Re:Berkshire Hathaway’s stock price is too high for Nasdaq c...
by beejiu on Wednesday May 05, 2021 @04:29AM
(#27047513)
There's a reason futures can go negative, that is when the contracts get close to expiry, the holder becomes legally liable to receive the oil. Since the speculators have no way to actually do this (and that storage was at capacity anyway), it makes sense to sell to shift the liability to someone else. There is not such analog for shares that I can see.
Re:Berkshire Hathaway’s stock price is too high for Nasdaq c...
by throwaway2037 on Thursday May 06, 2021 @11:23AM
(#27064614)
You wrote: <<the holder becomes legally liable to receive the oil>> Very good point! We should be clear for other readers: For many commodities futures, there are two types: physical and cash settle. (From my experience, liquidity can vary wildly!) Example: Physical oil futures require you to deliver (short)/receive (long) oil at expiry. Cash (settle) futures only require an exchange of cash at expiry.
Re:Berkshire Hathaway’s stock price is too high for Nasdaq c...
by t0mas88 on Wednesday May 05, 2021 @04:07AM
(#27047383)
Probably downvoted because 2^32-1 is the same as (2^32)-1, it's 2^(32-1) you're confused with. Although downvoting just for that feels a bit pedantic to me.
The the intention of both comments was clear... To discuss signed vs unsigned integer.
I always assume the floor for equity is the first tick above zero, e.g., 1 US cent or 1 Euro cent or 1 Japanese yen. Honestly, I don't know if any traditional stock exchanges allow zero price or less for shares. If anyone knows an example, please post about it!
Another reason why this comment matters: Does anyone remember when oil futures went negative? (April 2020) I am sure more than a few computer systems were unprepared for that scenario. I remember when short-end Japanese rates were zero and negative after the 2008 Global Financial Crisis. It was a real monkey wrench in the machine!