At least man is asking. Not like some fools, that we meet sometimes e.g met one guy prior covi show. Never had any exp related to securities. Then tried to convince me, that the least necessery amount for buying those is $50 000 and can be done only via phone, e.g KO shares. Big difference from that idiot and OP.
Don't worry, if you stick to stocks, this won't happen to you: https://markets.businessinsider.com...llions-on-brokerage-glitch-2020-5-1029186688# https://www.bloombergquint.com/amp/...-broker-s-computers-and-inflicted-huge-losses
Simple. They all can. However only the absolute worst stocks have the potential to trade BELOW strong support down at the 0.00 line. Futures on the other hand...
good question. Unfortunately, thousands of people will give thousands of reasons why the stock price cannot be negative. No single person in this world will answer your question directly.
Curious. Can anyone give a single reason how a stock price CAN go negative? I'd love to know. (I mean, er, asking for a friend.)
Not a single person in this world is willing to answer the question directly or smart enough to answer the question.
Fine then. I guess I have to turn to meditation music to answer it for myself. You were no help max! K..Let me get into my lotus position, focus on a single stock price, and peer into my own third eye...
I tell you, being short biased I wish stocks could go below zero, how would that work even? Would the short get that negative value or broker take anything below zero? Not a single person can answer that question!
The spot price of crude oil dropped below zero. Some say that was due to market manipulation. And there is indeed evidence of market manipulation that day. But I'm not convinced that the manipulation directly caused the price to go below zero. The official explanation was that demand for oil had dropped so low that there was a massive excess in supply, without adequate storage space. So crude oil had to be stored on oil tankers, at a cost much higher than the normal costs of storing oil in... um... "regular" oil storage facilities, I guess. In other words, people who had oil and nowhere to store it literally had to pay someone to take it off their hands, because the buyer would incur unusual storage costs. If you actually wanted to take physical delivery of crude oil, you could get it for free, and someone would pay you to take it. The price was less than zero, at least for a few hours. So why couldn't a stock go below zero? It is extremely difficult, but not quite impossible, to imagine a scenario in which shares of a particular stock were not just worthless, but where the holder would literally have to pay someone to take the shares. It could only happen if owning the shares somehow had a liability associated with it. If owning the shares could actually, or potentially, result in the shareholder having pay some significant expenses or debt of some sort, then some people might actually be willing to pay someone to take the shares... Publicly traded companies in the USA are corporations or limited partnerships, and that means that by definition, shareholders (or holders of limited partnership interests) are not personally responsible for the debts or liabilities of the company. So it would require some very unusual circumstances, or a major shift in the legal landscape. It is probably impossible, under the current laws of the US, for the price of a stock to go below zero. But if certain things changed, it could conceivably happen. BMK
Yeah. It lasted for less than 24 hours. The official explanation is BS. Crude went below zero because the CME removed the limit breakers without telling anyone, except a few on the inside. That one is going to come bite them in the ass one day. Mark my words. This makes no sense to me. I own shares of McDonalds. McDonalds corporate decides to poison the world with ricin in their fries. The company is liable for the death of 1 billion people, because the entire planet loves McD fries. Why am I, as a shareholder, responsible for the 1 billion deaths, and why would I pay someone to take my shares worth zero? And if I DID pay someone to take my shares, why would THEY then assume the possible liability I may have? The liability idea makes less sense than a plain old <0 stock price.