Total ETF value decreased after underlying stock increased in price
According to your post, you bought seven shares of VBR at $119.28 each on August 23rd.  You paid €711,35.  Now, on August 25th, VBR is worth $120.83.  So you have  But you want to know what you have in EUR, not USD.  So if I ask Google how much $845.81 is in EUR, it says €708,89.  That's even lower than what you're seeing.   It looks like USD has fallen in value relative to EUR.  So while the stock price has increased in dollar terms, it has fallen in euro terms.  As a result, the value that you would get in euros if you sold the stock has fallen from the price that you paid.   Another way of thinking about this is that your price per share was €101,72 and is now €101,33.  That's actually a small drop.   When you buy and sell in a different currency that you don't actually want, you add the currency risk to your normal risk.  Maybe that's what you want to do.  Or maybe you would be better off sticking to euro-denominated investments.   Usually you'd do dollar-denominated investments if some of your spending was in dollars.  Then if the dollar goes up relative to the euro, your investment goes up with it.  So you can cash out and make your purchases in dollars without adding extra money.   If you make all your purchases in euros, I would normally recommend that you stick to euro-denominated investments.  The underlying asset might be in the US, but your fund could still be in Europe and list in euros.   That's not to say that you can't buy dollar-denominated investments with euros.  Clearly you can.  It's just that it adds currency risk to the other risks of the investment.  Unless you deliberately want to bet that USD will rise relative to EUR, you might not want to do that.   Note that USD may rise over the weekend and put you back in the black.  For that matter, even if USD continues to fall relative to the EUR, the security might rise more than that.  I have no opinion on the value of VBR.  I don't actually know what that is, as it doesn't matter for the points I was making.  I'm not saying to sell it immediately.  I'm saying that you might prefer euro-denominated investments when you buy in the future.  Again, unless you are taking this particular risk deliberately.
"First: do you understand why it dropped? Was it overvalued before, or is this an overreaction to some piece of news about them, or about their industry, or...? Arguably, if you can't answer that, you aren't paying enough attention to have been betting on that individual stock. Assuming you do understand why this price swing occurred -- or if you're convinced you know better than the folks who sold at that price -- do you believe the stock will recover a significant part of its value any time soon, or at least show a nice rate of growth from where it is now? If so, you might want to hold onto it, risking further losses against the chance of recovering part or all of what is -- at this moment -- only a loss on paper. Basically: if, having just seen it drop, you'd still consider buying it at the new price you should ""buy it from yourself"" and go on from here. That way at least you aren't doing exactly what you hope to avoid, buying high and selling low. Heck, if you really believe in the stock, you could see this as a buying opportunity... On the other hand, if you do not believe you would buy it now at its new price, and if you see an alternative which will grow more rapidly, you should take your losses and move your money to that other stock. Or split the difference if you aren't sure which is better but can figure out approximately how unsure you are. The question is how you move on from here, more than how you got here. What happened happened. What do you think will happen next, and how much are you willing to bet on it? On the gripping hand: This is part of how the market operates. Risk and potential reward tend to be pretty closely tied to each other. You can reduce risk by diversifying across multiple investments so no one company/sector/market can hurt you too badly --- and almost anyone sane will tell you that you should diversify -- but that means giving up some of the chance for big winnings too. You probably want to be cautious with most of your money and go for the longer odds only with a small portion that you can afford to lose on. If this is really stressing you out, you may not want to play with individual stocks. Mutual funds have some volatility too, but they're inherently diversified to a greater or lesser extent. They will rarely delight you, but they won't usually slap you this way either." "The price of a company's stock at any given moment is established by a ratio of buyers to sellers.  When the sellers outnumber the buyers at a given price, the stock price drops until there are enough people willing to buy the stock to balance the equation again.  When there are more people wanting to purchase a stock at a given price than people willing to sell it, the stock price rises until there are enough sellers to balance things again.  So given this, it's easy to see that a very large fund (or collection of very large funds) buying or selling could drive the price of a stock in one direction or another (because the sheer number of shares they trade can tip the balance one way or another).   