Financial analysis (also referred to as financial statement analysis or accounting analysis or Analysis of finance) refers to an assessment of the viability,

stability and profitability of a business, sub-business or project. It is performed by professionals who prepare reports using ratios that make use of information taken from financial statements and other reports. These reports are usually presented to top management as one of their bases in making business decisions.

Continue or discontinue its main operation or part of its business; Make or purchase certain materials in the manufacture of its product; Acquire or rent/lease certain machineries and equipment in the production of its goods; Issue stocks or negotiate for a bank loan to increase its working capital; Make decisions regarding investing or lending capital; Other decisions that allow management to make an informed selection on various alternatives in the conduct of its business. Goals
Financial analysts often assess the following elements of a firm: 1. Profitability - its ability to earn income and sustain growth in both the short- and long-term. A company's degree of profitability is usually based on the income statement, which reports on the company's results of operations; 2. Solvency - its ability to pay its obligation to creditors and other third parties in the long-term; 3. Liquidity - its ability to maintain positive cash flow, while satisfying immediate obligations; Both 2 and 3 are based on the company's balance sheet, which indicates the financial condition of a business as of a given point in time. 4. Stability - the firm's ability to remain in business in the long run, without having to sustain significant losses in the conduct of its business. Assessing a company's stability requires the use of both the income statement and the balance sheet, as well as other financial and non-financial indicators. etc.

Methods
Financial analysts often compare financial ratios (of solvency, profitability, growth, etc.):

Past Performance - Across historical time periods for the same firm (the last 5 years for example), Future Performance - Using historical figures and certain mathematical and statistical techniques, including present and future values, This extrapolation method is the main source of errors in financial analysis as past statistics can be poor predictors of future prospects. Comparative Performance - Comparison between similar firms.

These ratios are calculated by dividing a (group of) account balance(s), taken from the balance sheet and / or the income statement, by another, for example :

Net income / equity = return on equity (ROE) Net income / total assets = return on assets (ROA) Stock price / earnings per share = P/E ratio Comparing financial ratios is merely one way of conducting financial analysis. Financial ratios face several theoretical challenges:

They say little about the firm's prospects in an absolute sense. Their insights about relative performance require a reference point from other time periods or similar firms. One ratio holds little meaning. As indicators, ratios can be logically interpreted in at least two ways. One can partially overcome this problem by combining several related ratios to paint a more comprehensive picture of the firm's performance. Seasonal factors may prevent year-end values from being representative. A ratio's values may be distorted as account balances change from the beginning to the end of an accounting period. Use average values for such accounts whenever possible. Financial ratios are no more objective than the accounting methods employed. Changes in accounting policies or choices can yield drastically different ratio values. Fundamental analysis.[1]

Financial analysts can also use percentage analysis which involves reducing a series of figures as a percentage of some base amount.[2] For example, a group of items can be expressed as a percentage of net income. When proportionate changes in the same figure over a given time period expressed as a percentage is known as horizontal analysis.[3]Vertical or common-size analysis, reduces all items on a statement to a common size as a percentage of some base value which assists in comparability with ot her

companies of different sizes. [5] by Total Assets.

[4]

As a result, all Income Statement items are divided by Sales, and all Balance Sheet items are divided

Another method is comparative analysis. This provides a better way to determine trends. Comparative analysis presents the same information for two or more time periods and is presented side-by-side to allow for easy analysis.[6]

Business valuation
Business valuation is a processed set of procedures used to estimate the economic value of an owners interest in a business. Valuation is used by financial market participants to determine the price they are willing to pay or receive to perfect a sale of a business. In addition to estimating the selling price of a business, the same valuation tools are often used by business appraisers to resolve disputes related to estate and gift taxation, divorce litigation, allocate business purchase price among business assets, establish a formula for estimating the value of partners' ownership interest for buysell agreements, and many other business and legal purposes. Fundamental analysis of a business involves analyzing its financial statements and health, its management and competitive advantages, and itscompetitors and markets. When applied to futures and forex, it focuses on the overall state of the economy, interest rates, production, earnings, and management. When analyzing a stock, futures contract, or currency using fundamental analysis there are two basic approaches one can use; bottom up analysis and top down analysis.[1] The term is used to distinguish such analysis from other types of investment analysis, such as quantitative analysis and technical analysis. Fundamental analysis is performed on historical and present data, but with the goal of making financial forecasts. There are several possible objectives:

to conduct a company stock valuation and predict its probable price evolution, to make a projection on its business performance, to evaluate its management and make internal business decisions, to calculate its credit risk. Two analytical models[edit source
When the objective of the analysis is to determine what stock to buy and at what price, there are two basic methodologies

1.

Fundamental analysis maintains that markets may misprice a security in the short run but that the "correct" price will eventually be reached.Profits can be made by purchasing the mispriced security and then waiting for the market to recognize its "mistake" and reprice the security. Technical analysis maintains that all information is reflected already in the stock price. Trends 'are your friend' and sentiment changes predate and predict trend changes. Investors' emotional responses to price movements lead to recognizable price chart patterns. Technical analysis does not care what the 'value' of a stock is. Their price predictions are only extrapolations from historical price patterns.

2.

Investors can use any or all of these different but somewhat complementary methods for stock picking. For example many fundamental investors use technicals for deciding entry and exit points. Many technical investors use fundamentals to limit their universe of possible stock to 'good' companies. The choice of stock analysis is determined by the investor's belief in the different paradigms for "how the stock market works". See the discussions atefficient-market hypothesis, random walk hypothesis, capital asset pricing model, Fed model Theory of Equity Valuation, market-based valuation, andbehavioral finance. Fundamental analysis includes:

1. 2. 3.

Economic analysis Industry analysis Company analysis

On the basis of these three analyses the intrinsic value of the shares are determined. This is considered as the true value of the share. If the intrinsic value is higher than the market price it is recommended to buy the share . If it is equal to market price hold the share and if it is less than the market price sell the shares.

Use by different portfolio styles

Investors may use fundamental analysis within different portfolio management styles.

Buy and hold investors believe that latching onto good businesses allows the investor's asset to grow with the business. Fundamental analysis lets them find 'good' companies, so they lower their risk and probability of wipe-out. Managers may use fundamental analysis to correctly value 'good' and 'bad' companies. Eventually 'bad' companies' stock goes up and down, creating opportunities for profits. Managers may also consider the economic cycle in determining whether conditions are 'right' to buy fundamentally suitable companies. Contrarian investors distinguish "in the short run, the market is a voting machine, not a weighing machine". to make your own decision on value, and ignore the market.
[2]

Fundamental analysis allows you

Value investors restrict their attention to under-valued companies, believing that 'it's hard to fall out of a ditch'. The value comes from fundamental analysis. Managers may use fundamental analysis to determine future growth rates for buying high priced growth stocks. Managers may also include fundamental factors along with technical factors into computer models (quantitative analysis).

