Once stock prices are down, where to look for good stock market deals?
"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!""" Something you might want to consider, instead of going out bargain hunting in hopes of picking something up on the cheap is to start doing you research now for a stock you would like to have in your portfolio and watch it for news that might cause it to go down before picking it up when it is down for a bit. As you pointed out with the BP stock, prior to the incident it was a solid stock that was being held in a number of funds. By identifying solid stocks now you can also make the decision on the basis of the news to if the fundamentals under the stock are severely impacted or if it just a temporary dip in prices. Also, you might want to index funds such as VTI that are tied to the overall market and also pay dividends. When the market tends down for awhile you can buy some shares that you can either hold for dollar-cost averaging or sell off again once the market picks up. Keep in mind, that bargain hunting will fail you from time to time.  I know a lot of guys who bought Nortel at $10, planning to hold it until the inevitable recovery. Do your own research There are hundreds of places where people will give you all sorts of recommendations. There is as much noise in the recommendations as there is in the stock market itself. Become your own filter. You need to work on your own instinct. Pick a couple of sectors and a few stocks in each and study them. It is useful to know where the main indexes are going, but - unless you are trading the indexes - it is the individual sectors that you should focus on more.
Companies with existing borrowings (where borrowings are on variable interest rates) or in the case with fixed interest rates - companies that get new borrowings - would pay less interest on these borrowings, so their cost will go down and profits up, making them more attractive to investors.  So, in general lower interest rates will make the share market a more attractive investment (than some alternatives) as investors are willing to take on more risk for potentially higher returns. This will usually result in the stock market rising as it is currently in the US. EDIT: The case for rising interest rates A central bank's purpose when raising interest rates is to slow down an economy that is booming. As interest rates rise consumers will tighten up their spending and companies will thus have less revenue on top of higher costs for maintaining existing borrowing (with variable rates) or new borrowing (with fixed rates). If rates are higher companies may also defer new borrowings to expand their business. This will eventually lead to lower profits and lower valuation for these companies. Another thing that happens is that as banks start increasing interest for saving accounts investors will look for safety where they can get a higher return (than before) without the risk of the stock market.  With lowering profits and valuations, and investor's money flowing out of shares and into the money market, so will company share prices drop (although this may lag a bit with the share market still booming due to greed. But once the boom stops watchout for the crash). "In general, there should be a ""liquidity premium"" which means that less-liquid stocks should be cheaper. That's because to buy such a stock, you should demand a higher rate of return to compensate for the liquidity risk (the possibility that you won't be able to sell easily). Lower initial price = higher eventual rate of return. That's what's meant when Investopedia says the security would be cheaper (on average). Is liquidity good? It depends. Here's what illiquidity is. Imagine you own a rare piece of art. Say there are 10 people in the world who collect this type of art, and would appreciate what you own. That's an illiquid asset, because when you want to sell, maybe those 10 people aren't buying - maybe they don't want your particular piece, or they all happen to be short on funds. Or maybe worse, only one of them is buying, so they have all the negotiating leverage. You'll have to lower your price if you're really in a hurry to sell. Maybe if you lower your price enough, you can get one of the 10 buyers interested, even if none were initially. An illiquid asset is bad for sellers. Illiquid means there aren't enough buyers for you to get a bidding war going at the time of your choosing. You'll potentially have to wait around for buyers to turn up, or for a stock, maybe you'd have to sell a little bit at a time as buyers want the shares. Illiquid can be bad for buyers, too, if the buyer is for some reason in a hurry; maybe nobody is selling at any given time. But, usually buyers don't have to be in a hurry. An exception may be if you short sell something illiquid (brokers often won't let you do this, btw). In that case you could be a forced buyer and this could be very bad on an illiquid security. If there are only one or two sellers out there, they now have the negotiating leverage and they can ask whatever price they want. Illiquidity is very bad when mixed with margin or short sales because of the potential for forced trades at inopportune times. There are plenty of obscure penny stocks where there might be only one or two trades per day, or fewer. The spread is going to be high on these because the bids at a given time will just be lowball offers from buyers who aren't really all that interested, unless you want to give your stock away, in which case they'll take it. And the asks are going to be from sellers who want to get a decent