Did an additional $32 billion necessarily get invested into Amazon.com stock on October 26th, 2017?
Stock A last traded at $100. Stock A has 1 million shares outstanding. No seller is willing to sell Stock A for less than $110 a share. One buyer is willing to buy 1 share for $110. The order executes. The buyer pays the seller $110. Stock A's new price is $110. An $110 investment increased the market cap by $10 million. Neat trick (for all who own Stock A). "No, a jump in market capitalization does not equal the amount that has been invested.  Market cap is simply the stock price times the total number of shares. This represents a theoretical value of the company. I say ""theoretical"" because the company might not be able to be sold for that at all.  The quoted stock price is simply what the last buyer and seller of stock agreed upon for the price of their trade. They really only represent themselves; other investors may decide that the stock is worth more or less than that.  The stock price can move on very little volume. In this case, Amazon had released a very good earnings report after the bell yesterday, and the price jumped in after hours trading. The stock price is up, but that simply means that the few shares traded overnight sold for much higher than the closing price yesterday.  After the market opens today and many more shares are traded, we'll get a better idea what large numbers of investors feel about the price. But no matter what the price does, the change in market cap does not equal the amount of new money being invested in the company. Market cap is the price of the most recent trades extrapolated out across all the shares." "The market capitalization of a stock is the number of shares outstanding (of each stock class), times the price of last trade (of each stock class). In a liquid market (where there are lots of buyers and sellers at all price points), this represents the price that is between what people are bidding for the stock and what people are asking for the stock.  If you offer any small amount more than the last price, there will be a seller, and if you ask any small amount less than the last price, there will be a buyer, at least for a small amount of stock. Thus, in a liquid market, everyone who owns the stock doesn't want to sell at least some of their stock for a bit less than the last trade price, and everyone who doesn't have the stock doesn't want to buy some of the stock for a bit more than the last trade price. With those assumptions, and a low-friction trading environment, we can say that the last trade value is a good midpoint of what people think one share is worth.  If we then multiply it by the number of shares, we get an approximation of what the company is worth. In no way, shape or form does it not mean that there is 32 billion more invested in the company, or even used to purchase stock. There are situations where a 32 billion market cap swing could mean 32 billion more money was invested in the company: the company issues a pile of new shares, and takes in the resulting money.  People are completely neutral about this gathering in of cash in exchange for dilluting shares.  So the share price remains unchanged, the company gains 32 billion dollars, and there are now more shares outstanding. Now, in some sense, there is zero dollars currently invested in a stock; when you buy a stock, you no longer have the money, and the money goes to the person who no longer has the stock. The issue here is the use of the continuous tense of ""invested in""; the investment was made at some point, but the money doesn't really stay in this continuous state of being.  Unless you consider the investment liquid, and the option to take money out being implicit, it being a continuous action doesn't make much sense. Sometimes the money is invested in the company, when the company causes stocks to come into being and sells them. The owners of stocks has invested money in stocks in that they spent that money to buy the stocks, but the total sum of money ever spent on stocks for a given company is not really a useful value. The market capitalization is an approximation, which under the efficient market hypothesis (that markets find the correct price for things nearly instantly) is reasonably accurate, of the value the company has collectively to its shareholders.  The efficient market hypothesis isn't accurate, but it is an acceptable rule of thumb. Now, this value -- market capitalization -- is arguably not the total value of a company: other stakeholders include bond holders, labour, management, various contract counter-parties, government and customers.  Some companies are structured so that almost all value is captured not by the stock owners, but by contract counter-parties (this is sometimes used for hiding assets or debts). But for most large publically traded companies, it (in theory) shouldn't be far off." No. The market cap has no relation to actual money that flowed anywhere, it is simple the number of shares multiplied by the current price, and the current price is what potential buyers are (were) willing to pay for the share. So any news that increases or decreases interest in shares changes potentially the share price, and with that the market cap. No money needs to flow.