Top-down and bottom-up

Investors can use either a top-down or bottom-up approach.

The top-down investor starts his or her analysis with global economics, including both international and national economic indicators, such as GDP growth rates, inflation,interest rates, exchange rates, productivity, and energy prices. He or she narrows his or her search down to regional/industry analysis of total sales, price levels, the effects of competing products, foreign competition, and entry or exit from the industry. Only then does he or she narrow his or her search to the best business in that area. The bottom-up investor starts with specific businesses, regardless of their industry/region.

Procedures
The analysis of a business' health starts with financial statement analysis that includes ratios. It looks at dividends paid, operating cash flow, new equity issues and capital financing. The earnings estimates and growth rate projections published widely by Thomson Reuters and others can be considered either 'fundamental' (they are facts) or 'technical' (they are investor sentiment) based on your perception of their validity. The determined growth rates (of income and cash) and risk levels (to determine the discount rate) are used in various valuation models. The foremost is the discounted cash flowmodel, which calculates the present value of the future

dividends received by the investor, along with the eventual sale price. (Gordon model) earnings of the company, or cash flows of the company.

The amount of debt is also a major consideration in determining a company's health. It can be quickly assessed using the debt-to-equity ratio and the current ratio (current assets/current liabilities). The simple model commonly used is the Price/Earnings ratio. Implicit in this model of a perpetual annuity (Time value of money) is that the 'flip' of the P/E is the discount rate appropriate to the risk of the business. The multiple accepted is adjusted for expected growth (that is not built into the model). Growth estimates are incorporated into the PEG ratio, but the math does not hold up to analysis. Its validity depends on the length of time you think the growth will continue. IGAR models can be used to impute expected changes in growth from current P/E and historical growth rates for the stocks relative to a comparison index. Computer modelling of stock prices has now replaced much of the subjective interpretation of fundamental data (along with technical data) in the industry. Since about year 2000, with the power of computers to crunch vast quantities of data, a new career has been invented. At some funds (called Quant Funds) the manager's decisions have been replaced by proprietary mathematical models.[3]
[citation needed]

Over-the-counter (OTC) or off-exchange trading is done directly between two parties, without any supervision of an exchange. It is contrasted with exchange trading, which occurs via these facilities. An exchange has the benefit of facilitating liquidity, mitigates all credit risk concerning the default of one party in the transaction, provides transparency, and maintains the current market price. In an OTC trade, the price is not necessarily made public information. OTC trading, as well as exchange trading, occurs with commodities, financial instruments (including stocks), and derivatives of such. Products traded on the exchange must be well standardized. This means that exchanged deliverables match a narrow range of quantity, quality, and identity which is defined by the exchange and identical to all transactions of that product. This is necessary for there to be transparency in trading. The OTC market does not have this limitation. They may agree on an unusual quantity, for example. In OTC market contracts are bilateral (i.e. contract between only two parties), each party could have credit risk concerns with respect to the other party. OTC derivative market is significant in some asset classes: interest rate, foreign exchange, equities, and commodities.[1] In finance, the capital asset pricing model (CAPM) is used to determine a theoretically appropriate required rate of return of an asset, if that asset is to be added to an already well-diversified portfolio, given that asset's non-diversifiable risk. The model takes into account the asset's sensitivity to nondiversifiable risk (also known as systematic risk or market risk), often represented by the quantity beta () in the financial industry, as well as the expected return of the market and the expected return of a theoretical risk-free asset. CAPM suggests that an investors cost of equity capital is [1]:2 [2] determined by beta. An extension to the CAPM is the dual-beta model, which differentiates downside beta from upside beta. The CAPM was introduced by Jack Treynor (1961, 1962), William Sharpe (1964), John Lintner (1965a,b) and Jan Mossin (1966) independently, building on the earlier work of Harry Markowitz on diversification and modern portfolio theory. Sharpe, Markowitz andMerton Miller jointly received the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics for this contribution to the field of financial economics. Because of its simplicity and despite more modern approaches to asset pricing and portfolio selection (like Arbitrage pricing theory andMerton's portfolio problem, respectively), CAPM still remains popular. The CAPM is a model for pricing an individual security or portfolio. For individual securities, we make use of thesecurity market line (SML) and its relation to expected return and systematic risk (beta) to show how the market must price individual securities in relation to their security risk class. The SML enables us to calculate the reward-to-risk ratio[clarification needed] for any security in relation to that of the overall market. Therefore, when the expected rate of return for any security is deflated by its beta coefficient, the reward-to-risk ratio for any individual security in the market is equal to the market reward-to-risk ratio, thus:
[3]

The market reward-to-risk ratio is effectively the market risk premium and by rearranging the above equation and solving for E(Ri), we obtain the Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM).

where:

is the expected return on the capital asset is the risk-free rate of interest such as interest arising from government bonds (the beta) is the sensitivity of the expected excess asset returns to the expected excess market returns, or

also

, is the expected return of the market

is sometimes known as the market premium (the difference between the expected market rate of return and the risk-free rate of return). is also known as the risk premium

Restated, in terms of risk premium, we find that:

which states that the individual risk premium equals the market premium times . Note 1: the expected market rate of return is usually estimated by measuring the Geometric Average of the historical returns on a market portfolio (e.g. S&P 500).

Note 2: the risk free rate of return used for determining the risk premium is usually the arithmetic average of historical risk free rates of return and not the current risk free rate of return. For the full derivation see Modern portfolio theory. A block trade is a permissible, noncompetitive, privately negotiated transaction either at or exceeding an exchange determined minimum threshold quantity of shares, which is executed apart and away from the open outcry or electronic markets.[1] In the United States and Canada a block trade is [2] usually at least 10,000 shares of a stock or $200,000 of bonds but in practice significantly larger. For instance, a hedge fund holds a large position in Company X and would like to sell it completely. If this were put into the market as a large sell order, the price would sharply dropby definition, the stake was large enough to affect supply and demand. Instead, the fund may arrange for a block trade with another company through an investment bank, benefiting both parties: the selling fund gets a more attractive purchase price, while the purchasing company can negotiate a discount off the market rates. Unlike large public offerings, for which it often takes months to prepare the necessary documentation, block trades are usually carried out at short notice and closed quickly. Block trading is a useful measure for analysts in order to assess where institutional investors are pricing a stock. Because in a merger or acquisition, a bid needs to "clear the market" (i.e. enough shareholders need to tender), it is most useful to see at what prices large blocks of stock are trading. These prices imply what the largest shareholders are willing to sell their shares for; therefore, in block trading analysis, small trades are ignored to avoid skewing the data.

