Do market shares exhaust?
"As @ApplePie pointed out in their answer, at any given time there is a finite amount of stock available in a company. One subtlety you may be missing is that there is always a price associated with an offer to buy shares. That is, you don't put in an order simply to buy 1 share of ABC, you put in an order to buy 1 share of ABC for $10. If no one is willing to sell a share of ABC for $10, then your order will go unfilled. This happens millions of times a day as traders try to figure the cheapest price they can get for a stock. Practically speaking, there is always a price at which people are willing to sell their shares. You can put in a market order for 1 share of ABC, which says essentially ""I want one share of ABC, and I will pay whatever the market deems to be the price"". Your broker will find you 1 share, but you may be very unhappy about the price you have to pay! While it's very rare for a market to have nobody willing to sell at any price, it occasionally happens that no one is willing to buy at any price. This causes a market crash, as in the 2007-2008 financial crisis, when suddenly everyone became very suspicious of how much debt the major banks actually held, and for a few days, very few traders were willing to buy bank stocks at any price." Let's clarify some things. Companies allow for the public to purchase their shares through Initial Public Offering (IPO) (first-time) and Seasoned Public Offering (SPO) (all other times). They choose however many shares they want to issue depending on the amount of capital they want to raise. What this means is that the current owners give up some ownership % in exchange for cash (usually). In the course of IPOs and SPOs, it can happen that the public will not buy all shares if there is very little interest, but I would assume that the more probable scenario if very little interest is present is that the shares' value would take a big drop on their issuance date from the proposed IPO/SPO price. After those shares are bought by the public, they are traded on Exchanges which are a secondary and (mostly) do not affect the underlying company. The shares are exchanged from John Doe to Jane Doe as John Doe believes the market value for those shares will take a direction that Jane Doe believes in the opposite. Generally speaking, markets will find an equilibrium price where you can reasonably easily buy-sell securities as the price is not too far from what most participants in the market believe it should be. In cases where all participants agree on the direction (most often in case of a crash) it can be hard to find a party to make a trade with. Say a company just announced negative news with long-lasting effects on the business there will be a surge in sell orders with very few buyers. If you are willing to buy, you will likely very easily find a trading partner but if you are trying to sell instead then you will have to compete for the lowest price against all other sellers. All that to say that in such cases, while shares are technically sellable / purchasable, the end result can be that no shares are purchasable. RonJohn is right, all shares are owned by someone.  Depending on the company, they can be closely held so that nobody wants to sell at a given time.  This can cause the price people are offering to rise until someone sells.  That trade will cause an adjustment in the ticker price of that stock.  Supply and demand at work.  Berkshire Hathaway is an example of this.  The number of shares is low, the demand for them is high, the price per share is high. Yes, all the shares of a publicly traded company can be purchased. This effectively takes the company private so that it's no longer traded on a stock market. Here are some examples: EDIT: to answer your edited question... the corporation can issue more stock.  However that would dilute the value of existing shares.  Thus, existing shareholders must vote to allow more shares to be issued. So... in your situation yes, you'd need to wait for someone else to sell. Stock trades are always between real buyers and real sellers. In thinly-traded small stocks, for example, you may not always be able to find a buyer when you want to sell. For most public companies, there is enough volume that individual investors can just about always fill their market orders. If the share is listed on a stock exchange that creates liquidity and orderly sales with specialist market makers, such as the NYSE, there will always be a counterparty to trade with, though they will let the price rise or fall to meet other open interest.  On other exchanges, or in closely held or private equity scenarios, this is not necessarily the case (NASDAQ has market maker firms that maintain the bid-ask spread and can do the same thing with their own inventory as the specialists, but are not required to by the brokerage rules as the NYSE brokers are).  The NYSE has listing requirements of at least 1.1 million shares, so there will not be a case with only 100 shares on this exchange. Everyone has a price. If nobody is selling shares, then increase the price you will buy them for. And then wait. Somebody will have some hospital bills to pay for eventually. I buy illiquid investments all the time, and thats typically what happens. Great companies do not have liquidity problems.
