Sentences with phrase «sell at $»

So you can enter a stop limit sell at $ 40 with a limit of $ 39, meaning that if the stock falls to $ 40, you will then have a limit order in effect to sell the stock at $ 39 or higher.

If you have a strike price of $ 20 on a stock you own and it drops to $ 15, you can still sell at $ 20.

If the stock is at $ 50, you could enter a stop sell at $ 40, which means if the stock ever falls to $ 40 or lower, your stock will be sold at whatever price is available (e.g. $ 35).

If the next price if $ 47.90, your ABC shares sell at $ 47.90.

Now come the expiration date if my AMD shares are at or over the strike price of $ 8, then my stock will be called away from me and I will have to sell at $ 8 per share — even if the price at that time is higher.

I was forced to sell at $ 50 per share.

Using the same example, if the stock you sell at $ 40 rises to $ 60, you'll have to pay $ 6,000 to return the 100 shares to your broker.

You exercise your right to sell it at $ 50.

He then exercises your right to sell it at $ 50, making $ 5,000.

If the seller submits a Limit Order to Sell at $ 10 at 9:30 AM, it will enter the order book and $ 10 will be shown to the world as Best Ask.

In this case, you'd buy the stock at $ 43 (long call strike price) and sell it at $ 48 (short call strike price.)

His potential reward for holding the stock is only $ 3 because he has decided to sell at $ 100.

If the stock rises to above $ 50, however, you may be forced to sell at $ 50.

As one successful investor told me long ago, «I'm a rich man today because I was smart enough to buy Canadian Tire at $ 0.50, and too stupid to sell it at $ 2.00.»

For example, if Computer Firm A is quoted at $ 28 bid and $ 28.10 offered, your market order to buy would be filled at $ 28.10 and your market order to sell at $ 28 if those prices are still good when your order is executed.

If the option is a right to sell at $ 50 and a stock trades at $ 55 but drops to $ 45, that put option has value because you can sell something for $ 50 that is worth now only worth $ 45.

Those who buy XOM at $ 100 and sell at $ 81 will likely do better either not being in stocks at all, or certainly staying away from cyclical holdings.

(Though I lost badly on Scottish Re, I am still grateful that when I figured out what was going on, I was able to sell at $ 6 + / sh.

Suppose the private business value of Company X, attributable to its common stock, is $ 10; X Common initially trades at $ 5; bear market, or poor quarterly earnings, causes X Common to sell at $ 2; activist proposes cash merger at $ 3; passivist is screwed.

For instance, if you bought a stock at $ 45 and was aiming to sell it at $ 50 because of a perfect Hikkake pattern, what reason do you have to keep the stock if it has fallen to $ 20?

Continuing with the above example, a market maker who is quoting a price of $ 10.50 / $ 10.55 for security A is indicating a willingness to buy A at $ 10.50 (the bid price) and sell it at $ 10.55 (the asked price).

For instance, if I buy a stock at $ 10 and sell at $ 15, is there any tax withheld on the $ 5 profit (if no dividend is paid)?

You would sell at $ 45.

So, even if QQQ advances to $ 150 or higher, as long as you have these open call options, you are forced to sell at $ 145.

For example, if you created a stop - loss order to sell at $ 29 a share, that order would become a market order when the market price hits $ 29, triggering your sale.

It would make sense if you had placed a limit order to sell at $ 36.

You said that when the market price was around $ 34, you put in a stop order to sell at $ 36.

If I entered a market order in this scenario, would it not sell at $ 37.9?

Maybe you borrow a share and sell it at $ 10.

But, with the put, you have the right to sell at $ 45 / share.

It had traded just above $ 6 a few days earlier, but if instead of a market order I had placed a limit order to sell at $ 6.00 or more I would have missed out on the sale.

There is usually a spread between them, so the buyers want to buy at $ 9.95 and the sellers want to sell at $ 10.05

(I.e., why don't Inara / River get to sell at $ 20.21 / above their limit, but Simon gets to buy at $ 20.10 / below his limit?)

Selling short is usually considered quite risky as your gain is limited to the amount that you sold at initially (if I sell at $ 20 / share the most I can make is if the stock declines to $ 0).

So I'm guessing the data could be used to confirm Amazon's claim that «For every copy an e-book would sell at $ 14.99, it would sell 1.74 copies if priced at $ 9.99»?

And while it's popular to hunker down in the bloggoria and shoot the breeze about the «sweet spot» between $ 2.99 and $ 4.99, what frequently is not mentioned is frequency: how many of those things do you have to sell at $ 3.99 — even if you're getting 70 percent — to put together an income?

«For every copy an e-book would sell at $ 14.99, it would sell 1.74 copies if priced at $ 9.99» and / or provide a ratio at other price points?

According to Mark Waid's blog post titled, «Print Math,» an indie publisher could see as little as $.60, from each issue they sell at $ 3.99.

Books we sell at $ 2.99 are selling at $ 3.46 or so!

Likewise, when an author can't sell at $ 14.99, what happens is the publisher prices their works for less.

That is a fair point but secondary to the question of pricing; an author who gets 15 % royalties when her books sell at $ 14.99 is not going to magically get 25 % royalties when her books are priced at $ 9.99.

Hachette wants the book to sell at $ 14.99.

What lost is the fact that Amazon wants books to sell at $ 10.

Still, there is Amazon's success; they've been able to sell at the $ 1.99 price point, though half of their sales come from compilations.

Also, what is the payback... if it costs most people to make a tablet in the 400 range, and Amazon has to sell at $ 299 to make a splash in the «market» (you know apple can drop their price to $ 399), then they have to make $ 100 in content sales.

Amazon is now trying to sell it at $ 169.

If I were to sell it at $ 0.99, I'd make $ 0.35 and have to sell almost 20 copies just to make the same profit as one sale.

The reason Amazon can afford to sell it at $ 199 is obvious, they are using this device to expand the reach of their digital media ecosystem, and that's where the real money is.

A book WILL NOT SELL at $ 2.99 or even 99 cents if it sucks.

If your Indie novel is as good as a $ 9.99 Big House book, then sell it at $ 9.99!