Investing thought experiment
The market cap always reflect the company's equity.  Except that you cannot fix a stock price in a free market.  A company with such profit pattern would have stock price behave like present value of a perpetuity (future income stream discounted by risk free rate) Since your assumption is unachievable, there is no point in determining the logic. Yes, if your assumptions are correct then your conclusions are correct. But your assumptions are never correct, and so this thought experiment doesn't tell us anything useful.
Perhaps someone has an investment objective different than following the market. If one is investing in stocks with an intent on getting dividend income then there may be other options that make more sense than owning the whole market. Secondly, there is Slice and Dice where one may try to find a more optimal investment idea by using a combination of indices and so one may choose to invest 25% into each of large-cap value, large-cap growth, small-cap value and small-cap growth with an intent to pick up benefits that have been seen since 1927 looking at Fama and French's work. "I think that pattern is impossible, since the attempt to apply the second half would seem to prevent executing the first. Could you rewrite that as ""After the stock rises to $X, start watching for a drop of $Y from peak price; if/when that happens, sell."" Or does that not do what you want? (I'm not going to comment on whether the proposed programmed trading makes sense. Trying to manage things at this level of detail has always struck me as glorified guesswork.)" I'm familiar with the efficient market hypothesis. And the argument over if the markets are weak, semi-strong or strong firm efficient. Most of the evidence suggests they are semi-strong form efficient. Are you looking after fees? I'd argue before fees, you'd find a lot more that do on a regular basis. If you'd like to read something, take a look at Warren Buffets letter in the back of intelligent Investor. It's named something about Graham Doddville. He addresses your argument as to random dollar winners. Now you've made a promise you can't keep, because I'm not very wrong. :) There is a difference between trading which is short term focussed and investing which is longterm focussed. On the long term what drives stock prices is still the overall economy and the performance of the underlying business aspects. I do not think that any trading algorithms will change this. These are more concerned with short term profits regardless of the underlying business economics. Therefore I think that longterm investing using index funds is still a viable strategy for most private investors. "This was an article meant for mass consumption, written by a Yale law professor and an individual who has a PhD in economics (in addition to his practical, on the job experience managing the Yale endowment).  I'm having a hard time believing that it was ""poorly argued.""  As for proof, that's the sort of thing you find in financial and economic journals (for example, [The Effect of Maker-Taker Fees on Investor Order Choice and Execution Quality in U.S. Stock Markets](http://people.stern.nyu.edu/jhasbrou/SternMicroMtg/SternMicroMtg2015/Papers/MakerTakerODonoghue.pdf)).    One of the direct takeaways from the above paper states:  *""I find that total trading cost to investors increases, when the taker fee and maker rebate increase, even if the net fee is held fixed. The total trading cost represents the net-of-fees bid-ask spread and the brokerage commission to an investor wanting to buy and then sell the same stock.""*  I'm not here to argue for the paper.  I'm really here to tell you that these guys have far more of a clue than you realize.  ~~A dash of humility on your part may be in order, given the fact that you've already admitted to the reality that you aren't sure of any of this yourself.~~  *Edit*:  Thought I was responding to a different thread." "If it could, it seems yet to be proven.  Long Term Capital Management was founded by a bunch of math whizzes and they seem to have missed something.  I'd never suggest that something has no value, but similar to the concept that ""if time travel were possible, why hasn't anyone come back from the future to tell us"" I'd suggest that if there were a real advantage to what you suggest, someone would be making money from it already.  In my opinion, the math is simple, little more than a four function calculator is needed." "The argument you are making here is similar to the problem I have with the stronger forms of the efficient market hypothesis.  That is if the market already has incorporated all of the information about the correct prices, then there's no reason to question any prices and then the prices never change.  However, the mechanism through which the market incorporates this information is via the actors buying an selling based on what they see as the market being incorrect. The most basic concept of this problem (I think) starts with the idea that every investor is passive and they simply buy the market as one basket.  