What's important to keep in mind though is that the ratio of buyers to sellers at any given moment is determined by ""market sentiment"" and speculation.  People selling a stock think the price is going down, and people buying it think it's going up; and these beliefs are strongly influenced by news coverage and available information relating to the company.  So in the case of your company in the example that would be expected to triple in value in the next year; if everyone agreed that this was correct then the stock would triple almost instantly.  The only reason the stock doesn't reach this value instantly is that the market is split between people thinking this is going to happen and people who think it won't.   Over time, news coverage and new information will cause one side to appear more correct than the other and the balance will shift to drive the price up or down.  All this is to say that YES, large funds and their movements CAN influence a stock's trading value; BUT their movements are based upon the same news, information, analysis and sentiment as the rest of the market.  Meaning that the price of a stock is much more closely tied to news and available information than day to day trading volumes.  In short, buying good companies at good prices is just as ""good"" as it's ever been.   Also keep in mind that the fact that YOU can buy and sell stocks without having a huge impact on price is an ADVANTAGE that you have.  By slipping in or out at the right times in major market movements you can do things that a massive investment fund simply cannot." "But what happen if the stock price went high and then go down near expiry date? When you hold a short (sold) call option position that has an underlying price that is increasing, what will happen (in general) is that your net margin requirements will increase day by day.  Thus, you will be required to put up more money as margin to finance your position.  Margin money is simply a ""good faith"" deposit held by your broker.  It is not money that is debited as cash from the accounting ledger of your trading account, but is held by your broker to cover any potential losses that may arise when you finally settle you position.   Conversely, when the underlying share price is decreasing, the net margin requirements will tend to decrease day by day.   (Net margin is the net of ""Initial Margin"" and ""Variation Margin"".) As the expiry date approaches, the ""time value"" component of the option price will be decreasing." No, the expense ratio would be something you wouldn't be charged. If you bought shares of the ETF long, then the dividends are usually reduced by the expense ratio if you wanted to know where to find that charge in general. You would have to make up for any dividends the underlying stocks as part of general shorting since the idea is that once you buy to put back the shares, it has to appear as if they weren't missing in the first place. No, the authorized participant would handle changes to the underlying structure if needed. "My knowledge relates to ETFs only. By definition, an ETF's total assets can increase or decrease based upon how many shares are issued or redeemed.  If somebody sells shares back to the ETF provider (rather than somebody else on market) then the underlying assets need to be sold, and vice-versa for purchasing from the ETF provider.  ETFs also allow redemptions too in addition to this. For an ETF, to determine its total assets, you need to you need to analyze the Total Shares on Issue multipled by the Net Asset Value.  ETFs are required to report shares outstanding and NAV on a daily basis. ""Total assets"" is probably more a function of marketing rather than ""demand"" and this is why most funds report on a net-asset-value-per-share basis. Some sites report on ""Net Inflows"" is basically the net change in shares outstanding multiplied by the ETF price. If you want to see this plotted over time you can use a such as: http://www.etf.com/etfanalytics/etf-fund-flows-tool which allows you to see this as a ""net flows"" on a date range basis." Let me answer by parts: When a company gives dividends, the share price drops by the dividend amount.  Not always by that exact amount for many different reasons (e.g. there are transaction costs if you reinvest, dividend taxes, etc). I have tested that empirically. Now, if all the shareholders choose to reinvest their dividends, will the share price go back up to what it was prior to the dividend? That is an interesting question. The final theoretical price of the company does not need to be that. When a company distributes dividends its liquidity diminish, there is an impact on the balance sheet of the company. If all investors go to the secondary market and reinvest the dividends in the shares, that does not restore the cash in the balance sheet of the company, hence the theoretical real value of the company is different before the dividends. Of course, in practice there is not such a thing as one theoretical value. In reality, if everybody reinvest the dividend, that will put upward pressure over the price of the company and, depending on the depth of the offers, meaning how many orders will counterbalance the upward pressure at the moment, the final price will be determined, which can be higher or lower than before, not necessarily equal. I ask because some efts like SPY automatically reinvest