Concentrated stock is an equity making up a substantial part (usually, more than 30%) of the investor's portfolio. The major risk associated with such a portfolio is a lack ofdiversification; concentrated stock makes a large portion of the investor's wealth dependent on the performance of one particular stock. The reasons for keeping a concentrated stock may be restrictions for sale (see restricted stock), emotional attachment, donation, inheritance, stock options, and the selling of businesses. A treasury stock or reacquired stock is stock which is bought back by the issuing company, reducing the amount of outstanding stock on the open market ("open market" including insiders' holdings). Stock repurchases are often used as a tax-efficient method to put cash into shareholders' hands, rather than paying dividends. Sometimes, companies do this when they feel that their stock is undervalued on the open market. Other times, companies do this to provide a "bonus" to incentive compensation plans for employees. Rather than receive cash, recipients receive an asset that might appreciate in value faster than cash saved in a bank account. Another motive for stock repurchase is to protect the company against a takeover threat. The United Kingdom equivalent of treasury stock as used in the United States is treasury share. Treasury stocks in the UK refers to government bonds or gilts. In finance, the efficient-market hypothesis (EMH), or the Joint Hypothesis Problem, asserts that financial markets are "informationally efficient". In consequence of this, one cannot consistently achieve returns in excess of average market returns on a risk-adjusted basis, given the information available at the time the investment is made. There are three major versions of the hypothesis: "weak", "semi-strong", and "strong". The weak-form EMH claims that prices on traded assets (e.g.,stocks, bonds, or property) already reflect all past publicly available information. The semi-strong-form EMH claims both that prices reflect all publicly available information and that prices instantly change to reflect new public information. The strong-form EMH additionally claims that prices instantly reflect even hidden or "insider" information. Critics have blamed the belief in rational markets for much of the late-2000s financial crisis.[1][2][3] In response, proponents of the hypothesis have stated that market efficiency does not mean having no uncertainty about the future, that market efficiency is a simplification of the world which may not always hold true, and that the market is practically efficient for investment purposes for most individuals.[4] Market capitalization (or market cap) is the total value of the issued shares of a publicly traded company; it is equal to the share pricetimes the number of shares outstanding.[2][3] As outstanding stock is bought and sold in public markets, capitalization could be used as a proxy for the public opinion of a company's net worth and is a determining factor in some forms of stock valuation. The total capitalization of stock markets or economic regions may be compared to other economic indicators. The total market capitalization of all publicly traded companies in the world was US$51.2 trillion in January 2007[4] and rose as high as US$57.5 trillion in May 2008[5] before dropping below US$50 trillion in August 2008 and slightly above US$40 trillion in September 2008.[5]

Market cap terms

Traditionally, companies were divided into large-cap, mid-cap, and small-cap. The terms mega-cap and micro-cap have also since come into [6][7] [8] common use, and nano-cap is sometimes heard. Different numbers are used by different indexes; there is no official definition of, or full consensus agreement about, the exact cutoff values. The cutoffs may be defined as percentiles rather than in nominal dollars. The definitions expressed in nominal dollars need to be adjusted over the decades due to inflation, population change, and overall market valuation (for example, $1 billion was a large market cap in 1950, but it is not very large now), and they may be different for different countries. A rule of thumb may look like:
[2]

Mega-cap: Over $200 billion Large-cap: Over $10 billion Mid-cap: $2 billion$10 billion Small-cap: $250 million$2 billion Micro-cap: Below $250 million Nano-cap: Below $50 million

"Cap" is short for capitalization, a measure by which a company's size is classified. Big/Large caps are companies that have a market cap between $10200 billion. Mid caps range from $2 billion to $10 billion. Small caps are typically new or relatively young companies and have a market cap between $100 million to $1 billion. SmallCap's track record is not as lengthy as that of the Mid to MegaCaps. SmallCaps present the possibility of greater capital appreciation, but at greater risk. A market trend is a tendency of a financial market to move in a particular direction over time.[1] These trends are classified assecular for long time frames, primary for medium time frames, and secondary for short time frames.[2] Traders identify market trends using technical analysis, a framework which characterizes market trends as predictable price tendencies within the market when price reaches support and resistance levels, varying over time. The terms bull market and bear market describe upward and downward market trends, respectively,[3] and can be used to describe either the market as a whole or specific sectors and securities.[2]

Secular market trend

A secular market trend is a long-term trend that lasts 5 to 25 years and consists of a series of primary trends. A secular bear market consists of smaller bull markets and larger bear markets; a secular bull market consists of larger bull markets and smaller bear markets. In a secular bull market the prevailing trend is "bullish" or upward-moving. The United States stock market was described as being in a secular bull market from about 1983 to 2000 (or 2007), with brief upsets including the crash of 1987 and the market collapse of 2000-2002 triggered by the dot-com bubble. In a secular bear market, the prevailing trend is "bearish," or downward-moving. An example of a secular bear market occurred in gold between January 1980 to June 1999, culminating with the Brown Bottom. During this period the nominal gold price fell from a high of $850/oz ($30/g) to a low of $253/oz ($9/g),[4] and became part of the Great Commodities Depression. An initial public offering (IPO) or stock market launch is a type of public offering where shares of stock in a company are sold to the general public, on a securities exchange, for the first time. Through this process, a private company transforms into a public company. Initial public offerings are used by companies to raise expansion capital, to possiblymonetize the investments of early private investors, and to become publicly traded enterprises. A company selling shares is never required to repay the capital to its public investors. After the IPO, when shares trade freely in the open market, money passes between public investors. Although an IPO offers many advantages, there are also significant disadvantages. Chief among these are the costs associated with the process, and the requirement to disclose certain information that could prove helpful to competitors, or create difficulties with vendors. Details of the proposed offering are disclosed to potential purchasers in the form of a lengthy document known as a prospectus. Most companies undertaking an IPO do so with the assistance of an investment banking firm acting in the capacity of an underwriter. Underwriters provide a valuable service, which includes help with correctly assessing the value of shares (share price), and establishing a public market for shares (initial sale). Alternative methods such as the dutch auction have also been explored. In terms of size and public participation, the most notable example of this method is the Google IPO.[1] China has recently emerged as a major IPO market, with several of the largest IPOs taking place in that country. In 2013, documents under seal in an ongoing lawsuit were obtained by New York Times Wall Street Business columnist Joe Nocera. The documents related to the IPO ofeToys.com, during the dot-com bubble, and alleged that kickbacks were demanded from institutional investors who made large profits flipping deliberately undervalued IPOs underwritten by investment banker Goldman Sachs.[2] Reuters Wall Street correspondent Felix Salmon suggested that both the company going public and their initial shareholders would be defrauded by such a practice.[3] The lawsuit is ongoing, and the allegations remain unproven.

