SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Technology Stocks : InfoSpace (INSP): Where GNET went! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: V. who wrote (16583)1/31/2000 11:10:00 PM
From: Greg S.  Respond to of 28311
 
OT - terminology.

I do want to make a comment on your clarification, V, if I may.

In this example, the bid of 78 is the price at which a dealer/broker is willing to pay to buy the stock from an investor/trader which is the same thing as the price for which the investor/trader is willing to sell his shares to a dealer/broker.

The reason I explain bid/ask "the other way" is that they represent actual obligations. True, when you think "bid" you think "that's what I can get if I sell" so there's a natural equation there. But just because the bid on a stock is 78 doesn't mean there actually exists even a single investor/trader willing to sell his shares to the dealer at or near that price.

If you've ever watched the movement of some really volatile stocks, you'll see the bid and ask start flying all over the place .. and sometimes not even a single share changes hands! This basically means that the MM's are all tussling over the prices at which to buy and sell the security, but no investor/trader is actually taking them up on any of their offers. That being said, the bid/ask do not in any way reflect what we as investors/traders are actually willing to pay or receive. They are only what the Market Makers are willing to pay or receive.

Well, that's all the time we have for "Trading Terminology 101" .. now back to your regularly (un)scheduled GNET thread .. :)

-G



To: V. who wrote (16583)2/1/2000 8:04:00 AM
From: atskaggs  Respond to of 28311
 
V.- It was, thanks. ATS #124