What drives the stock of bankrupt companies?
What drives the stock of bankrupt companies? The company's potential residual assets. When a company goes bankrupt it is required to sell its assets to pay off its debts. The funds raised from selling assets go to the following entities:  The usual order of debt repayment, in terms of the lender, will be the government, financial institutions, other creditors (i.e. suppliers and utility companies), bondholders, preferred shareholders and, finally, common shareholders. Depending on the amount of debt and the value of a company's assets, the common shareholders may receive some left over from liquidated assets. This would drive the stock price of a bankrupt company. "With debts exceeding assets by a billion dollars, this activity likely comes from penny stock speculators and ""pump and dump"" schemers. There is no rational expectation that the stock is even worth multiple pennies when the company is that far upside-down on its debts. Even if the debts could be restructured in a chapter 11, the equity shares would likely lose all of their value in the bankruptcy proceedings. Shareholders are at the bottom of the totem-pole when debts are being adjusted by the courts." "What drives the stock of bankrupt companies? Such stock is typically considered ""distressed assets"".  Technically, what drives it is what drives every stock - supply and demand. A more interesting question is of course, why would there be demand? First, who exerts the buying pressure on the stock? Typically, three types of entities: The largest ones are financial institutions specializing in distressed assets (frequently, alternatives specialists - hedge funds, private equity firms etc...). Usually, they invest in distressed debt or distressed preferred equity; but sometimes distressed equity as well. Why? We will discuss their motivations separately in this answer. Second one are existing equity holders.  Why? Short answer, behavioral psychology and behavioral economics. Many investors - especially non-professionals - insist on holding distressed stocks due to variety of investment fallacies (sunk cost etc...); usually constructing elaborate theories of why and how the company and the stock will recover Sometimes, people who buy into penny stock scams, pump and dump schemes etc... Why? ""There's a sucker born every minute."" - P.T. Barnum Let's find out why an investment professional would invest in distressed equity? First, the general process is always the same. Company's assets are used to pay off its liabilities; in accordance with applicable law. There are two ways this can be done - either through selling the company; OR through bankruptcy process. The liabilities are paid according to seniority. The seniority priorities rules are covered by 11 U.S. Code § 507 - Priorities A company in bankruptcy can have one of 2 outcomes: Buyout. Some buyer might decide that the company's assets are worth something to them as a whole; and buy the whole enterprise; rather than risk it being destroyed piecemeal in bankruptcy proceedings. In that case, the proceeds from the sale will be used to fund the liabilities as discussed above. This option is one of the possible reasons people might consider investing in distressed equity.  For example, if the company is in bankruptcy because it can't get enough financing right now, but is likely to have good profits in the future. The chances are, some buyer will buy it for a premium that includes those future profits; and that sale amount might possibly exceed the liabilities. Bankruptcy. The assets are sold and liabilities are covered according to priorities. In that case, the investors in distressed equity might be hoping that there are un-obvious assets whose value would also put the total assets above claimed liabilities. Additional possible beneficial factor is that unsecured debtors must file with the court in order to be paid; and the claim must be validated. Some might fail on either count; so total amount of liabilities might lessen once the bankruptcy process goes through. Assets Now, here's where things get interesting. Of course, companies have usual assets. Real estate, inventory, plants, cash, etc... These are all able to be sold to cover liabilities, and at first glance are possibly not enough to cover liabilities, leaving equity holders with nothing (and even that's not a certainty - bankruptcy is simply inability to service debt payments; and while it correlates to assetsliquid assets, not full asset valuation). But some assets are less sure, and are thus rarely included in such calculations. These may include: Chances of winning appeals if specific existing liabilities are results of litigation, e.g. tax appeals, court judgement appeals etc... Clawbacks and lawsuits against former executives, especially in cases where the company's financial distress resulted from executive malfeasance. I was personally involved in one such case as an equity holder, where the company assets were valued at $X; had liabilities of $X*2; but had a real possibility of winning about $X*3 in a lawsuit against former CEO accused of various malfeasance including fraud and insider trading. As such, the best case scenario was literally 100% profit on holding that distressed equity."
