Why did I lose 2 cents more than the difference in the stock prices on my Robinhood trade?
"Free, huh? From their Commission and Fee Schedule:  So if you literally bought two shares, then the SEC added one penny in fees and FINRA added one penny as a ""Trading Activity Fee"" Note that there are several other fees on their schedule that may not apply to you. If you had bought 100 shares instead, your total fees would have still been only 2 cents, but you would have lost $4 on the trade.  So the fees are minuscule when you start doing larger orders.   However, That should not discourage you from experimenting and learning.  I'd rather pay 2 cents in fees on a 4 cent loss than 2 cents in fees on a $400 loss.  Just chalk it up to the cost of experience." There is a misunderstanding somewhere that your question didn't illuminate. You should have lost $0.04 as you say. Assuming the prices are correct the missing $0.02 aren't covered by a reasonable interpretations of the Robinhood fees schedule. For US-listed stocks: $0 plus SEC fees: 0.00221% of principal ($22.10 per $1,000,000 of principal) plus Trading Activity Fee: $0.000119/share rounded to nearest penny plus short/long term capital gains taxes The total fee rate is 0.002329% or 0.00002329*the price of the trade. With you trades totaling around $11, the fee would be ~0.000256 or ~1/40 of a penny.  The answer is probably that they charge $0.01 for any fraction of a penny. It's difficult to explain as anything other than avarice, so I won't try.
You'd need millions of dollars to trade the number of shares it would take to profit from these penny variations.  What you bring up here is the way high frequency firms front-run trades and profit on these pennies. Say you have a trade commission of $5.  Every time you buy you pay $5, every time you sell you pay $5.  So you need a gain in excess of $10, a 10% gain on $100.  Now if you wanted to trade on a penny movement from $100 to $100.01, you need to have bought 1,000 shares totaling $100,000 for the $0.01 price movement to cover your commission costs.  If you had $1,000,000 to put at risk, that $0.01 price movement would net you $90 after commission, $10,000,000 would have made you $990.  You need much larger gains at the retail level because commissions will equate to a significant percentage of the money you're investing. Very large trading entities have much different arrangements and costs with the exchanges.  They might not pay a fee on each transaction but something that more closely resembles a subscription fee, and costs something that more closely resembles a house. Now to your point, catching these price movements and profiting.  The way high frequency trading firms purportedly make money relates to having a very low latency network connection to a particular exchange.  Their very low latency/very fast network connection lets them see orders and transact orders before other parties.   Say some stock has an ask at $101 x 1,000 shares.  The next depth is $101.10.  You see a market buy order come in for 1,000 shares and place a buy order for 1,000 shares at $101 which hits the exchange first, then immediately place a sell order at $101.09, changing the ask from $101.00 to $101.09 and selling in to the market order for a gain of $0.09 per share. "You didn't win in case B. Borrowing shares and then selling them is known as ""selling short"".  You received $2000 when you sold short 100 shares at $20.  You spent $1000 to buy them back at $10, so you come out $1000 ahead on that deal.  But at the same time, the 100 shares you already owned have declined in value from $20 to $10, so you are down $1000 on that deal.  So you've simply broken even, and you are still out the interest and transaction fees. In effect, a short sale allows you to sell shares you don't own.  But if you do already own them, then the effect is the same as if you just sold your own shares.  This makes it easier to see that this is just a complicated and expensive way of accomplishing nothing at all." There is no free ride at most brokers. You will likely be charged a margin fee for that trade even though you only held the margin shares for part of one day. The margin fee would be the annual margin interest rate calculated down to a one day holding period,so it would be smaller. Check your broker's policies but most work like this. A tax of 0.01 cents on a transaction though would mean you'd wait until the spread was at least 0.02 cents before making the trade. But I particularly think the offender is not even day traders, it's the completely ridiculous fact that a person will offer to buy stock at a certain price, or lower,  another person will offer to sell the stock at a lower price, and before the transaction is completed another broker buys the stock and resells it, because his computer is located closer to the data center than either of the other two persons.  