How Emini/Minifuture price is set against its underlaying instrument?
The market sets prices and the way JP Morgan or any other bank or organization determines the price it's willing to deal in would be proprietary business information.
"Assuming you are executing your order on a registered exchange by a registered broker, your order will be filled at the best bid price available.  This is because brokers are legally obliged to get the best price available. For example, if the market is showing a bid of 49.99 and an offer of 50.01 and you submit an order to offer 1000 shares at 5.00, your order will be filled at 49.99.  This is assuming the existing bids are for enough shares to fill all of the 1000 shares being offered.  If the share you are offering lacks the necessary liquidity to fill the order - i.e., the 49.99 bid is for less than 1000 shares and the ""level two"" bids are not enough to fill the remaining shares, then the order would be posted in the market as an offer to sell the balance (1000 - shares filled at 49.99 and those filled at level two bids) at 5.00.   I'm pretty sure that the scenario you are describing would be described as market manipulation and it would be against the law." "No, it means that is only the notional value of that underlying asset of that contract, generally. The contract specification itself is listed on the exchange's websites, and there are really no assumptions you can make about a particular contract. Where S&P futures have one set of specifications, such as what it actually represents, how many each contract holds, how to price profits and losses... a different contract, such as FTSE 100 stock futures have a completely different set of specifications. Anyway in this one example the s&p 500 futures contract has an ""initial margin"" of $19,250, meaning that is how much it would cost you to establish that contract. Futures generally require delivery of 1,000 units of the underlying asset. So you would take the underlying asset's price and multiple it by 1,000. (what price you use is also mentioned in the contract specification), The S&P 500 index  is $1588 you mentioned, so on Jun2013 you would have to delivery $1588 x 1000, or $1,588,000. GREAT NEWS, you only have to put up 1.2% in principal to control a 1.5 million dollar asset! Although, if even that amount is too great, you can look at the E-Mini S&P futures, which require about 1/10th the capital and delivery. This answer required that a lot of different subjects be mentioned, so feel free to ask a new question about the more specific topics." "I don't see EWQ6 in any of your links, so I can't say for certain, but when you buy an option contract on a future, the option will be for a specific future (and strike).  So the page you're looking at may be for options on E-mini S&P 500 futures in general, and when you actually purchase one through your broker, you pick a specific expiry (which will be based on the ""prompt"" future, meaning the next future that expires after the option) and strike. UPDATE: Based on this page mirror, the option EWQ7 is an option on the ESU7 (SEP 2017) future.  The next 3 monthly options use ESZ7 as the underlier, which confirms that they use the next prompt future as the underlier." My logic for prices was this: S&amp;P500/indexes price is based on the overall market for S&amp;P500, generally. So my thought was that it should be correlated to the price of the Vix because as market volatility occurred, the price of the Vix would go up and vice Versa when the market goes down. However, I just started running these analyses as a side project and am still learning the right measures to make better observations. So I'm all for any advice in that regard. "That characterisation of arbitrage-free pricing sounds a bit like the ""relative vs. fundamental"" approaches to asset pricing that Cochrane outlines (in his text, *Asset Pricing*). Rebonato also makes this distinction with regard to term structure models in *Volatility and Correlation*.   On one extreme you have CAPM-style models in which asset prices are completely determined by investors' risk preferences; on the other extreme, you would have something like a SABR-Libor Market Model where you take everything up to and including the volatility surface as given.   What's interesting to me is the way in which these different classes of models get used in various parts of the financial industry. So, buy side firms tend to rely a lot more on equilibrium-style models, since they ultimately care about things like how the equity risk premium or the bond risk premium affect asset prices. In contrast, derivatives quants working at a big sell-side bank who are pricing exotics don't care about what the ""fundamental"" value of their underlying assets is; they just take that as given and price the exotic accordingly." Because the standard contract is for 125,000 euros.  http://www.cmegroup.com/trading/fx/g10/euro-fx_contractSpecs_futures.html You don't want to use Microsoft as an analogy. You want to use non financial commodities. Most are settled in cash, no delivery. But in the early 80's, the Hunt brothers caused a spectacular short squeeze by taking delivery sending the spot price to $50. And some businesses naturally do this, buying metal, grain, etc. no reason you can't actually get the current price of $US/Euro if you need that much. "Here is how I would approach that problem: 1) Find the average ratios of the competitors: 2) Find the earnings and book value per share of Hawaiian 3) Multiply the EPB and BVPS by the average ratios. Note that you get two very different numbers.  