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? Yeah the three companies they put weren't the best examples of market irrationality and there are better ones, but I think they were the biggest targets of a short news piece.    TSLA is arguably one of the prime examples.  I also listed CMG in my original statement but there are plenty more too that are continually pumped up for no good reason at all.    Amazon is actually beginning to make some big leaps and bounds.  I used to be a doubter (still don't invest in them or anything) but I do think Amazon has a bright future, barring the possibility of a gov't split up, but with how well the gov't has received Amazon so far, I don't see that as an issue for the near term, even though Amazon is getting to become quite a monopoly is many industries. So, the market thinks the value of Wholefoods to Amazon is about $19billion. Who cares? It's not about what Amazon gets, its about what Wholefood shareholders can get instead. What's they're alternative to this deal? Who will pay that much? Anyone? Just because it's a good deal for Amazon, doesn't mean it's a bad deal for Whole Food shareholders "Simply put, yes. I bought that call. I was betting the shares would rise in value by Jan 2018, and chose the $130 strike. With a strike nearly a year away, I paid a premium that was all time value as the shares traded at   Now the shares are replaced by $128. The time value has gone to zero, and there is no intrinsic ""in the money"" value. If the shares were bought at $140, the time value stills drops to zero, but the option is closed at $10 in the money.  My answer was for a cash deal. In a case where the old shares are replaced by new shares or a combination of shares and money, the options terms are changed to reflect the combination of new assets for old.  Update based on disclosure that it's Monsanto we are discussing.   Bayer and Monsanto have announced that they signed a definitive   agreement under which Bayer will acquire Monsanto for USD 128 per   share in an all-cash transaction. Based on Monsanto’s closing share   price on May 9, 2016, the day before Bayer’s first written proposal to   Monsanto, the offer represents a premium of 44 percent to that price.  You can see that the deal has been in the works for some time now. Further research shows they expect the deal to close by ""the end of 2017"". It's not a done deal. This is why the options are still trading.   Now the shares are replaced by $128. The time value has gone to zero, and there is no intrinsic ""in the money"" value. If the shares were bought at $140, the time value stills drops to zero, but the option is closed at $10 in the money.  My answer was for a cash deal. In a case where the old shares are replaced by new shares or a combination of shares and money, the options terms are changed to reflect the combination of new assets for old.  Update based on disclosure that it's Monsanto we are discussing.  Bayer and Monsanto have announced that they signed a definitive   agreement under which Bayer will acquire Monsanto for USD 128 per   share in an all-cash transaction. Based on Monsanto’s closing share   price on May 9, 2016, the day before Bayer’s first written proposal to   Monsanto, the offer represents a premium of 44 percent to that price. You can see that the deal has been in the works for some time now. Further research shows they expect the deal to close by ""the end of 2017"". It's not a done deal. This is why the options are still trading." The trades after that date were Ex-DIV, meaning after 5 pm Dec 12, new trades did not include the shares that were to be spun out.  The process is very orderly, no one pays $60 without getting the spinoff, and no one pays $30 but still gets it. The real question is why there's that long delay nearly three weeks to make the spinoff shares available. I don't know.  By the way, the stock options are adjusted as well. Someone owning a $50 put isn't suddenly in the money on 12/13. Edit - (I am not a hoarder. I started a fire last night and realized I had a few Barron's in the paper pile) This is how the ABT quote appeared in the 12/24 issue of Barron's. Both the original quote, and the WI (when issued) for the stock less the spin off company. "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" I think the $500mm number was bullshit. A common trick is that a private company will raise $50mm for 10% of the company, and say they're worth $500mm. But then it turns out that the new investors get preferences- like they're guaranteed to be paid back first if the company goes bankrupt, or they're guaranteed to get back the first $100mm of an IPO. Since the company really sold 10% of itself *plus other stuff*, they are worth less than $500mm.   Therefore, I find Ellen Pao's claim that Reddit was worth $250mm in 2015 credible. It is also why I'm suspicious about the $1.7b number today. Watch for Walmart to buy Blue Apron or the same time of businesssoon. Probably Blue Apron because the yare gonna be prime for buying the next year.   I know people are all on the Amazon taking of the world bandwagon but losing sight at what Walmart is doing is dumb because they are far more primed to do so. Just my two cents though.   EDIT: Also Amazon stock is insanely over priced and inflated while Walmart is right at the point where you want to jump that bandwagon and ride the wave to being rich. U.S. stocks traded slightly lower on Friday, weighed down by slumping Amazon.com shares following disappointing earnings while the main indexes were on track to finish the week with modest losses.  ... what? DJI is up 250 points over the week, S&amp;P is flat but slightly up. Whose news is this? NAV is  how much is the stuff of the company worth divided by the number of shares. This total is also called book value. The market cap is share price times number of shares. For Amazon  today people are willing to pay 290 a share for a company with a NAV of 22 a share. If of nav and price were equal the P/B (price to book ratio) would be 1, but for Amazon it is 13.  Why? Because investors believe Amazon is worth a lot more than a money losing company with a NAV of 22. Not sure where you got the 296 crores figure. The data on the sheet shows activity by category of investors. In the end NET of all BUY and SELL across all categories will always be Zero. It has no bearing on whether the stock market goes up or goes down. If you compare only activity by certain category, say FII then there could be more SELL compared to BUY or vice-versa. 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. From Wikipedia: 'Bezos was one of the first shareholders in Google, when he invested $250,000 in 1998. That $250,000 investment resulted in 3.3 million shares of Google stock worth about $3.1 billion today.'  His wealth may be tied to amazon but he is a savvy investor. Recently, I was watching an early interview he did with Charlie Rose, and I read more about him - which led to reading the Wikipedia article. Various types of corporate actions will precipitate a price adjustment.  In the case of dividends, the cash that will be paid out as a dividend to share holders forms part of a company's equity.  Once the company pays a dividend, that cash is no longer part of the company's equity and the share price is adjusted accordingly. For example, if Apple is trading at $101 per share at the close of business on the day prior to going ex-dividend, and a dividend of $1 per share has been declared, then the closing price will be adjusted by $1 to give a closing quote of $100. Although the dividend is not paid out until the dividend pay date, the share price is adjusted at the close of business on the day prior to the ex-dividend date since any new purchases on or after the ex-dividend date are not entitled to receive the dividend distribution, so in effect new purchases are buying on the basis of a reduced equity.   It will be the exchange providing the quote that performs the price adjustment, not Google or Yahoo.  The exchange will perform the adjustment at the close prior to each ex-dividend date, so when you are looking at historical data you are looking at price data that includes each adjustment. "What does ETFs have to do with this or Amazon?   Actually, investing in ETFs means you are killing actively managed Mutual Funds (managed by people, fund managers) to get an average return (and loss) of the market that a computer manage instead of a person. And the ETF will surely have Amazon stocks because they are part of the index.  I only invest in actively managed mutual funds. Yes, most actively managed mutual funds can't do better than the index, but if you work a bit harder, you can find the many that do much better than the ""average"" that an index give you."