What does the -V indicate on MKC ticker
MKC is non-voting stock, MKC/V is voting stock. Ofter times you'll see two or more stock symbols for a company.  These usually reflect different classes of stocks.  For example, voting vs. non-voting (as in this case) or preferred vs non-preferred stock.
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. "This is called ""change"" or ""movement"" - the change (in points or percentage) from the last closing value. You can read more about the ticker tape on Investopedia, the format you're referring to comes from there." "The blue line is illustrating the net profit or loss the investor will realise according to how the price of the underlying asset settles at expiry. The x-axis represents the underlying asset price.  The y-axis represents the profit or loss. In the first case, the investor has a ""naked put write"" position, having sold a put option.  The strike price of the put is marked as ""A"" on the x-axis.  The maximum profit possible is equal to the total premium received when the option contract was sold.  This is represented by that portion of the blue line that is horizontal and extending from the point above that point marked ""A"" on the x-axis.  This corresponds to the case that the price of the underlying asset settles at or above the strike price on the day of expiry.  If the underlying asset settles at a price less than the strike price on the day of expiry, then the option with be ""in the money"".  Therefore the net settlement value will move from a profit to a loss, depending on how far in the money the option is upon expiry.  This is represented by the diagonal line moving from above the ""A"" point on the x-axis and moving from a profit to a loss on the y-axis.  The diagonal line crosses the x-axis at the point where the underlying asset price is equal to ""A"" minus the original premium rate at which the option was written - i.e., net profit = zero.  In the second case, the investor has sold a put option with a strike price of ""B"" and purchase a put option with a strike price ""A"", where A is less than B.  Here, the reasoning is similar to the first example, however since a put option has been purchase this will limit the potential losses should the underlying asset move down strongly in value. The horizontal line above the x-axis marks the maximum profit while the horizontal line below the x-axis marks the maximum loss. Note that the horizontal line above the x-axis is closer to the x-axis that is the horizontal line below the x-axis.  This is because the maximum profit is equal to the premium received for selling the put option minus the premium payed for buying the put option at a lower strike price.  Losses are limited since any loss in excess of the strike price ""A"" plus the premium payed for the put purchased at a strike price of ""A"" is covered by the profit made on the purchased put option at a strike price of ""A""." This article is simply a discussion of the author's own stupidity. In no way does a liquidation preference effect the value of a company. Share class? Yes definitely.  The issue comes from applying the price of a preferred funding round to a fully diluted basis as is often quoted in financial media. Value doesn't always just equal basic p * q "I'm not sure the term actually has a clear meaning. We can think of ""what does this mean"" in two ways: its broad semantic/metaphorical meaning, and its mechanical ""what actual variables in the market represent this quantity"". Net buying/selling have a clear meaning in the former sense by analogy to the basic concept of supply and demand in equilibrium markets. It's not as clear what their meaning should be in the latter sense. Roughly, as the top comment notes, you could say that a price decrease is because of net selling at the previous price level, while a price rise is driven by net buying at the previous price level. But in terms of actual market mechanics, the only way prices move is by matching of a buyer and a seller, so every market transaction inherently represents an instantaneous balance across the bid/ask spread. So then we could think about the notion of orders. Actual transactions only occur in balance, but there is a whole book of standing orders at various prices. So maybe we could use some measure of the volume at various price levels in each of the bid/ask books to decide some notion of net buying/selling. But again, actual transactions occur only when matched across the spread. If a significant order volume is added on one side or the other, but at a price far away from the bid/offer - far enough that an actual trade at that price is unlikely to occur - should that be included in the notion of net buying/selling? Presumably there is some price distance from the bid/offer where the orders don't matter for net buying/selling. I'm sure you'd find a lot of buyers for BRK.A at $1, but that's completely irrelevant to the notion of net buying/selling in BRK.A. Maybe the closest thing I can think of in terms of actual market mechanics is the comparative total volumes during the period that would still have been executed if forced to execute at the end of period price. Assuming that traders' valuations are fixed through the period in question, and trading occurs on the basis of fundamentals (which I know isn't a good assumption in practice, but the impact of price history upon future price is too complex for this analysis), we have two cases. If price falls, we can assume all buyers who executed above the last price in the period would have happily bought at the last price (saving money), while all sellers who executed below the last price in the period would also be happy to sell for more. The former will be larger than the latter. If the price rises, the reverse is true." I'm not exactly sure, but it may be due to liquidity preference.  