What is high trading volume in a stock indicative of? Is high liquidity a good thing or a bad thing?
"High liquidity doesn't necessarily mean that ""everybody is getting rid of the stock"", since somebody is obviously buying whatever stock that is being sold. Also, as mentioned, low liquidity may mean that you would have trouble selling the stock in the future." "In general, there should be a ""liquidity premium"" which means that less-liquid stocks should be cheaper. That's because to buy such a stock, you should demand a higher rate of return to compensate for the liquidity risk (the possibility that you won't be able to sell easily). Lower initial price = higher eventual rate of return. That's what's meant when Investopedia says the security would be cheaper (on average). Is liquidity good? It depends. Here's what illiquidity is. Imagine you own a rare piece of art. Say there are 10 people in the world who collect this type of art, and would appreciate what you own. That's an illiquid asset, because when you want to sell, maybe those 10 people aren't buying - maybe they don't want your particular piece, or they all happen to be short on funds. Or maybe worse, only one of them is buying, so they have all the negotiating leverage. You'll have to lower your price if you're really in a hurry to sell. Maybe if you lower your price enough, you can get one of the 10 buyers interested, even if none were initially. An illiquid asset is bad for sellers. Illiquid means there aren't enough buyers for you to get a bidding war going at the time of your choosing. You'll potentially have to wait around for buyers to turn up, or for a stock, maybe you'd have to sell a little bit at a time as buyers want the shares. Illiquid can be bad for buyers, too, if the buyer is for some reason in a hurry; maybe nobody is selling at any given time. But, usually buyers don't have to be in a hurry. An exception may be if you short sell something illiquid (brokers often won't let you do this, btw). In that case you could be a forced buyer and this could be very bad on an illiquid security. If there are only one or two sellers out there, they now have the negotiating leverage and they can ask whatever price they want. Illiquidity is very bad when mixed with margin or short sales because of the potential for forced trades at inopportune times. There are plenty of obscure penny stocks where there might be only one or two trades per day, or fewer. The spread is going to be high on these because the bids at a given time will just be lowball offers from buyers who aren't really all that interested, unless you want to give your stock away, in which case they'll take it. And the asks are going to be from sellers who want to get a decent price, but maybe there aren't really any buyers willing to pay, so the ask is just sitting there with no takers. The bids and asks may be limit orders that have been sitting open for 3 weeks and forgotten about. Contrast with a liquid asset. For example, a popular-model used car in good condition would be a lot more liquid than a rare piece of art, though not nearly as liquid as most stocks. You can probably find several people that want to buy it living nearby, and you're not going to have to drop the price to get a buyer to show up. You might even get those buyers in a bidding war. From illiquid penny stocks, there's a continuum all the way up to the most heavily-traded stocks such as those in the S&P500. With these at a given moment there will be thousands of buyers and sellers, so the spread is going to close down to nearly zero. If you think about it, just statistically, if there are thousands of bids and thousands of asks, then the closest bid-ask pair is going to be close together. That's a narrow spread. While if there are 3 bids and 2 asks on some illiquid penny stock, they might be dollars away from each other, and the number of shares desired might not match up. You can see how liquidity is good in some situations and not in others. An illiquid asset gives you more opportunity to get a good deal because there aren't a lot of other buyers and sellers around and there's some opportunity to ""negotiate"" within the wide spread. For some assets maybe you can literally negotiate by talking to the other party, though obviously not when trading stocks on an exchange. But an illiquid asset also means you might get a bad deal, especially if you need to sell quickly and the only buyers around are making lowball offers. So the time to buy illiquid assets is when you can take your time on both buying and selling, and will have no reason for a forced trade on a particular timeline. This usually means no debt is involved, since creditors (including your margin broker) can force you to trade. It also means you don't need to spend the money anytime soon, since if you suddenly needed the money you'd have a forced trade on your hands. If you have the time, then you put a price out there that's very good for you, and you wait for someone to show up and give you that price - this is how you get a good deal. One more note, another use of the term liquid is to refer to assets with low or zero volatility, such as money market funds. An asset with a lot of volatility around its intrinsic or true value is effectively illiquid even if there's high trade volume, in that any given point in time might not be a good time to sell, because the price isn't at the right level. Anyway, the general definition of a liquid investment is one that you'd be comfortable cashing out of at a moment's notice. In this sense, most stocks are not all that liquid, despite high trading volume. In different contexts people may use ""liquid"" in this sense or to mean a low bid-ask spread." "Stocks with a low average daily trading volume (""thinly traded stocks"") will also tend to have higher spreads. So you'll tend to pay more when you buy and get less when you sell." In general, liquidity is a good thing, because it means it is easy for you to buy or sell a stock.   Since high liquidity stocks have a lot of trading, the bid-ask spreads tend to be pretty low.  That means you can go into the market and trade easily and cheaply at just about any time.  For low liquidity stocks, the bid-ask spreads can get pretty high, so it can make it hard or expensive to get into or out of your trades. On the flip side, everyone pays attention to high liquidity stocks, so it's harder to get an edge in your trading.  For a company like Microsoft there are 30-50 full time analysts that cover them, thousands of professional traders and millions of investors in general all reading the same new articles and looking through the same financials as you.  But in low liquidity stocks, there probably aren't any analysts, a few professional traders and maybe a few thousand total investors, so it can be easier to find a good buy (or sell). In general, high liquidity doesn't mean that everyone is selling or everyone is buy, it just means everyone is trading.
