[CiccoineFed]

I'm not sure what you're saying but:

buying 100 shares at $1 will only require the stock to go up one point to double your investment. Buying 1 share at $100 will require the stock to go up 100 points to double your investment. Thus, the more expensive stock will need much better performance to get an equal outcome as the lower stock. Then again, that low stock may be low for a reason and a single point downward could wipe you out.

[dgdhgjjgj]

Well, I'm not sure if that is what he's asking, so I gave him the basic of the basics. Please add more. I'll admit, I'm no expert in this field.

[Fetowip]

radio = stupid

don't listen to stupid people

[ANCETPYNCTEXT]

That wouldn't affect the risk of the stock.

I think this was what the radio guy was talking about. http://books.google.com/books?id=hr1...return&f=false

It still seems kind weird. Shouldn't both shares in the example be priced the same, since they both have the same expected cash flows. Is it efficient to be risk averse?

[Vegeinvalge]

Never mind, I heard on the radio today that lower stock price=higher risk=higher expected rate of return.

Hmmm... I think higher price is riskier.