Reasons for listing

When a company lists its securities on a public exchange, the money paid by the investing public for the newly issued shares goes directly to the company (primary offering) as well as to any early private investors who opt to sell all or a portion of their holdings (secondary offering) as part of the larger IPO. An IPO, therefore, allows a company to tap into a wide pool of potential investors to provide itself with capital for future growth, repayment

of debt, or working capital. A company selling common shares is never required to repay the capital to its public investors. Those investors must endure the unpredictable nature of the open market to price and trade their shares. After the IPO, when shares trade freely in the open market, money passes between public investors. For early private investors who choose to sell shares as part of the IPO process, the IPO represents an opportunity tomonetize their investment. After the IPO, once shares trade in the open market, investors holding large blocks of shares can either sell those shares piecemeal in the open market, or sell a large block of shares directly to the public, at a fixed price, through a secondary market offering. This type of offering is not dilutive, since no new shares are being created. Once a company is listed, it is able to issue additional common shares in a number of different ways, one of which is the follow-on offering. This method provides capital for various corporate purposes through the issuance of equity (see stock dilution) without incurring any debt. This ability to quickly raise potentially large amounts of capital from the marketplace is a key reason many companies seek to go public. An IPO accords several benefits to the previously private company:

Enlarging and diversifying equity base Enabling cheaper access to capital Increasing exposure, prestige, and public image Attracting and retaining better management and employees through liquid equity participation Facilitating acquisitions (potentially in return for shares of stock) Creating multiple financing opportunities: equity, convertible debt, cheaper bank loans, etc. Advance planning
Planning is crucial to a successful IPO. One book[8] suggests the following 7 advance planning steps: (1) develop an impressive management and professional team; (2) grow the company's business with an eye to the public marketplace; (3) obtain audited financial statements using IPO-accepted accounting principles; (4) clean up the company's act; (5) establish antitakeover defences; (6) develop good corporate governance; (7) create insider bail-out opportunities and take advantage of IPO windows.

Disadvantages of an IPO
There are several disadvantages to completing an initial public offering:

Significant legal, accounting and marketing costs, many of which are ongoing Requirement to disclose financial and business information Meaningful time, effort and attention required of senior management Risk that required funding will not be raised Public dissemination of information which may be useful to competitors, suppliers and customers. Loss of control and stronger agency problems due to new shareholders Procedure
IPOs generally involve one or more investment banks known as "underwriters". The company offering its shares, called the "issuer", enters into a contract with a lead underwriter to sell its shares to the public. The underwriter then approaches investors with offers to sell those shares. The sale (allocation and pricing) of shares in an IPO may take several forms. Common methods include:

Best efforts contract Firm commitment contract All-or-none contract Bought deal

A large IPO is usually underwritten by a "syndicate" of investment banks, the largest of which take the position of "lead underwriter". Upon selling the shares, the underwriters retain a portion of the proceeds as their fee. This fee is called an underwriting spread. The spread is calculated as a discount from the price of the shares sold (called the gross spread). Components of an underwriting spread in an initial public offering (IPO) typically include the following (on a per share basis): Manager's fee, Underwriting feeearned by members of the syndicate, and the Concessionearned by the brokerdealer selling the shares. The Manager would be entitled to the entire underwriting spread. A member of the syndicate is entitled to the underwriting fee and the concession. A broker dealer who is not a member of the syndicate but sells shares would receive only the concession, while the member of the syndicate who provided the shares to that broker dealer would retain the underwriting fee.[9] Usually, the managing/lead underwriter, also known as the bookrunner, typically the underwriter selling the largest proportions of the IPO, takes the highest portion of the gross spread, up to 8% in some cases. Multinational IPOs may have many syndicates to deal with differing legal requirements in both the issuer's domestic market and other regions. For example, an issuer based in the E.U. may be represented by the main selling syndicate in its domestic market, Europe, in addition to separate

