Does the profit of a company directly affect its stock or indirectly by causing people to buy or sell?
The short answer to your question is yes.  Company performance affects stock price only through investors' views. But note that selling for higher and lower prices when the company is doing well or poorly is not an arbitrary choice.  A stock is a claim on the future cash flows of the firm, which ultimately come from its future profits.  If the company is doing well, investors will likely expect that there will large cash flows (dividends) in the future and be willing to pay more to hold it (or require more to sell it).   The price of a stock is equal what people think the future dividends are worth.  If market participants started behaving irrationally, like not reacting to changes in the expected future cash flows, then arbitrageurs would make a ton of money trading against them until the situation was rectified. people implicity agree to sell stocks when a company does bad But, remember, when you sell the stock of a company that, in your estimation, 'did bad', someone else had to buy; otherwise, there is no sale. The someone else who bought your shares evidently disagrees with your assessment. Did you sell because the company didn't earn a profit at all? Did it not earn a profit because it's in a dead-end business that is slowly but inevitably declining to zero? Something like Sears Holdings? Or did it not make a profit because it is in an emerging market that will possibly someday become hugely profitable? Something like Tesla, Inc.? Did you sell because the company made a profit, but it was lower than expected? Did they make a lower-than-expected profit because of lower sales? Why were the sales lower? Is the industry declining? Was the snow too heavy to send the construction crews out? Did the company make a big investment to build a new plant that will, in a few years, yield even higher sales and profits? What are the profits year-over-year? Increasing? Declining? Usually, investors are willing to pay a premium, that is more than expected, for a stock in a company with robust growth.  As you can see, the mere fact that a company reported a profit is only one of many factors that determine the price of the shares in the market. "Yes, the price of a stock is what investors think the value of a stock is, which is not tied to profits or dividends by any rigid formula. But to say that therefore the price could be high even though the company is doing very poorly is hypothetically true, but unlikely in practice. Consider any other product. There is no fixed formula for the value of a used car, either. If everyone agreed that a rusting, 20-year old car that doesn't run is worth $100,000, then that's what it would sell for. But that's a pretty big ""if"" at the beginning of that sentence.  If the car had been used in some hit TV show 20 years ago, or if it was owned by a celebrity, or some such special case, maybe a rusting old car really would sell for $100,000. Likewise, a stock might have a price higher than what one would predict from its dividends if some rich person wanted to buy that company because the brand name brings back nostalgic memories from his youth and so he drives the price up, etc. But the normal case is that, in the long term, the price of a stock tends to settle on a value proportional to the dividends that it pays. Or rather, and this is a big caveat, the dividends that investors expect it to pay in the future. And then adjusted for all sorts of other factors and special situations, like the value of the company if it was to be liquidated, etc."
Nominal. What you say is true, but I'm guessing it would be too complicated to modelate. Plus, a shareholder of a very large company would not necessarily experience said loss if he/she sells the stock in small chunks at a time. Shares are partial ownership of the company. A company can issue (not create) more of the shares it owns at any time, to anyone, at any price -- subject to antitrust and similar regulations. If they wanted to, for example, flat-out give 10% of their retained interest to charity, they could do so. It shouldn't substantially affect the stock's trading for others unless there's a completely irrational demand for shares. Most stocks are not actively trades by lots of people.   When you buy or sell a stock the price is set by the “order book” – that is the other people looking to trade in the given stock at the same time. Without a large number of active traders, it is very likely the pricing system will break down and result in widely changing prices second by second.   Therefore for the market to work well, it need most people to be trading at the same time. 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. "A share of stock is a share of the underlying business. If one believes the underlying business will grow in value, then one would expect the stock price to increase commensurately. Participants in the stock market, in theory, assign value based on some combination of factors like capital assets, cash on hand, revenue, cash flow, profits, dividends paid, and a bunch of other things, including ""intangibles"" like customer loyalty. A dividend stream may be more important to one investor than another. But, essentially, non-dividend paying companies (and, thus, their shares) are expected by their owners to become more valuable over time, at which point they may be sold for a profit. EDIT TO ADD: Let's take an extremely simple example of company valuation: book value, or the sum of assets (capital, cash, etc) and liabilities (debt, etc). Suppose our company has a book value of $1M today, and has 1 million shares outstanding, and