Who owns historical valuations about equity such as stocks and index funds?
"I expect that data may be copyright. Data that's published (e.g. on a newsfeed or web site) is subject to terms of use. Standard & Poor's web site says, about the Shiller indexes, Who do I contact at S&P to license my   use of these indices?   Questions   regarding licensing the   S&P/Case-Shiller Home Price Indices   can be addressed to:  Bo Chung    Managing Director    bo_chung@standardandpoors.com,   +1.212.438.3519 As for 'recording' the information yourself, that may depend on how and where (e.g. from what source) you're recording it. If for example you tried to record prices from the Canadian MLS (Realtor's) network, they too have their own terms of use on the data they publish. Copyright laws vary from country to country (and terms of use certainly vary): for example see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_v._Rural which is case law about copyrighting a phone directory in the USA, and contrast that with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Database_right which is European legislation. So who owns data if it is determined by free market? I guess that ""determined by free market"" means that buyers and sellers are publishing their offers-to-buy and their offers-to-sell, and I guess that the publisher (e.g. the stock exchange) has 'terms of use' about the data (the offers) that they're publishing."
"Another thing people forget is that you can only under perform the average (aka the index) if you try. For most things in life, the harder you try, the better you do. In investing, that is not true. You can lock in ""average"" by simply buying the index fund. If you try, but you don't work as hard as everybody else who is trying or if you are not as smart as everybody else who is trying, then you will be below average. If you try, and you do better research, you are intelligent, and most importantly more disciplined, you can beat the average. That is an awful lot of work to be a few percent above average. It's like a 100 man marathon race where you can choose to come in 50th place if you don't run, it definitely beats running 26 miles only to come in 70th place. Also, note the people who know they are not very skilled will choose to be non-participants. If you are in the top 30% percentile in skill, you'll get killed if 80% of the participants choose to sit out and you are competing with the top 20%. It becomes one of these funny game theory experiments where even if you know what your rank is, do you choose to sit out or not? (Or perhaps you will choose to participate when the shoe shine boy is giving out stock advice, and take the opposite side of the bet).  For most people, it doesn't make sense to try. It makes the most sense to lock in the average by putting money into index funds (stocks and bonds) over time. It certainly beats doing several hours of work a week and then getting below average. It only makes sense to try to beat the average if you are really excited about stocks (it is your job or it is your primary hobby) and you have enough capital where getting that extra +3% return over the average is significant (otherwise, just work more on your day job and you'll make more money through wages). I really cannot stress the last point enough, I know some people who are very smart and they do a lot of research on the market, and they get pretty good percentage returns. So you have to be cheap as hell or rich as hell before it makes sense to invest your own money. Otherwise, you'll spend 20-30 hours a week researching to make a few thousand dollars more than the index over a year (which consequently gets spent on celebratory drinking or something, so it never compounds). Not a wise way to spend your time." "For whatever it's worth.  Judging from the comments in the other answers, I think everyone is addressing your question, ""How can you possibly lose money,""  there are a lot of ways to possibly lose money in the stock market.  Here are my thoughts.  This is a chart of the S&P 500 from about 1996 to about 2012.  At the top from the first arrow the entire S&P500 index fell about 45%.  From the top of the second arrow the entire S&P500 index fell about 52%.  It is really easy to look at our sustained bull market and feel invincible.  And while I'll concede that not every company in the index fell over these two periods, bear in mind that the S&P500 index is a collection of the 500 largest companies in the United States, and the entire index lost half it's value twice.  As the companies contained in the index shrink in value, they were replaced by companies that are the new biggest 500 in the country, then those fell too, and so on and so forth until the entire index lost half. Value is a funny thing because it isn't necessarily tied to the performance of the business (look at the current rosy valuations of all these non-earnings tech-companies).  It could be that a company is still performing very well but there are just no buyers for the stock.   So, how can you lose money in the stock market?  Very easily.  In A practical sense, it's when you need the money and can no longer weather the storm.  People who went out for retirement around 2000 couldn't sit around and wait until 2007 for their account values to be replenished.  This is why you roll off your stock exposure as you age.  As you get older you don't have time and if you stop having income you can find yourself selling your assets at the least opportune time." "The implication is market irrationality is stronger than market rationality. Aka nothing makes sense when TSLA climbs to $400 or when CMG rises to $750.   I wouldn't say there is a systematic flaw in valuation. I think there is just a lot of ignorance. Markets are more open to household investors than ever before. You used to go to your broker and ask him what's up and he'd give you the inside scoop since you pay them money. Now you go onto marketwatch and get some random nobody's opinion on everything and make stock selections based on that.   