What can I take from learning that a company's directors are buying or selling shares?
"It is not clear when you mean ""company's directors"" are they also majority owners.   There are several reasons for Buy;   Similarly there are enough reasons for sell;   Quite often the exact reasons for Buy or Sell are not known and hence blindly following that strategy is not useful. It can be one of the inputs to make a decision." "You can learn very little from it. Company directories are often given share options or shares as a bonus, and because of that they are unlikely to buy shares. When they sell shares, you'll hear people shouting ""so-and-so sold his or her shares, they must know something bad about the company"".  The truth is that you can't eat or drink shares. If that company director owning shares worth a million dollars wants to buy a new Ferrari, he will find that Ferrari doesn't give free cars to people owning lots of shares. He actually has to sell the shares to get the money for the car, and that's what he does." A pattern of high level people buying or selling is a sign, positive or negative. An individual, not so much. He can be selling to diversify, trying to keep his investments from being all in the company. He can be selling to pay his large bills. Same reasons any of us might be selling an investment to have cash to use. "This could be another reason.  ""Companies buy their own stock in the market place to reduce the number of shares outstanding, and thus boosts the earnings per share. It also boosts the stock price, which benefits management that has stock options. "" Taken from this article. http://www.forbes.com/sites/investor/2014/01/06/the-most-reliable-indicator-of-an-approaching-market-top/ and this article ""Why are stock rising?"" may help as well.  http://www.forbes.com/sites/investor/2013/12/23/why-are-stocks-rising/"
I understand now. Thank you. How important is the existence of effective price discovery tools in a market?   And the example that you gave of a farmer is good, but when I as the owner of a company, get futures regarding, say, the stocks that I own of my company, won't that be insider trading if I do that after knowing that the value of my stocks will fall? If people assume price discovery in this case, won't they also have to assume that I am doing insider trading? First, the stock does represent a share of ownership and if you have a different interpretation I'd like to see proof of that. Secondly, when the IPO or secondary offering happened that put those shares into the market int he first place, the company did receive proceeds from selling those shares. While others may profit afterward, it is worth noting that more than a few companies will have secondary offerings, convertible debt, incentive stock options and restricted stock that may be used down the road that are all dependent upon the current trading share price in terms of how useful these can be used to fund operations, pay executives and so forth. Third, if someone buys up enough shares of the company then they gain control of the company which while you aren't mentioning this case, it is something to note as some individuals buy stock so that they can take over the company which happens. Usually this has more of an overall plan but the idea here is that getting that 50%+1 control of the company's voting shares are an important piece to things here. If I own shares of a company, am I entitled to apply as position of   CEO? Sure, but anybody else can apply too. Who decides? The corporate board of directors, who are nominally chosen by a vote of the stockholders. I say nominally, because in practice they are nominated by the current CEO and it's very rare for stockholders to veto the CEO's choice. Once in a while a group of stockholders will nominate their own candidate for the board, but they rarely win. I'd like to think there's some socio-corporate or investor-relationship advantage to working or having the option to work in certain positions in said company -- especially by privilege or total outstanding share ownership numbers. Why? Simply holding a large number of shares doesn't necessarily mean you know anything about running the business. No, you can also become more senior within the firm. It's not a board (of directors), it's just committees. Junior people (analyst/associates) screen deals and present it to senior people (VPs, directors) and if they think the deal should go ahead then even more senior people (MD/partners) will look at it and make the final decision. But such processes obviously depend on the firm... "Share prices change (or not) when shares are bought and sold. Unless he's sitting on a large percentage of the total shares, the fact that he isn't selling or buying means he's having no effect ar all on the stock price, and unless there's a vote war going on in the annual meeting his few stockholder votes aren't likely to have much effect there either (though there's always the outside chance of his being a tiebreaker). On the other hand, there's nothing inherently wrong with holding shares for a very long time and just taking the dividends (""clipping coupons""). Buy-and-hold is a legitimate strategy. Basically: His reason is wrong, but his action may be right, and you should probably just not ask." When you buy shares, you are literally buying a share of the company.  You become a part-owner of it. Companies are not required to pay dividends in any given year.  It's up to them to decide each year how much to pay out. The value of the shares goes up and down depending on how much the markets consider the company is worth.  If the company is successful, the price of the shares goes up.  If it's unsuccessful, the price goes down.  You have no control over that.  If the company fails completely and goes bankrupt, then the shares are worthless. Dilution is where the company decides to sell more shares.  If they are being sold at market value, then you haven't really lost anything.  But if they are sold below cost (perhaps as an incentive to certain staff), then the value of the company per share is now less.  