How do brokerage firms make money?
"Regarding ""Interest on idle cash"",  brokerage firms must maintain a segregated account on the brokerage firm's books to make sure that the client's money and the firm's money is not intermingled, and clients funds are not used for operational purposes. Source.   Thus, brokerage firms do not earn interest on cash that is held unused in client accounts. Regarding ""Exchanges pay firm for liquidity"", I am not aware of any circumstances under which an exchange will pay a brokerage any such fee.  In fact, the opposite is the case.  Exchanges charge participants to transact business. See : How the NYSE makes money Similarly, market makers do not pay a broker to transact business on their behalf.  They charge the broker a commission just like the broker charges their client a commission.  Of course, a large broker may also be acting as market maker or deal directly with the exchange, in which case no such commission will be incurred by the broker.  In any case, the broker will pay a commission to the clearing house."
The company gets it worth from how well it performs. For example if you buy company A for $50 a share and it beats its   expected earnings, its price will raise and lets say after a year or   two it can be worth around $70 or maybe more.This is where you can   sell it and make more money than dividends. "This is a complicated subject, because professional traders don't rely on brokers for stock quotes.  They have access to market data using Level II terminals, which show them all of the prices (buy and sell) for a given stock.   Every publicly traded stock (at least in the U.S.) relies on firms called ""market makers"".  Market makers are the ones who ultimately actually buy and sell the shares of companies, making their money on the difference between what they bought the stock at and what they can sell it for.  Sometimes those margins can be in hundreds of a cent per share, but if you trade enough shares...well, it adds up. The most widely traded stocks (Apple, Microsoft, BP, etc) may have hundreds of market makers who are willing to handle share trades.  Each market maker sets their own price on what they'll pay (the ""bid"") to buy someone's stock who wants to sell and what they'll sell (the ""ask"") that share for to someone who wants to buy it.   When a market maker wants to be competitive, he may price his bid/ask pretty aggressively, because automated trading systems are designed to seek out the best bid/ask prices for their trade executions.  As such, you might get a huge chunk of market makers in a popular stock to all set their prices almost identically to one another.  Other market makers who aren't as enthusiastic will set less competitive prices, so they don't get much (maybe no) business.  In any case, what you see when you pull up a stock quote is called the ""best bid/ask"" price.  In other words, you're seeing the highest price a market maker will pay to buy that stock, and the lowest price that a market maker will sell that stock.  You may get a best bid from one market maker and a best ask from a different one.  In any case, consumers must be given best bid/ask prices. Market makers actually control the prices of shares.  They can see what's out there in terms of what people want to buy or sell, and they modify their prices accordingly.  If they see a bunch of sell orders coming into the system, they'll start dropping prices, and if people are in a buying mood then they'll raise prices. Market makers can actually ignore requests for trades (whether buy or sell) if they choose to, and sometimes they do, which is why a limit order (a request to buy/sell a stock at a specific price, regardless of its current actual price) that someone places may go unfilled and die at the end of the trading session.  No market maker is willing to fill the order. Nowadays, these systems are largely automated, so they operate according to complex rules defined by their owners.  Very few trades actually involve human intervention, because people can't digest the information at a fast enough pace to keep up with automated platforms. So that's the basics of how share prices work.  I hope this answered your question without being too confusing! Good luck!" Market Makers are essentially just there to process the buys and sells of traders, so just like you and I buy and sell at the ask and bid prices they do to. They are just completing the process of making our orders a reality. Market makers are just representative of brokers, meaning that when you place your order at ask or bid, you are placing that particular brokers order at ask or bid. People often say that certain brokers have too many shares and claim that they are games when really that just means that there happen to be a lot of people using a particular broker all at once, or more troubling, perhaps even company execs using a broker, to sell a large amount of shares. They return capital to investors every year to keep the fund size smaller, since there are a set number of money-making opportunities in the space.  In other words, if they will make $1 billion per year regardless of invested capital, why not lever up a few times so you don't have to put as much in? "Well, they don't ""make"" money in the sense of income, but they receive money in exchange for shares of stock (more of the company is owned by the public).  The Warrant entitles the holder to purchase stock directly from the company at a fixed price.  