so each share is priced at $1. Now, suppose the company, over the next year, puts another $1M in the bank through its profitable operation. Now, the book value is $2/share. Suppose further that the stock price did not go up, so the market capitalization is still $1M, but the underlying asset is worth $2M. Some extremely rational market participant should then immediately use his $1M to buy up all the shares of the company for $1M and sell the underlying assets for their $2M value, for an instant profit of 100%. But this rarely happens, because the existing shareholders are also rational, can read the balance sheet, and refuse to sell their shares unless they get something a lot closer to $2--likely even more if they expect the company to keep getting bigger. In reality, the valuation of shares is obviously much more complicated, but this is the essence of it. This is how one makes money from growth (as opposed to income) stocks. You are correct that you get no income stream while you hold the asset. But you do get money from selling, eventually." I think the simple answer to your question is: Yes, when you sell, that drives down the price. But it's not like you sell, and THEN the price goes down. The price goes down when you sell. You get the lower price.  Others have discussed the mechanics of this, but I think the relevant point for your question is that when you offer shares for sale, buyers now have more choices of where to buy from. If without you, there were 10 people willing to sell for $100 and 10 people willing to buy for $100, then there will be 10 sales at $100. But if you now offer to sell, there are 11 people selling for $100 and 10 people buying for $100. The buyers have a choice, and for a seller to get them to pick him, he has to drop his price a little. In real life, the market is stable when one of those sellers drops his price enough that an 11th buyer decides that he now wants to buy at the lower price, or until one of the other 10 buyers decides that the price has gone too low and he's no longer interested in selling. If the next day you bought the stock back, you are now returning the market to where it was before you sold. Assuming that everything else in the market was unchanged, you would have to pay the same price to buy the stock back that you got when you sold it. Your net profit would be zero. Actually you'd have a loss because you'd have to pay the broker's commission on both transactions. Of course in real life the chances that everything else in the market is unchanged are very small. So if you're a typical small-fry kind of person like me, someone who might be buying and selling a few hundred or a few thousand dollars worth of a company that is worth hundreds of millions, other factors in the market will totally swamp the effect of your little transaction. So when you went to buy back the next day, you might find that the price had gone down, you can buy your shares back for less than you sold them, and pocket the difference. Or the price might have gone up and you take a loss. Selling stock means selling a portion of ownership in your company.  Any time you issue stock, you give up some control, unless you're issuing non-voting stock, and even non-voting stock owns a portion of the company. Thus, issuing (voting) shares means either the current shareholders reduce their proportion of owernship, or the company reissues stock it held back from a previous offering (in which case it no longer has that stock available to issue and thus has less ability to raise funds in the future).  From Investopedia, for exmaple: Secondary offerings in which new shares are underwritten and sold dilute the ownership position of stockholders who own shares that were issued in the IPO. Of course, sometimes a secondary offering is more akin to Mark Zuckerberg selling some shares of Facebook to allow him to diversify his holdings - the original owner(s) sell a portion of their holdings off.  That does not dilute the ownership stake of others, but does reduce their share of course. You also give up some rights to dividends etc., even if you issue non-voting stock; of course that is factored into the price presumably (either the actual dividend or the prospect of eventually getting a dividend).  And hopefully more growth leads to more dividends, though that's only true if the company can actually make good use of the incoming funds. That last part is somewhat important.  A company that has a good use for new funds should raise more funds, because it will turn those $100 to $150 or $200 for everyone, including the current owners.  But a company that doesn't have a particular use for more money would be wasting those funds, and probably not earning back that full value for everyone. The impact on stock price of course is also a major factor and not one to discount; even a company issuing non-voting stock has a fiduciary responsibility to act in the interest of those non-voting shareholders, and so should not excessively dilute their value. 1) Explicitly, how a company's share price in the secondary market affects the company's operations. (Simply: How does it matter to a company that its share price drops?) I have a vague idea of the answer, but I'd like to see someone cover it in detail.  2) Negative yield curves, or bonds/bills with negative yields  Thanks! Fiduciary They are obligated by the rules of the exchanges they are listed with. Furthermore, there is a strong chance that people running the company also have stock, so it personally benefits them to create higher prices. Finally, maybe they don't care about the prices directly, but by being a good company with a good product or service, they are desirable and that is expressed as a higher stock price.  