonstrating once again, whatever regulations there are to keep clients' money in brokerages sequestered ain't cutting it. I know folks who have had two personal (chap. 7 both times) bankruptcies in the U.S.,  including one after the bankruptcy reforms of a few years ago.  I did have the 10-year thing wrong, though. It's once every eight years for a chap. 7 liquidation, and once every six years for Chap. 13 restructuring. In this type of strategy profit is made when the shares go down as your main position is the short trade of the common stock. The convertible instruments will tend to move in about the same direction as the underlying (what it can be converted to) but less violently as they are traded less (lower volatility and lower volume in the market on both sides), however, they are not being used to make a profit so much as to hedge against the stock going up. Since both the bonds and the preference shares are higher on the list to be repaid if the company declares bankruptcy and the bonds pay out a fixed amount of interest as well, both also help protect against problems that may occur with a long position in the common stock.  Essentially the plan with this strategy is to earn fixed income on the bonds whilst the stock price drops and then to sell both the bonds and buy the stock back on the market to cover the short position. If the prediction that the stock will fall is wrong then you are still earning fixed income on the debt and are able to convert it into stock at the higher price to cover the short sale eliminating, or reducing, the loss made on the short sale. Effectively the profit here is made on the spread between the price of the bond, accounting for the conversion price, and the price of the stock and that fixed income is less volatile (except usually in the junk market) than stock. http://www.euroinvestor.com/exchanges/nasdaq/macromedia-inc/41408/history will work as DumbCoder states, but didn't contain LEHMQ (Lehman Brother's holding company). You can use Yahoo for companies that have declared bankruptcy, such as Lehman Brothers: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/hp?s=LEHMQ&a=08&b=01&c=2008&d=08&e=30&f=2008&g=d but you have to know the symbol of the holding company. 1st question: If I bought 1 percent share of company X, but   unfortunately it closed down because of some reason as it was 1   million in debt. Since I had 1 percent of it shares, does it mean I   also have to pay the 1 percent of it's debt? Stock holders are not liable for anything more than their current holdings.  In cases of Ch11 bankruptcy stock holders usually get nothing.  In Ch7 the holdings will be severely hit but one may get 10% of pre-bk prices.  I would strongly recommend against investing in bankrupt companies.  A seasoned trader can make plenty off short term trades. The payoff structure is usually: 2nd question: Is there an age requirements to enter the stock market?   I am 15 years old this year. Yes it is generally 18, but some firms offer a joint option that your parents can open. "An answer can be found in my book, ""A Modern Approach to Graham and Dodd Investing,"" p. 89 http://www.amazon.com/Modern-Approach-Graham-Investing-Finance/dp/0471584150/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1321628992&sr=1-1 ""If a company has no sustained cash flow over time, it has no value...If a company has positive cash flow but economic earnings are zero or less, it has a value less than book value and is a wasting asset. There is enough cash to pay interim dividends, bu the net present value of the dividend stream is less than book value."" A company with a stock trading below book value is believed to be ""impaired,"" perhaps because assets are overstated. Depending on the situation, it may or may not be a bankruptcy candidate." As an ordinary shareholder, yes you are protected from recourse by the debtors. The maximum amount you can lose is the amount you spent on the shares. The rules might change if you are an officer of the company and fraud is alleged, but ordinary stockholders are quite well protected. Why are you worried about this? The biggest issue with personal bankruptcy is the guilt.  We generally are brought up to believe that we should be responsible for our debts.  Bankruptcy is a direct contradiction to that concept.  Once a debtor realizes that corporations don't necessarily view bankruptcy as failure, but merely a financial tool, that makes it a lot easier to let go of the guilt.  Once that happens, all a debtor needs to get used to is the idea that s/he'll be dealing with a cash economy for a while.  Which isn't a particularly bad thing at all.  Inconvenient at times, but that's about it. I didn't mean to imply that bankruptcy is a magical process. I was using that to clarify my use of conservative vs. aggressive. To be fair, I guess it can vary depending on your perspective. If you're taking the perspective of the debt-laden company, then yes, erring on the side of a higher value could be defined as aggressive. If you're taking the perspective of someone looking to acquire business, I would say erring on the side of a higher value is conservative.   if the debt is trading at, say, $0.20 on the dollar, then yes, I can agree that the market value of the debt is likely more representative of the book value. I guess I wasn't thinking of that type of extreme example. A more common scenario I'd encounter would be a) the debt trading at maybe $0.95 on the dollar and b) taking the perspective of someone looking to invest in the equity, which is why I'd say that it's more conservative to use the higher value, which is the book value.  