What name is given to a value such as this?
"This is called ""change"" or ""movement"" - the change (in points or percentage) from the last closing value. You can read more about the ticker tape on Investopedia, the format you're referring to comes from there."
"I'm not an economist, but I understand the idea of value or ""price"" is purely ""what people agree it to be"".  The quants and analysts I've worked with always talk about ""discovering the price"" - it's an unknown until someone says ""I will pay X"".  Are my 2nd hand Nikes worth $20?  Put em on ebay to find out.  If someone buys them, then yes, 2nd hand Nikes are worth $20.  If they don't sell then they're not worth $20.    Obviously ebay is not the most efficient market out there.  The exchanges attempt to be that with prices varying by fractions of cent in fractions of seconds (milliseconds).  EDIT*   Perhaps another way to look at it is ""What is the 'correct' value of a computer game, say 'Skyrim'?""  Your idea of the value of labour and production costs produces some figure.  But in the real world, what actually happens?  On release day the game is priced at, say, $60.  And lots of people say ""I will pay $60"".  Many people don't, but many people do.  Months later, Steam has a sale and they suggest Skyrim is now worth $30.  Lot's of people who didn't think it was worth $60 do think it is worth $30.  The amount of labour that went into is hasn't changed.  So what it the true or 'correct' value/price of the game?  What is the correct value/price of *amything*? It is *what people will pay for it*." That value differs between a starving man and a man who never fears lack of food.  Let's take, instead, the value of your mother's affection.  Were you to have to pay for that affection, for her hugs, they would lose value.  Offering a price makes her affection worth LESS.  Therefore value is not tied to currency, nor is value indelibly tied to Capitalism.  Trading capital for your mother's affection negates the value of the affection. "I've tried looking for sources, and I've found a few, but none of them seem to nail the exact material of what I'm asking about.  I feel that these visceral questions about what is value in our world, and how we can redefine it outside the definitions from both governments and corporations, is an important zeitgeist to our modern era.    Nobody asked me to do this, I am just drawn instinctively drawn to wonder about not only the workings of the world but its possibilities; the same way Adam Smith, Nikola Tesla, F.A. Hayek, and a few others have been drawn to in their lifetimes, even though they were criticized.  They began asking questions and developing them over years in order to help others and build the world, and that is what I am and I was trying to do here.  Not just to get the old formulas from a referential book, but to get real opinions in real time, because that's what matters; how our own kind define revolution or reformation, because aren't revolutionaries and entrepreneurs the same thing?  The risk takers and idea makers that want to make a new world for everyone.  The problem is when the definition of value by one entity is made the definition of everyone by force, and its causes only obstruction.    “GIVE me control of a nation’s money supply, and I care not who makes its laws.”--Mayer Amschel Rothschild  ""It is not by augmenting the capital of the country, but by rendering a greater part of that capital active and productive than would otherwise be so, that the most judicious operations of banking can increase the industry of the country""--Adam Smith  Ironically, what both Adam Smith and Karl Marx agreed on was a fear that money would become an end to itself, which many people fear is true today.  Shouldn't we ask these questions more often?  I feel it's instinctive:  http://www.businessinsider.com/economy-of-the-future-2012-10" I'd probably call it an intangible or indirect benefit. Not sure what the trade term is. "**Modern portfolio theory**  Modern portfolio theory (MPT), or mean-variance analysis, is a mathematical framework for assembling a portfolio of assets such that the expected return is maximized for a given level of risk, defined as variance. Its key insight is that an asset's risk and return should not be assessed by itself, but by how it contributes to a portfolio's overall risk and return.  Economist Harry Markowitz introduced MPT in a 1952 essay, for which he was later awarded a Nobel Prize in economics.  ***  **Option (finance)**  In finance, an option is a contract which gives the buyer (the owner or holder of the option) the right, but not the obligation, to buy or sell an underlying asset or instrument at a specific strike price on a specified date, depending on the form of the option. The strike price may be set by reference to the spot price (market price) of the underlying security or commodity on the day an option is taken out, or it may be fixed at a discount in a premium. The seller has the corresponding obligation to fulfill the transaction—to sell or buy—if the buyer (owner) ""exercises"" the option. An option that conveys to the owner the right to buy at a specific price is referred to as a call; an option that conveys the right of the owner to sell at a specific price is referred to as a put.  ***  ^[ [^PM](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=kittens_from_space) ^| [^Exclude ^me](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiTextBot&amp;message=Excludeme&amp;subject=Excludeme) ^| [^Exclude ^from ^subreddit](https://np.reddit.com/r/finance/about/banned) ^| [^FAQ ^/ ^Information](https://np.reddit.com/r/WikiTextBot/wiki/index) ^| [^Source](https://github.com/kittenswolf/WikiTextBot)   ^] ^Downvote ^to ^remove ^| ^v0.27" "Gold had value because it could be stamped with a value.  The value is the number on the coin.   Gold really doesn't have intrinsic value and it's value during a actual famines is very very low.  For more info, see a very interesting digression in ""Wealth of Nations.""" Pretty insightful post. Never thought that it was this simple after all. I had spent a good deal of my time looking for someone to explain this subject clearly and you’re the only one that ever did that. Keep it up. "What's the value of the scholarship, and is it administered by itself or by the university?  If by itself, the financial return discussed above drives.  If by the university, they create the tuition, so it gets more interesting.   If this is something that is administered and backstopped by the university, then keep in mind that while it may be named the ""John Doe Memorial Scholarship"" with $30000 in it's account under the endowment, the university overall is likely to cut some number of students' tuition in financial aid packages anyway.  Let's say they substitute a generic tuition adjustment in past years with this happens-to-be-named ""John Doe Memorial Scholarship"" moving forward: the university can do this as long as they are not constrained in pricing power by laws and financial aid customs.  There's the finance answer, and there's the fact that a university can create a ""coupon"" indefinitely (Similar in concept to the price discrimination where Proctor and Gamble can launch a new flavor of Tide at a high price to maintain the market position, and flood marketing channels with coupons) Also the university might find it to be an inexpensive benefit to the faculty to create a ceremony around a valued, deceased professor; collecting funds from other professors or staff to partially pay for it at finance price or even a slight loss." If you're into math, do this thought experiment: Consider the outcome X of a random walk process (a stock doesn't behave this way, but for understanding the question you asked, this is useful): On the first day, X=some integer X1. On each subsequent day, X goes up or down by 1 with probability 1/2. Let's think of buying a call option on X. A European option with a strike price of S that expires on day N, if held until that day and then exercised if profitable, would yield a value Y = min(X[N]-S, 0). This has an expected value E[Y] that you could actually calculate. (should be related to the binomial distribution, but my probability & statistics hat isn't working too well today) The market value V[k] of that option on day #k, where 1 < k < N, should be V[k] = E[Y]|X[k], which you can also actually calculate. On day #N, V[N] = Y. (the value is known) An American option, if held until day #k and then exercised if profitable, would yield a value Y[k] = min(X[k]-S, 0).  For the moment, forget about selling the option on the market. (so, the choices are either exercise it on some day #k, or letting it expire) Let's say it's day k=N-1.  If X[N-1] >= S+1 (in the money), then you have two choices: exercise today, or exercise tomorrow if profitable. The expected value is the same. (Both are equal to X[N-1]-S). So you might as well exercise it and make use of your money elsewhere. If X[N-1] <= S-1 (out of the money), the expected value is 0, whether you exercise today, when you know it's worthless, or if you wait until tomorrow, when the best case is if X[N-1]=S-1 and X[N] goes up to S, so the option is still worthless. But if X[N-1] = S (at the money), here's where it gets interesting. If you exercise today, it's worth 0. If wait until tomorrow, there's a 1/2 chance it's worth 0 (X[N]=S-1), and a 1/2 chance it's worth 1 (X[N]=S+1). Aha! So the expected value is 1/2. Therefore you should wait until tomorrow. Now let's say it's day k=N-2.  Similar situation, but more choices: If X[N-2] >= S+2, you can either sell it today, in which case you know the value = X[N-2]-S, or you can wait until tomorrow, when the expected value is also X[N-2]-S. Again, you might as well exercise it now. If X[N-2] <= S-2, you know the option is worthless. If X[N-2] = S-1, it's worth 0 today, whereas if you wait until tomorrow, it's either worth an expected value of 1/2 if it goes up (X[N-1]=S), or 0 if it goes down, for a net expected value of 1/4, so you should wait. If X[N-2] = S, it's worth 0 today, whereas tomorrow it's either worth an expected value of 1 if it goes up, or 0 if it goes down -> net expected value of 1/2, so you should wait. If X[N-2] = S+1, it's worth 1 today, whereas tomorrow it's either worth an expected value of 2 if it goes up, or 1/2 if it goes down (X[N-1]=S) -> net expected value of 1.25, so you should wait. If it's day k=N-3, and X[N-3] >= S+3 then E[Y] = X[N-3]-S and you should exercise it now; or if X[N-3] <= S-3 then E[Y]=0.  