syndicates or selling groups for US/Canada and for Asia. Usually, the lead underwriter in the main selling group is also the lead bank in the other selling groups. Because of the wide array of legal requirements and because it is an expensive process, IPOs typically involve one or more law firms with major practices in securities law, such as the Magic Circle firms of London and the white shoe firms of New York City. Public offerings are sold to both institutional investors and retail clients of the underwriters. A licensed securities salesperson (Registered Representative in the USA and Canada) selling shares of a public offering to his clients is paid a portion of the selling concession (the fee paid by the issuer to the underwriter) rather than by his client. In some situations, when the IPO is not a "hot" issue (undersubscribed), and where the salesperson is the client's advisor, it is possible that the financial incentives of the advisor and client may not be aligned. The issuer usually allows the underwriters an option to increase the size of the offering by up to 15% under certain circumstance known as the greenshoe or overallotment option. This option is always exercised when the offering is considered a "hot" issue, by virtue of being oversubscribed. In the USA, clients are given a preliminary prospectus, known as a red herring prospectus, during the initial quiet period. The red herring prospectus is so named because of a bold red warning statement printed on its front cover. The warning states that the offering information is incomplete, and may [10] be changed. The actual wording can vary, although most roughly follow the format exhibited on the Facebook IPO red herring. During the quiet period, the shares cannot be offered for sale. Brokers can, however, take indications of interest from their clients. At the time of the stock launch, after the Registration Statement has become effective, indications of interest can be converted to buy orders, at the discretion of the buyer. Sales can only be made through a final prospectus cleared by the Securities and Exchange Commission. Before legal actions initiated by New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, which later became known as the Global Settlement enforcement agreement, some large investment firmshad initiated favorable research coverage of companies in an effort to aid Corporate Finance departments and retail divisions engaged in the marketing of new issues. The central issue in that enforcement agreement had been judged in court previously. It involved the conflict of interest between the investment banking and analysis departments of ten of the largest investment firms in the United States. The investment firms involved in the settlement had all engaged in actions and practices that had allowed the inappropriate influence of their research analysts by their investment bankers seeking lucrative fees.[11] A typical violation addressed by the settlement was the case of CSFB and Salomon Smith Barney, which were alleged to have engaged in inappropriate spinning of "hot" IPOs and issued fraudulent research reports in violation of various sections within the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Dutch auction
A Dutch Auction allows shares of an initial public offering to be allocated based only on price aggressiveness, with all successful bidders paying the same price per share.[12][13]One version of the Dutch auction is OpenIPO, which is based on an auction system designed by Nobel Prize-winning economist William Vickrey. This auction method ranks bids from highest to lowest, then accepts the highest bids that allow all shares to be sold, with all winning bidders paying the same price. It is similar to the model used to auctionTreasury bills, notes, and bonds since the 1990s. Before this, Treasury bills were auctioned through a discriminatory or pay-what-you-bid auction, in which the various winning bidders each paid the price (or yield) they bid, and thus the various winning bidders did not all pay the same price. Both discriminatory and uniform price or "Dutch" auctions have been used for IPOs in many countries, although only uniform price auctions have been used so far in the US. Large IPO auctions include Japan Tobacco, Singapore Telecom, BAA Plc and Google (ordered by size of proceeds). A variation of the Dutch Auction has been used to take a number of U.S. companies public including Morningstar, Interactive Brokers Group, Overstock.com, Ravenswood Winery, Clean Energy Fuels, and Boston Beer Company.[14] In 2004, Google used the Dutch Auction system for its Initial Public Offering.[15] Traditional U.S. investment banks have shown resistance to the idea of using an auction process to engage in public securities offerings. The auction method allows for equal access to the allocation of shares and eliminates the favorable treatment accorded important clients by the underwriters in conventional IPOs. In the face of this resistance, the Dutch Auction is still a little used method in U.S. public offerings, although there have been hundreds of auction IPOs in other countries. In determining the success or failure of a Dutch Auction, one must consider competing objectives.[16][17] If the objective is to reduce risk, a traditional IPO may be more effective because the underwriter manages the process, rather than leaving the outcome in part to random chance in terms of who chooses to bid or what strategy each bidder chooses to follow. From the viewpoint of the investor, the Dutch Auction allows everyone equal access. Moreover, some forms of the Dutch Auction allow the underwriter to be more active in coordinating bids and even communicating general auction trends to some bidders during the bidding period. Some have also argued that a uniform price auction is more effective atprice discovery, although the theory behind this is based on the assumption of independent private values (that the value of IPO shares to each bidder is entirely independent of their value to others, even though the shares will shortly be traded on the aftermarket). Theory that incorporates assumptions more appropriate to IPOs does not find that sealed bid auctions are an effective form of price discovery, although possibly some modified form of auction might give a better result. In addition to the extensive international evidence that auctions have not been popular for IPOs, there is no U.S. evidence to indicate that the Dutch Auction fares any better than the traditional IPO in an unwelcoming market environment. A Dutch Auction IPO by WhiteGlove Health, Inc., announced in May of 2011 was postponed in September of that year, after several failed attempts to price. An article in the Wall Street Journal cited the reasons as "Broader stock-market volatility and uncertainty about the global economy have made investors wary of investing in new stocks." [18][19]

Direct public offering

Financial historians Richard Sylla and Robert E. Wright have shown that before 1860 most early U.S. corporations sold shares in themselves directly to the public without the aid of intermediaries like investment banks.[20] The direct public offering or DPO, as they term it,[21] was not done by auction but

rather at a share price set by the issuing corporation. In this sense, it is the same as the fixed price public offers that were the traditional IPO method in most non-US countries in the early 1990s. The DPO eliminated the agency problem associated with offerings intermediated by investment banks. [22] There has recently been a movement based on crowd funding to revive the popularity of Direct Public Offerings.

Pricing of IPO
A company planning an IPO typically appoints a lead manager, known as a bookrunner, to help it arrive at an appropriate price at which the shares should be issued. There are two primary ways in which the price of an IPO can be determined. Either the company, with the help of its lead managers, fixes a price (fixed price method) or the price can be determined through analysis of confidential investor demand data, compiled by the bookrunner. That process is known as book building. Historically, some IPOs both globally and in the United States have been underpriced. The effect of "initial underpricing" an IPO is to generate additional interest in the stock when it first becomes publicly traded. Flipping, or quickly selling shares for a profit, can lead to significant gains for investors who have been allocated shares of the IPO at the offering price. However, underpricing an IPO results in lost potential capital for the issuer. One extreme example is theglobe.com IPO which helped fuel the IPO "mania" of the late 90's internet era. Underwritten by Bear Stearns on November 13, 1998, the IPO was priced at $9 per share. The share price quickly increased 1000% after the opening of trading, to a high of $97. Selling pressure from institutional flipping eventually drove the stock back down, and it closed the day at $63. Although the company did raise about $30 million from the offering it is estimated that with the level of demand for the offering and the volume of trading that took place the company might have left upwards of $200 million on the table. The danger of overpricing is also an important consideration. If a stock is offered to the public at a higher price than the market will pay, the underwriters may have trouble meeting their commitments to sell shares. Even if they sell all of the issued shares, the stock may fall in value on the first day of trading. If so, the stock may lose its marketability and hence even more of its value. This could result in losses for investors, many of whom being the most favored clients of the underwriters. Underwriters, therefore, take many factors into consideration when pricing an IPO, and attempt to reach an offering price that is low enough to stimulate interest in the stock, but high enough to raise an adequate amount of capital for the company. The process of determining an optimal price usually involves the underwriters ("syndicate") arranging share purchase commitments from leading institutional investors. In finance, the beta () of a stock or portfolio is a number describing the correlated volatility of an asset in relation to the volatility of the benchmark that the asset is being compared to. This benchmark is generally the overall financial market and is often estimated via the use of representative indices, such as the S&P 500.[1] "Beta measures systematic risk based on how returns co-move with the overall market.[2](refactored from 2) Some interpretations of beta are explained in the following table:[3]

Value of Beta

Interpretation

Example

<0

Asset generally moves in the opposite direction as compared to the index

An inverse exchange-traded fund or a short position

=0

Movement of the asset is uncorrelated with the movement of the benchmark

Fixed-yield asset, whose growth is unrelated to the movement of the stock market

0<<1

Movement of the asset is generally in the same direction as, but less than the movement of the benchmark

Stable, "staple" stock such as a company that makes soap. Moves in the same direction as the market at large, but less susceptible to day-to-day fluctuation.

=1

Movement of the asset is generally in the same direction as, and about the same amount as the movement of the benchmark

A representative stock, or a stock that is a strong contributor to the index itself.

>1

Movement of the asset is generally in the same direction as, but more than the movement of the benchmark

Volatile stock, such as a tech stock, or stocks which are very strongly influenced by day-to-day market news.