So your shares may be worth a bit less than they were.  You would get to vote at the AGM on such schemes.  But unless you own a significant proportion of the shares in the company, your vote will probably make no difference. In practice, you can't protect yourself.  Buying shares is a gamble.  All you can do is decide what to gamble on. "Institutions may be buying large quantities of the stock and would want the price to go up after they are done buying all that they have to buy.  If the price jumps before they finish buying then they may not make as great a deal as they would otherwise.  Consider buying tens of thousands of shares of a company and then how does one promote that?  Also, what kind of PR system should those investment companies have to disclose whether or not they have holdings in these companies.  This is just some of the stuff you may be missing here. The ""Wall street analysts"" are the investment banks that want the companies to do business through them and thus it is a win/win relationship as the bank gets some fees for all the transactions done for the company while the company gets another cheerleader to try to play up the stock." "they are purchasing the company"" is this correct? Yes this is correct. If I purchase a ""company"" here in Australia, I also purchase its assets and liabilities Yes that is correct. How can it be NIL? How can it be legal? The value of shares [or shareholders] is Assets - liabilities. Generally a healthy company has Assets that are greater than its liabilities and hence the company has value and shareholders have value of the shares. In case of TEN; the company has more liabilities; even after all assets are sold off; there is not enough money left out to pay all the creditors. Hence the company is in Administration. i.e. it is now being managed by Regulated Australian authority. The job of the administrator is to find out suitable buyers so that most of the creditors are paid off and if there is surplus pay off the shareholder or arrive at a suitable deal. In case of TEN; the liabilities are so large that no one is ready to buy the company and the deal of CBS will also mean nothing gets paid to existing shareholders as the value is negative [as the company is separate legal entity, they can't recover the negative from shareholders]. Even the current creditors may not be paid in full and may get a pro-rated due and may lose some money." Shareholders have voting rights, and directors have fiduciary obligations to shareholders. Sure, shareholders have rights to the dividends, but stock confers decisionmaking powers. I'm not really sure what your answer to this is, or how you are differentiating the concept of ownership from this. "The usual pattern is that shareholders don't run companies in a practical sense, so ""if someone was just simply rich to buy > 50%, but does not know how to handle the company"" doesn't change anything. In large companies, the involvement of shareholders is limited to a few votes on key issues such as allocating profit (how much to keep in company vs pay in dividends) and choosing board members. And board members also don't run the company - they oversee how the company is being run, and choose executives who will actually run the company. If a rich person simply buys 50% and doesn't desire to get personally involved, then they just vote for whatever board members seem apropriate and forget about it." "With the second example, if you continue to read on you will see that although directors must try and maximise shareholders wealth. That precedence doesn't change however the interpretation of the actions and whether they maximise shareholders wealth does. For example giving money to charity with regards to the Doge v. Ford case would probably have been blocked on the grounds that it decreases shareholder wealth, but later cases such as A. P. Smith Manufacturing Co. v. Barlow say that donations can increase shareholders wealth in the long run. So it gives a broader coverage of the actions deemed to increase shareholder wealth.  The second is related to short term vs long term wealth but part of the reason for it was due to the inability of Paramount to prove that the value increase for shareholders in the long run from selling to Viacom rather than QVC would be larger than the difference between the two offers, which was 1.3 billion. Then there is also the issue of shareholders rights and the companys ability to block shareholders from selling to whomever they want. So as I said it's related, but the issue isn't solely and simply about short term vs long term wealth.  Both examples are kind of weak as in the first, well the issue doesn't really exist in the present day as previous case law has broadened the definition of actions which increase shareholder wealth, and in the second, short term vs long term value is related, but mostly tagging along with a larger issue. Your original statement was ""in matters of cost vs. quality I'd expect publicly traded companies to prioritize short-term shareholder profit (or be sued by said shareholders.)""  Are there any examples where shareholders have sued simply because they wanted better short term performance over long term performance?" And then they got caught for inside trading because the CEO was getting inside information, but now they are private and I think he offers at least 30% now. Don't believe me, Idc. SAC capital is right down the street from where I work and I know the personal secretary for the CEO of SAC capital. The Art of Short Selling by Kathryn Stanley providers for many case studies about what kind of opportunities to look for from a fundamental analysis perspective. Typically things you can look for are financing terms that are not very favorable (expensive interest payments) as well as other constrictions on cash flow, arbitrary decisions by management (poor management), and dilution that doesn't make sense (usually another product of poor management). From a quantitative analysis perspective, you can gain insight by looking at the credit default swap rate history, if the company is listed in that market. The