How much do big firms and investors affect the stock market?
"It's not either or.  Much of the time the value of the stock has some tangible relation to the financial prospects of the company. The value of Ford and GM stock rose when they were selling a lot of cars, and collapsed when their cars became unpopular. Other companies (Enron for example) frankly 'cook the books' to make it appear they are prospering, when they are actually drowning in debt and non-performing assets. So called ""penny stocks"" have both low prices and low volumes and are susceptible to ""pump and dump"" schemes, where a manipulator buys a bunch of the stock, touts the stock to the world, pointing to the recent increase in price. They then sell out to all the new buyers, and the price collapses.  If you are going to invest in the stock market it's up to you to figure out which companies are which." "The price of a company's stock at any given moment is established by a ratio of buyers to sellers.  When the sellers outnumber the buyers at a given price, the stock price drops until there are enough people willing to buy the stock to balance the equation again.  When there are more people wanting to purchase a stock at a given price than people willing to sell it, the stock price rises until there are enough sellers to balance things again.  So given this, it's easy to see that a very large fund (or collection of very large funds) buying or selling could drive the price of a stock in one direction or another (because the sheer number of shares they trade can tip the balance one way or another).   What's important to keep in mind though is that the ratio of buyers to sellers at any given moment is determined by ""market sentiment"" and speculation.  People selling a stock think the price is going down, and people buying it think it's going up; and these beliefs are strongly influenced by news coverage and available information relating to the company.  So in the case of your company in the example that would be expected to triple in value in the next year; if everyone agreed that this was correct then the stock would triple almost instantly.  The only reason the stock doesn't reach this value instantly is that the market is split between people thinking this is going to happen and people who think it won't.   Over time, news coverage and new information will cause one side to appear more correct than the other and the balance will shift to drive the price up or down.  All this is to say that YES, large funds and their movements CAN influence a stock's trading value; BUT their movements are based upon the same news, information, analysis and sentiment as the rest of the market.  Meaning that the price of a stock is much more closely tied to news and available information than day to day trading volumes.  In short, buying good companies at good prices is just as ""good"" as it's ever been.   Also keep in mind that the fact that YOU can buy and sell stocks without having a huge impact on price is an ADVANTAGE that you have.  By slipping in or out at the right times in major market movements you can do things that a massive investment fund simply cannot."
"The Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) is a Price-weighted index.  That means that the index is calculated by adding up the prices of the constituent stocks and dividing by a constant, the ""Dow divisor"".  (The value of the Dow divisor is adjusted from time to time to maintain continuity when there are splits or changes in the roster.)  This has the curious effect of giving a member of the index influence proportional to its share price.  That is, if a stock costing $100 per share goes up by 1%, that will change the index by 10 times as much as if a stock costing $10 per share goes up by the same 1%. Now look at the price of Google.  It's currently trading at just a whisker under $700 per share.  Most of the other stocks in the index trade somewhere between $30 and $150, so if Google were included in the index it would contribute between 5 and 20 times the weight of any other stock in the index.  That means that relatively small blips in Google's price would completely dominate the index on any given day.  Until June of 2014, Apple was in the same boat, with its stock trading at about $700 per share.  At that time, Apple split its stock 7:1, and after that its stock price was a little under $100 per share.  So, post-split Apple might be a candidate to be included in the Dow the next time they change up the components of the index.  Since the Dow is fixed at 30 stocks, and since they try to keep a balance between different sectors, this probably wouldn't happen until they drop another technology company from the lineup for some reason.  (Correction: Apple is in the DJIA and has been for a little over a year now.  Mea culpa.) The Dow's price-weighting is unusual as stock indices go.  Most indices are weighted by market capitalization.  That means the influence of a single company is proportional to its total value.  This causes large companies like Apple to have a lot of influence on those indices, but since market capitalization isn't as arbitrary as stock price, most people see that as ok.  Also, notice that I said ""company"" and not ""stock"".  When a company has multiple classes of share (as Google does), market-cap-weighted indices include all of the share classes, while the Dow has no provision for such situations, which is another, albeit less important, reason why Google isn't in the Dow.  (Keep this in mind the next time someone offers you a bar bet on how many stocks are in the S&P 500.  The answer is (currently) 505!) Finally, you might be wondering why the Dow uses such an odd weighting in its calculations.  The answer is that the Dow averages go back to 1896, when Charles Dow used to calculate the averages by hand.  If your only tools are a pencil and paper, then a price-weighted index with only 30 stocks in it is a lot easier to calculate than a market-cap-weighted index with hundreds of constituents. About the Dow Jones Averages. Dow constituents and prices Apple's stock price chart. The split in 2014 is marked.  (Note that prices before the split are retroactively adjusted to show a continuous curve.)" "It appears that there's a confusion between the different types of average. Saying ""the average investor"" generally means the most common type of small-scale unsophisticated investor - the mode (or possibly median) investor. However, while this class of investors is numerous, each of them has assets that are quite small compared to some other types of investors; and the market average performance is determined proportionally to the amount of assets held, not to the number of holders; so the performance of large investors ""counts"" that much more. For any measure, the mode of performance can be (and often is) different from the mean performance - in this case, Dalbar is saying that the most common results are lower than the (weighed) average results." I think it will be some time before we see the full effect this legislation will have on the overall markets. Insurance, as an industry is a tricky beast. Logically speaking for an industry outsider it may make sense that with more customers the insurance industry will mak emore money but, in actuality many people who could not previously get insurance are going to be getting insurance. What this means is that though the insurance companies will have more clients thier costs are likely to go up substantially. Which in turn will create downward pressure on profits and as a result stock prices. "Professional investors managing large investment portfolios for ""institutions"" -- a college, a museum, a charitable organization, et cetera. I'm not sure whether those managing investments for a business are considered institutional investors or not. The common factor tends to be large to immense portfolios (let's call it $100M and up, just for discussion) and concern with preserving that wealth.  Having that much money to work with allows some investment strategies that don't make sense for smaller investors, and makes some others impractical to impossible. These folks can make mistakes too; Madoff burned a lot of charities when his scam collapsed." They put their stock on the market that people then purchased, if they don't put that stock out there then I suspect those people will just buy the stock from somewhere, so really no harm was caused to any individual that would have been prevented otherwise.   It's not great, and shouldn't be done as market asssumtry isn't good. I think the punishments for if aren't to right any sort of wrongdoing, it's to act as a deterrent. Oh, I see what you mean. It depends which side you look at it from: the company, or the individual investor.  For the individual investor, I guess it doesn't matter. As you said, you only buy the amount of stocks you can afford. What matters afterwards is whether the price of your stocks goes up or down. That's when the company valuation comes into play. If a company is overvalued, the stock prices are going to go down until they reach the [equilibrium point](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_equilibrium). Or, rephrasing, stocks go down when more people will want to sell than buy, creating an excess supply, so sellers will be willing to offer lower prices so you buy from them. Stocks go up when the opposite happens, more people will want to buy than sell, so buyers will have to offer more money to convince sellers to sell.  In essence, Facebook was overvalued, and not enough people were buying their shares, creating excess supply, so, sellers had to offer lower prices. Had Facebook been properly valued, people would've felt the stocks were a good price, everyone would've rushed to purchase, and stock prices would've gone up. I would not argue if its more difficult, its different, and it much depends what kind of stocks you refer to, i take large caps as example. The players are different. Companies and even govts may hedge in the commodities (futures) market while in big caps this and other entities mainly invest. (Of course there’s HFT in large caps too). Futures often come with way higher leverage, lower spread and less commissions than stocks attracting retail and institutional speculators/HFT. Another big difference is that commodity prices react to all kind of news events (Stocks do too, but not that much and frequent), this kind of reactions big caps only do on earnings or on news directly affecting the company. Commodities are much more volatile on geo economic / political news events. This combined with higher leverage & HFT produces astounding moves.  To sum it up, the players are different and act different than in large stocks, liquidity may be another thing. The main source is a direct feed from the stock market itself. The faster the feed, the more expensive. 