dividends. So what is the effect of this reinvestment on the stock price? Let us see the mechanics of these purchases. When a non distributing ETF receives cash from the dividends of the companies, it takes that cash and reinvest it in the whole basket of stocks that compose the index, not just in the companies that provided the dividends. The net effect of that is a small leverage effect. Let us say you bought one unit of SPY, and during the whole year the shares pay 2% of dividends that are reinvested. At the end of that year, it will be equivalent to having 1.02 units of SPY. There are a few reason why share prices increase or decrease, the foremost is expectation of the investors that the company/economy will do well/not well, that is expectation of profit/intrinsic value growth over some time frame (1-4 qtrs.)there is also demand & supply mismatch over (usually) short time. If you really see, the actual 'value' of a company is it's net-worth (cash+asset+stock in trade+brand value+other intangibles+other incomes)/no of shares outstanding, which (in a way) is the book value, then all shares should trade at their book value, the actual number but it does not, the expectation of investors that a share would be purchased by another investor at a higher price because the outlook of the company over a long time is good. "I wonder if ETF's are further removed from the actual underlying holdings or assets giving value to the fund, as compared to regular mutual funds. Not exactly removed. But slightly different. Whenever a Fund want to launch an ETF, it would buy the underlying shares; create units. Lets say it purchased 10 of A, 20 of B and 25 of C. And created 100 units for price x. As part of listing, the ETF company will keep the purchased shares of A,B,C with a custodian. Only then it is allowed to sell the 100 units into the market. Once created, units are bought or sold like regular stock. In case the demand is huge, more units are created and the underlying shares kept with custodian.  So, for instance, would VTI and Total Stock Market Index Admiral Shares be equally anchored to the underlying shares of the companies within the index? Yes they are. Are they both connected? Yes to an extent. The way Vanguard is managing this is given a Index [Investment Objective]; it is further splitting the common set of assets into different class. Read more at Share Class. The Portfolio & Management gives out the assets per share class. So Vanguard Total Stock Market Index is a common pool that has VTI ETF, Admiral and Investor Share and possibly Institutional share. Is VTI more of a ""derivative""? No it is not a derivative. It is a Mutual Fund." In theory*, if a company has 1m shares at $10 and does a 10 for 1 split, then the day after it has 10m shares at $1 (assuming no market move). So both the price and the number of share change, keeping the total value of the company unchanged. Regarding your BIS, I suspect that the new number of shares has not been reported yet because it's an ETF (the number of shares in issue changes everyday due to in/out flows). Your TWX example is not ideal either because there was a spin off on the same day as the stock split so you need to separate the two effects. * Some studies have documented a positive stock split effect - one of the suggested reasons is that the stock becomes more liquid after the split. But other studies have rejected that conclusion, so you can probably safely consider that on average it will not have a material effect. The price of a future with an underlying that pays dividends is  As you can see, since the value of dividends is subtracted from the value of the underlying equity, the future's price is lowered if dividends rise. Compounding that effect with the dividend effect on equity prices, reducing their prices, the future should suffer more. Ok, so disregarding passivity, could you help me through a simplified example?   Say I only had two assets, SPY and TLT, with a respective weight of 35 and 65% and I want want to leverage this to 4x.  Additionally, say daily return covar is:  * B/B .004% * B/S -.004% * S/S .02%   Now, if I read correctly, I should buy ATM calls xxx days in the future.  Which may look like: Ticker, S, K, Option Price, Delta, Lambda  * TLT  $126.04  $126.00  $4.35  0.50  14.5 * SPY  $134.91  $134.00  $6.26  0.55  11.8  ^ This example is pretty close but some assets are far off.   I feel like I'm on the wrong track so I'll stop here.    I just want to lever up my risk-parity. Margin rates are too high and I'm docked by Reg-T. "This is a classic correlation does not imply causation situation.  There are (at least) three issues at play in this question: If you are swing- or day-trading then the first and second issues can definitely affect your trading.  A higher-price, higher-volume stock will have smaller (percentage) volatility fluctuations within a very small period of time. However, in general, and especially when holding any position for any period of time during which unknowns can become known (such as Netflix's customer-loss announcement) it is a mistake to feel ""safe"" based on price alone. When considering longer-term investments (even weeks or months), and if you were to compare penny stocks with blue chip stocks, you still might find more ""stability"" in the higher value stocks.  