What Are Stocks?
When I was 17 years old, I took a trip to Houston, Texas to visit my uncle and his family. He was a financial advisor at the time, so it sure seemed like he knew a lot about money. This was in the summer of 2005 when the price of something called “light sweet crude” was approaching $60 dollars a barrel on the futures market for the first time ever. There are a lot of big words in that last sentence that I wasn’t really familiar with at the time, and honestly I still don’t know much about the difference between “light sweet crude” and “brent crude,” but the gist of the sentence was that oil had been more expensive at that point than it had ever been before.
One day, while I was playing H-O-R-S-E with my little cousin Larry, my uncle bought shares of an oil company for his son’s portfolio. We had a day trip out to Galveston where you can see oil rigs out on the horizon, and when my uncle explained to Larry that he was the proud owner of some of those oil rigs, the look on his face was as if someone had just told him he owned the moon. Larry’s reaction is completely defensible because at the time he was a six-year-old.
Not too long ago, I was at a friend’s birthday party. It was at this cute little dive bar called “Montana” that’s really in Seattle, and there was one tiny TV showing Game Four of the NBA Finals. Our table was covered in drink cups, and everyone was having a good time when the birthday girl mentioned that she was just thankful she didn’t have any Facebook stock, joking about the poor early returns of the IPO.
The discussion quickly devolved from there when someone made what I thought at the time was a very bad joke by asking, “What is stock, really? What are you buying when you buy stock? I want to sell stock to you.”
And someone played along, “Stock in what?”
“Not stock in anything, just pure stock.” If I had been a little more drunk at the time, and if I had been a little less invested in the outcome of the basketball game now in its second quarter, I could have very easily found myself taking him seriously and yelling, outraged, about this obvious ponzi scheme. Thankfully for everyone at the table (except for the OKC Thunder fan in the corner), I was more interested in Lebron James’s post-up game, and how it would help ensure that at least this year, Clay Bennett wouldn’t be getting a championship ring.
Fast forward to Thursday. The birthday girl has recovered from her birthday hangover, and we’re making plans to go watch Game Five of the NBA Finals at another bar (Kate’s Pub in Wallingford, where, from 4 p.m. to 7 p.m. every day, all food on the menu is 50 percent off with your drink order), and I had to ask her: “Your friend, the one with the curly hair talking about ‘pure stock,’ is he mentally deficient? Does he really not know what stocks are?” Her answer shouldn’t have surprised me, but it did a little bit.
“No, he’s actually really smart.” That’s not the part that surprised me. “I’m not sure I really understand stocks.” That’s what surprised me.
When I say that it shouldn’t surprise me, I’m not implying that I think very little of my friend. On the contrary, I think a great deal of her—otherwise we wouldn’t be friends. I say that it shouldn’t surprise me because I’ve grown up my entire life with people who aren’t really given any financial education.
I didn’t see the look on her face when she told me that, because the discussion was done over Gchat, but she did give me one of the little :-/ emoticons. If I take that emoticon to say, “I don’t know how to feel about that, but at least I’m not :-(, or :’(,” then I think that reaction is just as defensible as Larry’s jubilation.
The idea of stock should be simple really, but it’s scary, because on MSNBC, there’s this rolling ticker with hundreds of stocks on it, and they show all these graphs and talk about opening and closing prices. It’s hard to imagine that Facebook—something that I use every day to look at pictures of my friend and other people I don’t know yet—can be worth some amount one day, and then the next day, it’s worth some wildly different amount. I don’t really understand why people think Facebook should be worth $60 billion, or $30 billion, or $100 billion dollars. That’s too many dollars for someone like me, without a fancy job, to think about.
What I do understand is the idea of ownership. My friend Danny owns an ice cream selling business. It’s called “Danny’s Summer Relief.” It’s a really simple business, and the work is mostly seasonal, but in the purest sense of the phrase, my friend Danny is a job creator, and all it took was an ice cream cart that cost a couple hundred dollars. Now, all he does is buy ice cream at Costco, marks it up for resale, and hopes for good weather. The difference between what he pays for the ice cream and what he sells it for is his profit, which sometimes he considers reinvesting in his business.
For example, I read an article on the Billfold about artisanal ice cream, which made me think to send a message to Danny and tell him he should consider making his own popsicles and selling them rather than just buying them from Costco. Let’s say for argument’s sake that Danny didn’t have enough money to buy all the things he needed to make his own ice cream at home, but that he really wanted to have this stuff. Danny needs an investor who can offer him enough money to buy the stuff he needs, so he could offer to sell part of his company to me. That sounds fair.
