Is it possible for all the owners of a stock to gain or lose money at the same time?
I'm not sure I understand your question. If the stock price is at an all-time high, everyone who owns the stock is 'in the money'. Of course, they won't actually realise a capital gain until they sell the stock. Similarly, if the stock becomes worthless (the company shuts down after declaring bankruptcy, etc.), everyone who owns the stock is out whatever they paid for the stock. The Owners of stock keep changing with every Buy and Sell. Hence its theoritically possible that everyone makes or loses money. Say the price was $10 when everyone purchased the stock. If the stock is doing good and the markets are good, the stock will move up to $12. Everyone sells the stock to someone else. So all the Old owners have made $2. Now after some period of time, the stock / company is not doing so well, and the markets are bad, so the stock falls to $11, everyone sells. So all the current owners make a loss of $1.   However in normal market conditions, there are Owners who have purchased stock at different price points and have held it irrespective of whether the price has gone above their purchase price or below their purchase price. "Take the case where a stock has just two owners, A and B, both at $10. One of them sells his shares to C, at $11.  Now B has made $1 in profit but is no longer an owner of the stock. A hasn't sold anything but his shares are worth 10% more due to the last traded price printed. C has bought shares at $11 and the price is $11, so technically he hasn't lost any money. In a larger market, there are winners and losers every day on a single stock, but they may not remain owners of a stock. There could be days in which those that remain owners are all winners - say when a stock goes up to an all time high and all those that are currently owners have an average buy price lower than the last traded price. And the reverse applies too.  It is of course more complicated. Say you own a stock and let someone else ""borrow"" it for a short-selling opportunity (he sells it in the market). For each uptick in price, you win, the short seller loses, and the guy he sold it to also wins. A person that has a covered call on a stock is not a winner beyond a point. And so on."
When you buy a stock, you become a partial owner of the company that the stock is for. As the company is valued at a higher or lower amount, the stock will reflect that by gaining or losing value. You still own that stock. For example, if you bought a stock for $10 per share and next week it is worth $8 dollars per share, the only loss incurred is on paper. You do not have to pay the difference (which I think is what you are asking?) and will only physically lose that money if you sell at that point. Similarly if that stock becomes worth $12, you have only gained money on paper and can only physically see it if you sell at that point. Keep in mind that the exchanges do not hold, buy, or sell the stock - people (or funds) do.  All the exchange does is facilitate the sale of stock from one entity to another. So the shares outstanding (and market cap) for a company are set regardless of how many exchanges the stock is listed on.  The company typically indicates the number of shares outstanding in its financial statements.  I do not know if the exchange itself keeps track of shares outstanding; it may just report whatever the company publishes. So theoretically, if you wanted to buy all of the stock of a company, you could do it all in one exchange, provided that all the existing holders of the stock were willing to sell you their shares.  There are many issues with that, though, which I don't think are germane to your question. One of the biggest laws in economics is that if an opportunity is very profitable and is very easily exploitable even by complete beginners, then it will very soon stop being profitable. That's how the market works. If you buy stock when it is at the lowest, then you are making money, but most of the time someone else is losing money. And if there was a magic hour of the day when buying would be the most profitable, then soon everybody would want to buy at that time and no one would want to sell anything, so the scheme would collapse. "For the same reason that people bet on different teams. Some think the Tigers will win, others thing the Yankees will win. They wager $5 on it. One of them wins, the other loses. In a short, one person bets that the stock goes down, the other bets that the stock goes up (or hold). You're basically saying ""I think this stock is going to hold it's value or go up. If I thought it would go down, like you do, I would sell it myself right now. Instead, I'll let you have it for a while because when I get it back I think I'll come out on top.""" Not quite.  Every security issued by the company defines what it gets. If you want to go straight to common stock, the shareholders are in fact owners of the company: after everyone else gets paid, no matter what is left, it belongs to the common shareholders. "For whatever it's worth.  Judging from the comments in the other answers, I think everyone is addressing your question, ""How can you possibly lose money,""  there are a lot of ways to possibly lose money in the stock market.  Here are my thoughts.  This is a chart of the S&P 500 from about 1996 to about 2012.  At the top from the first arrow the entire S&P500 index fell about 45%.  From the top of the second arrow the entire S&P500 index fell about 52%.  It is really easy to look at our sustained bull market and feel invincible.  And while I'll concede that not every company in the index fell over these two periods, bear in mind that the S&P500 index is a collection of the 500 largest companies in the United States, and the entire index lost half it's value twice.  As the companies contained in the index shrink in value, they were replaced by companies that are the new biggest 500 in the country, then those fell too, and so on and so forth until the entire index lost half. Value is a funny thing because it isn't necessarily tied to the performance of the business (look at the current rosy valuations of all these non-earnings tech-companies).  It could be that a company is still performing very well but there are just no buyers for the stock.   So, how can you lose money in the stock market?  Very easily.  In A practical sense, it's when you need the money and can no longer weather the storm.  