What does the term “match the market” mean?
If your returns match the market, that means their rate of return is the same as the market in question. If your returns beat the market, that means their rate of return is higher. There's no one 'market', mind you. I invest in mutual funds that track the S&P500 (which is, very roughly, the U.S. stock market), that track the Canadian stock market, that track the international stock market, and which track the Canadian bond market. In general, you should be deeply dubious of any advertised investment option that promises to beat the market. It's certainly possible to do so. If you buy a single stock, for example, that stock may go up by 40% over the course of a year while the market may go up by 5%. However, you are likely taking on substantially more risk. So there's a very good chance (likely, a greater chance) that the investment would go down, losing you money. "From Investopedia:  ""Beating the market"" is a difficult phrase to analyze. It can be used   to refer to two different situations: 1) An investor, portfolio manager, fund or other investment specialist   produces a better return than the market average. The market average   can be calculated in many ways, but usually a benchmark - such as the   S&P 500 or the Dow Jones Industrial Average index - is a good   representation of the market average. If your returns exceed the   percentage return of the chosen benchmark, you have beaten the market   - congrats! (To learn more, read Benchmark Your Returns With Indexes.) 2) A company's earnings, sales or some other valuation metric is   superior to that of other companies in its industry. Matching the market, I would presume will be generating returns equivalent to the index you are comparing your portfolio with. If for a sector/industry then it would be the returns generated by the sector/industry. As an index is more or less a juxtaposition of the market as a whole, people tend to use an index." "There was a time when everyone felt their goal was to beat the respective index they followed. But of course, in aggregate, that's a mathematical impossibility. The result was that the average say large cap fund, whose benchmark index would be the S&P, would lag on average by 1-2%.  A trend toward ETFs that would match the market had begun, and the current ETFs that follow the S&P are sub .1% expense.  For the fact that studies (Google ""Dalbar"" for examples) show the typical investor lags not by 1% or 2%, but by far more for reasons of bad timing, my own statement that ""I've gotten a return these past years of .06% less than the S&P"" would have been seen many years ago as failure, now it's bragging. It handily beats the typical investor and yet, can be had by anyone wishing to stay the course, keep the ETF very long term."
"A ""market maker"" is someone that is contractually bound, by the exchange, to provide both bid and ask prices for a given volume (e.g. 5000 shares). A single market maker usually covers many stocks, and a single stock is usually covered by many market makers. The NYSE has ""specialists"" that are market makers that also performed a few other roles in the management of trading for a stock, and usually a single issue on the NYSE is covered by only one market maker.  Market makers are often middlemen between brokers (ignoring stuff like dark pools, and the fact that brokers will often trade stocks internally among their own clients before going to the exchange).  Historically, the market makers gave up buy/sell discretion in exchange for being the ""go-to guys"" for anyone wanting to trade in that stock. When you told your broker to buy a stock for you, he didn't hook you up with another retail investor; he went to the market maker. Market makers would also sometimes find investors willing to step in when more liquidity was needed for a security. They were like other floor traders; they hung out on the exchange floors and interacted with traders to buy and sell stocks. Traders came to them when they wanted to buy one of the specialist's issues. There was no public order book; just ticker tape and a quote. It was up to the market maker to maintain that order book.  Since they are effectively forbidden from being one-sided traders in a security, their profit comes from the bid-ask spread. Being the counter-party to almost every trade, they'd make profit from always selling above where they were buying. (Except when the price moved quickly -- the downside to this arrangement.) ""The spread goes to the market maker"" is just stating that the profit implicit in the spread gets consumed by the market maker. With the switch to ECNs, the role of the market maker has changed. For example, ForEx trading firms tend to act as market makers to their customers. On ECNs, the invisible, anonymous guy at the other end of most trades is often a market maker, still performing his traditional role. Yet brokers can interact directly with each other now, rather than relying on the market maker's book. With modern online investing and public order books, retail investors might even be trading directly with each other. Market makers are still out there; in part, they perform a service sold by an Exchange to the companies that choose to be listed on that exchange. That service has changed to helping tamp volatility during normal high-volatility periods (such as at open and close)." The OTC market is a marketplace, the location it definitely relied on the purchaser marketplace. The OTC market is mostly used to exchange bonds among the two occasions and all this technique are executed by way of manner of the third celebration. They are able to also be used to alternate equity, such because of the OTC QX and purple marketplaces within the USA. The minamargroup is the Florida, USA situated agency, who elements their purchase investor relation with to present organization into  to make new ones.  