How can I find out what factors are making a stock's price rise?
A few days ago they launched Fannie Mae Guaranteed Multifamily Structures (link) but who knows?  It's a penny stock now. Google Finance is pretty good at marking news right on the chart for a particular stock.  That's how I tracked that piece of news down.  Can't say that it precipitated a lot of people buying the stock, but Google Finance isn't a bad place to start looking. "Because more people bought it than sold it. That's really all one can say. You look for news stories related to the event, but you don't really know that's what drove people to buy or sell. We're still trying to figure out the cause of the recent flash crash, for example. For the most part, I feel journalism trying to describe why the markets moved is destined to fail.  It's very complicated. Stocks can fall on above average earnings reports, and rise on dismal annual reports. I've heard a suggestion before that people ""buy on the rumor, sell on the news"". Which is just this side of insider trading." When you look at the charts in Google Finance, they put the news on the right hand side. The time stamp for each news item is indicated with a letter in the chart. This often shows what news the market is reacting to. In your example:  Clicking on the letter F leads to this Reuters story: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/04/usa-housing-s-idUSWAT01486120110204 "At any moment, the price is where the supply (seller) and demand (buyer) intersect. This occurs fast enough you don't see it as anything other than bid/ask. What moves it? News of a new drug, device, sandwich, etc. Earning release, whether above or below expectations, or even dead-on, will often impact the price.  Every night, the talking heads try to explain the day's price moves. When they can't, they often report ""profit taking"" for a market drop, or other similar nonsense. Some moves are simple random change."
While there are lots of really plausible explanations for why the market moves a certain way on a certain day, no one really knows for sure.  In order to do that, you would need to understand the 'minds' of all the market players.  These days many of these players are secret proprietary algorithms.  I'm not quibbling with the specifics of these explanations (I have no better) just pointing out that these are just really hypotheses and if the market starts following different patterns, they will be tossed into the dust bin of 'old thinking'. I think the best thing you can explain to your son is that the stock market is basically a gigantic highly complex poker game.  The daily gyrations of the market are about individuals trying to predict where the herd is going to go next and then after that and then after that etc. If you want to help him understand the market, I suggest two things.  The first is to find or create a simple market game and play it with him.  The other would be to teach him about how bonds are priced and why prices move the way they do.  I know this might sound weird and most people think bonds are esoteric but there are bonds have a much simpler pricing model based on fundamental financial logic.  It's much easier then to get your head around the moves of the bond markets because the part of the price based on beliefs is much more limited (i.e. will the company be able pay & where are rates going.)  Once you have that understanding, you can start thinking about the different ways stocks can be valued (there are many) and what the market movements mean about how people are valuing different companies. With regard to this specific situation, here's a different take on it from the 'priced in' explanation which isn't really different but might make more sense to your son: Pretend for a second that at some point these stocks did move seasonally.  In the late fall and winter when sales went up, the stock price increased in kind.  So some smart people see this happening every year and realize that if they bought these stocks in the summer, they would get them cheap and then sell them off when they go up.  More and more people are doing this and making easy money.  So many people are doing it that the stock starts to rise in the Summer now.  People now see that if they want to get in before everyone else, they need to buy earlier in the Spring.  Now the prices start rising in the Spring.  People start buying in the beginning of the year... You can see where this is going, right?  Essentially, a strategy to take advantage of well known seasonal patterns is unstable.  You can't profit off of the seasonal changes unless everyone else in the market is too stupid to see that you are simply anticipating their moves and react accordingly. There's an interesting paper, Does Investor Attention Affect Stock Prices? (Sandhya et al), where researchers look at related stock tickers.  When a large cap, better-known stock jumps, smaller firms with similar symbols also rise.   