It measures the part of the asset's statistical variance that cannot be removed by the diversification provided by the portfolio of many risky assets, because of the correlation of its returns with the returns of the other assets that are in the portfolio. Beta can be estimated for individual companies using regression analysis against a stock market index. An alternative to standard beta is downside beta.

Definition
The formula for the beta of an asset within a portfolio is

where ra measures the rate of return of the asset, rb measures the rate of return of the portfolio benchmark, and cov( ra,rb) is the covariance between the rates of return. The portfolio of interest in the CAPM formulation is the market portfolio that contains all risky assets, and so the rb terms in the formula are replaced by rm, the rate of return of the market. Beta is also referred to as financial elasticity or correlated relative volatility, and can be referred to as a measure of the sensitivity of the asset's returns to market returns, its non-diversifiable risk, its systematic risk, or market risk. On an individual asset level, measuring beta can give clues to volatility and liquidity in the marketplace. In fund management, measuring beta is thought to separate a manager's skill from his or her willingness to take risk. The beta coefficient was born out of linear regression analysis. It is linked to a regression analysis of the returns of a portfolio (such as a stock index) (x-axis) in a specific period versus the returns of an individual asset (y-axis) in a specific year. The regression line is then called the security characteristic line (SCL).

is called the asset's alpha and portfolio theory.

is called the asset's beta coefficient. Both coefficients have an important role in modern

For example, in a year where the broad market or benchmark index returns 25% above the risk free rate, suppose two managers gain 50% above the risk free rate. Because this higher return is theoretically possible merely by taking a leveraged position in the broad market to double the beta so it is exactly 2.0, we would expect a skilled portfolio manager to have built the outperforming portfolio with a beta somewhat less than 2, such that the excess return not explained by the beta is positive. If one of the managers' portfolios has an average beta of 3.0, and the other's has a beta of only 1.5, then the CAPM simply states that the extra return of the first manager is not sufficient to compensate us for that manager's risk, whereas the second manager has done more than expected given the risk. Whether investors can expect the second manager to duplicate that performance in future periods is of course a different question.

Security market line

Main article: Security market line

The Security Market Line

The SML graphs the results from the capital asset pricing model (CAPM) formula. The x-axis represents the risk (beta), and the y-axis represents the expected return. The market risk premium is determined from the slope of the SML. The relationship between and required return is plotted on the security market line (SML) which shows expected return as a function of . The intercept is the nominal risk-free rate available for the market, while the slope is E(Rm) Rf. The security market line can be

regarded as representing a single-factor model of the asset price, where Beta is exposure to changes in value of the Market. The equation of the SML is thus:

It is a useful tool in determining if an asset being considered for a portfolio offers a reasonable expected return for risk. Individual securities are plotted on the SML graph. If the security's risk versus expected return is plotted above the SML, it is undervalued because the investor can expect a greater return for the inherent risk. A security plotted below the SML is overvalued because the investor would be accepting a lower return for the amount of risk assumed.

Choice of benchmark
In the US, published betas typically use a stock market index such as S&P 500 as a benchmark. Other choices may be an international index such as the MSCI EAFE. The benchmark should be chosen to be similar to the other assets chosen by the investor. The ideal index would match the portfolio; for example, for a person who owns S&P 500 index funds and gold bars, the index would combine the S&P 500 and the price of gold. In practice a standard index is used. The choice of the index need not reflect the portfolio under question; e.g., beta for gold bars compared to the S&P 500 may be low or negative carrying the information that gold does not track stocks and may provide a mechanism for reducing risk. The restriction to stocks as a benchmark is somewhat arbitrary. A model portfolio may be stocks plus bonds. Sometimes the market is defined as "all investable assets" (see Roll's critique); unfortunately, this includes lots of things for which returns may be hard to measure.

Investing
By definition, the market itself has a beta of 1.0, and individual stocks are ranked according to how much they deviate from the macro market (for simplicity purposes, the S&P 500is sometimes used as a proxy for the market as a whole). A stock whose returns vary more than the market's returns over time can have a beta whose absolute value is greater than 1.0 (whether it is, in fact, greater than 0 will depend on the correlation of the stock's returns and the market's returns). A stock whose returns vary less than the market's returns has a beta with an absolute value less than 1.0. A stock with a beta of 2 has returns that change, on average, by twice the magnitude of the overall market's returns; when the market's return falls or rises by 3%, the stock's return will fall or rise (respectively) by 6% on average. (However, because beta also depends on the correlation of returns, there can be considerable variance about that average; the higher the correlation, the less variance; the lower the correlation, the higher the variance.) Beta can also be negative, meaning the stock's returns tend to move in the opposite direction of the market's returns. A stock with a beta of 3 would see its return decline 9% (on average) when the market's return goes up 3%, and would see its return climb 9% (on average) if the market's return falls by 3%. Higher-beta stocks tend to be more volatile and therefore riskier, but provide the potential for higher returns. Lower-beta stocks pose less risk but generally offer lower returns. Some have challenged this idea, claiming that the data show little relation between beta and potential reward, or even that lower-beta stocks are both less risky and more profitable (contradicting CAPM).[4] In the same way a stock's beta shows its relation to market shifts, it is also an indicator for required returns on investment (ROI). Given a risk-free rate of 2%, for example, if the market (with a beta of 1) has an expected return of 8%, a stock with a beta of 1.5 should return 11% (= 2% + 1.5(8% 2%)) in accordance with the financial CAPM model.

Academic theory
Academic theory claims that higher-risk investments should have higher returns over the long-term. Wall Street has a saying that "higher return requires higher risk", not that a risky investment will automatically do better. Some things may just be poor investments (e.g., playing roulette). Further, highly rational investors should consider correlated volatility (beta) instead of simple volatility (sigma). Theoretically, a negative beta equity is possible; for example, an inverse ETF should have negative beta to the relevant index. Also, a shortposition should have opposite beta. This expected return on equity, or equivalently, a firm's cost of equity, can be estimated using the Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM). According to the model, the expected return on equity is a function of a firm's equity beta (E) which, in turn, is a function of both leverage and asset risk (A):

where:

KE = firm's cost of equity RF = risk-free rate (the rate of return on a "risk free investment"; e.g., U.S. Treasury Bonds) RM = return on the market portfolio


because:

and

Firm value (V) + cash and risk-free securities = debt value (D) + equity value (E) An indication of the systematic riskiness attaching to the returns on ordinary shares. It equates to the asset Beta for an ungeared firm, or is adjusted upwards to reflect the extra riskiness of shares in a geared firm., i.e. the [5] Geared Beta.