Now, for arguments sake, I own part of his company, and I’m entitled to a portion of the company’s profits. That’s basically what stock is: little tiny shares of a company, and it only seems like magic. The way Danny’s business and Facebook will distribute profits to their owners will differ a little bit. Since Danny’s Summer Relief is likely a sole proprietorship or an LLC the profits can be paid directly to the owners. A corporation like Facebook will have to pay out dividends to its shareholders. These different kinds of payments are taxed differently but they each make the motivations of be business owners clear: They want more money.
Facebook is similar to my friend Danny’s business in some very basic ways. Mark Zuckerberg sat in his dorm room at Harvard and created it. Then somehow it was marketed to college students, then the friends of college students, and eventually (sadly, to some) to the parents of college students. Now, Facebook makes a lot of money by selling information and ad space (even though ads aren’t cool), and the people who have shares in Facebook are entitled to the profits from the sale of information.*
The difference between Danny’s Summer Relief and Facebook, one of the many differences, is that it’s very easy to place a value on Danny’s Summer Relief, because it has one asset, a cart, a very small inventory of ice cream bars, sales that are pretty predictable, and one single solitary employee (my friend Danny is a job creator, singular). Facebook on the other hand has hundreds of thousands of assets, tons of employees, and a product which even the people who are familiar with disagree on the value of.
The truth is, no one in the world knows for certain how much Facebook is worth, which is to say, no one really knows how much profits Facebook can make in the future. For the past month, people have suggested that Facebook is worth somewhere between $30 billion and $100 billion dollars. Right now, the best guess is $71 billion dollars, or 33.41 per share. Tomorrow, there’s a good chance that people will agree that number isn’t right.
*Side note: One of the people who has shares of Facebook is Chris Hansen, who is using some of his money to try to start a new business, one of whose assets I hope will be a professional basketball team so that I can stop rooting for the Heat and go back to rooting for the Sonics, but still rooting for any team playing against the Thunder, except for the Spurs.
Nicholas Hassell lives in Seattle where ice cream season is just now starting to pick up. Photo: Shutterstock/Bianda Ahmad Hisham












I feel like buying ice cream from Costco and reselling for more money it from a cart or what have you can’t possibly be a successful business plan. It’d be one thing if your friend Danny was a licensed bodega (is your friend Danny a licensed bodega??), but it seems like he’s just a guy walking around hawking expensive, shitty ice cream he picked up himself. How does that work!
N.B. I have never actually been to a bodega but I’m trying to keep my commenting as NYC-focused as possible “in keeping with house style.”
@melis Something something Duane Reade.
@melis i suppose it would have to be cheaper and more easily accessible than the surrounding … bodegas. which is possible if you’re buying ice cream for cheap at a costco? is ice cream from costco shitty and expensive? i agree that it seems like there should be some kind of license involved.
@melis And yet that’s basically how all retail works.
Danny’s profits exist because he is not just selling ice cream. He’s selling something even more valuable: time and convenience. An ice cream might only cost me $1 at the store, but I also have to go the the store to get it and haul it with me wherever I go in case I want to eat it. Danny’s business relieves me of all that effort, so when I’m at the beach and have a hankering for ice cream I don’t have to spend the time and effort to track one down. Its right there for me to enjoy, and the trade off is that Danny gets paid for the work he did on my behalf.
Also, Costco is neither shitty nor expensive.
@melis For those of us not in NYC (I live in Seattle, like the author), “bodega” is a wildly confusing term. Don’t worry, I googled it.
@Lauren
Haven’t you seen Half Baked?
I would like to see more posts about investing on the Billfold. I don’t care much for this particular writer’s style (extraneous details makes this an unnecessarily long read), but I would be interested to see if he can make a better second impression.
I’m from Texas, and I have friends who were gifted actual oil rigs (or I guess the oil rights to that rig, just an oil rig would be kind of useless). I wish I had an oil rig.
@lalaland An oil rig would actually be very useful, as it is used to drill wells, and the rig owner makes money whether or not the well hits.
came here thinking the title was ‘What Are Socks?”
give the readers what they want
@Stefan Sohlstrom@twitter Yeah, darn it!
I understand the concept of stocks but I just don’t feel ready to dip my toe into the world of high risk investments. Right now my savings are all in ultra low risk, and of course, ultra low yield, savings accounts. 1.4% interest folks! I’m raking it in. (although it is tax free … thanks canadian government?)
let’s talk about medium risk investments! mutual funds?
@redheaded&crazy If you are indeed redheaded & crazy, I wonder why you’re risk averse? But seriously, the further you are from retirement age, the more stock you should dive into. As you get older, you can move to mutual funds. I’m not saying you should dump all your savings into stocks; you should certainly keep your emergency fund in a savings account with interest.