But eventually the chickens come home to roost and things will correct itself. Big players will jump ship and cause signals to other traders to jump ship. The public can pump stocks up pretty high but it doesn't just go to infinity. Eventually someone will stop and say, ""wtf is going on"" and start selling. Stocks are sold on a basis of a limit order book so it's real prices that people are paying. People don't care about prices currently because most don't have any finance knowledge but want to invest their own money.  They just hear about Tesla doing something amazing (from some clickbait article or news outlet) and can't stop thinking about buying Tesla. They go to Chipotle and think ""wow this place is so good and hip, they must be a great investment"".   The markets have been filled with more subjective analysis than ever before especially with so much low quality information at your fingertips. Equally ignorant people startin blogs about investment and personal finance being shepherds for other ignorant people. In the end they all lose.  People who exclaim ""this stock is going up to $250 easily"" with literally zero quantitative analysis or even a baseline reference point to back it up are prime examples of this.   Ignorance of markets and cheap money almost always lead to market runs that end catastrophically. Dot com bubble, 1929 market crash, 2008, it's always the same. People who have no business taking loans out or buying on margin or leveraging positions with debt only to get fucked over once things are brought back down to Earth. After 2 runs of QE, we now have cheap money and with everyone being a crier for their personal investment strategy, we now also have rampant ignorance.   I don't expect things to last but no one can call the bottom or the top, or else you'd be very very rich. Have a safe portfolio, don't try to time the markets. Have a strategy that hedges against unexpected change, don't try to gamble on this change. Because it's ultimately impossible to predict the movement of every single person on this earth that invests their money into markets. So don't try. Just be prepared.   ----  To expand further into valuation theory:  at the end of the day, people invest their money to make more money.  It's as simple as that.  If your money doesn't grow in an investment vehicle, it's ultimately a shit investment.  But no one values intrinsic value of a company's equity before they decide whether or not $380 for TSLA is a good/bad deal.  As a result, stocks can be pumped up way higher and people still see the gains on their stocks through capital gains fueled by other optimistic investors.   Non-zero sum goes both ways.  People can make shitloads of money on stock without an equitable loser--people can also lose shitloads on stock without any real winner emerging from the rubble.  When this bubble bursts, lots and lots of people will lose money on TSLA when people's expectations become rational and they stop paying $300 a share for a negative or 70 PE ratio.  It's insane what multipliers people will pay for these companies without even realizing the implication--if you buy a share of a company with a PE ratio of 70, you just paid 70 times their earnings for a share.  In an ideal world where they released every single penny of earnings as dividends, it would take you 70 periods to reclaim your money on that share.  This obviously doesn't take into account capital gains, but capital gains aren't supposed to be this irrational to where a stock can be pumped up into 70x PE ratio in the first place.  It's a whole messed up web of confusion and irrationality and eventually something will catalyze a reaction.  Imagine a market where everyone just agreed to pump up a single stock to infinity and everyone just rakes in shitloads of money.  Would this work?  Of course not.  It's literally a pyramid scheme that relies on future generations to constantly inject capital--no real value is being created by this scheme.  It requires constantly more future generations to continue adding money into the scheme and will crash once people stop pumping money into it.  The same thing will happen here.  Everyone ""agreed"" to pump up TSLA (in a sense) but eventually people will realize this is stupid as shit and the pyramid will come tumbling down because there is nothing they receive from this scheme other than the money from other people.  It's essentially moving money around, making 0 use of it, until people stop pumping money into the system and everyone realizes that nothing of real value had been produced through the use of this money.  Ultimately the only thing that creates real value is the money that is returned to shareholders from an outside party--the company you're invested in.  Real value is not created when people exchange stock and money.  So why do these transactions create higher values in equity?  The basis of equity valuation states that dividends are the only way for companies to raise the price of their stock, going off the traditional Dividend Discount Model.  And theoretically, that's the only logical explanation.  Buying and trading stock does nothing for the company, minus T Stock they might own.  Ultimately the only party creating real value is the underlying company.  If they aren't creating real value, then their stock should not be increasing, period.  The way they create value is by efficiently utilizing assets to generate returns on investment which can be returned to investors through dividends.  Dividends can only be increased (while maintaining an equitable payout ratio) by generating more net income that can increase the actual pool of money that can be allocated back to investors.  TSLA does not do this.  TSLA regularly loses money and overpromises.  There is no logical explanation for any of this except that everyone is irrational.    Obviously theory is not the same as in practice but the theory is important here because it's really the basis for any investment at all.  At the end of the day, a share of stock is the right to a share of the company's equity.  People own equity in companies because companies generate money that it returns back to its owners.  That's what a company does.  That's what an owner does.  If you own shares of a company, you're an owner.  And if your company does not return more money back to you YoY, then why are you invested in them?    