Multiple beta model

The arbitrage pricing theory (APT) has multiple betas in its model. In contrast to the CAPM that has only one risk factor, namely the overall market, APT has multiple risk factors. Each risk factor has a corresponding beta indicating the responsiveness of the asset being priced to that risk factor. Multiple-factor models contradict CAPM by claiming that some other factors can influence return, therefore one may find two stocks (or funds) with equal beta, but one may be a better investment.

Estimation of beta
To estimate beta, one needs a list of returns for the asset and returns for the index; these returns can be daily, weekly or any period. Then one uses standard formulas from linear regression. The slope of the fitted line from the linear least-squares calculation is the estimated Beta. The y-intercept is the alpha. Myron Scholes and Joseph Williams (1977) provided a model for estimating betas from nonsynchronous data.[6] Beta specifically gives the volatility ratio multiplied by the correlation of the plotted data. To take an extreme example, something may have a beta of zero even though it is highly volatile, provided it is uncorrelated with the market. Tofallis (2008) provides a discussion of this,[7] together with a real example involving AT&T Inc. The graph showing monthly returns from AT&T is visibly more volatile than the index and yet the standard estimate of beta for this is less than one. The relative volatility ratio described above is actually known as Total Beta (at least by appraisers who practice business valuation). Total beta is equal to the identity: beta/R or the standard deviation of the stock/standard deviation of the market (note: the relative volatility). Total beta captures the security's risk as a stand-alone asset (because the correlation coefficient, R, has been removed from beta), rather than part of a well-diversified portfolio. Because appraisers frequently value closely held companies as stand-alone assets, total beta is gaining acceptance in the business valuation industry. Appraisers can now use total beta in the following equation: total cost of equity (TCOE) = risk-free rate + total betaequity risk premium. Once appraisers have a number of TCOE benchmarks, they can compare/contrast the risk factors present in these publicly traded benchmarks and the risks in their closely held company to better defend/support their valuations.

Extreme and interesting cases

Beta has no upper or lower bound, and betas as large as 3 or 4 will occur with highly volatile stocks. Beta can be zero. Some zero-beta assets are risk-free, such as treasury bonds and cash. However, simply because a beta is zero does not mean that it is risk-free. A beta can be zero simply because the correlation between that item's returns and the market's returns is zero. An example would be betting on horse racing. The correlation with the market will be zero, but it is certainly not a risk-free endeavor. A negative beta simply means that the stock is inversely correlated with the market. A negative beta might occur even when both the benchmark index and the stock under consideration have positive returns. It is possible that lower positive returns of the index coincide with higher positive returns of the stock, or vice versa. The slope of the regression line in such a case will be negative. Using beta as a measure of relative risk has its own limitations. Most analyses consider only the magnitude of beta. Beta is a statistical variable and should be considered with its statistical significance (R

square value of the regression line). Higher R square value implies higher correlation and a stronger relationship between returns of the asset and benchmark index.

If beta is a result of regression of one stock against the market where it is quoted, betas from different countries are not comparable. Staple stocks are thought to be less affected by cycles and usually have lower beta. Procter & Gamble, which makes soap, is a classic example. Other similar ones are Philip Morris (tobacco) and Johnson & Johnson (Health & Consumer Goods). Utility stocks are thought to be less cyclical and have lower beta as well, for similar reasons. 'Tech' stocks typically have higher beta. An example is the dot-com bubble. Although tech did very well in the late 1990s, it also fell sharply in the early 2000s, much worse than the decline of the overall market. Foreign stocks may provide some diversification. World benchmarks such as S&P Global 100 have slightly lower betas than comparable US-only benchmarks such as S&P 100. However, this effect is not as good as [citation it used to be; the various markets are now fairly correlated, especially the US and Western Europe.
needed]

Derivatives and other non-linear assets. Beta relies on a linear model. An out of the money option may have a distinctly non-linear payoff. The change in price of an option relative to the change in the price of the underlying asset (for example a stock) is not constant. For example, if one purchased a put option on the S&P 500, the beta would vary as the price of the underlying index (and indeed as volatility, time to expiration and other factors) changed. (see options pricing, and Black Scholes).

Over-the-counter (OTC) or off-exchange trading is done directly between two parties, without any supervision of an exchange. It is contrasted with exchange trading, which occurs via these facilities. An exchange has the benefit of facilitating liquidity, mitigates all credit risk concerning the default of one party in the transaction, provides transparency, and maintains the current market price. In an OTC trade, the price is not necessarily made public information. OTC trading, as well as exchange trading, occurs with commodities, financial instruments (including stocks), and derivatives of such. Products traded on the exchange must be well standardized. This means that exchanged deliverables match a narrow range of quantity, quality, and identity which is defined by the exchange and identical to all transactions of that product. This is necessary for there to be transparency in trading. The OTC market does not have this limitation. They may agree on an unusual quantity, for example. In OTC market contracts are bilateral (i.e. contract between only two parties), each party could have credit risk concerns with respect to the other party. OTC derivative market is significant in some asset classes: interest rate, foreign exchange, equities, and commodities.

DuPont analysis
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

DuPont analysis (also known as the dupont identity, DuPont equation, DuPont Model or the DuPont method) is an expression which breaks ROE (Return On Equity) into three parts.

The name comes from the DuPont Corporation that started using this formula in the 1920s.

Basic formula
ROE = (Profit margin)*(Asset turnover)*(Equity multiplier) = (Net profit/Sales)*(Sales/Assets)*(Assets/Equity)= (Net Profit/Equity)

Profitability (measured by profit margin) Operating efficiency (measured by asset turnover) Financial leverage (measured by equity multiplier)

ROE analysis
The Du Pont identity breaks down Return on Equity (that is, the returns that investors receive from the firm) into three distinct elements. This analysis enables the analyst to understand the source of superior (or inferior) return by comparison with companies in similar industries (or between industries). The Du Pont identity is less useful for industries, such as investment banking, in which the underlying elements are not meaningful. Variations of the Du Pont identity have been developed for industries where the elements are weakly meaningful. Du Pont analysis relies upon the accounting identity, that is, a statement (formula) that is by definition true.
Examples
High Turnover Industries

Certain types of retail operations, particularly stores, may have very low profit margins on sales, and relatively moderate leverage. In contrast, though, groceries may have very high turnover, selling a significant multiple of their assets per year. The ROE of such firms may be particularly dependent on performance of this metric, and hence asset turnover may be studied extremely carefully for signs of under-, or, over-performance. For example, same store sales of many retailers is considered important as an indication that the firm is deriving greater profits from existing stores (rather than showing improved performance by continually opening stores).
High margin industries

Other industries, such as fashion, may derive a substantial portion of their competitive advantage from selling at a higher margin, rather than higher sales. For high-end fashion brands, increasing sales without sacrificing margin may be critical. The Du Pont identity allows analysts to determine which of the elements is dominant in any change of ROE.