OTC way it's far a protection traded in some context other, changing between  parties or groups inclusive of New York Stock trade. "With my current, limited knowledge (see end), I understand it the following way: Are share prices really described as ""memoryless""?  Yes.  Is there a   technical meaning of the term? What does it really mean? The meaning comes from Markov Models: Think of the behavior of the stock market over time as a Markov Chain, i.e. a probabilistic model with states and probabilistic transitions. A state is the current price of all stocks of the market, a transition is a step in time. Memoryless means that transitions that the stock market might make can be modelled by a relation from one state to another, i.e. it only depends on the current state. The model is a Markov Chain, as opposed to a more general Stochastic Process where the next state depends on more than the current state. So in a Markov Chain, all the history of one stock is ""encoded"" already in its current price (more precisely in all stock's prices).  The memorylessness of stocks is the main statement of the Efficient Market Theory (EMT). If a company's circumstances don't change, then a drop in its share price is going to be followed by a rise later.  So if the EMT holds, your statement above is not necessarily true. I personally belief the EMT is a good approximation - only large corporations (e.g. Renaissance Technologies) have enough ressources (hundreds of mathematicians, billions of $) to be able to leverage tiny non-random movements that stem from a not completely random, mostly chaotic market.  The prices can of course change when the company's circumstances change, but they aren't ""memoryless"" either. A company's future state is influenced by its past. In the EMT, a stock's future state is only influenced by its past as much as is encoded in its current price (more precisely, the complete market's current state). Whether that price was reached by a drop or a rise makes no difference.  The above is my believe, but I'm by far no finance expert. I am working professionally with probabilistic models, but have only read one book on finance: Kommer's ""Souverän investieren mit Indexfonds und ETFs"". It's supposed to contain many statements of Malkiel's ""A Random Walk Down Wall Street""." "In general economic theory, there are always two markets created based on a need for a good; a spot market (where people who need something now can go outbid other people who need the same thing), and a futures market (where people who know they will need something later can agree to buy it for a pre-approved price, even if the good in question doesn't exist yet, like a grain crop). Options exist as a natural extension of the futures market. In a traditional future, you're obligated, by buying the contract, to execute it, for good or ill. If it turns out that you could have gotten a lower price when buying, or a higher price when selling, that's tough; you gave up the ability to say no in return for knowing, a month or three months or even a year in advance, the price you'll get to buy or sell this good that you know you need. Futures thus give both sides the ability to plan based on a known price, but that's their only risk-reduction mechanism. Enter the option. You're the Coors Brewing Company, and you want to buy 50 tons of barley grain for delivery in December in order to brew up for the Super Bowl and other assorted sports parties. A co-op bellies up to close the deal. But, since you're Coors, you compete on price with Budweiser and Miller, and if you end up paying more than the grain's really worth, perhaps because of a mild wet fall and a bumper crop that the almanac predicts, then you're going to have a real bad time of it in January. You ask for the right to say ""no"" when the contract falls due, if the price you negotiate now is too high based on the spot price. The co-op now has a choice; for such a large shipment, if Coors decided to leave them holding the bag on the contract and instead bought it from them anyway on a depressed spot market, they could lose big if they were counting on getting the contract price and bought equipment or facilities on credit against it. To mitigate those losses, the co-op asks for an option price; basically, this is ""insurance"" on the contract, and the co-op will, in return for this fee (exactly how and when it's paid is also negotiable), agree to eat any future realized losses if Coors were to back out of the contract.  