This illustrates why pricing from ratios is inexact.  How you use those answers to estimate a ""price"" is up to you.  You can take the higher of the two, the average, the P/E result since you have more data points, or whatever other method you feel you can justify.   There is no ""right"" answer since no one can accurately predict the future price of any stock." There are 2 approaches. One of them is already mentioned by @Afforess. If the approach by @Afforess is not feasible, and you can not see yourself making an unbiased decision, close the position.  By closing the position you will not get the best price. But by removing a distraction you will reduce amount of mistakes you make in the other stocks. "You can interpret prices in any way you wish, but the commonly quoted ""price"" is the last price traded. If your broker routes those orders, unlikely because they will be considered ""unfair"" and will probably be busted by the exchange, the only way to drive the price to the heights & lows in your example is to have an overwhelming amount of quantity relative to the order book. Your orders will hit the opposing limit orders until your quantity is exhausted, starting from the best price to the worst price. This is the functional equivalent to a market order." This idea does not make sense for most mutual funds. The net asset value, or NAV, is the current market value of a fund's holdings, minus the fund's liabilities, that is usually expressed as a per-share amount. For most funds, the NAV is determined daily, after the close of trading on some specified financial exchange, but some funds update their NAV multiple times during the trading day. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_fund I am not certain, but I believe that OppenheimerFunds does not report intraday prices.  I would call them up and ask. You want to sell for 61.15, but the most the best buyer will pay is 61.10? The HFT trader forces you both to trade over a gap of a nickel AND makes a nickel in profit??      How does he do that, with magic? Quick and dirty paper but pretty interesting.. I'm not in Portfolio Management but I probably would have ended up at the modal number as well.   I don't know the subject deeply enough to answer my own question, but is the bias always toward underestimation of variance? Or is that a complex of the way the problem was set up?   Another question I have for those in investment management; Would this impact asset allocation? How would this trade behave IRL? I don't know how the simulation handles limit orders and bid/ask spreads to know it's feasible, but buying at 4.04 when the current ask is 8.00 seems unlikely.  That would mean that all other sell orders between 8.00 and 4.04 were fulfilled, which means that there were very few sellers or that sell pressure spiked, both of which seem unlikely. In reality, it seems more likely that your order would have sat there until the ask dropped to $4.04 (if it ever did), and then you'd have to wait until the bid rose to $7.89 in order to sell them at that price. However, that kind of swing in option prices in not unrealistic.  Options near at-the-money tend to move in price at about 50% of the change in the underlying, so if amazon suddenly dropped by $5, the option price could drop by $2.60 (from 6.66 to $4.04), and then rise back to $7.89 if the price rose $8 (which would be 1% swing and not unheard of intra-day). But it sounds like you got very lucky (or the simulation doesn't handle option trading realistically) - I've traded options in the past and have had some breaks similar to yours.  I've also had bad breaks where I lost my entire investment (the options expire out-of-the money). So it should be a very limited part of your portfolio, and probably only used for risk management (e.g. buying put options to lock in some gains but keeping some upside potential). I'd imagine in this extreme edge case it would round down to $0.   I can't fathom what makes $10.02 or $153.02 any different from $0.02. "I agree completely.  ""I don't always agree with John Cochrane, but when I do, I agree completely.""  I think heavy reliance on either approach to pricing is generally a bad idea.  Equilibrium models always include something that you're supposed to inherently know, but never do.  No-arbitrage models don't necessarily *say* anything that you don't (in some mathematical sense) already know.  So you're either stuck with unknown parameters, or you can't explain why you're something is worth what you say it is beyond, ""Herp derp, other people are doing it.""  So I think if buy-side people made some use of no-arbitrage models, they'd have a better understanding of the parameters they're making up, and if sell-side people sometimes used equilibrium models, they'd have a better grasp of what's going on economically.  Also, it would have the beneficial effect of reminding people that their models are always wrong, even if they're frequently useful."