It is very much like an open-market call option, but instead of the option holder buying stock from a third party (which does not affect the company at all), the holder buys it directly from the company, increasing the number of shares outstanding, and the proceeds go directly to the company. If the holders do not exercise the warrants, the company does not receive any cash, but they also don't issue any new shares." Purchases and sales from the same trade date will both settle on the same settlement date. They don't have to pay for their purchases until later either. Because HFT typically make many offsetting trades -- buying, selling, buying, selling, buying, selling, etc -- when the purchases and sales settle, the amount they pay for their purchases will roughly cancel with the amount they receive for their sales (the difference being their profit or loss). Margin accounts and just having extra cash around can increase their ability to have trades that do not perfectly offset. In practice, the HFT's broker will take a smaller amount of cash (e.g. $1 million) as a deposit of capital, and will then allow the HFT to trade a larger amount of stock value long or short (e.g. $10 million, for 10:1 leverage). That $1 million needs to be enough to cover the net profit/loss when the trades settle, and the broker will monitor this to ensure that deposit will be enough. "It may be margin loans or credit lines given to brokerages. I have no idea what a loan book is though so don't I don't really know. Also no one ""plays"" in equity markets with borrowed money unless they know for sure what they are doing or they have collateral as in the case of margin." "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." In this example, Client A has to buy shares to return them to Client B for his sale (closing Client A's short position).  Client B then sells the shares.  The end result is there are no shares within the brokerage clientele anymore, so Client A can't borrow them anymore.    The broker is just an intermediary, they wouldn't go out and acquire securities on their own for the benefit of a client wanting to short it, as they would be taking on the risk of the opposite position.  This would be in addition to the risk they already take on when allowing people to short sell -- which is that Client A won't have the money to buy the shares it owes to Client B, in which case the broker has to make Client B whole. Think of options as insurance. An insurance company makes money by selling the policies at a rate slightly higher than the average payout.  Most options expire worthless. This is because most options are purchased by hedge funds. To 'hedge' means taking out insurance in case your position goes against you. So the sellers of options obtain a price that covers their (averaged) losses plus provides them with a profit for their trouble.  An option has an amount that it declines in value each day (called theta). At the expiration date the option is worth zero (if it is out-of-the-money). So it is option writers that, typically, make money in the options market (as they are the sellers of insurance). If they didn't make money selling options they would not sell them.  For example, the February call option on SPY strike 200 traded at 8.81 on 12/30. Since then it has crumbled in value to 0.14. The option writer currently stands to make a huge profit.  So, just as with insurance, you (generally) never make money by buying insurance. But the sellers of insurance tend to make money as do the writers of options.  Edit: Theta @ Investopedia "Brokerages offer you the convenience of buying and selling financial products. They are usually not exchanges themselves, but they can be. Typically there is an exchange and the broker sends orders to that exchange. The main benefit that brokers offer is a simpler commission structure. Not all brokers have their own liquidity, but brokers can have their own allotment of shares of a stock, for example, that they will sell you when you make an order, so that you get what you want faster. Regarding accounts at the exchanges to track actual ownership and transfer of assets, it is not safe to assume thats how that works. There are a lot of shortcomings in how the actual exchange works, since the settlement time is 1 - 3 business days, depending on the product (so upwards of 5 to 6 actual days). In a fast market, the asset can change hands many many times making the accounting completely incorrect for extended time periods. Better to not worry about that part, but if you'd like to read more about how that is regulated look up ""Failure To Deliver"" regulations on short selling to get a better understanding of market microstructure. It is a very antiquated system." "There are people (well, companies) who make money doing roughly what you describe, but not exactly. They're called ""market makers"". Their value for X% is somewhere on the scale of 1% (that is to say: a scale at which almost everything is ""volatile""), but they use leverage, shorting and hedging to complicate things to the point where it's nothing like a simple as making a 1% profit every time they trade. Their actions tend to reduce volatility and increase liquidity. The reason you can't do this is that you don't have enough capital to do what market makers do, and you don't receive any advantages that the exchange might offer to official market makers in return for them contracting to always make both buy bids and sell offers (at different prices, hence the ""bid-offer spread""). They have to be able to cover large short-term losses on individual stocks, but when the stock doesn't move too much they do make profits from the spread. The reason you can't just buy a lot of volatile stocks ""assuming I don't make too many poor choices"", is that the reason the stocks are volatile is that nobody knows which ones are the good choices and which ones are the poor choices. So if you buy volatile stocks then you will buy a bunch of losers, so what's your strategy for ensuring there aren't ""too many""? Supposing that you're going to hold 10 stocks, with 10% of your money in each, what do you do the first time all 10 of them fall the day after you bought them? Or maybe not all 10, but suppose 75% of your holdings give no impression that they're going to hit your target any time soon. Do you just sit tight and stop trading until one of them hits your X% target (in which case you start to look a little bit more like a long-term investor after all), or are you tempted to change your strategy as the months and years roll by? If you will eventually sell things at a loss to make cash available for new trades, then you cannot assess your strategy ""as if"" you always make an X% gain, since that isn't true. If you don't ever sell at a loss, then you'll inevitably sometimes have no cash to trade with through picking losers. The big practical question then is when that state of affairs persists, for how long, and whether it's in force when you want to spend