price, but maybe there aren't really any buyers willing to pay, so the ask is just sitting there with no takers. The bids and asks may be limit orders that have been sitting open for 3 weeks and forgotten about. Contrast with a liquid asset. For example, a popular-model used car in good condition would be a lot more liquid than a rare piece of art, though not nearly as liquid as most stocks. You can probably find several people that want to buy it living nearby, and you're not going to have to drop the price to get a buyer to show up. You might even get those buyers in a bidding war. From illiquid penny stocks, there's a continuum all the way up to the most heavily-traded stocks such as those in the S&P500. With these at a given moment there will be thousands of buyers and sellers, so the spread is going to close down to nearly zero. If you think about it, just statistically, if there are thousands of bids and thousands of asks, then the closest bid-ask pair is going to be close together. That's a narrow spread. While if there are 3 bids and 2 asks on some illiquid penny stock, they might be dollars away from each other, and the number of shares desired might not match up. You can see how liquidity is good in some situations and not in others. An illiquid asset gives you more opportunity to get a good deal because there aren't a lot of other buyers and sellers around and there's some opportunity to ""negotiate"" within the wide spread. For some assets maybe you can literally negotiate by talking to the other party, though obviously not when trading stocks on an exchange. But an illiquid asset also means you might get a bad deal, especially if you need to sell quickly and the only buyers around are making lowball offers. So the time to buy illiquid assets is when you can take your time on both buying and selling, and will have no reason for a forced trade on a particular timeline. This usually means no debt is involved, since creditors (including your margin broker) can force you to trade. It also means you don't need to spend the money anytime soon, since if you suddenly needed the money you'd have a forced trade on your hands. If you have the time, then you put a price out there that's very good for you, and you wait for someone to show up and give you that price - this is how you get a good deal. One more note, another use of the term liquid is to refer to assets with low or zero volatility, such as money market funds. An asset with a lot of volatility around its intrinsic or true value is effectively illiquid even if there's high trade volume, in that any given point in time might not be a good time to sell, because the price isn't at the right level. Anyway, the general definition of a liquid investment is one that you'd be comfortable cashing out of at a moment's notice. In this sense, most stocks are not all that liquid, despite high trading volume. In different contexts people may use ""liquid"" in this sense or to mean a low bid-ask spread." While there are lots of really plausible explanations for why the market moves a certain way on a certain day, no one really knows for sure.  In order to do that, you would need to understand the 'minds' of all the market players.  These days many of these players are secret proprietary algorithms.  I'm not quibbling with the specifics of these explanations (I have no better) just pointing out that these are just really hypotheses and if the market starts following different patterns, they will be tossed into the dust bin of 'old thinking'. I think the best thing you can explain to your son is that the stock market is basically a gigantic highly complex poker game.  The daily gyrations of the market are about individuals trying to predict where the herd is going to go next and then after that and then after that etc. If you want to help him understand the market, I suggest two things.  The first is to find or create a simple market game and play it with him.  The other would be to teach him about how bonds are priced and why prices move the way they do.  I know this might sound weird and most people think bonds are esoteric but there are bonds have a much simpler pricing model based on fundamental financial logic.  It's much easier then to get your head around the moves of the bond markets because the part of the price based on beliefs is much more limited (i.e. will the company be able pay & where are rates going.)  Once you have that understanding, you can start thinking about the different ways stocks can be valued (there are many) and what the market movements mean about how people are valuing different companies. With regard to this specific situation, here's a different take on it from the 'priced in' explanation which isn't really different but might make more sense to your son: Pretend for a second that at some point these stocks did move seasonally.  In the late fall and winter when sales went up, the stock price increased in kind.  So some smart people see this happening every year and realize that if they bought these stocks in the summer, they would get them cheap and then sell them off when they go up.  More and more people are doing this and making easy money.  So many people are doing it that the stock starts to rise in the Summer now.  People now see that if they want to get in before everyone else, they need to buy earlier in the Spring.  Now the prices start rising in the Spring.  People start buying in the beginning of the year... You can see where this is going, right?  Essentially, a strategy to take advantage of well known seasonal patterns is unstable.  