What kind news or information would make the price of a stock go up?
There is a highly related question which is much easier to answer: what normally value-increasing news about a company would cause that company to fall in value in the public stock market? By answering that, we can answer your question by proxy. The answer to that question being: anything that makes investors believe that the company won't be able to maintain the level of profit. For example, let's say a company announces a 300% profit growth compared to the previous year. This should push the stock upwards; maybe not by 300%, but certainly by quite a bit. Let's also say that this company is in the business of designing, manufacturing and selling some highly useful gadget that lots of people want to buy. Now suppose that the company managed such an profit increase by one of: In scenario 1 (firing the engineering department), it is highly unlikely that the company will be able to come up with, manufacture and sell a Next Generation Gadget. Hence, while profit is up now, it is highly likely to go down in the months and years coming up. Because stock market investors are more interested in future profits than in past profits, this should push the value of the company down. In scenario 2 (selling off the machinery), the company may very well be able to come up with a Next Generation Gadget, and if they can manufacture it, they might very well be able to sell it. However, no matter how you slice it, the short-term costs for manufacturing either their current generation Gadget, or the Next Generation Gadget, are bound to go up because the company will either need to rent machinery, or buy new machinery. Neither is good for future profits, so the value of the company again should go down in response. In scenario 3 (their product getting a large boost), the company still has all the things that allowed them to come up with, produce and sell Gadgets. They also have every opportunity to come up with, manufacture and sell Next Generation Gadgets, which implies that future profits, while far from guaranteed, are likely. In this case, the probability remains high that the company can actually maintain a higher level of profit. Hence, the value of the company should rise. Now apply this to a slightly more realistic scenario, and you can see why the value of a company can fall even if the company announces, for example, record profits. Hence, you are looking for news which indicate a present and sustained raised ability to turn a profit. This is the type of news that should drive any stock up in price, all else being equal. Obviously, buyer beware, your mileage may vary, all else is never equal, nothing ever hits the average, you are fighting people who do this type of analysis for a living and have every tool known available to them, etc etc. But that's the general idea. You should not trade based on what news is just released, if you try you will be too slow to react most of the time. In many cases the news is already priced into the stock during the anticipation of the news being released. Other times as soon as the news is released the price will gap up or down in response to the news.  Some times when you think that the news is good, like new record profits have been achieved, but the share price goes down instead of up. This may be due to the expectation of the record profits by analysts to be 20% more than last year, but the company only achieves 10% more than last year. So the news is actually seen as bad because, even though record profits, it hasn't met expectations. The same can happen in the other direction, a company may make a loss and the share price goes up. This may be because it was expected to make a 50% loss but only made a 20% loss due to cost cutting, so this is seen as a good thing and the price can shoot up, especially if it had been beaten down for months. An other example is when the Federal Reserve in the USA put up interest rates earlier this month. Some may have seen this as bad news and expected share prices to fall, but instead prices rallied. This was actually seen as good news, firstly because it had been expected for a long time, and secondly and more importantly because a small rise in interest rates after many years of near zero rates is a sign of the economy finally starting to improve. If the economy is improving, that means more people will have jobs, more people will be spending more money, companies will start to make higher revenues and start to expand, which means higher profits and higher share prices. A better way to trade is to have a written trading plan and use technical analysis to develop a set of buy and sell criteria that you follow to the tea. Then back test your trading plan through various market conditions to make sure you get a positive expectancy.