SPY has a much higher volume (30d average of roughly 70m vs. 3.3m, 1.9m for IVV, VOO respectively), and similarly has a narrow bid ask spread of about 0.01 compared to 0.02 for the other two.  I could be wrong, but I'm going to leave this post up and look in to it later, I'm curious too. The difference is very consistent though, so it may be something in their methodology. From every article I've encountered, the chicken and egg aspect suggests that IV is produced by looking at options pricing, and calculating the IV from that.  The implication is that whatever is known at that time is included in the price. And that when you see a particular option trade an unusual number of contracts at a given price, the implication is that someone thinks they know something that's not already priced in, i.e. that the current price is not accurate, they can profit on the future event. "I don't understand what the D, to the right of APPLE INC, means. This means the graph below is for the ""D"". There is selection at top and you can change this to Minutes [5,20,60,etc], Day, Week [W], Month [M] I'm not understanding how it can say BATS when in actuality AAPL is listed on the NASDAQ. Do all exchanges have info on every stock even from other exchanges and just give them to end-users at a delayed rate? BATS is an exchange. A stock can be listed on multiple exchange. I am not sure if AAPL is also listed on BATS. However looks like BATS has agreement with major stock exchanges to trade their data and supplies this to trading.com" To be fair, the analyst is talking about the book value of the firm. Basically, the value of all the stuff it owns now. There are plenty of companies with negative book value that can justify a positive share price. Ford, for instance, had negative book value but positive future earnings. When you look at the charts in Google Finance, they put the news on the right hand side. The time stamp for each news item is indicated with a letter in the chart. This often shows what news the market is reacting to. In your example:  Clicking on the letter F leads to this Reuters story: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/04/usa-housing-s-idUSWAT01486120110204 Take a look at apple.  It has no debt.  So the ev is basically mkt cap - cash.  Also remember market cap is the float * share price nothing else.  Obviously share price takes into account the assets of the firm into perpituituy but the way you phrased it, adding debt , didnt sound quite right to me.  We remove cash since someone buying a company isn't going to pay for your cash.  In the transaction cash is distributed to share holders then the company is sold. USB is the ticker for US Bancorp. The numbers to me look like their prediction of the return for the day, I could be wrong but I think that's what it is. "You will receive a combination of Verizon shares and cash whether you chose option B or C. Option B means that your ""Return of Value"" will be treated as capital - ie: as a capital gain. Option C means that your ""Return of Value"" will be treated as income - ie: as a dividend. As your ISA has favourable tax status, you don't end up paying any capital gain tax or income tax on dividend income. So it won't matter which option you chose." Generally, when I run across this kind of situation, I look for the Investor Relations section of the corporate website for a 'Stock Information' (or similar) tab or link.   This usually contains information explaining the different shares classes, how they relate (if at all), voting and/or dividend rights, and taxation differences for the different classes. However, I have trouble finding such a page on a central BYD corporate investor relations page.   I did find this page detailing the HK1211 shares: http://www.byd.com/investor/base_information.html.  I don't know what or why, but something tells me this is an older page. Searching on, I also found this page which looks newer and clarifies that the difference you are seeing is between 'A' and 'H' shares. http://www.byd.cn/BYDEnglish/basic/article.jsp?articleId=1524676.  (I'm guessing but I'd think somewhere in the announcements on this byd.cn site, you may find more details of any structural differences between share classes -- I just didn't want to page through them all.) Assuming the data you're referring to is this line: the difference might be related to the different exchanges on which the stock trades.  FINRA could be listing the reported volume from one exchange, while the NASDAQ data might be listing the volume on all exchanges. This is an important distinction because AAV is a Canadian company that is listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange and the NYSE. The Q at the end of the line stands for NASDAQ, according to FINRA's codebook for those data. My guess is that the FINRA data is only reporting the volume for the NASDAQ exchange and not the total volume for all exchanges (Toronto, NASDAQ, NYSE, etc.) while the data straight from NASDAQ, oddly enough, is reporting the total volume. However, FINRA could also face reporting discrepancies, since it's a regulatory body and therefore might not have the most up-to-date volume data that the various exchanges can access.  I don't know if it's related or not, but looking at the NASDAQ historical data, it looks like the volume on March 6, the day you're asking about, was much lower than the volume in most of the days immediately before or after it. For all I know, something might have happened that day concerning that particular stock or the market as a whole. I don't remember anything in particular, but you never know.