What drives the value of a stock? [duplicate]
For XOM if you were lucky enough to purchase on 20 Jan 16, at 73.18/share and sold on 15 July at 94.95 you would achieve a 29% return in six months.  Awesome.  You'd also get a dividend payment or two adding another percentage point per to your returns.   The one year chart for FB shows it increasing from ~95/share to ~129.  Yet no dividend was paid.  However, the 35.7% YTD for 2016 should make anyone happy. Both of these require excellent timing, and those kind of returns are unsustainable over the long haul.  Many people simply hold stocks.  Having the dividend is a nice bonus to some growth.   Why to people buy stocks?  For profit.  Sometimes dividend payers offer the best option, sometimes not.
While there are many very good and detailed answers to this question, there is one key term from finance that none of them used and that is Net Present Value. While this is a term generally associate with debt and assets, it also can be applied to the valuation models of a company's share price. The price of the share of a stock in a company represents the Net Present Value of all future cash flows of that company divided by the total number of shares outstanding. This is also the reason behind why the payment of dividends will cause the share price valuation to be less than its valuation if the company did not pay a dividend. That/those future outflows are factored into the NPV calculation, actually performed or implied, and results in a current valuation that is less than it would have been had that capital been retained. Unlike with a fixed income security, or even a variable rate debenture, it is difficult to predict what the future cashflows of a company will be, and how investors chose to value things as intangible as brand recognition, market penetration, and executive competence are often far more subjective that using 10 year libor rates to plug into a present value calculation for a floating rate bond of similar tenor. Opinion enters into the calculus and this is why you end up having a greater degree of price variance than you see in the fixed income markets. You have had situations where companies such as Amazon.com, Google, and Facebook had highly valued shares before they they ever posted a profit. That is because the analysis of the value of their intellectual properties or business models would, overtime provide a future value that was equivalent to their stock price at that time. The price of a shares reflects the expected future returns of that company. If it does not someone will notice and buy until it does. Look at this chart http://www.finanzen.net/chart/Arcandor (click on max), that's a former DAX company, so one of the largest german companys. Now it's bankrupt. Why do you think you are the only one who is going to notice? There are millions of people and even more computers, some a going to be smarter than you. Of course that does not happen to everyone but who knows. Is Volkswagen going to survive the current crisis? Probably. Is it coming back to former glory in the next half year? Who knows? Here comes the obvious solution: Don't buy single stocks, spread it out over many companies, some will shine, some will plument and you get the average. Oh that's an index, how convinent. Now if there were a way to save on all these transaction costs you're incurring... "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.)" 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. "Your explanation is nearly perfect and not ""hand wavy"" at all. Stock prices reflect the collective wisdom of all participating investors. Investors value stocks based on how much value they expect the stock to produce now and in the future. So, the stability of the stock prices is a reflection of the accuracy of the investors predictions. Investor naivity can be seen as a sequence of increasingly sophisticated stock pricing strategies: If investors were able to predict the future perfectly, then all stock prices would rise at the same constant rate. In theory, if a particular investor is able to ""beat the market"", it is because they are better at predicting the future profits of companies (or they are lucky, or they are better at predicting the irrational behavior of other investors......)" There are multiple factors at play that drive stock price movements, but one that can be visualized is that stocks can be priced relative to other (similar stocks).  When one stock price goes up without fundamental changes (i.e. daily market noise/movements), it becomes slightly more expensive relative to it's peers.  Opportunists will sell the now slightly more expensive stock, while others may buying the slightly cheaper (relatively) peer stock.    Imagine millions of transactions like this happening throughout each hour, downward selling pressure on a stock that rises too fast in value relative to it's peers or the market, and upward buying pressure on stocks that are relatively cheaper than it's peers.  It pushes two stocks towards an equilibrium that is directionally the same.    Another way to think of it is lets say tomorrow there is $10B in net new dollars moved into buy orders for stocks that comes from net selling of bonds (this is also partly why bonds/stocks are generally inversely related).  That money goes to buys stocks ABC, XYZ, EFG.  As the price of those goes up with more buying pressure, stocks JKL, MNO, PQR are relatively a tad cheaper, so some money starts to flow into there.  Repeat until you get a large majority of the stocks that buyers are willing to buy and you can see why stocks move in the same direction a lot of times. "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." Since I'm missing the shortest and simplest answer, I'll add it: A car also doesn't offer dividends, yet it's still worth money. A $100 bill doesn't offer dividends, yet people are willing to offer services, or goods, or other currencies, to own that $100 bill. It's the same with a stock. If other people are willing to buy it off you for a price X, it's worth at least close to price X to you. In theory the price X depends on the value of the assets of the company, including unknown values like expected future profits or losses. Speaking from experience as a trader, in practice it's very often really just price X because others pay price X. Analysts normally (oxymoron here) gauge their targets on where the stock is currently and more importantly where it has been. Except for in the case of say a Dryships where it was a hundred dollar stock and is now in the single digits, it is safe to assume that Apple for instance was well over $ 700 and is now at $500, and that a price guidance of $ 580 is not that remarkable and a not so difficult level to strike. Kind of like a meteorologist; fifty percent chance of rain. Analysts and weathermen.Hard to lose your job when your never really wrong. Mr Zip, Over and outta here The literal answer to your question 'what determines the price of an ETF' is 'the market'; it is whatever price a buyer is willing to pay and a seller is willing to accept. But if the market price of an ETF share deviates significantly from its NAV, the per-share market value of the securities in its portfolio, then an Authorized Participant can make an arbitrage profit by a transaction (creation or redemption) that pushes the market price toward NAV. Thus as long as the markets are operating and the APs don't vanish in a puff of smoke we can expect price will track NAV. That reduces your question to: why does NAV = market value of the holdings underlying a bond ETF share decrease when the market interest rate rises?  