You can't profit off of the seasonal changes unless everyone else in the market is too stupid to see that you are simply anticipating their moves and react accordingly. "In a comment you say,  if the market crashes, doesn't ""regress to the mean"" mean that I should still expect 7% over the long run? That being the case, wouldn't I benefit from intentionally unbalancing my portfolio and going all in on equities? I can can still rebalance using new savings. No.  Regress to the mean just tells you that the future rate is likely to average 7%.  The past rate and the future rate are entirely unconnected.  Consider a series:   The running average is  That running average is (slowly) regressing to the long term mean without ever a member of the series being above 7%.   Real markets actually go farther than this though.  Real value may be increasing by 7% per year, but prices may move differently.  Then market prices may revert to the real value.  This happened to the S&P 500 in 2000-2002.  Then the market started climbing again in 2003.  In your system, you would have bought into the falling markets of 2001 and 2002.  And you would have missed the positive bond returns in those years.  That's about a -25% annual shift in returns on that portion of your portfolio.  Since that's a third of your portfolio, you'd have lost 8% more than with the balanced strategy each of those two years.   Note that in that case, the market was in an over-valued bubble.  The bubble spent three years popping and overshot the actual value.  So 2003 was a good year for stocks.  But the three year return was still -11%.  In retrospect, investors should have gone all in on bonds before 2000 and switched back to stocks for 2003.  But no one knew that in 2000.  People in the know actually started backing off in 1998 rather than 2000 and missed out on the tail end of the bubble.   The rebalancing strategy automatically helps with your regression to the mean.  It sells expensive bonds and buys cheaper stocks on average.  Occasionally it sells modest priced bonds and buys over-priced stocks.  But rarely enough that it is a better strategy overall.   Incidentally, I would consider a 33% share high for bonds.  30% is better.  And that shouldn't increase as you age (less than 30% bonds may be practical when you are young enough).  Once you get close to retirement (five to ten years), start converting some of your savings to cash equivalents.  The cash equivalents are guaranteed not to lose value (but might not gain much).  This gives you predictable returns for your immediate expenses.  Once retired, try to keep about five years of expenses in cash equivalents.  Then you don't have to worry about short term market fluctuations.  Spend down your buffer until the market catches back up.   It's true that bonds are less volatile than stocks, but they can still have bad years.  A 70%/30% mix of stocks/bonds is safer than either alone and gives almost as good of a return as stocks alone.  Adding more bonds actually increases your risk unless you carefully balance them with the right stocks.  And if you're doing that, you don't need simplistic rules like a 70%/30% balance." There is an approach which suggests that each weekend you should review your positions as if they were stocks to be considered for purchase on Monday. I can't offer advice on picking stocks, but it's fair to say that you need to determine if the criteria you used to buy it the first time is still valid. I own a stock trading at over $300, purchased for $5. Its P/E is still reasonable as the darn E just keeps rising.  Unless your criteria is to simply grab small gains, which in my opinion is a losing strategy, an 8% move up would never be a reason to sell, in and of itself. Doing so strikes me as day trading, which I advise againgst. A note on the article: I thought this article by Buffet on market level was particularly appropriate now, given the seemingly daily new highs, current level of interest rates (hint: they are incredibly low), and corporate profits (hint: they are incredibly high). If you believe the market will eventually revert to the mean, that implies substandard results over an extended period of time into the future. "I (and probably most considering trading) had a similar thought as you.  I thought if I just skimmed the peaks and sold before the troughs, perhaps aided by computer, I'd be able to make a 2% here, 2% there, and that would add up quickly to a nice amount of money.  It almost did seem ""foolproof"". Then I realized that sometimes a stock just slides...down...and there is no peak higher than what I bought it for.  ""That's OK,"" I'd think, ""I'm sure it will recover and surpass the price I bought it for...so now I play the waiting game.""  But then it continues sliding, and my $10k is now worth $7k.  Do I sell?  Did I build a stop loss point into my computer program?  If so, what is the right place to put that stop?  What if there is a freak dip down and it triggers the stop loss but THEN my stock recovers?  I just lost $14,000 like this last week--luckily, only virtually! The point is, your idea only has half a chance to work when there is a mildly volatile stock that stays around some stable baseline, and even then it is not easy.  And then you factor in fees as others mentioned... People do make money doing this (day traders), and some claim you can use technical analysis to time orders well, so if you want to try that, read about technical analysis on this site or elsewhere." Wikipedia is your friend: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_stock_exchanges