People who went out for retirement around 2000 couldn't sit around and wait until 2007 for their account values to be replenished.  This is why you roll off your stock exposure as you age.  As you get older you don't have time and if you stop having income you can find yourself selling your assets at the least opportune time." "This probably won't be a popular answer due to the many number of disadvantaged market participants out there but: Yes, it is possible to distort the markets for securities this way. But it is more useful to understand how this works for any market (since it is illegal in securities markets where company shares are involves).  Since you asked about the company Apple, you should be aware this is a form of market manipulation and is illegal... when dealing with securities. In any supply and demand market this is possible especially during periods when other market participants are not prevalent. Now the way to do this usually involves having multiple accounts you control, where you are acting as multiple market participants with different brokers etc. The most crafty ways to do with involve shell companies w/ brokerage accounts but this is usually to mask illegal behavior In the securities markets where there are consequences for manipulating the shares of securities. In other markets this is not necessary because there is no authority prohibiting this kind of trading behavior. Account B buys from Account A, account A buys from Account B, etc. The biggest issue is getting all of the accounts capitalized initially. The third issue is then actually being able to make a profit from doing this at all. Because eventually one of your accounts will have all of the shares or whatever, and there would still be no way to sell them because there are no other market participants to sell to, since you were the only one moving the price. Therefore this kind of market manipulation is coupled with ""promotions"" to attract liquidity to a financial product. (NOTE the mere fact of a promotion does not mean that illegal trading behavior is occurring, but it does usually mean that someone else is selling into the liquidity) Another way to make this kind of trading behavior profitable is via the derivatives market. Options contracts are priced solely by the trading price of the underlying asset, so even if your multiple account trading could only at best break even when you sell your final holdings (basically resetting the price to where it was because you started distorting it), this is fine because your real trade is in the options market. Lets say Apple was trading at $200 , the options contract at the $200 strike is a call trading at $1 with no intrinsic value. You can buy to open several thousand of the $200 strike without distorting the shares market at all,  then in the shares market you bid up Apple to $210, now your options contract is trading at $11 with $10 of intrinsic value, so you just made 1000% gain and are able to sell to close those call options. Then you unwind the rest of your trade and sell your $210 apple shares, probably for $200 or $198 or less (because there are few market participants that actually valued the shares for that high, the real bidders are at $200 and lower). This is hardly a discreet thing to do, so like I mentioned before, this is illegal in markets where actual company shares are involved and should not be attempted in stock markets but other markets won't have the same prohibitions, this is a general inefficiency in capital markets in general and certain derivatives pricing formulas. It is important to understand these things if you plan to participate in markets that claim to be fair. There is nothing novel about this sort of thing, and it is just a problem of allocating enough capital to do so." OK, VERY glad you get that idea!  The problem with the ETF is: it's the monkeys-throwing-darts method. If the average (dollar-weighted) member stock in the ETF goes up, you win, but if half of them go under, and half succeed, over some time periods you will lose (and win over others).  I guess my POV is: if you can't do serious research into the expected success of an individual company, maybe it's too risky to even try betting on the whole group. YMMV. The problem with your investment plan is: you are depending on luck, and the assumption the group will increase in value over your investment period. I prefer research over hope. Shares are partial ownership of the company. A company can issue (not create) more of the shares it owns at any time, to anyone, at any price -- subject to antitrust and similar regulations. If they wanted to, for example, flat-out give 10% of their retained interest to charity, they could do so. It shouldn't substantially affect the stock's trading for others unless there's a completely irrational demand for shares. "No, 90% of investors do not lose money. 90% or even larger percentage of ""traders"" lose money. Staying invested in stock market over the long term will almost always be profitable if you spread your investments across different companies or even the index but the key here is long term which is 10+ years in any emerging market and even longer in developed economies where yields will be a lot lower but their currencies will compensate over time if you are an international investor." "Once you buy stocks on X day of the month, the chances of stocks never actually going above and beyond your point of value on the chart are close to none. How about Enron?  GM? WorldCom? Lehman Brothers?  Those are just a few of the many stocks that went to 0.  Even stock in solvent companies have an ""all-time high"" that it will never reach again.   Please explain to my why my thought is [in]correct.  It is based on flawed assumptions, specifically that stock always regain any losses from any point in time.  This is not true.  Stocks go up and down - sometimes that have losses that are never made up, even if they don't go bankrupt.  If your argument is that you should cash out any gains regardless of size, and you will ""never lose"", I would argue that you might have very small gains in most cases, but there are still times where you are going to lose value and never regain it, and those losses can easily wipe out any gains you've made.   Never bought stocks and if I try something stupid I'll lose my money, so why not ask the professionals first..? If you really believe that you ""can't lose"" in the stock market then do NOT buy individual stocks.  