Like any insurance premium, the option price is nominally based on an outwardly simple formula: the probability of Coors ""exercising"" their option, times the losses the co-op would incur if that happened. Long-term, if these two figures are accurate, the co-op will break even by offering this price and Coors either taking the contract or exercising the option. However, coming up with accurate predictions of these two figures, such that the co-op (or anyone offering such a position) would indeed break even at least, is the stuff that keeps actuaries in business (and awake at night)." "Market price is just the bid or offer price of the last sell or buy order in the market. The price that you actually receive or pay will be the price that the person buying the stock off you or selling it to you will accept. If there are no other participants in the market to make up the other side of your order (i.e. to buy off you if you are selling or to sell to you if you are buying) the exchange pays large banks to be ""market makers""; they fulfil your order using stocks that they don't want to either buy or sell just so that you get your order filled. When you place an order outside of market hours the order is kept on the broker's order books until the market reopens and then, at market opening time there is an opening ""auction"" at which orders are matched to opposing orders (i.e. each buy order will be matched with a sell) at a price determined by auction. You will not know what price the order was filled at until it has been filled. If you want to guarantee a price you can do so by placing a limit order that says not to pay more than a certain price for any unit of the stock." If you're talking about an ETF trading on Arca, it's probably because of the opening auction: The match price is the price that maximizes the volume that can be executed within the Auction Collars. The Core Open Auction will use the match price closest to the closing price of the previous trading day (based on normal market hours) if more than one indicative match price is valid. The core opening auction doesn't really take the opening session activity into account, as you can see - the market runs an auction and whatever price clears the most volume, within certain limits, is the opening print. "There seems to be a common sentiment that no investor can consistently beat the market on returns. What evidence exists for or against this? First off, even if the markets were entirely random there would be individual investors that would consistently beat the market throughout their lifetime entirely by luck.  There are just so many people this is a statistical certainty.  So let's talk about evidence of beating the market due to persistent skill. I should hedge by saying there isn't a lot of good data here as most understandably most individual investors don't give out their investment information but there are some ok datasets.  There is weak evidence, for instance, that the best individual investors keep outperforming and interestingly that the trading of individual investors can predict future market movements.  Though the evidence is more clear that individual investors make a lot of mistakes and that these winning portfolios are not from commonly available strategies and involve portfolios that are much riskier than most  would recommend. Is there really no investment strategy that would make it likely for this investor to consistently outperform her benchmark? There are so, many, papers (many reasonable even) out there about how to outperform benchmarks (especially risk-adjusted basis).  Not too mention some advisers with great track records and a sea of questionable websites.  You can even copy most of what Buffet does if you want. Remember though that the average investor by definition makes the average ""market"" return and then pays fees on top of that.  If there is a strategy out there that is obviously better than the market and a bunch of people start doing it, it quickly becomes expensive to do and becomes part the market.  If there was a proven, easy to implement way to beat the market everyone would do it and it would be the market. So why is it that on this site or elsewhere, whenever an active trading strategy is discussed that potentially beats the market, there is always a claim that it probably won't work? To start with there are a large number of clearly bad ideas posed here and elsewhere.  Sometimes though the ideas might be good and may even have a good chance to beat the market.  Like so many of the portfolios that beat the market though and they add a lot of uncertainty and in particular, for this personal finance site, risk that the person will not be able to live comfortably in retirement. There is so much uncertainty in the market and that is why there will always be people that consistently outperform the market but at the same time why there will be few, if any, strategies that will outperform consistently with any certainty." Is my observation that the currency exchange market is indirect correct? Is there a particular reason for this? Why isn't currency traded like stocks? I guess yes. In Stocks its pretty simple where the stock is held with a depository. Hence listing matching is simple and the exchange of money is via local clearing. Currency markets are more global and there is no one place where trades happen. There are multiple places where it happens and is loosely called Fx market place. Building a matching engine is also complex and confusing. If we go with your example of currency pair, matches would be difficult.  