Pretty nuts -- I interviewed the author of the paper [here](http://www.tradestreaming.com/?p=3745). There's also a transcript. "Stock price is determined by the buyers and sellers, correct? Correct! ""Everything is worth what its purchaser will pay for it""-Publius Syrus What causes people to buy or sell? Is it news? earnings? stock analysis and techniques? All of these things influence investors' perception of how much a stock is worth. If AMZN makes a lot of money one quarter, then the price might go up. But maybe public perception of AMZN changes because of a large scandal. This could cause the share price to decline even with the favorable earnings report. Why do these 'good' or 'bad' news make people want to buy/sell a stock? People invest to make money. If it looks like a company is going to take a turn for the worst, people will sell. If it looks like the company has a bright, cash-laden future in front of them, people will buy. News is one of the many factors people use to determine how well a company will do. Theoretically could a bunch of people short AMZN and drive down the price regardless of how well it is doing? Say investors wanted to boycott AMZN in order to drive down the cost and get some cheap shares. This is pretty silly, but say for the sake of the argument that everyone who owned AMZN decided to sell their shares and no other investor was willing to buy the shares for less than $0.01, then AMZN shares would be ""worth"" $0.01 in that aspect. That is extremely unlikely to happen, though, for two reasons:" "Indexes are down during the summer time, and I don't think it has something to do with specific stocks. If you look at the index history you'll see that there's a price drop during the summer time. Google ""Sell in May and go away"". The BP was cheap at the time for a very particular reason. As another example of a similar speculation you can look at Citibank, which was less than $1 at its lowest, and within less than a year went to over $4 ( more than 400%). But, when it was less than $1 - it was very likely for C to go bankrupt, and it required a certain amount of willingness to loose to invest in it. Looking back, as with BP, it paid off well. But - that is looking back. So to address your question - there's no place where people tell you what will go up, because people who know (or think they know) will invest themselves, or buy lottery tickets. There's research, analysts, and ""frinds' suggestions"" which sometimes pay off (as in your example with BP), and sometimes don't. How much of it is noise - I personally don't think I can tell, until I can look back and say ""Damn, that dude was right about shorts on Google, it did go down 90% in 2012!""" Companies are expected to make a profit, otherwise there is no point to their existence and no motivation for investment. That profit comes back to shareholders as growth and/or dividend. If a company is doing well and has a healthy profit to turn back into investment to facilitate increased future earnings, it increases shareholder equity and share price. If a company is doing well and has a healthy profit to pay out in dividend, it makes the shares more attractive to investors which pushes the price up. Either way, shares go up. Share prices drop when companies lose money, or there are market disturbances affecting all companies (recessions), or when individual companies fail. Averaged over all companies over the long term (decades), stocks can be reasonably expected to go up. "You could use any of various financial APIs (e.g., Yahoo finance) to get prices of some reference stock and bond index funds.  That would be a reasonable approximation to market performance over a given time span. As for inflation data, just googling ""monthly inflation data"" gave me two pages with numbers that seem to agree and go back to 1914.  If you want to double-check their numbers you could go to the source at the BLS. As for whether any existing analysis exists, I'm not sure exactly what you mean.  I don't think you need to do much analysis to show that stock returns are different over different time periods." (yes, this should probably be a comment, not an answer ... but it's a bit long). I don't know what the laws are specifically about this, but my grandfather used to be on the board of a company that he helped to found ... and back in the 1980s, there was a period when the stock price suddenly quadrupled One of the officers in the company, knowing that the stock was over-valued, sold around a third of his shares ... and he got investigated for insider trading.  I don't recall if he was ever charged with anything, but there were some false rumors spreading about the company at the time (one was that they had something that you could sprinkle on meat to reduce the cholesterol).  I don't know where the rumors came from, but I've always assumed it was some sort of pump-and-dump stock manipulation, as this was decades before they were on the S&P 500 small cap. After that, the company had a policy where officers had to announce they were selling stock, and that it wouldn't execute for some time (1? 2 weeks? something like that).  I don't know if that was the SEC's doing, or something that the company came up with on their own. "It is important to first understand that true causation of share price may not relate to historical correlation. Just like with scientific experiments, correlation does not imply causation. But we use stock price correlation to attempt to infer causation, where it is reasonable to do so. And to do that you need to understand that prices change for many reasons; some company specific, some industry specific, some market specific. Companies in the same industry may correlate when that industry goes up or down; companies with the same market may correlate when that market goes up or down. In general, in most industries, it is reasonable to assume that competitor companies have stocks which strongly correlate (positively) with each-other to the extent that they do the same thing.  