"You can infer some of the answers to your questions from the BATS exchange's market data page and its associated help page.  (I'm pretty sure a page like this exists on each stock exchange's website; BATS just happens to be the one I'm used to looking at.) The Matched Volume section refers to all trades on a given date that took place on ""lit"" exchanges; that is, where a public protected US stock exchange's matching engine helped a buyer and a seller find each other.  Because there are exactly 11 such exchanges in existence, it's easy to show 100% of the matched volume broken down into 11 rows. The FINRA & TRF Volume section refers to all trades on a given date that took place on ""non-lit"" exchanges.  These types of trades include dark pool volume and any other trade that is not required to take place in public but is required to be reported (the R in TRF) to FINRA.  There are three venues via which these trades may be reported to FINRA -- NASDAQ's, NYSE's, and FINRA's own ADF.  They're all operated under the purview of FINRA, so the fact that they're ""located at"" NASDAQ or NYSE is a red herring.  (For example, from the volume data it's clear that the NASDAQ facility does not only handle NASDAQ-listed (Tape C) securities, nor does the NYSE facility only handle NYSE-listed (Tape A) securities or anything like that.) The number of institutions reporting to each of the TRFs is large -- many more than the 11 public exchanges -- so the TRF data is not broken down further.  (Also I think the whole point of the TRFs is to report in secret.)  I don't know enough details to say why the NASDTRF has always handled more reporting volume than the other two facilities.  Of course, since we can't see inside the TRF reporting anyway, it's sort of a moot point." Trading volumes are higher at the end of the day as many traders close their open positions. In the morning however, traders incorporate various factors like performance of worldwide markets overnight, any corporate or government announcements, global macro events, etc. It's a really big stretch to assume that a particular 10Q release will have the exact same impact on trading volume, trading price, and volatility as a prior release, in a different quarter, under a different set of circumstances and a different set of results, which is what you seem to be implying when you suggest that a lack of volume in response to one quarter's results should therefore be used as a benchmark.   I think traders and the HFT firms are a lot smarter than you think. Something to consider is that in the case of the company you chose, on the OTC market, that stock is thinly traded and with such low volume, it can be easy for it to fluctuate greatly to have trades occur.  This is why volume can matter for some people when it comes to buying shares. Some OTC stocks may have really low volume and thus may have bigger swings than other stocks that have higher volume. Okay I don't know where my disconnect was, in my mind I was viewing that as a negative for some reason haha. Thanks! That makes sense.  What is your perspective on the large amount of companies buying back shares right now? Liquidity on dual listed equities is rarely the same on both exchanges. More liquidity means you would typically get a better price assuming you execute the trades using the same order types. It's recommended to trade where the liquidity is greater unless your trading method benefits somehow from it being lower. It's important to remember that some ADRs (some European companies listed in US) have ADR fees which vary. USD/EUR transaction fees are low when using a decent broker but you're obviously participating in the currency risk. The daily Volume is usually compared to the average daily volume over the past 50 days for a stock.  High volume is usually considered to be 2 or more times the average daily volume over the last 50 days for that stock, however some traders might set the crireia to be 3x or 4x the ADV for confirmation of a particular pattern or event. The volume is compared to the ADV of the stock itself, as comparing it to the volume of other stocks would be like comparing apples with oranges, as difference companies would have different number of total stocks available, different levels of liquidity and different levels of volatility, which can all contribute to the volumes traded each day. Stock B could be considered to be more risky because it seems to be more volatile - sharp rises on large volume increases can easily be followed by sharp drops or by further rises in the start of a new uptrend.  However, if both A and B are trading on low volume in general, they can both be more on the risky side due to having relatively low liquidity, especially if you buy a large order compared to the average daily volume. But just looking at the criteria you have included in your question is not enough to determine which stock is riskier than the other, and you should look at this criteria in combination with other indicators and information about each stock to obtain a more complete picture. I'd think that liquidity and speed are prioritized (even over retail brokers and in come cases over PoP) for institutional traders who by default have large positions.  