Why is Dell currently trading above the buyout price?
Dividends would be a possible factor you are ignoring.  If Dell has another quarter or two to pay out dividends that could account for some of the difference there. I don't think there is a confirmed date of when the deal is done yet other than around the end of Dell's second quarter which was in the LA Times link you cited. There is also the potential for the terms of the deal to be revised that is another possibility here.  Have you examined other deals where a public company went private to see how the stock performed in the last few months before the deal closed?
"As others have pointed out, there are often many factors that are contributing to a stock's movement other than the latest news.  In particular, the overall market sentiment and price movement very often is the primary driver in any stock's change on a given day.   But in this case, I'd say your anecdotal observation is correct: All else equal, announcements of layoffs tend to drive stock prices upwards. Here's why: To the public, layoffs are almost always a sign that a company is willing to do whatever is needed to fix an already known and serious problem. Mass layoffs are brutally hard decisions.  Even at companies that go through cycles of them pretty regularly, they're still painful every time.  There's a strong personal drain on the chain of executives that has to decide who loses their livelihood.  And even if you think most execs don't care (and I think you'd be wrong) it's still incredibly distracting.   The process takes many weeks, during which productivity plummets. And it's demoralizing to everyone when it happens. So companies very rarely do it until they think they have to.  By that point, they are likely struggling with some very publicly known problems - usually contracting (or negative) margins.   So, the market's view of the company at the time just before layoffs occur is almost always, ""this company has problems, but is unable or unwilling to solve them."".  Layoffs signal that both of those possibilities are incorrect.  They suggest that the company believes that layoffs will fix the problem, and that they're willing to make hard calls to do so. And that's why they usually drive prices up." Two reasons why I think that's irrelevant: First, if it was on 3/31/2012 (two other sources say it was actually 4/3/2012), why the big jump two trading days later? Second, the stock popped up from $3.10 to $4.11, then over the next several trading days fell right back to $3.12. If this were about the intrinsic value of the company, I'd expect the stock to retain some value. A few reasons.  First, it's hard to buy a stock that has never gone up, and isn't necessarily wise to do so.  Even if you just wait for a stock go down, what if you wait and it goes up two dollars, then drops 10 cents?  Has it gone up or down?  When should you buy it? In general, your idea is correct, the higher the price the less you should want the stock.  But in some sense, the past price is irrelevant, you can't buy it at the past price.  You should buy it now if it's the best option now.  And that is based on your assessment of whether it's future prospects are worth the current price (and in fact enough worth enough to make buying the stock the best economic decision you can currently make). Finally, the price may have gone up for a reason.  The company may have done something, or some information about the company may have become known, that affects it's future prospects.  That might make it a better deal, perhaps even better than it was before the price increase. This seemed very unrealistic, I mean who would do that? But to my immense surprise the market price increased to 5.50$ in the following week! Why is that? This is strange. It seems that people mistakenly [?] believe that the company should be at 5.5 and currently available cheap. This looks like irrational behaviour. Most of the past 6 months the said stock in range bound to 4.5 to 5. The last time it hit around 5.5 was Feb. So this is definitely strange. If the company had set a price of 6.00$ in the rights offering, would the price have increased to 6$? Obviously the company thinks that their shares are worth that much but why did the market suddenly agree? Possibly yes, possible no. It can be answered. More often the rights issue are priced at slight discount to market price. Why did this happen? Obviously management thinks that the company is worth that much, but why did the market simply believe this statement without any additional information? I don't see any other information; if the new shares had some special privileges [in terms of voting rights, dividends, etc] then yes. However the announcements says the rights issues is for common shares. It's based on potential. Things like market share, market size, competitive analysis and growth opportunity.    Ex: being as big as reddit is + the fact they are a large player = how they could leverage this to drive even more value than they currently have in the future  Also everything is inflated right now and the value factors in how much someone might (over) pay to acquire them. Are you implying that Amazon is a better investment than GE because Amazon's P/E is 175 while GE's is only 27?  Or that GE is a better investment than Apple because Apple's P/E is just 13.  There are a lot of other ratios to consider than P/E.  I personally view high P/E numbers as a red flag.  One way to think of a P/E ratio is the number of years it's expected for the company to earn its market cap.  (Share price divided by annual earnings per share)  It will take Amazon 175 years to earn $353 billion. If I was going to buy a dry cleaners, I would not pay the owner 175 years of earnings to take control of it, I'd never see my investment back. To your point.  There is so much future growth seemingly built in to today's stock market that even when a company posts higher than expected earnings, the company's stock may take a hit because maybe future prospects are a little less bright than everyone thought yesterday. The point of fundamental analysis is that you want to look at a company's management style and financial strategies.  How is it paying its debt?  How is it accumulating the debt?  How is it's return on assets?  How is the return on assets trending?  This way when you look at a few companies in the same market segment you may have a better shot at picking the winner over time.  The company that piles on new debt for every new project is likely to continue that path in to oblivion, regardless of the P/E ratio. (or some other equally less forward thinking management practice that you uncover in your fundamental analysis efforts). And I'll add... No amount of historical good decision making from a company's management can prepare for a total market downturn, or lack of investor confidence in general.  The market is the market; sometimes it's up irrationally, sometimes it's down irrationally. Would make sense that the higher liquidation cost and Transaction costs are driving the share price down.   