That guy is making money and wasting electricity and real estate to get it, and the ultimate purchaser is getting a worse deal.  We still have that problem, but the margins have been squeezed on the HTF guy a bit, so maybe it isn't an issue. "Check your math... ""two stocks, both with a P/E of 2 trading at $40 per share lets say, and one has an EPS of 5 whereas the other has an EPS of 10 is the latter a better purchase?"" If a stock has P/E of 2 and  price of $40 it has an EPS of $20. Not $10. Not $5." "It would be useful to forget about the initial price that you invested - that loss happened, it's over and irreversible, it's a sunk cost; and anchoring on it would only cause you to make worse decisions. Getting ""back"" from a loss is done exactly the same as growing an investment that didn't have such a loss. You have x units of stock that's currently priced $46.5 - that is your blank slate; you need to decide wether you should hold that stock (i.e., if $46.5 is undervalued and likely to increase) or it's likely to fall further and you should sell it.   The decision you make should be exactly the same as if you'd bought it a bit earlier for $40." "Let's do some simple math: you front 1500, they leverage you 10:1.  You now have 15K. 3$/15000. Basically you are going to be paying to say buy 100 SPY's @ 133 ($13300 total) 3$. I pay 1$ for the same trade.  How many trades a day are you going to have to make on that to make money? as 10 points on SPY = 1$ per share (and this is if you're good).  Your average win on trades might be 0.2c * 100 = 20$ If you can make ""5"" good trades that would set you back 3*2*5=30$  From your potential 100$ take in this case you would walk home with 70$ but wait theres more!, you only get 80% of this and they get 20%. So you get 56$ and they get 14.  They have made a total of 44$ in this case,you've made 56$.  How far are they gonna leverage you and what kinda sizes can you trade up to on 3$ transaction cost?" "He didn't sell in the ""normal"" way that most people think of when they hear the term ""sell."" He engaged in a (perfectly legitimate) technique known as short selling, in which he borrows shares from his broker and sells them immediately. He's betting that the price of the stock will drop so he can buy them back at a lower price to return the borrowed shares back to his broker. He gets to pocket the difference. He had about $37,000 of cash in his account. Since he borrowed ~8400 shares and sold them immediately at $2/share, he got $16,800 in cash and owed his broker 8400 shares. So, his net purchasing power at the time of the short sale was $37,000 + $16,800 - 4800 shares * $2/share. As the price of the stock changes, his purchasing power will change according to this equation. He's allowed to continue to borrow these 8400 shares as long as his purchasing power remains above 0. That is, the broker requires him to have enough cash on hand to buy back all of his borrowed shares at any given moment. If his purchasing power ever goes negative, he'll be subject to a margin call: the broker will make him either deposit cash into his account or close his positions (sell long positions or buy back short positions) until it's positive again. The stock jumped up to $13.85 the next morning before the market opened (during ""before-hours"" trading). His purchasing power at that time was $37,000 + $16,800 - 8400 shares * $13.85/share = -$62,540. Since his purchasing power was negative, he was subject to a margin call. By the time he got out, he had to pay $17.50/share to buy back the 8400 shares that he borrowed, making his purchasing power -$101,600. This $101,600 was money that he borrowed from his broker to buy back the shares to fulfill his margin call. His huge loss was from borrowing shares from his broker. Note that his maximum potential loss is unlimited, since there is no limit to how much a stock can grow. Evidently, he failed to grasp the most important concept of short selling, which is that he's borrowing stock from his broker and he's obligated to give that stock back whenever his broker wants, no matter what it costs him to fulfill that obligation." "Because I feel the answers given do not wholely represent the answer you are expecting, I'd like to re-iterate but include more information. When you own stock in a company, you OWN some of that company. When that company makes profit, you usually receive a dividend of those profits. If you owned 1% of the company stock, you (should) recieve 1% of the profits. If your company is doing well, someone might ask to buy your stock. The price of that stock is (supposed) to be worth a value representative of the expected yield or how much of a dividend you'd be getting.  