High leverage industries

Some sectors, such as the financial sector, rely on high leverage to generate acceptable ROE. Other industries would see high levels of leverage as unacceptably risky. Du Pont analysis enables third parties that rely primarily on the financial statements to compare leverage among similar companies.

ROA and ROE ratio

The return on assets (ROA) ratio developed by DuPont for its own use is now used by many firms to evaluate how effectively assets are used. It measures the combined effects of profit margins and asset turnover.[1]

The return on equity (ROE) ratio is a measure of the rate of return to stockholders.[2] Decomposing the ROE into various factors influencing company performance is often called the Du Pont system.[3]

Where

Net income = net income after taxes Equity = shareholders' equity EBIT = Earnings before interest and taxes This decomposition presents various ratios used in fundamental analysis.

The company's tax burden is (Net income Pretax profit). This is the proportion of the company's profits retained after paying income taxes. [NI/EBT]

The company's interest burden is (Pretax income EBIT). This will be 1.00 for a firm with no debt or financial leverage. [EBT/EBIT]

The company's operating income margin or return on sales (ROS) is (EBIT Sales). This is the operating income per dollar of sales. [EBIT/Sales]

The company's asset turnover (ATO) is (Sales Assets). The company's leverage ratio is (Assets Equity), which is equal to the firm's debt to equity ratio + 1. This is a measure of financial leverage.

The company's return on assets (ROA) is (Return on sales x Asset turnover). The company's compound leverage factor is (Interest burden x Leverage).

ROE can also be stated as:[4] ROE = Tax burden x Interest burden x Margin x Turnover x Leverage

ROE = Tax burden x ROA x Compound leverage factor Profit margin is (Net income Sales), so the ROE equation can be restated:

Short Selling (finance)

Schematic representation of short selling in two steps. The short seller borrows shares and immediately sells them. The short seller then waits, hoping for the stock price to decrease, when the seller can profit by purchasing the shares to return to the lender.

In finance short selling (also known as shorting or going short) is the practice of sellingsecurities or other financial instruments that are not currently owned, with the intention of subsequently repurchasing them ("covering") at a lower price. In the event of an interim price decline, the short seller will profit, since the cost of repurchase will be less than the proceeds received upon the initial (short) sale. Conversely, the short seller will incur a loss in the event that the price of a shorted instrument should rise prior to repurchase. The potential loss on a short sale is theoretically unlimited in the event of an unlimited rise in the price of the instrument, however in practice the short seller will be required to post margin or collateral to cover losses, and any inability to do so on a timely basis would cause its broker or counterparty to liquidate the position. In the securities markets, the seller generally must borrow the securities in order to effect delivery in the short sale. In some cases, the short seller must pay a fee to borrow the securities and must additionally reimburse the lender for cash returns the lender would have received had the securities not been loaned out. Historically, short selling is going against

the upward trend of the stock market, with the S&P 500 and S&P 90 index realizing an average gain of approximately 9.77% return between 1926 and 2011. Short selling is most commonly done with instruments traded in public securities, futures or currency markets, due to the liquidity and real-time price dissemination characteristic of such markets and because the instruments defined within each class are fungible. In practical terms, going short can be considered the opposite of the conventional practice of "going long", whereby an investor profits from an increase in the price of the asset. Mathematically, the return from a short position is equivalent to that of owning (being "long") a negative amount of the instrument. A short sale may be motivated by a variety of objectives.Speculators may sell short in the hope of realizing a profit on an instrument which appears to be overvalued, just as long investors or speculators hope to profit from a rise in the price of an instrument which appears undervalued. Traders or fund managers may hedge a long position or a portfolio through one or more short positions.
In finance, market depth is the size of an order needed to move the market a given amount. If the market is deep, a large order is needed to change the price. Market depth closely relates to the notion of liquidity, the ease to find a trading partner for a given order: a deep market is also a liquid market. A countrys financial structure is composed of a mixture of banks, non-bank financial institutions (NBFIs), and the financial markets. Financial depth is used as a measure of the size of financial institutions and financial markets in a country.[1] Welldeveloped financial systems are deep, i.e. sizeable relative to the overall size of the economy, and provide the economy with credit and other financial services. Studies show a strong correlation between financial depth, long term economic growth and poverty reduction.[2] Globally, the annual average value of private credit across countries was 39 percent with a standard deviation of 36 percent. Averaging over the time period of 19802010, private credit constitute less than 10 percent of GDPin Angola, Cambodia, and Yemen, while exceeding 85 percent of GDP in Austria, China and the United Kingdom. For financial markets, research has shown that the trading of firms ownership (e.g. through stock exchanges) in an economy is closely tied to the rate of economic development. For instance, the average of total value of stock traded is about 29 percent of GDP. In less developed countries such as Armenia, Tanzania, and Uruguay, stock value traded annually averaged less than 0.23% over the 1980 2008 sample (10th percentile). In contrast, stock value traded averaged over 75 percent in China (both Mainland and Hong Kong SAR), Saudi Arabia, Switzerland, and the United States (90th percentile).[3]

Factors influencing market depth include

Tick size. This refers to the minimum price increment at which trades may be made on the market. The major stock markets in the United States went through a process of decimalisation in April 2001. This switched the minimum increment from a sixteenth to a one hundredth of a dollar. This decision improved market depth.[7] Price movement restrictions. Most major financial markets do not allow completely free exchange of the products they trade, but instead restrict price movement in well-intentioned ways. These include session price change limits on major commodity markets and program trading curbs on the NYSE, which disallow certain large basket trades after the Dow Jones Industrial Average has moved up or down 200 points in a session. Trading restrictions. These include futures contract and options position limits as well as the widely used uptick rule for US stocks. These prevent market participants from adding to depth when they might otherwise choose to do so. Allowable leverage. Major markets and governing bodies typically set minimum margin requirements for trading various products. While this may act to stabilize the marketplace, it decreases the market depth simply because participants otherwise willing to take on very high leverage cannot do so without providing more capital. Market transparency. While the latest bid or ask price is usually available for most participants, additional information about the size of these offers and pending bids or offers that are not the best are sometimes hidden for reasons of technical complexity or simplicity. This decrease in available information can affect the willingness of participants to add to market depth.

In some cases, the term refers to financial data feeds available from exchanges or brokers. An example would be NASDAQ Level II quote data.