The answer to this question is given by the fact that many public companies have people who are opposed to the company's aims or practices and who own their stock, often a single share, for the purposes of turning up to shareholder meetings and haranguing directors/asking awkward questions/disrupting proceedings, etc. If public companies could stop these campaigning shareholders from owning stock they would. As said by others, buying shares of a company will not support it directly. But let's think about two example companies: Company A, which has 90 % stocks owned by supporters, and Company B, which has only 1 % of stocks owned by supporters. Both companies release bad news, for example profits have decreased. In Company B, most investors might want to sell their stock quickly and the price will plummet. In Company A, the supporters continue believing in the company and will not want to sell it. The price will drop less (usually, but it can drop even more if the sellers of Company A are very desperate to get rid of the stock). So, why is it important for the company to have a high stock price? In the short-term, it's not important. One example is that the company can release more stocks and receive more financing by doing that. Other reasons are listed here: http://www.investopedia.com/articles/basics/03/020703.asp "As others have pointed out, there are often many factors that are contributing to a stock's movement other than the latest news.  In particular, the overall market sentiment and price movement very often is the primary driver in any stock's change on a given day.   But in this case, I'd say your anecdotal observation is correct: All else equal, announcements of layoffs tend to drive stock prices upwards. Here's why: To the public, layoffs are almost always a sign that a company is willing to do whatever is needed to fix an already known and serious problem. Mass layoffs are brutally hard decisions.  Even at companies that go through cycles of them pretty regularly, they're still painful every time.  There's a strong personal drain on the chain of executives that has to decide who loses their livelihood.  And even if you think most execs don't care (and I think you'd be wrong) it's still incredibly distracting.   The process takes many weeks, during which productivity plummets. And it's demoralizing to everyone when it happens. So companies very rarely do it until they think they have to.  By that point, they are likely struggling with some very publicly known problems - usually contracting (or negative) margins.   So, the market's view of the company at the time just before layoffs occur is almost always, ""this company has problems, but is unable or unwilling to solve them."".  Layoffs signal that both of those possibilities are incorrect.  They suggest that the company believes that layoffs will fix the problem, and that they're willing to make hard calls to do so. And that's why they usually drive prices up." "Market makers, traders, and value investors would be who I'd suspect for buying the stock that is declining. Some companies stocks can come down considerably which could make some speculators buy the stock at the lower price thinking it may bounce back soon. ""Short sellers"" are out to sell borrowed stocks that if the stock is in free fall, unless the person that shorted wants to close the position, they would let it ride. Worthless stocks are a bit of a special case and quite different than the crash of 1929 where various blue chip stocks like those of the Dow Jones Industrials had severe declines. Thus, the companies going down would be like Apple, Coca-Cola and other large companies that people would be shocked to see come down so much yet there are some examples in recent history if one remembers Enron or Worldcom. Stocks getting delisted tend to cause some selling and there are some speculators may buy the stock believing that the shares may be worth something only to lose the money possibly as one could look at the bankrupt cases of airlines and car companies to study some recent cases here. Circuit breakers are worth noting as these are cases when trading may be halted because of a big swing in prices that it is believed stopping the market may cause things to settle down." "Yes, many hedge funds (for example) did not survive 2008-2009.  But hedge funds were failing both before and after that period, and other hedge funds thrived.  Those types of funds are particularly risky because they depend so much on leverage (i.e. on money that isn't actually theirs). More publically-visible funds (like those of the big-name index fund companies) tended not to close because they are not leveraged.  You say that ""a great many companies"" failed during the recession, but that's not actually true.  I can't think of more than a handful of publically-traded companies that went bankrupt.  So, since the vast majority of publically-traded companies stayed in business, their stocks kept some/most of their value, and the funds that owned those stocks stayed afloat. I personally did not see a single index fund that went out of business due to the recession." A lot of people in this thread have provided excellent information from a public company's perspective (with respect to WACC, etc.), but I'll chime in from a private company's perspective (specifically, a tech start-up).  Two reasons a private company would prefer to receive financing in the form of debt as opposed to equity:  1) It can't sell equity at a good valuation (or at all). In this case, the company may have no choice but to raise debt financing, using assets as collateral and also diverting future cash flows away from growth initiatives for the sake of servicing the debt. This is obviously a bad situation for the company. Also, because debt is senior to equity, in the case of a bankruptcy, owners would only be able to recover money from the sale of the company / liquidation after debt owners have been paid.  2) The company's owners don't want to further dilute their ownership stakes and are willing to have the company pay interest to avoid it. Sometimes private company owners will take on debt with the purpose of buying out other owners. In some other cases, the company's management thinks equity in their company will increase in value disproportionately to what investors might give it credit for. In these cases, the math is simple: projected valuation growth versus the valuation financing is available at, taking into account the interest paid on the debt. Some banks are bankrupt, or so close to it that they can only pretend to give real dividends in a desperate attempt to keep investors from fleeing and driving their stock price (and thus credit rating) down into a pit of despair.   Other banks (like jpmc) are not in  bad shape, have cash, and are quite happy to disburse it. P/E is the number of years it would take for the company to earn its share price.  You take share price divided by annual earnings per share.  You can take the current reported quarterly earnings per share times 4, you can take the sum of the past four actual quarters earnings per share or you can take some projected earnings per share. It has little to do with a company's actual finances apart from the earnings per share.  It doesn't say much about the health of a company's balance sheet, and is definitely not an indicator for bankruptcy.  