Ultimately, you're riding a capital gains wave that will eventually subside once market irrationality succumbs to rationality.  And it always does because the real value always catches up to the fake value that is caused by pumping and dumping stocks." "There are a LOT of reasons why institutional investors would own a company's stock (especially a lot of it). Some can be: The company is in one of the indices, especially big ones. Many asset management companies have funds that are either passive (track index) or more-or-less closely adhere to a benchmark, with the benchmark frequently being (based on/exactly) an index. As such, a stock that's part of an index would be heavily owned by institutional investors. Conclusion: Nothing definitive. Being included in an equity index is usually dependent on the market cap; NOT on intrinsic quality of the company, its fundamentals or stock returns.  The company is considered a good prospect (growth or value), in a sector that is popular with institutional investors. There's a certain amount of groupthink in investing. To completely butcher a known IT saying, you don't get fired for investing in AAPL :)  While truly outstanding and successful investors seek NON-popular assets (which would be undervalued), the bulk is likely to go with ""best practices""... and the general rules for valuation and analysis everyone uses are reasonably similar. As such, if one company invests in a stock, it's likely a competitor will follow similar reasoning to invest in it.  Conclusion: Nothing definitive. You don't know if the price at which those institutional companies bought the stock is way lower than now. You don't know if the stock is held for its returns potential, or as part of an index, or some fancy strategy you as individual investor can't follow. The company's technicals lead the algorithms to prefer it. And they feed off of each other. Somewhat similar in spirit to #2, except this time, it's algorithmic trading making decisions based on technicals instead of portfolio managers based on funamentals.  Obviously, same conclusion applies, even more so. The company sold a large part of the stock directly to institutional investor as part of an offering. Sometimes, as part of IPO (ala PNC and BLK), sometimes additional capital raising (ala Buffett and BAC) Conclusion: Nothing definitive. That investor holds on to the investment, sometimes for reason not only directly related to stock performance (e.g. control of the company, or synergies). Also, does the fact that Inst. Own % is high mean that the company is a good investment and/or less risky? Not necessarily. In 2008, Bear Stearns Inst Own. % was 77%" "Regarding SPY: ""One SPDR unit is valued at approximately 1/10 of the value of the S&P 500. Dividends are distributed quarterly, and are based on the accumulated stock dividends held in trust, less any expenses of the trust.""  (source)  These are depository receipts, not the actual stocks. Regarding IVV: ""The component stocks are weighted according to the total float-adjusted market value of their outstanding shares. The Fund invests in sectors, such as energy, information technology, industrials, financials, consumer staples, healthcare, telecom services, consumer discretionary and materials.""  (more here) VOO is the Vanguard S&P 500 ETF. The tracking error seems pretty small to me.  I went to Google Finance and plotted the percent change for all four on one chart.  They lie pretty much on top of one another.  The actual dollar value of each one doesn't matter nearly as much as the fact that they move up and down almost in lock-step.  There may be a larger difference going farther out, but for three separate financial products, the agreement is still remarkably good." There are not necessarily large shareholders, maybe every other Joe Schmoe owns 3 or 5 shares; and many shares might be inside investment funds. If you are looking for voting rights, typically, the banks/investment companies that host the accounts of the individual shareholders/fund owners have the collective voting rights, so the Fidelity's and Vanguard's of the world will be the main and deciding voters. That is very common. Shareholder's Equity consists of two main things: The initial capitalization of the company (when the shares were first sold, plus extra share issues) and retained earnings, which is the amount of money the company has made over and above capitalization, which has not been re-distributed back to shareholders. So yes, it is the firm's total equity financing-- the initial capitalization is the equity that was put into the company when it was founded plus subsequent increases in equity due to share issues, and retained earnings is the increase in equity that has occurred since then which has not yet been re-distributed to shareholders (though it belongs to them, as the residual claimants). Both accounts are credited when they increase, because they represent an increase in cash, that is debited, so in order to make credits = debits they must be credits. (It doesn't mean that the company has that much cash on hand, as the cash will likely be re-invested). Shareholder's Equity is neither an asset nor a liability: it is used to purchase assets and to reduce liabilities, and is simply a measure of assets minus liabilities that is necessary to make the accounting equation balance: Since the book value of stocks doesn't change that often (because it represents the price the company sold it for, not the current value on the stock market, and would therefore only change when there were new share issues), almost all changes in total assets or in total liabilities are reflected in Retained Earnings. A quick search showed me that UEP merged into Ameren on Dec 31, 1997, and Ameren still exists today.  So I took a look at Ameren's Investor Relations website.   Unfortunately, they don't provide historical stock prices prior to Ameren forming, so starting with 1998.  However, I've had good luck in the past emailing a company's investor relations contact and asking for data like this that isn't on the website.  It's reasonably likely they'll have internal records they could look it up within.