Not every action is because it will raise the stock price, but because it is good for business which happens to make the stock more valuable. The stock market is no different in this respect to anything that's bought or sold. The price of a stock like many other things reflects what the seller is prepared to sell it at and what the buyer is prepared to offer for it. If those things match then a transaction can take place. The seller loses money but gains stocks they feel represent equivalent value, the reverse happens for the buyer. Take buying a house for example, did the buyer lose money when they bought a house, sure they did but they gained a house. The seller gained money but lost a house. New money is created in the sense that companies can and do make profits, those profits, together with the expected profits from future years increase the value that is put on the company. If we take something simple like a mining company then its value represents a lot of things: and numerous other lesser things too. The value of shares in the mining company will reflect all of these things. It likely rises and falls in line with the price of the raw materials it mines and those change based on the overall supply and demand for those raw materials. Stocks do have an inherent value, they are ownership of a part of a company. You own part of the asset value, profits and losses made by that company. Betting on things is different in that you've no ownership of the thing you bet on, you're only dependent on the outcome of the bet. Stock trading (as opposed to IPO) doesn't directly benefit the company. But it affects their ability to raise additional funds; if they're valued higher, they don't need to sell as many shares to raise a given amount of money.  And the stockholders are part owners of the company; their votes in annual corporate meetings and the like can add up to a substantial influence on the company's policies, so the company has an interest in keeping them (reasonably) happy. Dividends (distributing part of the company's profits to the stockholders) are one way of doing so. You're still investing in the company. The fact that you're buying someone else's share just means you're doing so indirectly, and they're dis-investing at the same time. "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 correlation I heard most about in economics/finance was that stock prices and bond yields were negatively correlated; as the stock market does better, bond yields fall (company's doing well as evidenced by stocks, so it's a good credit risk, so YTM of its bonds on the market goes down). The correlation, if any, between the stock and futures market should be visible in the actual price histories. Index prices may be useful, but what's more likely is that various future prices have correlation with various companies' stocks. Where the future reflects the price of a raw material that is a significant cost of goods sold for a company, you'll see these two move inversely to each other in the short term. I think that if there is a causative relationship here, its that futures prices influence stock prices, not the other way around. The futures market generally represents the cost side of a consumer goods producer's bottom line. The stock market represents its profits. As futures go up, profit expectations go down, putting pressure on stock prices. Industries that deal in services, or in other types of goods, can still be affected because a rise in the cost of something consumers need will cause them to spend less on other things which affects margins in those other areas. So, in the short and medium term, when the futures market goes up the stock market sees a dip, and vice versa.  However, companies adapt; they can put upward pressure on prices for their goods to restore their desired margins, usually by slowly increasing them to prevent sticker shock (though elasticity of demand plays a part; the more we need something no matter what it costs, the faster prices can increase). To maintain costs, they can make things cheaper using less expensive materials (more plastic, less steel). They can restructure production processes (translated: move factories offshore, or at least to ""right-to-work"" states with less union strength) to save costs elsewhere. All of these reduce costs and thus increase profits, but take time to implement. Many of these things reduce direct costs, reducing demand for the commodity and causing the futures prices to go back down. So, over the long term, these differences even out, and it's down to the things that affect the entire market (inflation, consumer/investor confidence, monetary policy)." Not necessarily.  You only need to raise prices to maintain current profit margins.  Assuming you aren't living on a paper thin profit margin, you can give your employees a raise and suffer a lower profit margin.  Now, that could have other negative consequences on your stock value and shareholders might be upset, but that is a different discussion. &gt; Your question is expressed as a run-on sentence, which I'm having trouble parsing. Maybe you could restate.  The one in the title? If yes, here it is restated:  *As I currently understand, we owe much of our national debt to ourselves. The reason for this is that people are being charged interest that does not exist in the system. Therefore, if we tried to pay the debt (like some conservative politicians are fighting for) it would be a massive transfer of wealth from the 99% to the 1%, since most of the debt is owed to the 1% (banks).*  So I was wondering if this conclusion/summary/understanding is flawed in some way.