15-minute delay is essentially free... and for those of us who do long-term investment is more than adequate.  If you want data sooner, sign up with a brokerage that provides that service as part of what you're paying them for... and remember that every bit you spend on services is that much more profit you have to make just to break even, so there's a real tradeoff. "In addition to the answers provided above, the weight the Dow uses to determine the index is not the market capitalization of the company involved. That means that companies like Google and Apple with very high share prices and no particular inclination to split could adversely effect the Dow, turning it into essentially the ""Apple and Google and then some other companies"" Industrial Average. The highest share price Dow company right now, IIRC, is IBM. Both Google and Apple would have three times the influence on the Index as IBM does now." according to me it's the news about a particular stock which makes people to buy or sell it mostly thus creates a fluctuation in price . It also dependents on the major stock holder. Just playing devil's advocate: A falling stock price impairs the firm's ability to raise equity capital efficiently. In these times, additional regulatory capital requirements continue to be levied on the banks, and they are faced with raising capital inefficiently, which may impair their ability to pay their debt, which may lead to a ratings downgrade. It's not necessarily the case that HFT acts as a tax on small traders. I haven't seen any studies demonstrating that HFT increases the average cost of shares; if anything small investors will be largely unaffected by HFT as it will be random noise to them, sometimes creating a slight increase, sometimes a slight decrease. The people most affected by HFT are institutional investors, whom HFT desks are pretty good at predicting the order pattern of and hence exploiting. They have no interest or capacity to exploit the small guys. "Investors aren't ""job creators"" ... they're job *haters*.  The top folks cannot think past one business quarter, so they hate wages and increasing wages to get their jobs done.  It will only change when someone realizes they are losing the race because they don't want to buy the gear they need.  And they do need it.  Companies don't need better investment advisors or magic business consultants to worship.  They need workers.  Sadly ... they are told by the expensive consultants that paying for the latter is always the problem." "No, the stock market is not there for speculation on corporate memorabilia.  At its base, it is there for investing in a business, the point of the investment being, of course, to make money.  A (successful) business earns money, and that makes it valuable to its owners since that money can be distributed to them.  Shares of stock are pieces of business ownership, and so are valuable.   If you knew that the business would have profit of $10,000,000 every year, and would distribute that to the owners of each of its 10,000,000 shares each year, you would know to that each share would receive $1 each year.  How much would such a share be worth to you?  If you could instead put money in a bank and get 5% a year back, to get $1 a year back you would have to put $20 into the bank.  So maybe that share of stock is worth about $20 to you.  If somebody offers to sell you such a share for $18, you might buy it; for $23, maybe you pass up the offer. But business is uncertain, and how much profit the business will make is uncertain and will vary through time.  So how much is a share of a real business worth?  This is a much harder call, and people use many different ways to come up with how much they should pay for a share.  Some people probably just think something like ""Apple is a good company making money, I'll buy a share at whatever price it is being offered at right now.""  Others look at every number available, build models of the company and the economy and the risks, all to estimate what a share might be worth, more or less.  There is no indisputable value for a share of a successful business. So, what effect does a company's earnings have on the price of its stock?  You can only say that for some of the people who might buy or sell shares, higher earnings will, all other thing being equal, have them be willing to spend more to buy it or demand more when selling it.  But how much more is not quantifiable but depends on each person's approach to the problem.  Higher earnings would tend to raise the price of the stock.  Yet there are other factors, such as people who had expected even higher earnings, whose actions would tend to lower the price, and people who are OK with the earnings now, but suspect trouble for the business is appearing on the horizon, whose actions would also tend to lower the price. This is why people say that a stock's price is determined by supply and demand." It's not primarily more people investing. In the 1980s stock exchanges went from open outcry trading floors where all trades involved actually exchanging pieces of paper to electronic trading. Once that happened, it wasn't long before most trades were executed by computer programs rather than human beings, turning stocks over rapidly for very short-term profits rather than long-term investment, greatly increasing  the number of trades (and also increasing liquidity for the actual investors; it's by no means all bad).