"Isn't this effectively saying that the market responds principally to itself, and not to either economic fundamentals, or the profitability of the underlying companies.  If so, the market as a ""price discovery mechanism"" is broken, and investors would be wise to do their own research." "There are stocks that have held 100% of the exact same trend (bull or bear) on a date or date range for years. While  history of course doesn't guarantee that the trend will hold for the current year, that fact itself is distinct from the question of whether history is an *indicator* worth building a thesis off of.  The problem is if and when someone thinks ""indicator"" is equivalent to ""definitive answer"".   Answer 2: A dozen big algo traders have disproven this notion.  Answer 3: Price is not only price action itself. It's calendar, evens, binaries, cyclical psychology, etc." "Past results are not a predictor of future results. There is no explicit upper bound on a market, and even if individual companies' values were remaining unchanged one would expect the market to drift upward in the long term. Plus, there's been some  shift from managing companies for dividends to managing stocks for growth, which will tend to increase the upward push. Trying to time the market -- to guess when it's going to move in any particular direction -- is usually closer to gambling than investing. The simplest answer remains a combination of buy-and-hold and dollar-cost averaging. Buy at a constant number of dollars per month (or whatever frequency you prefer), and you will automatically buy more when the stock/fund is lower, less when it is higher. That takes advantage of downturns as buying opportunities without missing out on possible gains at the other end. Personally, I add a bit of contrarian buying to that -- I increased my buying another notch or two while the market was depressed, since I had money I wouldn't need any time soon (buy and hold) and I was reasonably confident that enough of the market would come back strongly enough that I wasn't at significant risk of losing the investment. That's one of the things which causes me to be categorized as an ""aggressive investor"" even though I'm operating with a very vanilla mix of mutual funds and not attempting to micromanage my money. My goal is to have the money work for me, not vice versa." Usually when a stock is up-trending or down-trending the price does not go up or down in a straight line. In an uptrend the price may go up over a couple of days then it could go down the next day or two, but the general direction would be up over the medium term. The opposite for a downtrend. So if the stock has been generally going up over the last few weeks, it may take a breather for a week or two before prices continue up again. This breather is called a retracement in the uptrend. The Fibonacci levels are possible amounts by which the price might retract before it continues on its way up again. By the way 50% is not actually a Fibonacci Retracement level but it is a common retracement level which is usually used in combination with the Fibonacci Retracement levels. Stock price is based on supply and demand. Unless the stock you are looking to buy usually has very low volume trading 100 shares isn't likely to have any effect on price. There are many companies that have millions or tens of millions of shares trade daily. For stocks like that 100 shares is barely a trivial percentage of the daily volume. For thinly traded stocks you can look at the bid and ask size but even that isn't likely to get you an exact answer. Unless you are trading large volumes your trade will have no effect on the price of shares. On most exchanges, if you place a limit order to sell at 94.64, you will be executed before the market can trade at a higher price. However most stocks in the US trade across several exchanges and your broker won't place your limit order on all exchanges (otherwise you could be executed several times). The likeliest reason for wht happened to you is that your order was not on the market where those transactions were executed. Reviewing the ticks, there were only 8 transactions above your limit, all at 1:28:24, for a total 1,864 shares and all on the NYSE ARCA exchange. If your order was on a different exchange (NYSE for example) you would not have been executed. If your broker uses a smart routing system they would not have had time to route your order to ARCA in time for execution because the market traded lower straight after. Volume at each price on that day: "You are overlooking the fact that it is not only supply & demand from investors that determines the share price:  The company itself can buy and sell its own shares. If company X is profitable over the long haul but pays 0 dividends then either Option (2) is pretty ridiculous, so (1) will hold except in an extreme ""man bites dog"" kind of fluke. This is connected with the well-known ""dividend paradox"", which I discussed already in another answer." As Chris pointed out in his comment, smaller stock exchanges may use open outcry. There are several exchanges that use open outcry/floor trading in the US, however, although they aren't necessarily stock exchanges.  