But if X[N-3] = S+2 then there's an expected value E[Y] of (3+1.25)/2 = 2.125 if you wait until tomorrow, vs. exercising it now with a value of 2; if X[N-3] = S+1 then E[Y] = (2+0.5)/2 = 1.25, vs. exercise value of 1; if X[N-3] = S then E[Y] = (1+0.5)/2 = 0.75 vs. exercise value of 0; if X[N-3] = S-1 then E[Y] = (0.5 + 0)/2 = 0.25, vs. exercise value of 0; if X[N-3] = S-2 then E[Y] = (0.25 + 0)/2 = 0.125, vs. exercise value of 0. (In all 5 cases, wait until tomorrow.) You can keep this up; the recursion formula is E[Y]|X[k]=S+d = {(E[Y]|X[k+1]=S+d+1)/2 + (E[Y]|X[k+1]=S+d-1) for N-k > d > -(N-k), when you should wait and see} or {0 for d <= -(N-k), when it doesn't matter and the option is worthless} or {d for d >= N-k, when you should exercise the option now}. The market value of the option on day #k should be the same as the expected value to someone who can either exercise it or wait. It should be possible to show that the expected value of an American option on X is greater than the expected value of a European option on X. The intuitive reason is that if the option is in the money by a large enough amount that it is not possible to be out of the money, the option should be exercised early  (or sold), something a European option doesn't allow, whereas if it is nearly at the money, the option should be held, whereas if it is out of the money by a large enough amount that it is not possible to be in the money, the option is definitely worthless. As far as real securities go, they're not random walks (or at least, the probabilities are time-varying and more complex), but there should be analogous situations. And if there's ever a high probability a stock will go down, it's time to exercise/sell an in-the-money American option, whereas you can't do that with a European option. edit: ...what do you know: the computation I gave above for the random walk isn't too different conceptually from the Binomial options pricing model. "I might as well add my 2 cents here.  Further to what robotik said, the intrinsic value is essentially the ""value contained within itself."" As an entity, an item, an object - anything for that matter, the intrinsic value is what someone can benefit from it.   In reference to the Water paradox asked by Yorn; my perspective is that water has an ""positive"" intrinsic value in either case because the intrinsic value of something is independent of who it affects and how it affects anyone. If humans were a species that was allergic to water and caught fire upon touching it - water would be considered to have a very ""negative"" intrinsic value.  It doesn't matter the second person is drowning in water, the fact that water is an essential part of life - the intrinsic value of it is positive and unchanged. Perhaps the ""situational value"" would be a more subjective measure?" The indication is based on the average Buy-Hold-Sell rating of a group of fundamental analysts. The individual analysts provide a Buy, Hold or Sell recommendation based on where the current price of the stock is compared to the perceived value of the stock by the analyst.  Note that this perceived value is based on many assumptions by the analyst and their biased view of the stock. That is why different fundamental analysts provide different values and different recommendations on the same stock. So basically if the stock's price is below the analyst's perceived value it will be given a Buy recommendation, if the price is equal with the perceived value it will be given a Hold recommendation and if the price is more than the perceived value it will be given a Sell recommendation. As the others have said this information IMHO is useless. The measure of change of value of a currency in relation to itself is inflation (or deflation). "The relative value of Gold (or any other commodity) as measured against any given currency (such as the USD), is not a constant function either. If you have inflationary pressure, the ""value"" of an ounce of gold (or barrel of oil, etc) may ""double"", but it's really because the underlying comparator has lost ""half"" its value." "I agree with the answer by @Michael that this number doesn't exist.  It's hard to see what use it would have and it would be difficult to track. I'm writing a separate answer because I also disagree with the premise of your question:  Individual shares of stock have never to my knowledge had such a number.  Your comment about numbers on stock certificates identifies the certificate document, which will generally represent multiple shares of stock.  That number no more identifies a single share of stock than the serial number on a $10 bill identifies any one of the ten dollars it represents.  Even at the ""collective"" unit of $10, when the bill is eventually replaced with a new one, the new bill has a new number.  No continuity." "Ok this is random but now I am super curious -- how can one argue plastic's inability to store value comes artificially/by opinion?  As a man-made good, are there not any finite restrictions on its creation?  It reminds me of the Golgafringians of Douglas Adams' *Life, the Universe, and Everything* when they attempted to make leaves a currency.  Or do you argue something along the lines that plastic's value is artificial in the same manner as the dollar -- whether it is paper or plastic it can represent a promised/existing product despite its potentially infinite nature?  And yeah, I know ""potentially infinite"" is a TERRIBLE term given the finite nature of anything on earth required to make plastic...but I couldn't come up with a better term though I am sure one exists"