You may as well buy a lottery ticket (not really, those are actually worthless).  Stick to index funds or other stable investments that don't rely on the performance of a single company and its management.  Yes, diversification reduces (not eliminates) risk of losses.  Yes, chasing unreasonable gains can cause you to lose.  But what is a ""reasonable gain""?  Why is your ""guaranteed"" X% gain better than the ""unreasonable"" Y% gain? How do you know what a ""reasonable"" gain for an individual stock is?" Let's clarify some things. Companies allow for the public to purchase their shares through Initial Public Offering (IPO) (first-time) and Seasoned Public Offering (SPO) (all other times). They choose however many shares they want to issue depending on the amount of capital they want to raise. What this means is that the current owners give up some ownership % in exchange for cash (usually). In the course of IPOs and SPOs, it can happen that the public will not buy all shares if there is very little interest, but I would assume that the more probable scenario if very little interest is present is that the shares' value would take a big drop on their issuance date from the proposed IPO/SPO price. After those shares are bought by the public, they are traded on Exchanges which are a secondary and (mostly) do not affect the underlying company. The shares are exchanged from John Doe to Jane Doe as John Doe believes the market value for those shares will take a direction that Jane Doe believes in the opposite. Generally speaking, markets will find an equilibrium price where you can reasonably easily buy-sell securities as the price is not too far from what most participants in the market believe it should be. In cases where all participants agree on the direction (most often in case of a crash) it can be hard to find a party to make a trade with. Say a company just announced negative news with long-lasting effects on the business there will be a surge in sell orders with very few buyers. If you are willing to buy, you will likely very easily find a trading partner but if you are trying to sell instead then you will have to compete for the lowest price against all other sellers. All that to say that in such cases, while shares are technically sellable / purchasable, the end result can be that no shares are purchasable. "If you're risking ""everything"" by buying stock, you shouldn't be buying stock. The employees are the ones who are really at risk. Should the business go belly up, the investors are out some investment money, they'll make more; the employees don't have an income source anymore. CAT may have no legal obligation to pay better than market-wages but if they want to keep their skilled labor from going to competitors, they might want to think about it. You can't build machines without workers. If you have a good product in an established market, you can always get more investors." "Do I make money in the stock market from other people losing money? Not normally.* The stock market as a whole, on average, increases in value over time. So if we make the claim that the market is a zero-sum game, and you only make money if other people lose money, that idea is not sustainable. There aren't that many people that would keep investing in something only to continue to lose money to the ""winners."" The stock market, and the companies inside it, grow in value as the economy grows. And the economy grows as workers add value with their work.  Here's an analogy: I can buy a tree seed for very little and plant it in the ground. If I do nothing more, it probably won't grow, and it will be worth nothing. However, by taking the time to water it, fertilize it, weed it, prune it, and harvest it, I can sell the produce for much more than I purchased that seed for. No one lost money when I sell it; I increased the value by adding my effort.  If I sell that tree to a sawmill, they can cut the tree into usable lumber, and sell that lumber at a profit. They added their efforts and increased the value.  A carpenter can increase the value even further by making something useful (a door, for example). A retail store can make that door more useful by transporting it to a location with a buyer, and a builder can make it even more useful by installing it on a house.  No one lost any money in any of these transactions. They bought something valuable, and made it more valuable by adding their effort.  Companies in the stock market grow in value the same way. A company will grow in value as its employees produce things. An investor provides capital that the company uses to be able to produce things**, and as the company grows, it increases in value. As the population increases and more workers and customers are born, and as more useful things are invented, the economy will continue to grow as a whole.  * Certainly, it is possible, even common, to profit from someone else's loss.  People lose money in the stock market all the time.  But it doesn't have to be this way.  The stock market goes up, on average, over the long term, and so long term investors can continue to make money in the market even without profiting from others' failures. ** An investor that purchases a share from another investor does not directly provide capital to the company.  However, this second investor is rewarding the first investor who did provide capital to the company.  This is the reason that the first investor purchased in the first place; without the second investor, the first would have had no reason to invest and provide the capital.  Relating it to our tree analogy: Did the builder who installed the door help out the tree farmer?  After all, the tree farmer already sold the tree to the sawmill and doesn't care what happens to it after that.  However, if the builder had not needed a door, the sawmill would have had no reason to buy the tree." "Doesn't make any difference.  Reconciling is important, but if you are constantly checking the online balance in between (because you are NOT keeping track of a running register balance) then the fact that you *eventually* ""balance"" is irrelevant...  And in fact if you're NOT maintaining a register, then you're really not ""reconciling"" (or ""balancing"") anything.... you're just looking over a bank statement and saying *""OK that looks right""*; or, as is more likely in your case saying *""Waitaminute, that's not right ... Oh, I guess I forgot about that transaction... and that one... and that other one.""*"