Question for you real stock gurus, and I realize its a stupid one so dont give me too much shit.
Say one person owns 90% of a stocks shares with only 10% available on the market for trading. Is this a good thing or bad thing for the stock price? I believe it could be bad because it could hinder the stock's movement with so little of it trading on the market. But I'm guessing that's probably wrong since I think its right. Thoughts? [Reply]
Originally Posted by MTG#10:
Question for you real stock gurus, and I realize its a stupid one so dont give me too much shit.
Say one person owns 90% of a stocks shares with only 10% available on the market for trading. Is this a good thing or bad thing for the stock price? I believe it could be bad because it could hinder the stock's movement with so little of it trading on the market. But I'm guessing that's probably wrong since I think its right. Thoughts?
I would think that creates a small float so any price movement would be massive with even low volume.
But I'm not a GURU I'm a moron by Hammock standards [Reply]
Originally Posted by Hog's Gone Fishin:
I would think that creates a small float so any price movement would be massive with even low volume.
But I'm not a GURU I'm a moron by Hammock standards
I get your reasoning, but the stock in question is the exact opposite...it moves at a snail's pace, + or - 20 cents every day. If it moves over 1.5% in a day its a miracle. You're most likely correct though, I figured the answer would be the exact opposite of what I thought. [Reply]
Originally Posted by MTG#10:
Motley Fool is properly named, it's a joke. If I took their advice on meme stocks the last few months I would have missed out on thousands.They predicted AMC at .01 a few days ago.
Yeah, and thousands of other predictions. I searched Motley Fool AMC, at least a dozen articles in the last three days. Some, I'm sure buy now, some sell. It's randos who don't work for them being paid to pump spam articles for pennies. I haven't used their pay services but its clearly cheap advertising on their part. Dunno how you'd take it seriously. :-)
I'd agree, it seems like it damages the reputation for their pay service to me. They must have data that says it's worth it, in terms of click throughs and subscription buy ins. [Reply]
Originally Posted by MTG#10:
Question for you real stock gurus, and I realize its a stupid one so dont give me too much shit.
Say one person owns 90% of a stocks shares with only 10% available on the market for trading. Is this a good thing or bad thing for the stock price? I believe it could be bad because it could hinder the stock's movement with so little of it trading on the market. But I'm guessing that's probably wrong since I think its right. Thoughts?
I don’t remember all the rules but if you have over a certain % of stock you
Have to disclose sales and purchases through the sec. I think there is a delay so it could potentially hamper market movement.
In the aggregate though it would depend on the other 10%. If it has asks and offers out at a higher percentage than other stocks there may not be much difference in the trade than other stocks that are held by buy and hold mutual funds or individual investors.
Originally Posted by MTG#10:
I get your reasoning, but the stock in question is the exact opposite...it moves at a snail's pace, + or - 20 cents every day. If it moves over 1.5% in a day its a miracle. You're most likely correct though, I figured the answer would be the exact opposite of what I thought.
What's the daily volume on it though? If nobody wants to buy it and there's only a few thousand shares traded daily then it's probably not going to move. [Reply]
Originally Posted by rydogg58:
What's the daily volume on it though? If nobody wants to buy it and there's only a few thousand shares traded daily then it's probably not going to move.