The ""worth"" of that, is what you're betting on when you buy the stock, if you buy $100 worth of coca cola stock and they paid $10 as dividend, you'd be pretty happy with a 10% growth in your wealth. Especially if the banks are only playing 3%. So maybe some other guy sees your 10% increase and thinks, heck.. 10% is better than 3%, if I buy your stocks, even as much as 6% more than they are worth ($106) I'm still going to be better off by that extra 1% than I would be if I left it in the bank.. so he offers you $106.. and you think.. awesome.. I can sell my $100 of cola shares now, make a $6 profit and buy $100 worth of some other share I think will pay a good dividend. Then cola publicises their profits, and they only made 2% profit, that guy that bought your shares for $106, only got a dividend of $2 (since their 'worth' is still $100, and effectively he lost $4 as a result. He bet on a better than 10% profit, and lost out when it didn't hit that. Now, (IMHO) while the stock market was supposed to be about buying shares, and getting dividends, people (brokers) discovered that you could make far more money buying and selling shares for 'perceived value' rather than waiting for dividends to show actual value, especially if you were not the one doing the buying and selling (and risk), but instead making a 0.4% cut off the difference between each purchase (broker fees). So, TL;DR,  Many people have lost money in the market to those who made money from them. But only the traders and gamblers." With your numbers, look at it this way - You borrowed $50. When the stock is $100, you are at 50% margin.  What's most important, is that there's margin interest charged, so the amount owed will increase regardless of the stock price. When calculating your return or loss, the interest has to be accounted for or your numbers will be wrong. For a small investor, margin rates can run high, and often, will offset much of your potential gain. What good is a $100 gain if you paid $125 in margin interest? It was actually a reverse split meaning that every 10 shares you had became 1 share and the price should be 10x higher. - Citigroup in reverse split The chart just accounts for the split. The big dip is Googles way of showing from what price it split from. If you remember before the split the stock was trading around $4-$5 after the reverse split the stock became 10x higher. Just to clear it up a 1:2(1 for 2) split would mean you get 1 share for every 2 shares you have. This is known as a reverse split.  A 2:1(2 for 1) split means you get 2 shares for every 1 share you have. The first number represents the amount of shares you will receive and the second number represents how many shares you will be giving up. Your three options are: Options 2 and 3 are obviously identical (other than transaction costs), so if you want to keep the stock, go for option 1, otherwise, go for option 3 since you have the same effect as option 2 with no transaction costs.  The loss will likely also offset some of the other short term gains you mentioned. "As previously answered, the solution is margin. It works like this: You deposit e.g. 1'000 USD at your trading company. They give you a margin of e.g. 1:100, so you are allowed to trade with 100'000 USD.  Let's say you buy 5'000 pieces of a stock at $20 USD (fully using your 100'000 limit), and the price changes to $20.50 . Your profit is 5000* $0.50 = $2'500. Fast money? If you are lucky. Let's say before the price went up to 20.50, it had a slight dip down to $19.80. Your loss was 5000* $0.2 = 1'000$. Wait! You had just 1000 to begin with: You'll find an email saying ""margin call"" or ""termination notice"": Your shares have been sold at $19.80 and you are out of business. The broker willingly gives you this credit, since he can be sure he won't loose a cent. Of course you pay interest for the money you are trading with, but it's only for minutes. So to answer your question: You don't care when you have ""your money"" back, the trading company will always be there to give you more as long as you have deposit left. (I thought no one should get margin explained without the warning why it is a horrible idea to full use the ridiculous high margins some broker offer. 1:10 might or might not be fine, but 1:100 is harakiri.)" If you bought 5 shares @ $20 each that would cost you $100 plus brokerage. Even if your brokerage was only $10 in and out, your shares would have to go up 20% just for you to break even. You don't make a profit until you sell, so just for you to break even your shares need to go up to $24 per share. Because your share holding would be so small the brokerage, even the cheapest around, would end up being a large percentage cost of any overall profits. If instead you had bought 500 shares at $20, being $1000, the $20 brokerage (in and out) only represents 2% instead of 20%. This is called economies of scale. 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?