Having visited the three Chicago exchanges I mentioned, I can personally vouch for their continued use of a trading floor, although its use is declining in all three. http://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/economix/2014/04/02/the-many-classes-of-google-stock/ Are you counting both class A and other share classes? it's kind of like a circular loop:  i think he would suggest identifying strategies/portfolio managers who have demonstrated outperformance in a persistent manner.  Thing is, that's also really hard to do.  I think empirically, MPT suffers when the market does. By diversifying, you'll only be down less. He's suggesting shooting for absolute returns -- no matter what the market does, he wants to see positive gains.  (a lot) easier said than done Assuming S&amp;P value as % of GDP doesn't change, to get S&amp;P return you add (Nominal GDP % growth + Dividend Yield) -&gt; S&amp;P return.  Historically the S&amp;P has grown faster as corporations of won market share and therefore grown to a larger portion of GDP.  While this can continue (or possibly reverse), and can happen globally as well, you are correct in pointing out that it cannot continue ad infinitum. "In theory, say we had two soft drink companies, and no other existed. On Jan 1, they report they each had 50% market share for the past year. Over the next year, one company's gain is the other's loss. But over the year, for whatever reason, the market has grown 10% (all the stories of bad water helped this), and while the market share ends at 49/51, the 49 guy has improved his margins, and that stock rises by more than the other.  In general, companies in the same industry will be positively correlated, and strongly so.  I offer my ""spreadsheets are your friend"" advice. I took data over the last 10 years for Coke and Pepsi. Easy to pull from various sites, I tend to use Yahoo. In Excel the function CORREL with let you compare two columns of numbers for correlation. I got a .85 result, pretty high. To show how a different industry would have a lower correlation, I picked Intel. Strangely, enough, Intel and Pepsi had a .94 correlation. A coincidence, I suppose, but my point is that you can easily get data and perform your own analysis to better understand what's going on." "The June 2014 issue of Barclays Wealth's Compass magazine had a very nice succinct article on this topic: ""Value investing – does a rules-based approach work?"".  It examines the performance of value and growth styles of investment in the MSCI World and S&P500 arenas for a few decades back, and reveals a surprisingly complicated picture, depending on sector, region and time-period. Their summary is basically: A closer look however shows that the overall success of value   strategies derives mainly from the 1970s and 1980s. ... in the US, value has underperformed growth for over 25 years   since peaking in July 1988. Globally, value experienced a 30% setback   in the late 1990s so that there are now periods with a length of   nearly 13 years over which growth has outperformed. So the answer to ""does it beat the market?"" is  ""it depends..."". Update in response to comment below: the question of risk adjusted returns is interesting.  To quote another couple of fragments from the piece: Since December 1974, [MSCI world] value has outperformed growth by   2.6% annually, with lower risk. This outperformance on a risk-adjusted   basis is the so-called value premium that Eugene Fama and Kenneth   French first identified in 1992... and That outperformance has, however, come with more risk. Historical   volatility of the pure style indices has been 21-22% compared to 16%   for the market. ... From a maximum drawdown perspective, the 69% drop   of pure value during the financial crisis exceeded the 51% drop of the   overall market." Yes, this can and does certainly happen. When two companies each own stock in each other, it's called a cross holding. I learned about cross holdings in reference to Japanese companies (see Wikipedia - Keiretsu) but the phenomenon is certainly not exclusive to that jurisdiction.  Here are a few additional references: Markets are rational in the long term. Actors act rationally given the knowledge they have. They don't have perfect knowledge - meaning they're prone to make mistakes. However, in the LONG run, every would be a equilibrium.   Facebook stock is clearly over valued and the market is adjusting to the real price. Nothing spectacular going on there.