For a simple example, consider three resource companies: ""Oil Ltd."" [100% of its assets relate to Oil]; ""Oil and Iron Inc."" [50% of its value relates to Oil, 50% to Iron]; and ""Iron and Copper Ltd."" [50% of its value relates to Iron, 50% to Copper]. For each of these companies, there are many things which affect value, but one could naively simplify things by saying ""value of a resource company is defined by the expected future volume of goods mined/drilled * the expected resource price, less all fixed and variable costs"". So, one major thing that impacts resource companies is simply the current & projected price of those resources. This means that if the price of Oil goes up or down, it will partially affect the value of the two Oil companies above - but how much it affects each company will depend on the volume of Oil it drills, and the timeline that it expects to get that Oil. For example, maybe Oil and Iron Ltd. has no currently producing Oil rigs, but it has just made massive investments which expect to drill Oil in 2 years - and the market expects Oil prices to return to a high value in 2 years.  In that case, a drop in Oil would impact Oil Inc. severely, but perhaps it wouldn't impact Oil and Iron Ltd. as much. In this case, for the particular share price movement related to the price of Oil, the two companies would not be correlated. Iron and Copper Ltd. would be unaffected by the price of Oil [this is a simplification; Oil prices impact many areas of the economy], and therefore there would be no correlation at all between this company's shares. It is also likely that competitors face similar markets. If consumer spending goes down, then perhaps the stock of most consumer product companies would go down as well. There would be outliers, because specific companies may still succeed in a falling market, but in generally, there would be a lot of correlation between two companies with the same market.  In the case that you list, Sony vs Samsung, there would be some factors that correlate positively, and some that correlate negatively. A clean example would be Blackberry stock vs Apple stock - because Apple's success had specifically negative ramifications for Blackberry. And yet, other tech company competitors also succeeded in the same time period, meaning they did not correlate negatively with Apple." There are lots of good answers on here already.  There are actually lots of answers for this question.  Lots.  I have years of experience on the exchange feed side and there are hundreds and thousands of variables.   All of these variables are funneled into systems owned by large financial institutions (I used to manage these - and only a few companies in the world do this so not hard to guess who I work for).  Their computers then make trades based on all of these variables and equations.  There are variables as whacky as how many times was a company mentioned in an aggregate news feed down to your basic company financials.  But if there is a way to measure a company (or to just guess) there is an equation for it plugged into a super computer at a big bank. Now there are two important factors on why you see this mad dash in the morning: Now most of the rest of the day is also automated trades but by the time you are an hour into market open the computers for the most part have fulfilled their calendar buys.  Everyone else's answer is right too.  There is futures contracts that change, global exchange info changes, options expiring, basic news, whatever but all of these are amplified by the calendar day changing. "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? My view is that hedge funds and high-frequency traders tend to create this correlation because they're making directional bets on individual stocks, grouped as a whole, and then share these ideas with so many other funds (who, in turn, do the same thing).  I think Beta and inflated share prices are related to this effect, but are not the cause of this effect. The stock price is what people think a company is worth, this is made up of When a company pays out a dividend the money in the company’s bank account reduces, therefore the value of the company reduces.    When a company says they are going to pay a larger dividend than expected, we start to expect they are going to make more profit next year as well. So stock price tends to go up when a company says it is increasing the dividend, but down on the day then money leaves the companies bank account.   