Higher liq and transaction means higher investors would require higher return, driving down the share price. The other possibilities I can think of off the top of my head, based on looking at the firm for five minutes  1) In transaction costs, did you include tax? Disclaimer: math below done on the back of the envelope in between meetings;  So, NAV says they are at ~$75M. Liquidating that entire portfolio means about 22% capital gains tax rate. Which means after tax value is about $60M. Add in any fees you'd incur from trying to sell this stuff, and it's not unreasonable to assume you'll only get about $55M once all is said and done, which is pretty close to the actual market cap.   If you have accounted for the above, consider ;  2) Bulk of their investments seem to be in private assets. Which implies that they have some discretion in how they mark the value of those investments. And, there is the chance that the market doesn't have confidence in these guys. What's their performance been like in recent years? Especially with a private asset portfolio, I'd be weary.   If I was to invest in them, I'd want a higher return for the opaque portfolio. Low interest rates and tax breaks caused large co and PE firms to leverage buyout other firms, didnt stop people from issuing equity. For example, if you follow semiconductors, a lot of M&amp;A has happened over past 4 years and some analysts coverage list went from high teens to a dozen. Also, it exacerbate debt levered co going bankrupt, e.g., solar and wind co. Can a company not bargain with a dying company for example and buy a   falling stock at lower than market value? Of course. If the shareholders agree to it. But why would they, if the market value is higher, agree to sell to someone who offers less? If there's a compelling reason - it can happen. It might happen during a hostile takeover, for example. In the case of buying the company for more than market value, are the   stocks bought for significantly more, or slightly more than the   current market value? Again, depends on how valuable the shareholders think the company is. If the shareholders think that the company has a potential which has not yet affected the stock price, they'll want a higher premium (and they'd think that, otherwise why would they hold the stock?). How much higher? Depends on the bargaining abilities of the sides. The price gaps up because the offer is for a price above the current price. Therefore people want to buy now before the price jumps to the offer level. Of course it does depend on the tone of the announcement,  which party is making the announcement, and are they announcing an offer or a deal. If the price is $10, and the offer is for $12; then the price may quickly jump. The early buyers will make the most quick money. They hope that the deal is done quickly, or if not the final price ends up higher.  There are risks. The company could reject the offer. The due diligence could expose a problem. The regulators could reject the deal based on anti-trust issues. The deal could take many months to complete. Or the final deal could be for shares in the new company.  The risks are one reason people sell after the deal/offer is announced. In other cases the seller finally is seeing a profit, or a smaller loss and wants out while they can. "I did a quick search, they have a $2B/5yr deal with google cloud.   Downside is Google is a competitor potentially, especially in the ad market.  Upside is SNAP revenue increased from $58M in 2015 to just over $404M in 2016.  I think in today's market, everyone wants to hold the next ""Amazon"" or ""Google"" stocks at their conception. Sure would be nice if you had a few thousand in Amazon at their IPO. So I think pure speculation is why they were trading above IPO price for so long. It could be the next biggest thing, or it could fail in 5 years we never know these things lol" History...  No company has maintained such a high market cap over an extended amount of time.   Not only that, but is Apple worth a trillion dollars?  In a generation will their products be as popular?  They're worth significantly more than Exxon Mobil at this point...  If Apple's market cap does go to a trillion dollars its an upside of 60 percent or so.  Or I can invest in a company like Lenovo whose market cap is 11 billion and is expanding like crazy.  If their valuation goes up even to the 50 billion mark, that's an upside of nearly 400 percent.  Plus there's the whole supply/demand dynamic for a stock that is already widely owned, how much more money can new investors put into it?  When will all the funds who hold massive quantities sell?  Etc...  There are many reasons why no company has maintained a trillion dollar valuation....    Honestly it shocks me that people who frequent a finance message board don't understand these things. 1) Yes, buyouts are always higher than the trading price. 2) ANYTHING can be negotiated. There is no rule saying buyouts have to be higher. That is mostly true, in most situations when there are more buy orders than sell orders (higher buy volume orders than sell volume orders), the price will generally move upwards and vice versa, when there are more sell orders than buy orders (higher sell volume orders than buy volume orders), the price will generally move downwards. Note that this does not always happen, but usually it does. You are also correct that for a trade to take place a buyer has to be matched with a seller (or the buy volume matched with the sell volume). But not all orders get executed as trades. Say there are 50 buy orders in the order book with a total volume of 100,000 shares and the highest buy order is currently at $10.00. On the other side there are only 10 sell orders in the order book with total volume of 10,000 shares and the lowest sell order is currently $10.05. At the moment there won't be a trade unless a new buyer or seller enters the market to match the opposing side, or an existing order gets amended upper or lower to match the opposing side. With more demand than supply in the order books what will be the most likely direction that this stock moves in? Most likely the price will move upwards. If a new buyer sees the price moving higher and then looks at the market depth, they would most likely place an order closer to the lowest sell order than the current highest buy order, say $10.01, to be first in line in case a market sell order is placed on the market. As new buy orders enter the market it drives the price higher and higher until the buy orders dry up. "In some cases, when a company purchases a minor stake, they often intend to increase the size of the stake over time. As a reference, note that Coca Cola has increased their stake in Green Mountain Coffee Roasters (GMCR) over time. It also adds some ""support"" to the price because these investors may be willing to step in and purchase the stock if there is any distress or poor performance. Finally, its generally a good ""tell"" that the stock has good things going for it and may be subject to additional interest from large investors."