The quote is for the next unit, not for your position, and there is no official price anywhere. What valuation models exist for this class are contested in a way that a bond discount or an equity multiple simply is not.
12 min read · Level 3
The thing I would most want a reader to take from this lesson is not the slippage arithmetic, useful as it is, but a shift in what they treat the price as evidence of. In a market with contracted cash flows, the price carries real information: it is thousands of people applying a method everybody agrees is the right method, disagreeing only about inputs, and a large move tells you something about how those inputs were revised. Strip the cash flow out and the price is still a number produced by the same crowd, but the crowd no longer shares a method, so a move tells you that opinion changed and nothing about what it changed towards. That is why explanations in this class are so consistently narrative, and why the narratives arrive after the move rather than before it. I would go further than the usual caution here. The absence of an agreed valuation method is not a temporary state of the field that better research will resolve, because the missing ingredient is not data - it is a cash flow, and no amount of analysis produces one. Anybody who is comfortable with that and holds the asset anyway is being consistent; the assets in this class may well be worth holding for reasons that have nothing to do with a computed value. What is not consistent is holding it while quoting a model output as though it were a valuation in the sense the rest of this curriculum uses the word. The honest sentence is "I cannot value this, and I have sized it accordingly", and lesson six is about what that sizing looks like.
In a major listed market a share has effectively one price at one moment, because the exchange publishes the best bid and the best offer and trades are reported into a single feed. A building has no continuous price at all, and lesson three of real-estate is about constructing one from comparables. This class sits in a third position that is neither: it has many prices, continuously, and no official one.
The same asset trades on many venues at once, at different prices. Four venues at one instant:
Venue Price One 402.10 Two 401.35 Three 403.80 Four 399.90
Mean 401.7875 Highest minus lowest 3.90 which is 0.9707% of the mean On a 20-unit trade, best venue against worst 78.00
Nothing is malfunctioning. There is no mechanism obliging these four numbers to be the same, no consolidated tape, and no body that publishes an official close. What any data provider shows you is an average or a single venue choice, and different providers make that choice differently.
There is no closing bell and there are no circuit breakers. Listed markets close overnight and halt when a price moves too far too fast, and both of those are deliberate: a pause gives information time to spread and gives a panicked seller time to stop. This class trades continuously, everywhere, with no halt at any speed of decline. A move that a listed market would have interrupted runs here instead, and it runs at three in the morning local time.
The quoted price applies to the next unit and to nothing beyond it. This is the part that most often costs real money. Take a plausible resting book of buy orders:
Best buyers Price Units wanted 402.00 40 401.00 60 398.00 100 390.00 250
Selling 300 units into it: 40 at 402.00 = 16,080.00 60 at 401.00 = 24,060.00 100 at 398.00 = 39,800.00 100 at 390.00 = 39,000.00 --------------------------- 300 units = 118,940.00 an average of 396.4667
At the quoted 402.00 the same 300 units would be 120,600.00 Shortfall 1,660.00 which is 1.3765%
Forty units sold at 402.00 exactly. Three hundred units sold at an average 1.3765% below the price on the screen, and the screen was never wrong - it was answering a different question from the one the seller was asking.
Because two claims that get made constantly about this class are undermined by that book, and a third is undermined by the absence of a cash flow.
The first claim is the market capitalisation. Circulating supply multiplied by the last traded price is quoted as though it were a sum of money. Take 42,000,000 circulating units at 402.00:
42,000,000 x 402.00 = 16,884,000,000
Now set that against the book above, which absorbed 300 units before the bid fell to 390.00. The multiplication treats every one of the 42,000,000 units as though it could be sold at the price the last 40 fetched. It is an arithmetic operation on two numbers, not an estimate of anything realisable, and the same objection applies to a listed share - it is simply far larger here, because the depth is thin relative to the supply and because holdings can be far more concentrated, which is lesson four.
The second claim is the price itself. With four venues showing 0.9707% of dispersion at one instant, "the price" is a choice of source. When somebody quotes a precise figure to two decimal places, the honest question is which venue, at what moment, and for what size - and the answer changes the number.
The third is valuation, and here the honest answer is uncomfortable. Every class in this curriculum that produces a cash flow has a method whose logic is not seriously disputed even where its inputs are. A bond is worth the present value of its contracted payments, and the argument is about the discount rate. A building is worth its net operating income divided by a required rate, and the argument is about the rate and the income. An equity is worth its future cash flows discounted, and the argument is about the forecast. In each case the method rests on a cash flow that exists.
Here there is no cash flow, so there is nothing for those methods to operate on. That much is shared with commodities and with collectibles, which produce no income either. What is proposed instead - models built on scarcity schedules, on transaction volumes, on the count of active addresses, on estimated production cost - are contested, and they are contested at the level of the method rather than at the level of the inputs. Reasonable, informed people disagree about whether any of them is a valuation at all. That is a genuinely different epistemic position from arguing about a discount rate, and stating it plainly is more useful than picking one.
Which leaves an uncomfortable but accurate description of what sets the price: the balance of what buyers and sellers are willing to do, continuously, with no anchor underneath it that anybody agrees on. That is why the same asset can move a great deal without any new information about anything, and why explanations offered afterwards tend to be narratives rather than revisions to a model.
One consequence for the reader, and it is the practical one. In a class with no agreed anchor, the price is the least informative number available about what the thing is worth, and it is the number that dominates every screen, every conversation and every headline. That asymmetry is worth holding onto.
This is educational information, not investment, securities or financial advice. Rules differ by country and change — get advice from a qualified professional in your jurisdiction before acting.