When the going gets tough, these guys are out and the small guys - trading through average retail brokers - are the ones left holding the empty bag. "Just read the book Flash Boys by Michael Lewis.  It describes this process in detail, albeit a bit more dramatically than it has to.  Basically what ""HFTs"" (high frequency traders) do is they set up their line to the exchange so its microseconds faster than everyone else.  Then they test out the market with tiny orders, seeing how fast it's getting filled - if these are getting filled immediately, it probably means there's a big order coming in from an investor.  So the algorithm - and it's all algo-based obviously because no human can remotely hope to catch this - will detect that as soon as there's a spike in volume, it will buy all of the volume at the current price, and sell it back for higher, forcing the big investor to take on higher prices.    Another case is that some HFTs can basically buy the entire trade book from an exchange like Nasdaq.  So every time someone places a market order for 200 shares of a 6.5 stock, the HFT will see it, buy up all the current stock from say 6.5-6.6 and sell it back at 6.7.  Not rocket science if you already get info about the trade coming in, in fact this is basically market making but performed by an ""evil HFT"" instead of a ""trustworthy bank.""    But honestly there are a lot more ways to make money from HFT than front-running, which isn't even possible anymore because exchanges no longer sell their books to HFTs." First, If you buy $10K of a penny stock and try to sell it that afternoon, you probably won't get your money back. The bid/ask spread may cost you dearly.  On the shady side, if you are able to afford to trade enough shares to attract attention, the interest of those who believe the volume is an indication of some real event happening, you may pump it high enough to make some nice money, selling into the ensuing rise. This is a classic pump and dump (which often but not always, includes posts on message boards) and it is illegal. The same way this volume attracts traders, it can also attract the attention of the SEC.  This should be read as a narrative, not as advice. If anything, it's advice on what not to do. &gt; Stock markets are supposed to be about investment and providing capital to companies for operations and research. High frequency trading is only about gaming the market and nothing else. Arguments that this provides more capital or liquidity don't make any sense because the speed of trading is such that listed companies cannot take advantage and only high frequency traders are served.  I used to feel this way about derivatives but a commentator on reddit disabused me of that notion -   http://www.reddit.com/r/Entrepreneur/comments/11bqnk/what_you_wont_see_on_the_front_page_of_reddit_the/c6lnqow  If the only function of the stock market is investment and provide capital to companies, why have a secondary market at all? Although I have tried to read as much as I can about whether HFT is good or bad for the market, I am not an expert and I am not very confident in my own opinion. Nevertheless, here's my take:    Let's say a pension plan buys a huge block of stock all at once and the market price moves against it. That's what is supposed to happen, and has always happened. HFT are able to offer tight spreads largely because they get picked off less then the market makers in earlier eras. I don't see that as HFT exploiting pension plans, I see it as them preventing themselves from being exploited.   I will acknowledge that some HFT shops have been caught doing actual market manipulation, but I believe that the vast majority of what they do is provide market making for cheaper than its ever been. FWIW the SEC [mostly agrees](http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-06-05/sec-will-keep-thinking-about-high-frequency-trading) with me. "Stock price is set to the price with the highest transaction volume at any given time.  The stock price you cited was only valid in the last transaction on a specific stock exchange. As such it is more of an ""historic"" value. Next trade will be done with the next biggest volume. Depending on the incoming bids and asks this could be higher or lower, but you can assume it will not be too far off if there is no crash underway. Simple example stock exchange:" ode2k noted the liquidity can very wildly especially 9 months out and there will be little volume even in the largest stocks.  Victor noted standard measures of liquidity don't always apply cleanly to options as they are priced using a hybrid of model and market inputs.  So your question is generally very hard to answer on SE, but you can get an answer yourself without too much trouble. The best way to get a feel for slippage in your case is to just get quotes.  Most systems should let you get a quote for both buying and selling options at the same time.  This will give you a feeling for how much you are paying in spread.  Do the same for near dated options to get a feeling for spread size when you end up selling. You should factor in some widening of spreads at bad times, but this should get you a feeling for the scale of the slippage problem.