So every paycheck, the index fund buys some more stock in the market in a completely static way.  This means the demand for each stock is the same.  No one is paying attention to the actual companies' performance so a poor performer's stock price never moves.  The same for the high performer.  The only thing moving prices is demand but that's always up at a more or less constant rate. This is a topic that has a lot of discussion lately in financial circles.  Here are two articles about this topic but I'm not convinced the author is completely serious hence the ""worst-case scenario"" title. These are interesting reads but again, take this with a grain of salt.  You should follow the links in the articles because they give a more nuanced understanding of each potential issue.  One thing that's important is that the reality is nothing like what I outline above. One of the links in these articles that is interesting is the one that talks about how we now have more indexes than stocks on the US markets.  The writer points to this as a problem in the first article, but think for a moment why that is.  There are many different types of strategies that active managers follow in how they determine what goes in a fund based on different stock metrics.  If a stocks P/E ratio drops below a critical level, for example, a number of indexes are going to sell it.  Some might buy it.  It's up to the investors (you and me) to pick which of these strategies we believe in. Another thing to consider is that active managers are losing their clients to the passive funds.  They have a vested interest in attacking passive management." "I am strongly skeptical of this.  In fact, after reading your question, I did the following: I wrote a little program in python that ""simulates"" a stock by flipping a coin. Each time the coin comes up heads, the stock's value grows by 1. Each time the coin comes up tails, the stock's value drops by 1.  I then group, say, 50 of these steps into a ""day"", and for each day I look at opening, closing, maximum and minimum. This is then graphed in a candlestick chart.  Funny enough, those things look exactly like the charts analysts look at. Here are a few examples:    If you want to be a troll, show these to a technical analyst and ask them which of these stocks you should sell short and which of them you should buy. You can try this at home, I posted the code here and it only needs Python with a few extra packages (Numpy and Pylab, should both be in the SciPy package). In reply to a comment from JoeTaxpayer, let me add some more theory to this. My code actually performs a one-dimensional random walk. Now Joe in the comments says that an infinite number of flips should approach the zero line, but that is not exactly correct. In fact, there is a high chance to end up far from the zero line, because the expected distance from the start for a random walk with N steps is sqrt(N).  What does indeed approach the zero line is if you took a bunch of these random walks and then performed the average over those. There is, however, one important aspect in which this random walk differs from the stock market: The random walk can go down as far as it likes, whereas a stock has a bottom below which it cannot fall. Reaching this bottom means the company is bankrupt and gets removed from the market. This means that the total stock market, which we might interpret as a sum of random walks, does indeed have a bias towards upwards movement, since I'm only averaging over those random walks that don't go below a certain threshold. But you can really only benefit from this effect by being broadly diversified." "not sure if I will help or just spread more gibberish but maybe the first concept I'd look at is risk tolerance.  Risk tolerance is discerning your ability to risk losing money to get better results.  So you know the saying ""the higher the risk the higher the reward""?  The way most people are going to operate is somewhere on the midpoint of behavior - not doing the riskiest thing, but not doing the very most cautious thing either.  So given that concept, some investments will be more appealing given different economic scenarios.  Typically stocks are going to reward your investment a little more aggressively than a treasury bond if the economy is humming along.  This drives prices of treasuries lower, stock yields higher.  In a crappy economy, people want to move their money into conservative investments like a treasury bond. Bond prices rise while stock prices dip.    