It's mostly a measure of the market's assumptions of the company's ability to grow earnings or maintain it's current earnings growth.   A share price of $40 trading for a P/E ratio of 10 means it will take the company 10 years to earn $40 per share, it means there's current annual earnings per share of $4.  A different company may also be earning $4 per share but trade at 100 times earnings for a share price of $400.  By this measure alone neither company is more or less healthy than the other.  One just commands more faith in the future growth from the market. To circle back to your question regarding a negative P/E, a negative P/E ratio means the company is reporting negative earnings (running at a loss).  Again, this may or may not indicate an imminent bankruptcy.  Increasing balance sheet debt with decreasing revenue and or earnings and or balance sheet assets will be a better way to assess bankruptcy risk. In the US, and I suspect in most of the developed world, one major point of a corporation is limited liability.  The stockholders are not on the hook for liabilities beyond their investment.  If the company does something terrible, or fails economically, it goes bankrupt.  Usually the stockholders have their investment wiped out, but they are guaranteed that they do not have to pay more in to any settlement. Companies pay their employees in stocks and stock options, so they have an incentive towards increasing a company's share price. There are many elements that go into a stock's price. For example, if you hold a stock for eternity you should be indifferent if the expected present value of all its future dividends (i.e. earnings) equals the price you paid for it. Also, buy-back policies and voting rights determine stock price as well. The theory is that since shareholders want return on their investments they would promote company executives in such a way that their incentives are aligned to increase the share price. There are things that are clearly beyond me as well. Cash per share is $12.61 but the debt looks like $30 or so per share. I look at that, and the $22 negative book value and don't see where the shareholders are able to recoup anything. "No.  If the share price drops to $0, it's likely that the company is in bankruptcy. Usually, debt holders (especially holders of senior debt) are paid first, and you're entitled to whatever the bankruptcy proceedings decide to give holders of equity after the debt holders are paid off. More often than not, equity holders probably won't get much. To give an example, corporate bankruptcy usually involves one of two options: liquidation or reorganization. In the US, these are called Chapter 7 and Chapter 11 bankruptcy, respectively. Canada and the United Kingdom also have similar procedures for corporations, although in the UK, reorganization is often referred to as administration. Many countries have similar procedures in place. I'll use the US as an example because it's what I'm most familiar with. In Chapter 7 bankruptcy, the company is liquidated to pay its debts. Investopedia's article about bankruptcy states: During Chapter 7 bankruptcy, investors are considered especially low on the ladder. Usually, the stock of a company undergoing Chapter 7 proceedings is usually worthless, and investors lose the money they invested. If you hold a bond, you might receive a fraction of its face value. What you receive depends on the amount of assets available for distribution and where your investment ranks on the priority list on the first page. In Chapter 11 bankruptcy, the company is turned over to a trustee that guides it through a reorganization. The Investopedia article quotes the SEC to describe what happens to stockholders when this happens: ""During Chapter 11 bankruptcy, bondholders stop receiving interest and principal payments, and stockholders stop receiving dividends. If you are a bondholder, you may receive new stock in exchange for your bonds, new bonds or a combination of stock and bonds. If you are a stockholder, the trustee may ask you to send back your stock in exchange for shares in the reorganized company. The new shares may be fewer in number and worth less. The reorganization plan spells out your rights as an investor and what you can expect to receive, if anything, from the company."" The exact details will depend on the reorganization plan that's worked out, local laws, court agreements, etc.. For example, in the case of General Motor's bankruptcy, stockholders in the company before reorganization were left with worthless shares and were not granted shares in the new company." In the case you mentioned, where a private company owners will take debt with the purpose of  buying out other owners, is this done through a share repurchases program (I understand private companies issue them, even though it's rare)? Thank you for the insights. I've seen my score dip a little bit after every hard pull.  (Admittedly, a fako score.)  You apply for credit or for a credit increase and your score is going to dip. Any check that is not intended to grant credit (either an existing creditor rechecking, or when you check your own credit) has no effect on your score.  Likewise, a check done to screen for a solicitation have no effect as you are not trying to borrow.  (Taking them up on the offer will normally cause a hit, though.) "The specific ""State Pension"" plan you have linked to is provided by the government of the U.K. to workers resident there. More generally speaking, many countries provide some kind of basic worker's pension (or ""social security"") to residents.  In the United States, it is called (surprise!) ""Social Security"", and in Canada most of us call ours ""Canada Pension Plan"".  Such pensions are typically funded by payroll deductions distinct & separate from income tax deducted at source.  You can learn about the variety of social security programs around the world courtesy of the U.S. Social Security Administration's own survey. What those and many other government or state pensions have in common, and the term or concept that I think you are looking for, is that they are typically defined benefit type of plans.  A defined benefit or DB plan is where there is a promised (or ""defined"") benefit, i.e. a set lump sum amount (such as with a ""cash balance"" type of DB plan) or income per year in retirement (more typical). (Note: Defined benefit plans are not restricted to be offered by governments only. Many companies also offer DB plans to their employees, but DB plans in the private sector are becoming more rare due to the funding risk inherent in making such a long-term promise to employees.) Whereas a defined contribution or DC plan is one where employee and/or employer put money into a retirement account, the balance of which is invested in a selection of funds. Then, at retirement the resulting lump sum amount or annual income amounts (if the resulting balance is annuitized) are based on the performance of the investments selected. That is, with a DC plan, there is no promise of you getting either a set lump sum amount or a set amount of annual income at retirement!  The promise was up front, on how much money they would contribute.  So, the contributions are defined (often according to a matching contribution scheme), yet the resulting benefit itself is not defined (i.e. promised.) Summary: DB plans promise you the money (the benefit) you'll get at retirement. DC plans only promise you the money (the contributions) you get now."