Say; If we were to say all transactions happen in USD say, and list every currency as item to be purchased or sold. I could put a trade Sell Trade for Quantity 100 Stock Code EUR at Price 1.13 [Price in USD]. So there has to be a buy at a price and we can match. Similarly we would have Stock Code for GBP, AUD, JPY, etc. Since not every thing would be USD based, say I need to convert GBP to EUR, I would have to have a different set of Base currency say GBP. So here the quantity would All currencies except GBP which would be price. Even then we have issues, someone using USD as base currency has quoted for Stock GBP. While someone else using GBP has quoted for Stock USD. Plus moving money internationally is expensive and doing this for small trades removes the advantages. The kind of guarantees required are difficult to achieve without established correspondence bank relationships. One heavily traded currency pair, the exchange for funds happens via CLS Bank. The principle of demand-supply law will not work if spoofing (or layering, fake order) is implemented. However, spoofing stocks is an illegal criminal practice  monitored by SEC. In stock market, aggressive buyer are willing to pay for a higher ask price pushing the price higher even if ask size is considerably larger than bid size, especially when high growth potential with time is expected. Larger bids may attract more buyers, further perpetuating a price increase (positive pile-on effect). Aggressive sellers are willing to accept a lower bid price pushing the price lower even if ask size is considerably smaller than bid size, when a negative situation is expected. Larger asks may attract more sellers, further perpetuating a price fall (negative pile-on effect).  Moreover, seller and buyers considers not only price but also size of shares in their decision-making process, along with marker order and/or limit order. Unlike limit order, market order is not recorded in bid/ask size. Market order, but not limit order, immediately affects the price direction. Thus, ask/bid sizes alone do not give enough information on price direction. If stocks are being sold continuously at the bid price, this could be the beginning of a downward trend; if stocks are being sold continuously at the ask price, this could be the beginning of a upward trend.  This is because ask price is always higher than bid price. In all the cases, both buyers and sellers hope to make a profit in a long-term and short-term view "1) Are the definitions for capital market from the two sources the same? Yes.  They are from two different perspectives.  Investopedia is looking at it primarily from the perspective of a trader and they lead-off with the secondary market. This refers to the secondary market: A market in which individuals and institutions trade financial securities. This refers to the primary market: Organizations/institutions in the public and private sectors also often sell securities on the capital markets in order to raise funds. Also, the Investopedia definition leaves much to be desired, but it is supposed to be pithy.  So, you are comparing apples and oranges, to some extent.  One is an article, as short as it may be, this other one is an entry in a dictionary. 2) What is the opposite of capital market, according to the definition in investopedia?  It's not quite about opposites, this is not physics.  However, that is not the issue here.  The Investopedia definition simply does not mention any other possibilities.  The Wikipedia article defines the term more thoroughly.  It talks about primary/secondary markets in separate paragraph. 3) According to the Wikipedia's definition, why does stock market belong to capital market, given that stocks can be held less than one year too? If you follow the link in the Wikipedia article to money market: As money became a commodity, the money market is nowadays a component of the financial markets for assets involved in short-term borrowing, lending, buying and selling with original maturities of one year or less. The key here is original maturities of one year or less. Here's my attempt at explaining this: Financial markets are comprised of money markets and capital markets.   Money is traded as if it were a commodity on the money markets.  Hence, the short-term nature in its definition.  They are more focused on the money itself.     Capital markets are focused on the money as a means to an end. Companies seek money in these markets for longer terms in order to improve their business in some way. A business may go to the money markets to access money quickly in order to deal with a short-term cash crunch.  Meanwhile, a business may go to the capital markets to seek money in order to expand its business. Note that capital markets came first and money markets are a relatively recent development.   Also, we are typically speaking about the secondary (capital) market when we are talking about the stock or bond market.  In this market, participants are merely trading among themselves.  The company that sought money by issuing that stock/bond certificate is out of the picture at that point and has its money.   So, Facebook got its money from participants in the primary market: the underwriters.  The underwriters then turned around and sold that stock in an IPO to the secondary market.  After the IPO, their stock trades on the secondary market where you or I have access to trade it.  