@Rachel Hill@facebook I am quite far from retirement age but maybe I can take baby steps toward investing in stock. Like step 1: mutual funds. step 2: diversified stock funds? step 3: i don’t think i’ll ever be ready for individual stocks.
also I’m worried that I’ll spend more money in fees than I’ll get back in returns! is that just me being ignorant?
@redheaded&crazy and @Rachel Hill@facebook – my rule is that I only buy stocks with money I can afford to lose forever. Stocks are risky. If a company goes broke, you will lose all or nearly all of the money you put into it. This happens more frequently than you might expect. If you’re interested in learning more, I would recommend “Intelligent Asset Allocation.” I’m only about halfway through, but so far it does a good job of explaining why picking individual stocks isn’t the best way to grow your money.
@themegnapkin and @redheaded&crazy Yes, reading is a very good idea. I have read enough to feel comfortable with my stock choices, and while I know I could potentially lose the money forever, I don’t act like a gambler when I’m picking something out. The thing is, yes, they’re risky, but you can absolutely mitigate the risk by knowing what you’re getting into. It’s not all fate, chance, odds, whatever that it’s often made out to be. I tend to invest in companies that are established, have shares valued at more than $10, and have reports by at least three reputable financial analysts.
What Facebook is worth changes from day to day, hence the fluctuations of the stock. A share of Facebook, like any other product, is worth the highest price a dis-interested party would buy it from you in an arm’s length transaction.
This is what happens when we start letting kids graduate high school (or college, for that matter) without basic course work in economic or consumer finance. This leaves otherwise sensible people vulnerable to exotic mortgages that might not be right for them, pre-paid debit cards, bad retirement account solutions, and Dave Ramsey.
By the way, the involved ticker runs on CNBC, not MSNBC.
@Morbo I believe you’re falling into the fallacy of equating price and value, but because you use the term ‘worth’ it isn’t clear to which you are referring. I wouldn’t argue for a second that the price of a share of Facebook doesn’t change by the second, but I would argue that the value of a share of Facebook stock changes much slower than that. To illustrate this point, if Facebook were to release a quarterly earnings report that was well below expectations we would assume that the PRICE for Facebook stock would depreciate rather rapidly, but to say that in the instant before that earnings report and the instant after the VALUE of Facebook stock wasn’t almost identical wasn’t almost identical would be quite erroneous. To wit, the VALUE of Facebook would have decreased over the course of that entire fiscal quarter in which Facebook under performed expectations.
@Nick Mikail@twitter What about those special devices they install at the entrances of car dealerships that cause your car to lose 30% of its value the moment you drive over them?
@Nick Mikail@twitter This is a great point. The thing about stocks that goes woefully undiscussed in this otherwise excellent post is that the stock market is really more about bets and guesses. It’s not quite the poker game that a lot of Occupy types make it out to be, it’s more like “I think Company X is great but a lot of other people don’t, so I’m gonna buy some of their stock before everybody else catches on and does the same.” There are some metrics people use to make these kinds of guesses: a common-ish one is called the Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratio, which is as easy as dividing the price of a company’s stock by their latest earnings report.
It obviously gets much, much more complicated than this. On some level, the price of a stock is supposed to reflect the company in question’s value; in reality, it’s more like what everybody else thinks its value is, or should be. This gets one into, e.g., sentiment indexes and the like, bull and bear markets (basically: bull = everybody thinks stuff is undervalued, leading to buying; bear = everybody thinks stuff is overvalued, leading to selling), etc. At the really esoteric end of it all is stuff like technical trading, which barely references real-world conditions at all, and instead relies on some borderline-occult analyses of charts of stock prices and stuff like that. My dad is WAY into technical trading, and it gets a little bizarre sometimes (see, e.g. candlestick charts, which is basically Zen and the Art of Financial Market Analysis)
The problem with all of this nowadays is that a variety of factors, but especially the increasing involvement of computers and massive financial institutions in the market have more-or-less broken the Way It Was Done. Massive amounts of money are moved around almost instantaneously as the consequence of seriously complex algorithms designed by computer scientists and economists and bunches of other people with lots of degrees and stuff that’s pretty much all beyond people like you and me. In fact, as can be seen from the financial crisis, “London Whale” incident, etc, is that, to a frightening degree, it’s all gotten so complicated that even the people who are supposedly ‘in charge’ don’t really know what’s going on anymore. Frankenstein’s monster’s escaped the lab and is wandering the countryside, scaring the shit out of CNBC anchors and pushing people’s IRAs into wells and stuff. It’s a scary time out there.
TL;DR: buy some shares in a company that makes stuff people actually use: 3M, Johnson & Johnson, whatever the hell Kraft/Phillip Morris is calling itself nowadays, etc. Hold on to that shit for as long as you possibly can. Get some help from whoever you can find with the fewest ulterior motives. Watch out for capital gains taxes. DON’T FUCK WITH THE FUTURES MARKET.
