Can I evaluate the performance of a company using just OHLC data?
No. The information you are describing is technical data about a stock's market price and trading volume, only. There is nothing implied in that data about a company's financial fundamentals (earnings/profitability, outstanding shares, market capitalization, dividends, balance sheet assets and liabilities, etc.) All you can infer is positive or negative momentum in the trading of the stock. If you want to understand if a company is performing well, then you need fundamental data about the company such as you would get from a company's annual and quarterly reports.
Your question seems to be making assumptions around “investing”, that investing is only about stock market and bonds or similar things. I would suggest that you should look much broader than that in terms of your investments. Investment Types Your should consider (and include) some or all of the following for your investments, depending on your age, your attitude towards risk, the number of dependents you have, your lifestyle, etc. I love @Blackjack’s explanation of diversification into other asset classes producing a lower risk portfolio. Excellent! All the above need to be considered in this spread of risk, depending as I said earlier on your age, your attitude towards risk, the number of dependents you have, your lifestyle, etc. Stock Market Investment I’ll focus most of the rest of my post on the stock markets, as that is where my main experience lies. But the comments are applicable to a greater or lesser extent to other types of investing. We then come to how engaged you want to be with your investments. Two general management styles are passive investment management versus active investment management. @Blackjack says  That pretty much sums up passive management. The idea is to buy ETFs   across asset classes and just leave them. The difficulty with this idea is that profitability is very dependent upon when the stocks are purchased and when they are sold. This is why active investing should be considered as a viable alternative to passive investment.  I don’t have access to a very long time frame of stock market data, but I do have 30 or so years of FTSE data, so let’s say that we invest £100,000 for 10 years by buying an ETF in the FTSE100 index. I know this isn't de-risking across a number of asset classes by purchasing a number of different EFTs, but the logic still applies, if you will bear with me. Passive Investing I have chosen my example dates of best 10 years and worst 10 years as specific dates that demonstrate my point that active investing will (usually) out-perform passive investing. From a passive investing point of view, here is a graph of the FTSE with two purchase dates chosen (for maximum effect), to show the best and worst return you could receive. Note this ignores brokerage and other fees. In these time frames of data I have …   These are contrived dates to illustrate the point, on how ineffective passive investing can be, depending if there is a bear/bull market and where you buy in the cycle.  One obviously wouldn’t buy all their stocks in one tranche, but I’m just trying to illustrate the point. Active Investing Let’s consider now active investing. I use the following rules for selling and buying:- This is obviously a very simple technical trading system and I would not recommend using it to trade with, as it is overly simplistic and there are some flaws and inefficiencies in it. So, in my simulation,  These beat the passive stock market profit for their respective dates. Summary Passive stock market investing is dependent upon the entry and exit prices on the dates the transactions are made and will trade regardless of market cycles. Active stock market trading or investing engages with the market using a set of criteria, which can change over time, but allows one’s investments to be in or out of the market at any point in time. My time frames were arbitrary, but with the logic applied (which is a very simple technical trading methodology), I would suggest that any 10 year time frame active investing would beat passive investing. "Although this isn't related to homes directly, as an IT professional I know that wind power tends to be cost effective to the point that many data centers (the massive buildings holding the servers that are the backbone of the internet) actually invest in their own wind turbines to slash costs since servers tend to be power hogs. As far as going ""off the grid"" that ultimately depends on how much wind/sun you're getting at your residence, but if you look at places like Dallas, PA, CA, and other areas where  the major hosts place centers, they're typically in areas where there's plenty of sunlight or wind. Going back to small scale thinking however, one of my contacts actually leases a colocation building in PA where he has a few server racks, and while he currently has electric there, he also owns a couple of turbines which have been powering <60% of the demand, and he's actually planning to add solar and also feed that back to the grid at a profit. So overall wind/solar definitely has the potential for a decent ROI, at both large and small levels, but performance will vary greatly from area to area.  I know that Lowes actually started advertising about carrying solar panels, so going in and asking about the performance and if you can arrange an audit of your home might be a good place to start. If you Google ""green audits"" I'm sure you can find a trillion companies ""specializing"" in green power, but as with any sales rep (including at Lowe's) I'd do some due-diligence so you don't get taken for a ride, and also to check references because I don't think ""green audit"" companies have any official certifications/standards." "This article is bogus. There may be companies where you would experience what the author describes, but it's not true where I work (I manage a department of 54 in a megacompany with 350k employees worldwide).   ""The books are cooked. Corporate boards must approve labor budgets, raises, and bonuses pretty early in the calendar year. "" It's true that the total department budget is set, for example, by June. You might take 4% of everyone's salaries and reserve that for raises to be allocated in the future. That doesn't mean everyone gets 4% increase, though. Some may not be eligible for increase--for example, if they've been there for 6 months or less. Some may underperform, meaning they get 2% or 0%. And some may exceed expectations, so they get 6%. Performance definitely matters.  ""Nobody knows how to talk about performance."" Well, that's quite a blanket statement, isn't it? True, it's /difficult/ to talk about a person's performance. And there's certainly room for managers to improve /their/ performance and ability to give feedback. But I've had plenty of bosses that know how to give good feedback and do so throughout the year (not just a year-end). I also believe that I'm pretty good at it--at least my employees have indicated that I'm improving :)  ""Unfortunately, you are not as fabulous as the executives in your company. Large bonuses are given at the top, which means that someone needs to be held accountable. Even if you've met and exceeded your goals for the year, that someone is you."" I'm not even sure how to respond to that one. The author needs some holiday cheer, I think. Large bonuses are given at the top, true. What does that have to do with a not-at-the-top employee's accountability? The points don't seem to be related.  ""Managers really love forced ranking."" Not true. Forced ranking sucks, isn't fun and is difficult. I believe good managers care for all of their employees. (Bad managers are something else altogether...)  ""Even if you rock, there isn't much money to go around"" The first accurate sentence in the article, woohoo! However, the author doesn't take into account at all that money isn't everything. Surveys of what motivates employees consistently shows that money isn't number one. Things like having a challenging job and working on important products usually come out over dollars-and-cents. And hey, we've built a real crappy economy. What do you expect?  ""As you participate in the end-of-year performance management process, the best thing you can do is to stay neutral, remain dispassionate, and be quiet."" I really take issue with this statement. DON'T DO THAT (please). Use the opportunity you  have with your boss to discuss her or his expectations and what you can change so that you meet them or exceed them. If you're already exceeding expectations, ask how you can take on new work, how you can contribute to the welfare of your fellow employees. This is how you get ahead.   ""Nobody really gets rich, anymore, from being a regular employee."" Getting rich depends on how you spend and save, not so much on how much you make." Ya, that's a lot of data - especially considering your relative lack of experience and the likely fact that you have no idea what to do with what you're given.  How do you even know you need minute or tick-based bid-ask data?    You can get a lot more than OHLC/V/Split/Dividend.  You can get:  * Book Value; * Dividend information (Amount, yield, ex date, pay date); * EBITDA; * EPS (current AND estimates); * Price/sales ratio; * Price/book value; * Price/earnings ratio; * PEG ratio; * Short ratio; * Market cap.  Among other things, all for free. It's not enough just to check if your order doesn't exceed 10% of the 20 day average volume. I'll quote from my last answer about NSCC illiquid charges: You may still be assessed a fee for trading OTC stocks even if your account doesn't meet the criteria because these restrictions are applied at the level of the clearing firm, not the individual client. This means that if other investors with your broker, or even at another broker that happens to use the same clearing firm, purchase more than 5 million shares in an individual OTC stock at the same time, all of your accounts may face fees, even though individually, you don't exceed the limits. The NSCC issues a charge to the clearing firm if in aggregate, their orders exceed the limits, and the clearing firm usually passes these charges on to the broker(s) that placed the orders. Your broker may or may not pass the charges through to you; they may simply charge you significantly higher commissions for trading OTC securities and use those to cover the charges.  Since checking how the volume of your orders compares to the average past volume, ask your broker about their policies on trading OTC stocks. They may tell you that you won't face illiquid charges because the higher cost of commissions covers these, or they may give you specifics on how to verify that your orders won't incur such charges. Only your broker can answer this with certainty. If you look at page 27 of their 10Q Jan 2017, it clarifies their streaming content liabilities.   http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/NFLX/4914912502x0xS1628280-17-496/1065280/filing.pdf Technically, the total liabilities comes to $20b.   Depending on who your accountant is, the amount can be as you have stated/referred to, but in real terms, it's higher.   The magic of including &lt;1 year vs all of it.    Tesla does the same shit with their accounting. Something to consider is how broad is Yahoo! Finance taking in their data for making some comparisons.  For example, did you look at the other companies in the same industry?  On the Industry page, the Top Life Insurance Companies by Market Cap are mostly British companies which could make things a bit different than you'd think. Another point is how this is just for one quarter which may be an anomaly as the data could get a bit awkward if some companies are just coming back to being profitable and could have what appears to be great growth but this is because their earnings grow from $.01/share to $1/share which is a growth of $10,000 percent as this is an increase of 100 times but really this may just be from various accounting charges the company had that hit its reserves and caused its earnings to dip temporarily. Other metrics like Price/Book Value or Price/Sales can be used to determine if a company has above average valuations and would be classified as growth or below average valuations and be classified as value. Fama and French's 3 Factor model would be one example that was studied a great deal using an inverse of Price/Book I believe.