Educational, not personalised financial advice. Nothing in the Investor Academy is a recommendation to buy, sell or hold anything — what is right for you depends on your own circumstances and the rules where you live.
Sources: U.S. SEC - Investor.gov; FINRA - investor information; IOSCO - global securities regulators
Two sellers of the same asset on the same morning, with different sizes.
Seller one has 40 units. They see 402.00 on the screen, sell, and receive 16,080.00. The price they got is the price they saw, exactly. They conclude, reasonably, that the market is liquid and the quote is reliable.
Seller two has 300 units. They see the same 402.00 and receive 118,940.00, an average of 396.4667. The difference against the screen is 1,660.00, or 1.3765%, and no error occurred at any point. They consumed the 40 units at 402.00, then the 60 at 401.00, then the 100 at 398.00, then 100 of the 250 at 390.00.
Two things about that are worth separating.
The first is that seller two's cost is not a fee and appears on no statement. It is the difference between a price that was available for a small size and the price that was available for theirs, and it is invisible unless somebody computes it. The quoted execution report will show an average, and an average that is not compared with the pre-trade quote tells nobody anything.
The second is that seller two has also moved the price for everybody else. The best bid is now 390.00 rather than 402.00, a fall of 2.9851%, caused by one seller with 300 units and no news of any kind. Anybody watching the chart sees a 3% decline. There is no event to report, and one will usually be found anyway.
Now the same book on a bad day. Resting buy orders are not a fixture - they are placed by people who can remove them, and they are removed exactly when a decline begins. The depth that absorbed 300 units at an average 1.3765% below the quote is not guaranteed to be there on the morning somebody wants to sell 300 units, and it is systematically least likely to be there on the mornings when many people want to.
That is the compounding property of this class, and it is why lesson five treats liquidity and volatility as one subject rather than two. Thin depth makes prices move further on the same flow; further moves make more holders want to trade; more holders trading into thinner depth moves prices further again. None of that requires anybody to be wrong about anything.
Reading the quoted price as the price you will get. It is the price for the next small unit. On the book in this lesson, 40 units realised 402.00 exactly and 300 units realised an average of 396.4667 - a 1.3765% difference on a single trade, appearing on no statement and charged by nobody.
Treating market capitalisation as an amount of money. 42,000,000 x 402.00 = 16,884,000,000, computed from a book that absorbed 300 units before the bid dropped to 390.00. It is a multiplication, and the distance between a multiplication and a realisable sum is far larger here than in listed equities.
Quoting a price without a venue. Four venues at one instant spanned 3.90, which is 0.9707% of the mean. Any precise figure is a choice of source, and different data providers make that choice differently without saying so.
Expecting a halt. Listed markets close overnight and stop trading when a move is too fast. Neither exists here at any speed, so a decline that would have been interrupted elsewhere simply continues, at whatever hour it happens to be where you live.
Adopting one of the contested valuation models as though it settled the question. The disagreement about these methods is at the level of the method, not the inputs, which is a different situation from arguing over a discount rate. Picking one and quoting its output as a fair value imports a confidence that the underlying argument does not support.
Assuming the depth you saw will be there when you need it. Resting orders belong to people who can withdraw them, and they withdraw them during declines - which is precisely when a seller wants them most.
Look at the resting orders and ask how many units can be absorbed before the price moves materially. If your intended trade is larger than that, the number on the screen is not the number you will get, and working out the difference in advance takes one multiplication per level of the book.
Walk the book the way this lesson did: units at each level, proceeds at each level, total divided by units. For 300 units against this book that is 118,940.00 / 300 = 396.4667 against a quote of 402.00, a shortfall of 1.3765%. That percentage is a real cost of the position and it belongs beside the fees rather than in a footnote.
A figure to two decimal places with no source attached is less precise than it looks - the four venues here spanned 0.9707% at one instant. When comparing a purchase price with a current price, make sure both came from the same place, or the difference includes an artefact.
There is no close and no circuit breaker, so a large move can complete entirely while you are asleep and there is no pause during which you could have acted. Deciding the response while nothing is happening is the only version of that decision that is made calmly, and it is the same discipline volatility-vs-permanent-loss sets out.
When you meet one, ask what it rests on and whether informed people dispute the method itself rather than its inputs. For this class the answer is usually yes, which does not make the model useless - it makes it one view among several, and quoting its output as a fair value claims more than the method can support.
Before any trade large enough to move a book, when comparing a quoted price against a position value, when a market capitalisation figure is being used to argue that something is large or small, and whenever a valuation figure for this class is presented as settled.
Do not use the slippage arithmetic to conclude that small trades are free - the spread and the fees are still there, and lesson five totals them. And do not read the section on contested models as a claim that the asset is worth nothing; it is a claim that no method here has the standing that discounting a contract has.
Sharp moves in this class are followed within hours by confident accounts of what caused them, assembled from whatever was happening at the time. The order book offers a duller explanation that is available before any narrative is: a position larger than the resting depth was traded, the book was consumed several levels down, and the resulting print is what everybody else saw on the chart. In the illustration in this lesson a single 300-unit sale took the best bid from 402.00 to 390.00, a fall of 2.9851%, with no news of any kind. Because the size of any particular trade is rarely visible afterwards and the news always is, the causal story that survives is the one that was easier to find rather than the one that was true.
Before accepting an explanation for a move, ask how much depth the book was carrying. A thin book turns an ordinary trade into an event that then needs a story.
Create a free account to read the rest and apply it to your own investing.