@swizzard Interestingly, despite all the technological advances, most stock pickers (including both retail investors and managers of huge mutual funds) cannot beat random chance over the long run.
@Nick Mikail@twitter I am not falling into that fallacy. The value alue of Facebook does not change by the second, but the collective re-evaluation of facts, as well as the sway of individual expectations do.
There is an argument that the intrinsic value of an asset can never be truly reflected by a price.
@stuffisthings How long is your long run?
@Rachel Hill@facebook Not that long. “Results suggest that the pros
selection statistically outperforms the random selection only in the one-week period. Over a six-month holding period, the random stocks perform better than the pros recommendations.” For example.
@stuffisthings (This one may be a bit more readable.)
@stuffisthings Oh, see, thinking of six months as “the long run” strikes me as ludicrous. I buy stocks I plan to hold for years.
@Rachel Hill@facebook As you should do. But that is six months and longer. Meaning, basically, that stock pickers — including mutual fund managers — can generate excess returns in the short term, but in the long term you’re better off with an index fund (or a dartboard).
It’s actually pretty easy to figure out what a company should be worth, regardless of how ridiculously complicated their business, by looking at their financial statements.
For instance, you might think a company with a billion dollars in profits would not be worth $100 billion, when another successful company in the same industry that had $10 billion in profits over the same period was worth $190 billion on the open market. But then you wouldn’t be in charge of underwriting the Facebook IPO.
@stuffisthings (This is why we require public companies to disclose their financial statements according to a standard system, and have them audited. A $60 billion dollar company can’t just go around saying “Oh yeah, we bought a whole bunch of ads at Costco and we’re going to resell them to, like, our social graph.”)
I am not sure that the article writer is correct in explaining what stocks are. Stocks are not priced based on the profits of a company and, as a stock holder, you do not get money if the profits of a company go up. You get money if the market’s perception of a company value goes up, and this is not necessarily driven by profit. It can be driven by that company’s market share or a perception/ estimation of future profits. You get money only when you sell your stocks (unless you have a dividend earning stock which I guess is correlated with profit).
@ghechr Well, profit is certainly the primary driver of a stock’s market price. Also, some companies do still pay dividends.
@stuffisthings Sure but you are not directly buying a portion of a company’s profit when you buy a share of stock which is what the article implies. Like,one example comes to mind is Amazon. Amazon went public even though it had no profit projection for several years. Nevertheless, people still bought stock based on a future bet that it would be profitable and have a large market share of internet retail sales.
And, yeah, dividend stocks are different and one of my favorite investments for that reason.
@Nick Mikail@twitter, respectfully, the distinction that you make between price and value is artificial. Think about MTM accounting – the only value that a security has at a given point in time is what you could sell it for at that point in time.
@ghechr, although dividend levels are somewhat sticky (as corporate boards are loathe to reduce dividends in times of distress due to the significant negative perception impact) in the long run payout levels increase as profits increase, ceteris paribus. This is even more true for certain regulated corporate structures, such as REITs, that have payout requirements.
This is an interesting article and a step in the right direction, everyone should learn some personal finance basics in high school and hopefully we can avoid another generation buying storage units full of shit they don’t need on borrowed money.
This article would be just as informative and a lot less irritating without the long preamble calling people who don’t understand stocks “mentally deficient.”
On a stockier note, I think what is really mysterious about stocks is HOW that fluctuating value fluctuates. Who makes that call? How does that work? Write us a non-insulting article about that, please.
@beatricks@twitter Oh, oh! I want to write that article. But I can tell you without preamble that the fluctuations are often decided by people who are irritating and perhaps mentally deficient. The price you see for a stock on the ticker is often not what its actual value is. The price changes on a daily basis because of people who treat the market like a casino. No mystery there. However, if you have the business acumen to read up on a company and determine what it is they do and how well they do it, you can decide for yourself what the value of their business is. If, like me, you have some acumen but also know that you don’t know everything, you can listen to financial analysts who make a call on what a company’s real value per share is. For example, XYZ might be trading around $15 this week, but Standard & Poor’s says the stock is undervalued and really worth $20/share. Then you just have to decide whether to trust Standard & Poor’s, or if you want to read their five pages of reasoning, or if you’d rather listen to Citi Investment Research & Analysis or Morgan Stanley or somebody.
My question is, how do they decide how many stocks the company can sell? Like, how do they determine the limit? Let’s say company A has 100 stocks for sale for 12 dollars each, but company B has 1000 stocks for sale for 13 dollars each. What is the difference and what decides it?