"I think the question can be answered by realizing that whoever is buying the stock is buying it from someone who can do the same mathematics. Ask your son to imagine that everyone planned to buy the stock exactly one week before Christmas.  Would the price still be cheap?  The problem is that if everyone knows the price will go up, the people who own it already won't want to sell.  If you're buying something from someone who doesn't really want to sell it, you have to pay more to get it.  So the price goes up a week before Christmas, rather than after Christmas. But of course everyone else can figure this out too.  So they are going to buy 2 weeks before, but that means the price goes up 2 weeks before rather than 1 week.  You play this game over and over, and eventually the expected increased Christmas sales are ""priced in"".  But of course there is a chance people are setting the price based on a mistaken belief. So the winner isn't the person who buys just before the others, but rather the one who can more accurately predict what the sales will be (this is why insider trading is so tempting even if it's illegal).  The price you see right now represents what people anticipate the price will be in the future, what dividends are expected in the future, how much risk people think there is, and how that compares with other available investments." "When people (even people in the media) say: ""The stock market is up because of X"" or ""The stock market is down because of Y"", they are often engaging in what Nicolas Taleb calls the narrative falacy. They see the market has moved in one direction or another, they open their newspaper, pick a headline that provides a plausible reason for the market to move, and say: ""Oh, that is why the stock market is down"". Very rarely do statements like this actually come from research, asking people why they bought or sold that day. Sometimes they may be right, but it is usually just story telling. In terms of old fashioned logic this is called the ""post hoc, ergo proper hoc"" fallacy. Now all the points people have raised about the US deficit may be valid, and there are plenty of reasons for worrying about the future of the world economy, but they were all known before the S&P report, which didn't really provide the markets with much new information. Note also that the actual bond market didn't move much after hearing the same report, in fact the price of 10 year US Treasury bonds actually rose a tiny bit. Take these simple statements about what makes the market go up or down on any given day with several fistfuls of salt." Imagine that a company never distributes any of its profits to its shareholders. The company might invest these profits in the business to grow future profits or it might just keep the money in the bank. Either way, the company is growing in value. But how does that help you as a small investor? If the share price never went up then the market value would become tiny compared to the actual value of the company. At some point another company would see this and put a bid in for the whole company. The shareholders wouldn't sell their shares if the bid didn't reflect the true value of the company. This would mean that your shares would suddenly become much more valuable. So, the reason why the share price goes up over time is to represent the perceived value of the company. As this could be realised either by the distribution of dividends (or a return of capital) to shareholders, or by a bidder buying the whole company, the shares are actually worth something to someone in the market. So the share price will tend to track the value of the company even if dividends are never paid. In the short term a share price reflects sentiment, but over the long term it will tend to track the value of the company as measured by its profitability. "There tends to be high volume around big changes in stock price. The volume of a stock does not remain constant and the term ""fat fingers"" can influence price.--> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-10-01/that-japanese-fat-finger-can-absolutely-happen-in-u-s-.html That being said keshlam is 99% right when it comes to a stock moving when their is no news or earnings announcements. Check out these papers. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1475-6803.2010.01285.x/full They do a time series analysis to try and predict future prices off of past demand during news events. They forecast using auto-regressive models.  google ""forecasting autoregressive model"" and the upenn lecture will be helpful. I would post another link but I cannot because I do not have enough rep/ This is more of a quant question. Hope this helps. JL" (yes, this should probably be a comment, not an answer ... but it's a bit long). I don't know what the laws are specifically about this, but my grandfather used to be on the board of a company that he helped to found ... and back in the 1980s, there was a period when the stock price suddenly quadrupled One of the officers in the company, knowing that the stock was over-valued, sold around a third of his shares ... and he got investigated for insider trading.  I don't recall if he was ever charged with anything, but there were some false rumors spreading about the company at the time (one was that they had something that you could sprinkle on meat to reduce the cholesterol).  I don't know where the rumors came from, but I've always assumed it was some sort of pump-and-dump stock manipulation, as this was decades before they were on the S&P 500 small cap. After that, the company had a policy where officers had to announce they were selling stock, and that it wouldn't execute for some time (1? 2 weeks? something like that).  I don't know if that was the SEC's doing, or something that the company came up with on their own. When a stock price rises, the company's assets are worth more. This doesn't mean it gets more cash directly, but it can liquidate (= sell) some of its stocks for a higher return than before. People are trying ideas like this, actually.  Though they generally aren't very public about it.  