This is a correlation alone — in other words, a stable, reliable stock probably has a (relatively) high price but a high price does not mean it's reliable. As Joe said, the stock of any company that is exposed to significant risks can drop (or rise) by large amounts suddenly, and it is common for blue-chip stocks to move significantly in a period of months as changes in the market or the company itself manifest themselves. The last thing to remember when you are looking at raw dollar amounts is to remember to look at shares outstanding.  Netflix has a price of $79 to Ford's $12; yet Ford has a larger market cap because there are nearly 4 billion shares compared to Netflix's 52m." Option prices consist of two parts: the intrinsic value (the difference between the strike and the current price of the stock) and a time premium, representing the probability that the stock will end up above the strike for a call (or below for a put).   All else being equal, options decline in value as time passes, since there is less uncertainty about the expected value of the stock at expiration and thus the time premium is smaller.  Theta is the measure of the change in value in one day.  So for every day that passes, the calls you sold are going down by $64.71 (which is positive to you since you sold them at a higher value) and the calls you sold are going down by $49.04. So your position (a short spread) is gaining $15.67 each day (assuming no change in stock price or volatility). In reality, the stock price and volatility also change every day, and those are much stronger drivers of the value of your options.  In your case, however, the options are deep out of the money, meaning it's very likely that they'll expire worthless, so all you have left is time premium, which is decaying as time goes on. "You could not have two stocks both at $40, both with P/E 2, but one an EPS of $5 and the other $10.  EPS = Earnings Per Share P/E = Price per share/Earnings Per Share So, in your example, the stock with EPS of $5 has a P/E of 8, and the stock with an EPS of $10 has a P/E of 4.  So no, it's not valid way of looking at things, because your understanding of EPS and P/E is incorrect. Update: Ok, with that fixed, I think I understand your question better. This isn't a valid way of looking at P/E. You nailed one problem yourself at the end of the post: The tricky part is that you have to assume certain values remain   constant, I suppose But besides that, it still doesn't work. It seems to make sense in the context of investor psychology: if a stock is ""supposed to"" trade at a low P/E, like a utility, that it would stay at that low P/E, and thus a $1 worth of EPS increase would result in lower $$ price increase than a stock that was ""supposed to"" have a high P/E. And that would be true. But let's game it out: Scenario Say you have two stocks, ABC and XYZ. Both have $5 EPS. ABC is a utility, so it has a low P/E of 5, and thus trades at $25/share. XYZ is a high flying tech company, so it has a P/E of 10, thus trading at $50/share. If both companies increase their EPS by $1, to $6, and the P/Es remain the same, that means company ABC rises to $30, and company XYZ rises to $60. Hey! One went up $5, and the other $10, twice as much! That means XYZ was the better investment, right? Nope. You see, shares are not tokens, and you don't get an identical, arbitrary number of them. You make an investment, and that's in dollars. So, say you'd invested $1,000 in each. $1,000 in ABC buys you 40 shares. $1,000 in XYZ buys you 20 shares. Their EPS adds that buck, the shares rise to maintain P/E, and you have: ABC: $6 EPS at P/E 5 = $30/share. Position value = 40 shares x $30/share = $1,200 XYZ: $6 EPS at P/E 10 = $60/share. Position value = 20 shares x $60/share = $1,200 They both make you the exact same 20% profit. It makes sense when you think about it this way: a 20% increase in EPS is going to give you a 20% increase in price if the P/E is to remain constant. It doesn't matter what the dollar amount of the EPS or the share price is." "In general, yes. If interest rates go higher, then any existing fixed-rate bonds - and hence ETFs holding those bonds - become less valuable. The further each bond is from maturity, the larger the impact. As you suggest, once the bonds do mature, the fund can replace them at a market price, so the effect tails off. The bond market has a concept known as ""duration"" that helps reason about this effect. Roughly, it measures the average time from now to each payout of the bond, weighted by the payout. The longer the duration, the more the price will change for a given change in interest rates. The concept is just an approximation, and there are various slightly different ways of calculating it; but very roughly the price of a bond will reduce by a percentage equal to the duration times the increase in interest rates. So a bond with a duration of 5 years will lose 5% of its value for a 1% rise in interest rates (and of course vice-versa). For your second question, it really depends on what you're trying to achieve by diversifying - this might be best as a different question that gives more detail, as it's not very related to your first question. Short-term bonds are less risky. But both will lose value if the underlying company is in trouble. Gilts (government bonds) are less risky than corporate bonds."