Biggest stock price gain vs. biggest mkt cap gain
"When you look at those results you'll see that it lists the actual market cap for the stocks.  The ones on the biggest price move are usually close the the $1B capitalization cut-off that they use. (The don't report anything with less than $1B in capitalization on these lists.)  The ones on the biggest market cap are much larger companies. So, the answer is that a 40% change in price on a company that has $1B capitalization will be a $400M change in market cap.  A 4% change on a company with $100B capitalization will be a $4B change in market cap.  The one that moved 40% will make the ""price"" list but not the market cap list and vice versa."
You are right: if the combined value of all outstanding GOOG shares was $495B, and the combined value of all GOOGL shares was $495B, then yes, Alphabet would have a market cap of at least $990B (where I say at least only because I myself don't know that there aren't other issues that should be in the count as well). The respective values of the total outstanding GOOG and GOOGL shares are significantly less than that at present though. Using numbers I just grabbed for those tickers from Google Finance (of course), they currently stand thus: "Kind of matters because your definition of ""cost"" is solely based on a hindsight view of market movement.  Lack of gain is not cost except from an inflationary perspective, versus actual value loss of entering near a top.  On a long time scale, yes, the market will probably go up and value will return - but telling someone that now is the perfect time to enter is entirely debatable. Momentum is not fundamental and could reverse tomorrow for all you know." "At any given moment, one can tally the numbers used for NAV. It's math, and little more. The Market Cap, which as you understand is a result of share value. Share value (stock price) is what the market will pay today for the shares. It's not only based on NAV today, but on future expectations. And expectations aren't the same for each of us. Which is why there are always sellers for the buyers of a stock, and vice-versa.  From your question, we agree that NAV can be measured, it's the result of adding up things that are all known. (For now, let's ignore things such as ""goodwill."") Rarely is a stock price simply equal to the NAV divided by the number of shares. Often, it's quite higher. The simplest way to look at it is that the stock price not only reflects the NAV, but investors' expectations looking into the future.  If you look for two companies with identical NAV per share but quite different share prices, you'll see that the companies differ in that one might be a high growth company, the other, a solid one but with a market that's not in such a growth mode." The biggest benefit to having a larger portfolio is relatively reduced transaction costs. If you buy a $830 share of Google at a broker with a $10 commission, the commission is 1.2% of your buy price.  If you then sell it for $860, that's another 1.1% gone to commission.  Another way to look at it is, of your $30 ($860 - $830) gain you've given up $20 to transaction costs, or 66.67% of the proceeds of your trade went to transaction costs. Now assume you traded 10 shares of Google. Your buy was $8,300 and you sold for $8,600.  Your gain is $300 and you spent the same $20 to transact the buy and sell.  Now you've only given up 6% of your proceeds ($20 divided by your $300 gain). You could also scale this up to 100 shares or even 1,000 shares. Generally, dividend reinvestment are done with no transaction cost.  So you periodically get to bolster your position without losing more to transaction costs.  For retail investors transaction costs can be meaningful.  When you're wielding a $5,000,000 pot of money you can make your trades on a larger scale giving up relatively less to transaction costs. 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. "For MCD, the 47¢ is a regular dividend on preferred stock (see SEC filing here). Common stock holders are not eligible for this amount, so you need to exclude this amount. For KMB, there was a spin-off of Halyard Health. From their IR page on the spin-off: Kimberly-Clark will distribute one share of Halyard common stock for   every eight shares of Kimberly-Clark common stock you own as of the   close of business on the record date. The deal closed on 2014-11-03. At the time HYH was worth $37.97 per share, so with a 1:8 ratio this is worth about $4.75. Assuming you were able to sell your HYH shares at this price, the ""dividend"" in the data is something you want to keep. With all the different types of corporate actions, this data is extremely hard to keep clean. It looks like the Quandl source is lacking here, so you may need to consider looking at other vendors." Out of the money options often have the biggest changes in value, when the stock moves upward. This person could also gain, by the implied (underlying) volatility of the stock rising if it moves erratically to either side. Still seems to be a very risky game, given only 4 days to expiry. One difference is the bid/ask spread will cost you more in a lower cost stock than a higher cost one. Say you have two highly liquid stocks with tiny spreads: If you wanted to buy say $2,000 of stock: Now imagine these are almost identical ETFs tracking the S&P 500 index and extrapolate this to a trade of $2,000,000 and you can see there's some cost savings in the higher priced stock. As a practical example, recently a popular S&P 500 ETF (Vanguard's VOO) did a reverse split to help investors minimize this oft-missed cost. You don't see Buying and Selling. You see Bid and Ask. Best Bid--Highest Price someone is willing to pay to buy a stock. Best Ask - Lowest price someone is willing to accept to sell a stock. As for your second question, if you can look up Accumulation/Distribution Algorithm and Iceberg Order, you will get basic idea. "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." Thanks. Just to clarify I am looking for a more value-neutral answer in terms of things like Sharpe ratios. I think it's an oversimplification to say that on average you lose money because of put options - even if they expire uselessly 90% of the time, they still have some expected payoff that kicks in 10% of the time, and if the price is less than the expected payoff you will earn money in the long term by investing in put options (I am sure you know this as a PhD student I just wanted to get it out there.)I guess more formally my question would be are there studies on whether options prices correspond well to the diversification benefits they offer from an MPT point of view. 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. I would think there would be heavy overlap between companies that do well and market cap. You're not going to get to largest market cap without being well managed, or at least in the top percentile. After all, in a normal distribution, the badly managed firms go out of business or never get large. In market cap weighted index there is fairly heavy concentration in the largest stocks. The top 10 stocks typically account for about 20% of the S&P 500 index.  In Equal Weight this bias towards large caps is removed. The Market Cap method would be good when large stocks drive the markets. However if the markets are getting driven by Mid Caps and Small caps, the equal weight wins. Historically most big companies start out small and grow big fast in a short span of time. Thus if we were to do Market cap one would have purchased smaller number of shares of the said company as its cap/weight would have been small and when it becomes big we would have purchased the shares at a higher price. However if we were to do equal weight, then as the company grows big one would have more share at a cheaper price and would result in better returns. There is a nice article on this, also gives the comparision of the returns over a period of 10 years, where equal weight index has done good. It does not mean that it would continue. http://www.investopedia.com/articles/exchangetradedfunds/08/index-debate.asp#axzz1RRDCnFre "This is a really interesting question and something a lot of work is being done to understand.  I'm going to look at the closely related question ""Do non market-cap etf weighting methods consistently outperform once you take into account their investment biases?"" Let's use revenue weighting as a reason why investment biases are so important.  In revenue weighting, you would own almost no fast-growing tech companies as they generally have little revenue.   This sounds great if we are talking about say Pets.com in the late 90s but you also would miss most of the rise of Google. To believe in these ETFs consistently outperform (adjusted for risk) you would have to have a strong reason to believe that earnings, sales, or dividends are a better predictor of company value than market value.  Market analysts include the above three metrics and many more when pricing stocks so out-performance using only one of the above metrics seems unlikely. There is one caveat to this and that is value and small cap stocks have been shown to give slightly better risk-adjusted returns in the very long run (see Fama/French) and many of these alternative weighting methods will have a value or small cap bias.  First, it is unclear if this out-performance will continue now that it is more widely known.  Second, even if you believe this will continue you can more easily and cheaply get this bias though value/small-cap etfs than these weighting schemes. In the end, the only thing that is perfectly clear is that higher fee investments will generally under-perform."