While keshlam ventures into hyperbole when mentioning Watson, he is certainly correct human language parsing is a extremely hard problem. While it is not always true that the big players will know before the news (sometimes that would qualify as insider trading).  The volume spike that you mention generally comes as the news arrives to the major (and minor) players.  So, if you have an algorithm run after the volume spike the price will likely have adjusted significantly already. You can try to avoid this by constantly scanning for news on a set of stocks however this becomes an even harder problem.  Or maybe by becoming more specific and parsing known important and specific news sources (farm report for instance) and trying to do so faster than anyone else.  These are some methods people use to not be too late. Here are some significant factors affect the company stock price performance: Usually, profitability is known to the public through the financial statements; it won't be 100% accurate and people would also trade the stock with the price not matching to the true value of the firm. Still there are dozens of other various reasons exist. People are just not behaving as rational as what the textbook describes when they are trading and investing. "Indexes are down during the summer time, and I don't think it has something to do with specific stocks. If you look at the index history you'll see that there's a price drop during the summer time. Google ""Sell in May and go away"". The BP was cheap at the time for a very particular reason. As another example of a similar speculation you can look at Citibank, which was less than $1 at its lowest, and within less than a year went to over $4 ( more than 400%). But, when it was less than $1 - it was very likely for C to go bankrupt, and it required a certain amount of willingness to loose to invest in it. Looking back, as with BP, it paid off well. But - that is looking back. So to address your question - there's no place where people tell you what will go up, because people who know (or think they know) will invest themselves, or buy lottery tickets. There's research, analysts, and ""frinds' suggestions"" which sometimes pay off (as in your example with BP), and sometimes don't. How much of it is noise - I personally don't think I can tell, until I can look back and say ""Damn, that dude was right about shorts on Google, it did go down 90% in 2012!""" Unless you are buying millions of dollars worth of a stock at a time, your transaction is a drop in the bucket, unlikely to have any noticable effect on the stock price. As Ian says, it's more likely that you are just remembering the times when the price dropped after you bought. If you keep careful track, I suspect you will find that the price goes up more often than it goes down, or at least, that the stocks you buy go up as often as the average stock on the market goes up. If you actually kept records and found that's not true, the most likely explanation is bad luck. Or that someone has placed a voodoo curse on you. I suppose one could imagine other scenarios. Like, if you regularly buy stock based on recommendations by well-known market pundits, you could expect to see a temporary increase in price as thousands or millions of people who hear this recommendation rush to buy, and then a few days or weeks later people move on to the next recommendation, the market setttles down, and the price reverts to a more normal level. In that case, if you're on the tail end of the buying rush, you could end up paying a premium. I'm just speculating here, I haven't done a study to find if this actually happens, but it sounds plausible to me. 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. Remember that shares represent votes at the shareholders' meeting. If share price drops too far below the value of that percentage of the company, the company gets bought out and taken over. This tends to set a minimum share price derived from the company's current value. The share price may rise above that baseline if people expect it to be worth more in the future, or drop s bit below if people expect awful news. That's why investment is called speculation. If the price asked is too high to be justified by current guesses, nobody buys. That sets the upper limit at any given time. Since some of this is guesswork, the market is not completely rational. Prices can drop after good news if they'd been inflated by the expectation of better news, for example. In general, businesses which don't crash tend to grow.  Hence the market as a whole generally trends upward if viewed on a long timescale. But there's a lot of noise on that curve; short term or single stocks are much harder to predict. "I don't know why there is so much confusion on such a simple concept. The answer is very simple. A stock must eventually pay dividends or the whole stock market is just a cheap ponzi scheme. A company may temporarily decided to reinvest profits into R&D, company expansion, etc. but obviously if they promised to never pay dividends then you can never participate in the profits of the company and there is simply no intrinsic value to the stock. For all of you saying 'Yeah but the stock price will go up!', please people get a life. The only reason the price goes up is in anticipation of dividend yield otherwise WHY would the price go up?  ""But the company is worth more and the stock is worth more"" A stocks value is not set by the company but by people who buy and sell in the open market.  To think a stock's price can go up even if the company refuses to pay dividends is analogous to : Person A says ""Hey buy these paper clips for $10"". But those paper clips aren't worth that. ""It doesn't matter because some fool down the line will pay $15"". But why would they pay that? ""Because some fool after him will pay $20"" Ha Ha!" "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." I would behave exactly as I would expect it from others. If you were the one giving away too many points by accident you would be thankful if somebody notifies you about this error. You can write a letter or call them. I would not use the points (of course only not use the points which are added in error). Other options are possible but I would advise against them. It's just about fair play and the points are clearly not yours.