the money on something other than investing. So sure, if you used a short-term time machine to know in advance which volatile stocks are the good ones today, then it would be more profitable to day-trade those than it would be to invest for the long term. Investing on the assumption that you'll only pick short-term winners is basically the same as assuming you have that time machine ;-) There are various strategies for analysing the market and trying to find ways to more modestly do what market makers do, which is to take profit from the inherent volatility of the market. The simple strategy you describe isn't complete and cannot be assessed since you don't say how to decide what to buy, but the selling strategy ""sell as soon as I've made X% but not otherwise"" can certainly be improved. If you're keen you can test a give strategy for yourself using historical share price data (or current share price data: run an imaginary account and see how you're doing in 12 months). When using historical data you have to be realistic about how you'd choose what stocks to buy each day, or else you're just cheating at solitaire. When using current data you have to beware that there might not be a major market slump in the next 12 months, in which case you won't know how your strategy performs under conditions that it inevitably will meet eventually if you run it for real. You also have to be sure in either case to factor in the transaction costs you'd be paying, and the fact that you're buying at the offer price and selling at the bid price, you can't trade at the headline mid-market price. Finally, you have to consider that to do pure technical analysis as an individual, you are in effect competing against a bank that's camped on top of the exchange to get fastest possible access to trade, it has a supercomputer and a team of whizz-kids, and it's trying to find and extract the same opportunities you are. This is not to say the plucky underdog can't do well, but there are systematic reasons not to just assume you will. So folks investing for their retirement generally prefer a low-risk strategy that plays the averages and settles for taking long-term trends." The brokerage executes the transactions you tell them to make on your behalf. Other than acting as your agent for those, and maintaining your account, and charging a fee for the service, they have no involvement -- they do not attempt to predict optimal anything, or hold any assets themselves. "What you're thinking of is more market making kind of activity, HFT algo's thrive on this; having information faster than anyone else. This type of activity could also likely be lumped into what is considered top-down analysis as opposed to bottom-up (which is what most mutual fund equity research involves). Again, the more important aspect is, what does the company you are applying to use!  Top-down analysis means that you are forecasting the revenue drivers for a company using macro-economic analysis. For example, let's say I'm investing in Chinese cement manufacturer's, what implications does Chinese interest rate policy have on infra-structure expansion and how does that drive revenue for this specific company. I might then look at margins, etc. to get an EPS estimate. Part of this could fall into secular  investing, too. Let's say I like LCD panel glass because of this consortium, I might take a look at 5 companies and then find the ones I think would benefit most from this. The problem with top-down is it tends not to be as much of a deep-dive, and its hard to pick individual companies because of it. Bottom-up tends to be more analytical and is what most pitches would be based around. The most important thing I'm not saying one is right or wrong, they are just different, and every investor has their own style.  Bottom-up analysis, which would be closer to what an equity research analyst would be doing on the sell-side, is analyzing what bottom-line indicators drive revenue and how are those expanding. For example, lets say I'm looking at search providers (i.e. Baidu, Google, Yahoo, etc.) I'd be looking at Cost-Per-Thousand-Clicks (CPTC) and number of clicks on the website. Multiply the two and I get revenue (very simplified version) for clicks business. I might then also forecast other revenue driving segments and try to understand how they are growing/pricing at an individual segment level (i.e. business services or mobile advertising). I'd then break down costs/margins for each segment and forecast those out. I could then get a forward EPS, get a range of multiples I believe it could trade in (i.e. I think the multiple will trade up/down), to get a target price. Also, I would likely do a DCF analysis on forward earnings to get a ""fair market value,"" and then try to triangulate a price. I would also be looking at stuff like management teams and industry trends, too, but bottom line, I'm pitching a company because I think it is undervalued and will outperform competitors **in the long run**. This type of work tends to be more research oriented and is what most (not all) mutual funds use when analyzing companies. Since mutual funds tend to have longer holding periods (2-10 years), as opposed to short-term, it's harder to justify investing in a company only because it has a short-term catalyst. Anecdotally, it's also easier to present in a written thesis because the numbers tend to be more concrete and easier to forecast than top-down (which have wider target ranges).  Your thought process that catalyst + industry context = market beating returns isn't wrong, it's just that every company thinks about investing differently, and it's important to tailor the report to that group's style." The future shares will be fewer in number, yet have claim to less cash in the bank. All in all, there's little reason the shares would rise in value.  Say there are 1M shares, trading at $10. Market cap is $10M of course. Now, there happens to be $2M cash in the bank so each share had about $2 cash. By taking the $2M and buying 200K shares, 800K shares remain, but why would you think they'd be valued at $12.50? The same $10 value per share is now an $8M market cap as $2M has been disbursed, no less so than if it were given out in a dividend.