Let's consider an example. I'll use US Treasuries because they have very active markets, are treated as risk-free (although that can be debated), and excluding special cases like TIPS and strips are almost perfectly fungible. And I use round numbers for convenience. Let's assume the current market interest rate is 2% and 'Spindoctor 10-year Treasury Fund' opens for business with $100m invested (via APs) in 10-year T-notes with 2% coupon at par and 1m shares issued that are worth $100 each. Now assume the interest rate goes up to 3% (this is an example NOT A PREDICTION); no one wants to pay par for a 2% bond when they can get 3% elsewhere, so its value goes down to about 0.9 of par (not exactly due to the way the arithmetic works but close enough) and Spindoctor shares similarly slide to $90. At this price an investor gets slightly over 2% (coupon*face/basis) plus approximately 1% amortized capital gain (slightly less due to time value) per year so it's competitive with a 3% coupon at par.  As you say new bonds are available that pay 3%. But our fund doesn't hold them; we hold old bonds with a face value of $100m but a market value of only $90m. If we sell those bonds now and buy 3% bonds to (try to) replace them, we only get $90m par value of 3% bonds, so now our fund is paying a competitive 3% but NAV is still only $90.  At the other extreme, say we hold the 2% bonds to maturity, paying out only 2% interest but letting our NAV increase as the remaining term (duration) and thus discount of the bonds decreases -- assuming the market interest rate doesn't change again, which for 10 years is probably unrealistic (ignoring 2009-2016!). At the end of 10 years the 2% bonds are redeemed at par and our NAV is back to $100 -- but from the investor's point of view they've forgone $10 in interest they could have received from an alternative investment over those 10 years, which is effectively an additional investment, so the original share price of $90 was correct. Companies pay their employees in stocks and stock options, so they have an incentive towards increasing a company's share price. There are many elements that go into a stock's price. For example, if you hold a stock for eternity you should be indifferent if the expected present value of all its future dividends (i.e. earnings) equals the price you paid for it. Also, buy-back policies and voting rights determine stock price as well. The theory is that since shareholders want return on their investments they would promote company executives in such a way that their incentives are aligned to increase the share price. News about a company is not the only thing that affects its stock's price. There is also supply and demand.  That, of course, is influenced by news, but it is not the only actor.  An insider, with a large position in their company's stock, may want to diversify his overall portfolio and thus need to sell a large amount of stock.  That may be significant enough to increase supply and likely reduce the stock's price somewhat. That brings me to another influence on stock price: perception.  Executives, and other insiders with large positions in their company's stock, have to be careful about how and when they sell some of that stock as to not worry the markets.  Many investors watch insider selling to gauge the health of the company. Which brings me to another important point.  There are many things that may be considered news which is material to a certain company and its stock.  It is not just quarterly filings, earnings reports and such.  There is also news related to competitors, news about the economy or a certain sector, news about some weather event that affects a major supplier, news about a major earthquake that will impact the economy of a nation which can then have knock-on effects to other economies, etc... There are also a lot of investors with varying needs which will influence supply and demand.  An institutional investor, needing to diversify, may reduce their position in a stock and thus increase supply enough that it impacts the stock's price.  Meanwhile, individual investors will make their transactions at varying times during the day.  In the aggregate, that may have significant impacts on supply and demand. The overall point being that there are a lot of inputs and a lot of actors in a complicated system.  Even if you focus just on news, there are many things that fall into that category. News does not come out at regular intervals and it does not necessarily spread evenly.  That alone could make for a highly variable environment. Earnings per share are not directly correlated to share price. NV Energy, the company you cited as an example, is an electric utility. The growth patterns and characteristics of utilities are well-defined, so generally speaking the value of the stock is driven by the quality of the company's cash flow. A utility with a good history of dividend increases, a dividend that is appropriate given the company's fiscal condition, (ie. A dividend that is not more than 80% of earnings) and a good outlook will be priced competitively. For other types of companies cash flow or even profits do not matter -- the prospects of future earnings matter. If a growth stock (say Netflix as an example) misses its growth projections for a quarter, the stock value will be punished. "What you need to do is go to yahoo finance and look at different stock's P/E ratios. You'll quickly see that the stocks can be sorted by this number. It would be an interesting exercise to get an idea of why P/E isn't a fixed number, how certain industries cluster around a certain number, but even this isn't precise. But, it will give you an idea as to why your question has no answer. ""Annual earnings are $1. What is the share price?"" ""Question has no answer""" "What you are seeking is termed ""Alpha"", the mispricing in the market. Specifically, Alpha is the price error when compared to the market return and beta of the stock. Modern portfolio theory suggests that a portfolio with good Alpha will maximize profits for a given risk tolerance. The efficient market hypotheses suggests that Alpha is always zero. The EMH also suggests that taxes, human effort and information propagation delays don't exist (i.e. it is wrong). For someone who is right, the best specific answer to your question is presented Ben Graham's book ""The Intelligent Investor"" (starting on page 280). And even still, that book is better summarized by Warren Buffet (see Berkshire Hathaway Letters to Shareholders). In a great disservice to the geniuses above it can be summarized much further: closely follow the company to estimate its true earnings potential... and ignore the prices the market is quoting. ADDENDUM: And when you have earnings potential, calculate value with: NPV = sum(each income piece/(1+cost of capital)^time) Update: See http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2014/02/24/warren-buffett-berkshire-letter/ ""When Charlie Munger and I buy stocks..."" for these same ideas right from the horse's mouth"