There is normally many months between the two events. Great answers. Here's my two cents: First, don't forget to look at the overall picture, not just the dividend. Study the company's income statement, balance sheet and cash flow statement for the last few years. Make sure they have good earnings potential, and are not carrying too much debt. I know it's dull, but it's better to miss an opportunity than to buy a turkey and watch the dividends and the share price tank. I went through this with BAC (Bank of America) a couple of years ago. They had a 38-year history of rising dividends when I bought them, and the yield was about 8%. Then the banking crisis happened and the dividend went from $2.56/share to $0.04, and the price fell from $40 to $5. (I stuck with it, continuing to buy at lower and lower prices, and eventually sold them all at $12 and managed to break even, but it was not a pleasant experience) Do your homework. :) Still, one of the most reliable ways to judge a company's dividend-paying ability is to look at its dividend history. Once a company has started paying a dividend there is a strong expectation from shareholders that these payments will continue, and the company's management will try very hard to maintain them. (Though sometimes this doesn't work out, e.g. BAC) You should see an uninterrupted stream of non-decreasing payments over a period of at least 5 years (this timeframe is just a rule of thumb). Well-established, profitable companies also tend to increase their dividends over time, which has the added benefit of pushing up their share price. So you're getting increasing dividends and capital gains. Next, look at the company's payout ratio over time, and the actual cost of the dividend. Can the projected earnings cover the dividend cost without going above the payout ratio? If not, then the dividend is likely to get reduced. In the case of CIM, the dividend history is short and erratic. The earnings are also all over the place, so it's hard to predict what will happen next year. The company is up to its eyeballs debt (current ratio is .2), and its earnings have dropped by 20% in the last quarter. They have lost money in two of the last three years, even though earning have jumped dramatically. This is a very young company, and in my opinion it is too early for them to be paying dividends. A very speculative stock, and you are more likely to make money from capital gains than dividends. AAE is a different story. They are profitable, and have a long dividend history, although the dividend was cut in half recently. This may be a good to buy them hoping the dividend comes back once the economy recovers. However, they are trading at over 40 times earnings, which seems expensive, considering their low profit margins. Before investing your money, invest in your education. :) Get some books on interpretation of financial staments, and learn how to read the numbers. It's sort of like looking at the codes in The Matrix, and seeing the blonde in the red dress (or whatever it was). Good luck! Are you sure you're not just looking at prices that are adjusted for the split, e.g. Yahoo? For example, Gilead Sciences (GILD) split a few months ago, but if you look at a price chart, there isn't an interruption even though the split is clearly marked. (Look in the past six months; it split in January). However, you could also simply be watching companies that happen to not split, for a variety of reasons. This isn't a criticism, but rather just a consequence of whatever stocks you happen to be watching.  However, a quick search for information on stock splits yields a few articles (mainly from the Motley Fool) that argue that fewer companies are performing stock splits in recent years; the articles mainly talk about tech companies, and they make the argument that even though the shares in Google and Apple have a high stock price: Google and Apple aren't all that expensive by traditional valuation   metrics. Google trades at just 15 times next year's projected   profitability. Apple fetches a mere 13 times fiscal 2012's bottom-line estimates. These articles are a bit dated in terms of the stock prices, but the rationale is probably still good. Similar logic could apply for other companies; for example, since May 2009, Panera's stock price has climbed by almost a factor of 4 without splitting. The articles also make the point that stock splits were traditionally seen as bullish signs because: Companies splitting to bring their share prices back down to more   accessible levels were optimistic in building those sand castles back   up. One could make a fair argument that the overall economic climate isn't as bullish as it used to be, although I would only be convinced that this was affecting stock splits if data could be gathered and tested. A stock split can also raise the price of a stock because if small investors feel the stock is suddenly more accessible to them, they purchase more of it and might therefore drive up the price. (See the Investopedia article on stock splits for more information). Companies might not see the necessity in doing this because their stock price isn't high enough to warrant a split or because the price isn't high enough to outprice smaller investors.  One interesting point to make, however, is that even though stock splits can drive small investors to buy more of the stock, this isn't always a gain for the company because professional investors (firms, institutions, etc.) have a tendency to sell after a split. The paper is a bit old, but it's still a very neat read. It's possible that more and more companies no longer see any advantage to splitting because it might not affect their stock price in the long run, and arguably could even hurt it. Considering that large/professional investors likely hold a higher percentage of a company's shares than smaller investors, if a stock split triggers a wave of selling by the former, the increasing propensity to buy of the latter may not be enough to offset the decline in price.  Note: My answer only refers to standard stock splits; the reasons above may not apply to a decrease in the number of reverse stock splits (which may not be a phenomenon; I don't know).