What is the average price per share for John's holdings after Date 4?

  • Thread starter Thread starter vertciel
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Average
vertciel
Messages
62
Reaction score
0
Dear all,

Although the following question involves some terms using finance, I post it here since it seems to involve some probability. I hope that it will be fine.

Thank you very much for your help.

---------------------

Problem: Suppose that John buys shares in only one company and he does so as follows:

Date 1. He buys 10 shares @ $10.
Date 2. He buys 5 shares @ $20.
Date 3. He sells 6 shares @ $15.
Date 4. He buys 10 shares @ $20.

After Date 4, what is the average price per share for John's holdings?

Attempt at Solution :

Before Date 3, the weighted average price is given by:

\frac{10}{15}$10 + \frac{5}{15}$20

and the total amount before Date 3 is just $30.

At Date 3, John sells 6 \times $15 = $90 of this stock

\Rightarrow Total stock holdings = 200 - 90 = $110.

Now, this is where I am having trouble. To calculate the average price, it appears that I would need to identify specifically the purchase dates of the 6 shares sold at Date 3, since Date 1 and Date 2 involve different purchase prices.

Is this correct? If so, how would I continue my calculation if I were to assume that the 6 shares sold were randomly chosen from the 15 shares from Date 1 and Date 2?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
For tax purposes, he needs to identify. However as your calculation shows, it doesn't matter otherwise. In fact you can simply add up his purchases, 25 shares for $400 and his sales 6 shares for $90, leaving 19 shares for $310.
 
Hi all, I've been a roulette player for more than 10 years (although I took time off here and there) and it's only now that I'm trying to understand the physics of the game. Basically my strategy in roulette is to divide the wheel roughly into two halves (let's call them A and B). My theory is that in roulette there will invariably be variance. In other words, if A comes up 5 times in a row, B will be due to come up soon. However I have been proven wrong many times, and I have seen some...
Thread 'Detail of Diagonalization Lemma'
The following is more or less taken from page 6 of C. Smorynski's "Self-Reference and Modal Logic". (Springer, 1985) (I couldn't get raised brackets to indicate codification (Gödel numbering), so I use a box. The overline is assigning a name. The detail I would like clarification on is in the second step in the last line, where we have an m-overlined, and we substitute the expression for m. Are we saying that the name of a coded term is the same as the coded term? Thanks in advance.

Similar threads

Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
46
Views
5K
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
7K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Back
Top