So I'm persuaded that using market value of the debt can make sense in some cases, but I would still argue that the book value might make more sense in other cases. "The term ""stock"" here refers to a static number as contrasted to flows, e.g. population vs. population growth. Stock, in this context, is not at all related to an equity instrument.  Yes, annual refinance costs, interest rate payments etc. are what we should be looking at when assessing debt burden. Those are flows. That was my point when cautioning against naive debt GDP comparisons.  Also, keep in mind that by borrowing in it's sovereign currency, the US has an enormous amount of monetary tools to handle the debt if it ever became a problem. Greece, by comparison, is at the mercy of the ECB, so they only have fiscal levers to pull. The interest expense does not strike me as especially concerning, but I'd be happy to verify BIS or IMF reports if you would like." I upvoted you as I think your story is important to tell. However, commodities and futures accounts have never been protected under SIPC. The use of your money to pay debts sounds illegal or perhaps it was legal under a document you signed when you opened your account. Bankruptcy was not a way to screw you over.  The bigger point is that bankruptcy is a way to restructure debts and is beneficial in the long run to the benefits of society. While we often look at people or corporations who have to file bankruptcy as being irresponsible (and what I am about to say may reflect negatively on you, for that I apologize) the people or corporations who lent to a bankrupt entity should be scorned just as much.  Right now, the EU is going through a period where we are hoping bankruptcy is off the table. Increasingly though, the only way to do that is to try and paper over debts that will never be repaid for a long enough time period for growth to resume. But the question remains, what if growth never comes back. This is why restructuring and bankruptcy is the only option for Greece and likely Italy, Portugal, Spain and Ireland. "If a company is doing well, it seems less likely to go bankrupt.  If a company is doing poorly, it seems more likely to go bankrupt.  The problem is, where is the inflection point between ""well"" and ""poorly""?  When does a company start to head into oblivion?  Sometimes it is hard to know.  But if you don't call that right and hold onto your shares when a company is tanking, others, who call it before you do, will sell off, devalue the share price, and now you've missed your chance to get out at a good profit.  If you hang on too long, the company may just go bankrupt and you've lost your investment entirely. A healthy profitability of the company therefore has to bolster investor confidence in avoiding this very unpleasant scenario.  Therefore, the more profitable a company is, the more shareholder confidence it inspires, and the more willing to pay for it in the form of increased share price.  And, this then has a ""meta"" effect, in that each shareholder thinks, ""all other investors think this way, too,"" and so each feels good about holding the stock, since he knows he can likely easily liquidate it for good cash if he needs to, either now or in the next year or sometime hence." I don't know what you're talking about. If anything bankruptcy has become more creditor friendly over the years, which is only logical because business debtors don't really lobby for friendlier bankruptcy rules when they're not planning on being bankrupt. The only difference is that debt is more readily available and a bigger part of doing business today, so you'll naturally see more reorganizations. "This is basically the short-term/long-term savings question in another form: savings that you hope are long-term but which may turn short-term very suddenly. You can never completely eliminate the risk of being forced to draw on long term savings during a period when the market is doing Something Unpleasant that would force you to take a loss (or right before it does Something Pleasant that you'd like to be fully invested during). You can only pick the degree of risk that you're willing to accept, balancing that hazard of forced sales against the lower-but-more-certain returns you'd get from a money market or equivalent. I'm considered a moderately aggressive investor -- which doesn't mean I'm pushing the boundaries on what I'm buying (not by a long shot!), but which does mean I'm willing to keep more of my money in the market and I'm more likely to hold or buy into a dip than to sell off to try to minimize losses. That level of risk-tolerance also means I'm willing to maintain a ready-cash pool which is sufficient to handle expected emergencies (order of $10K), and not become overly paranoid about lost opportunity value if it turns out that I need to pull a few thou out of the investments. I've got decent health insurance, which helps reduce that risk. I'm also not particularly paranoid about the money. On my current track, I should be able to maintain my current lifestyle ""forever"" without ever touching the principal, as long as inflation and returns remain vaguely reasonable. Having to hit the account for a larger emergency at an Inconvenient Time wouldn't be likely to hurt me too much -- delaying retirement for a year or two, perhaps. It's just money. Emergencies are one of the things it's for. I try not to be stupid about it, but I also try not to stress about it more than I must."