things that affect a CDS spread are different than what immediately affects share prices. Some market participants trade DOOMs over Credit Default Swaps, when they are betting on a company's insolvency. But looking at large trades in the options market isn't indicative of anything on its own, but you can use that information to help confirm your opinion. You can certainly jump on a trend using bad headlines, but typically by the time it is headline news, the majority of the downward move in the share price has already happened, or the stock opened lower because the news came outside of market hours. You have to factor in the short interest of the company, if the short interest is high then it will be very easy to squeeze the shorts resulting in a rally of share prices, the opposite of what you want. A short squeeze doesn't change the fundamental or quantitative reasons you wanted to short. The technical analysis should only be used to help you decide your entry and exit price ranges amongst an otherwise random walk. The technical rules you created sound like something a very basic program or stock screener might be able to follow, but it doesn't tell you anything, you will have to do research in the company's public filings yourself. "The answer is partly and sometimes, but you cannot know when or how. Most clearly, you do not take somebody else's money if you buy shares in a start-up company. You are putting your money at risk in exchange for a share in the rewards. Later, if the company thrives, you can sell your shares for whatever somebody else will pay for your current share in the thriving company's earnings. Or, you lose your money, when the company fails. (Much of it has then ended up in the company's employees' pockets, much of the rest with the government as taxes that the company paid).  If the stockmarket did not exist, people would be far less willing to put their money into a new company, because selling shares would be far harder. This in turn would mean that fewer new things were tried out, and less progress would be made. Communists insist that central state planning would make better decisions than random people linked by a market. I suggest that the historical record proves otherwise. Historically, limited liability companies came first, then dividing them up into larger numbers of ""bearer"" shares, and finally creating markets where such shares were traded.  On the other hand if you trade in the short or medium term, you are betting that your opinion that XYZ shares are undervalued against other investors who think otherwise. But there again, you may be buying from a person who has some other reason for selling. Maybe he just needs some cash for a new car or his child's marriage, and will buy back into XYZ once he has earned some more money.  You can't tell who you are buying from, and the seller can only tell if his decision to sell was good with the benefit of a good few years of hindsight.  I bought shares hand over fist immediately after the Brexit vote. I was putting my money where my vote went, and I've now made a decent profit. I don't feel that I harmed the people who sold out in expectation of the UK economy cratering. They got the peace of mind of cash (which they might then reinvest in Euro stocks or gold or whatever). Time will tell whether my selling out of these purchases more recently was a good decision (short term, not my best, but a profit is a profit ...)  I never trade using borrowed money and I'm not sure whether city institutions should be allowed to do so (or more reasonably, to what extent this should be allowed). In a certain size and shortness of holding time, they cease to contribute to an orderly market and become a destabilizing force. This showed up in the financial crisis when certain banks were ""too big to fail"" and had to be bailed out at the taxpayer's expense. ""Heads we win, tails you lose"", rather than trading with us small guys as equals! Likewise it's hard to see any justification for high-frequency trading, where stocks are held for mere milliseconds, and the speed of light between the trader's and the market's computers is significant." Selling stock means selling a portion of ownership in your company.  Any time you issue stock, you give up some control, unless you're issuing non-voting stock, and even non-voting stock owns a portion of the company. Thus, issuing (voting) shares means either the current shareholders reduce their proportion of owernship, or the company reissues stock it held back from a previous offering (in which case it no longer has that stock available to issue and thus has less ability to raise funds in the future).  From Investopedia, for exmaple: Secondary offerings in which new shares are underwritten and sold dilute the ownership position of stockholders who own shares that were issued in the IPO. Of course, sometimes a secondary offering is more akin to Mark Zuckerberg selling some shares of Facebook to allow him to diversify his holdings - the original owner(s) sell a portion of their holdings off.  That does not dilute the ownership stake of others, but does reduce their share of course. You also give up some rights to dividends etc., even if you issue non-voting stock; of course that is factored into the price presumably (either the actual dividend or the prospect of eventually getting a dividend).  And hopefully more growth leads to more dividends, though that's only true if the company can actually make good use of the incoming funds. That last part is somewhat important.  A company that has a good use for new funds should raise more funds, because it will turn those $100 to $150 or $200 for everyone, including the current owners.  But a company that doesn't have a particular use for more money would be wasting those funds, and probably not earning back that full value for everyone. The impact on stock price of course is also a major factor and not one to discount; even a company issuing non-voting stock has a fiduciary responsibility to act in the interest of those non-voting shareholders, and so should not excessively dilute their value.