That money flows between traders.  Facebook got its money at the ""beginning"" of the process." Please refer to this question to understand the basics of how an order is matched. How do exchanges match limit orders?  Now most of the times even Block orders follow the same matching criteria. I think you are assuming that for every large buy order there is a matching large sell order. This is not true.     So on the Buy side at various point in times there were Buy Orders, with Single order more than 10,000 shares. On the sell side to fulfil these orders there may or may not be a single order of 10,000. More often there will be quite a few smaller orders or 500, 1000 or whatever amount that are present in the queue based on the amount & time sort order or even partially matching out of a sell order of 10,000 ... Similarly when there is a large sell order of more than 10,000 , these may not have got filled in by a large buy order but by smaller buy orders etc ...   So if you average out the amounts on the buy side and the sell side there would definately be a difference. The analysis of this difference is as indicated in your question, buy price is more than sell price and hence people are bullish ... "For every buyer there is a seller. That rule refers to actual (historical) trades. It doesn't apply to ""wannabees."" Suppose there are buyers for 2,000 shares and sellers for only 1,000 at a given price, P. Some of those buyers will raise their ""bid"" (the indication of the price they are willing to pay) above P so that the sellers of the 1000 shares will fill their orders first  (""sold to the highest bidder""). The ones that don't do this will (probably) not get their orders filled. Suppose there are more sellers than buyers. Then some sellers will lower their ""offer"" price to attract buyers (and some sellers probably won't). At a low enough price, there will likely be a ""match"" between the total number of shares on sale, and shares on purchase orders." "What does ""points"" mean In any stock market, there are certain stocks that go up and certain stocks that go down. Hence if we want to find the generic health of stock market, i.e. on an average is it going up or down, we have no means to find out.  A practise that has evolved over the years is take a set of companies and find if on average they have gone up or gone down. In very simple terms say in 1970 I take the Market Capitalization of a set of 50 companies, lets say its value is ""X"". I would now call this index as value of 100. Now after a month if the Market Capitalization is 2X, the index value would be 200. After another month if the Market Capitalization come down to 1.5X, then index value would be 150. So essentially now one is able to get the general trend more easily. S&P is an index of Select 500 companies based on various parameters. So in isolation 2000 does not mean anything. However as a comparison it does give quite a bit of insight. Note there are various adjustments made to factor, i.e. certain companies go bankrupt or are not doing well are removed from Index, share splits, mergers, etc. This ensure that the Index is neutral and does not show unwarranted spikes." A stock market is just that, a market place where buyers and sellers come together to buy and sell shares in companies listed on that stock market. There is no global stock price, the price relates to the last price a stock was traded at on a particular stock market. However, a company can be listed on more than one stock exchange. For example, some Australian companies are listed both on the Australian Stock Exchange (ASX) and the NYSE, and they usually trade at different prices on the different exchanges. Also, there is no formula to determine a stock price. In your example where C wants to buy at 110 and B wants to sell at 120, there will be no sale until one or both of them decides to change their bid or offer to match the opposite, or until new buyers and/or sellers come into the market closing the gap between the buy and sell prices and creating more liquidity. It is all to do with supply and demand and peoples' emotions. Remember that balance transfers are rarely fee free. As you state, there is a fee associated with the balance transfer. If your 0% rate is for 18 months and the fee is 3%, you are really paying 2% per year on the amount you transferred. The advantage is that you can redirect the debt you transferred is interest free and you can attack other debt with high interest on it. This can save you in interest fees and allow you to direct more of your money towards debt. The disadvantage is that your 0% interest will expire and become a much higher interest rate. Unless you pay off the transfer before the expiration, you will have to pay off the debt at the higher interest. How you decide to attack your debt reduction may need to factor in how long you expect to have debt and what other debt you have. Often times though, the savings in interest is less important than simplifying the number of debt accounts you have. The inspiration you receive from reducing your debt accounts is much more powerful. You realize reducing debt accounts allows you to actually see an end in sight and provides the recurring positive feedback that you are making progressing. This is why the advice to pay off your lowest balance credit cards first.