If you google 'correlations between the market prices of stocks and the market prices of Treasury bonds' you will find plenty of helpful and hopefully not too convoluted articles a la http://finance.zacks.com/correlation-treasuries-stocks-10871.html Don't get freaked out by graphs, the graphs are just a way to put into a picture that correlation." Your autograph analogy seems relevant to me. But it is not just speculation. In the long run, investing in stocks is like investing in the economy. In the long run, the economy is expected to grow , hence stock prices are expected to go up. Now in theory: the price of any financial instrument is equal to the net present value today of all the future cash flows from the instrument. So if company's earnings improve, shareholders hope that the earnings will trickle down to them either in form of dividends or in form of capital gain. So they buy the stock, creating demand for it. I can try to explain more if this did not make any sense. :) In your own example of VW, it dropped from its peak price of $253 to $92. If you had invested $10,000 in VW in April 2015, by September of that year it would have gone down to $3,600. If you held on to your investment, you would now be getting back to $6,700 on that original $10,000 investment. Your own example demonstrates that it is possible to lose. I have a friend who put his fortune into a company called WorldCom (one of the examples D Stanley shared). He actually lost all of his retirement. Luckily he made some money back when the startup we both worked for was sold to a much larger company. Unsophisticated investors lose money all the time by investing in individual companies. Your best bet is to start searching this site for answers on how to invest your money so that you can see actual strategies that reduce your investment risk. Here's a starting point: Best way to start investing, for a young person just starting their career? If you want to better illustrate this principle to yourself, try this stock market simulation game. "Ah I got ya. I partially agree with you, but it's far more complex. I think that is simplifying the debate a bit too much. When people go ""passive"" you are making the assumption that they are able to stay fully invested the full time period (say 30-40 years until retirement when you might change the asset allocation). This is not a fair assumption because many studies on behavioral finance have shown that people (90% plus) are not able to sit tight through a full market cycle and often sell out during a bear market. I'm not debating you're point that passive often outperforms due to the fees (although there are many managers that do outperform), but the main issue with self-managing and passive investing is people usually make emotional decisions, which then hurts their long-term performance. This would be the reason to hire an adviser. Assuming that people are able to stay passive the entire time and not make a single ""active"" decision is a very unfair assumption. There was a good study on this referenced in Forbes article below: https://www.forbes.com/sites/advisor/2014/04/24/why-the-average-investors-investment-return-is-so-low/#5169be2b111a  Another issue is that there are a lot ""active managers"" that really just replicate their benchmarks and don't actually actively manage. If you look at active managers who really do have huge under-weights and over-weights relative to their benchmarks they actually tend to outperform them (look at the study below by martin cremers, he's one of the most highly respected researchers when it comes to investment performance research and the active vs passive debate)  http://www.cfapubs.org/doi/pdf/10.2469/faj.v73.n2.4  I guess what I'm trying to say is that for most people having an adviser (and paying them a 1% fee) is usually better than going it alone, where they are going to A. chase heat (I bet they always choose the hottest benchmark from the past few years) and B. make poor emotional decisions relating their finances." "2010 - What $20M looks like with hindsight of 7 years  Friend: ""Dude there is this new thing, you should grab some, it is $0.10 per.""  Me: ""So like a penny stock? Nah im good that seems like a waste.""  Friend: ""No man this is going to blow up and is the future.  Take like $500 buy some and it will be worth like $1000 next year.""  Me: ""Nah ill keep putting my $500 in safe investments making me 5-10% a year.""  Edit: I am aware I probably made the ""smart"" choice but turning $500 into even $200,000 would have been nice" The value premium would state the opposite in fact if one looks at the work of Fama and French. The Investment Entertainment Pricing Theory (INEPT) shows a graph with the rates on small-cap/large-cap and growth/value combinations that may be of interest as well for another article noting the same research. Index fund advisors in Figure 9-1 shows various historical returns up to 2012 that may also be useful here for those wanting more detailed data. How to Beat the Benchmark is from 1998 that could be interesting to read about index funds and beating the index in a simpler way. Sure.. its possible, its exactly what activist investors do (with institutional money - e.g. pension funds, family foundations).  Crowdsourcing probably implies an average &lt;$100 donation per contributor in your mind however, so you'd need a lot of contributors (as opposed to an institution writing a $1B check out of the box)  As a benchmark, you can start agitating even without owning shares, but it probably lends credibility to have a few percentage points.  As of today, GS's market cap is $46B, JPM's market cap is $122B, BAML's market cap is $77B... so you'd need at least $1B of capital to buy a percentage point or two.  At $100 per ticket. that's 10M individual donors.