Which shareholders cause news-driven whole market stock swings?
The people who cause this sort of sell-off immediately are mostly speculators, short-term day-traders and the like. They realize that, because of the lowered potential for earnings in the future, the companies in question won't be worth as much in the future. They will sell shares at the elevated price, including sometimes shares that they borrow for the explicit purpose of selling (short selling), until the share price is more reasonable. Now, the other question is why the companies in question won't sell for as much in the future: Even if every other company in the world looks less attractive all at once (global economic catastrophe etc) people have other options. They could just put the money in the bank, or in corporate bonds, or in mortgage bonds, or Treasury bonds, or some other low-risk instrument, or something crazy like gold. If the expected return on a stock doesn't justify the price, you're unlikely to find someone paying that price. So you don't actually need to have a huge sell-off to lower the price. You just need a sell-off that's big enough that you run out of people willing to pay elevated prices. News-driven investors tend to be very short-term focussed investors. They often trade by using index futures (on the S&P 500 index for instance).
The market is simply gapping at these times, some news may have come out that makes the market gap on the open from its previous close. Being FX, the market in one country might be trading and then at the start of the hour trading in a different country may commence, causing a small gap in price. Generally many things could cause the price to gap up or down, and these gaps sometime can occur at the start of a new hour or other timeframe you are using. They do tend to happen more often at the start of a new day's trading on a daily chart, especially with stocks. "As a common shareholder, why would I want to approve an increase in the number of authorized shares?"" Because it could increase the value of your existing shares. Companies sell new shares to raise capital, and they use capital to (among other things) expand. If Whole Foods issues new shares and uses the capital to opens new stores, then profit could increase enough to offset the dilution effect, and your stock price will go up. You should ask yourself:  What areas is is your company of choice planning on expanding into? Will they do well there? Are there better ways for the company to raise capital (debt, cash in hand, cut expenses elsewhere, etc)? If you think that the management has a good plan for expanding, then authorizing new shares makes good sense for you personally." "In general, I think you're conflating a lot of ideas.   The stock market is not like a supermarket.  With the exception of a direct issue, you're not buying your shares from the company or from the New York Stock Exchange you're buying from an owner of stock, Joe, Sally, a pension fund, a hedge fund, etc; it's not sitting on a shelf at the stock market. When you buy an Apple stock you don't own $10 of Apple, you own 1/5,480,000,000th of Apple because Apple has 5,480,000,000 shares outstanding.  When a the board gets together to vote on and approve a dividend the approved dividend is then divided by 5.48 billion to determine how much each owner receives.  The company doesn't pay dividends out to owners from a pot of money it received from new owners; it sold iPhones at a profit and is sending a portion of that profit to the owners of the company.   ""When you buy stock, it is claimed that you own a small portion of the   company. This statement has no backing, as you cannot exchange your   stock for the company's assets."" The statement does have backing.  It's backed by the US Judicial system.  But there's a difference between owning a company and owning the assets of the company.  You own 1/5,480,000,000 of the company and the company owns the company's assets.  Nevermind how disruptive it would be if any shareholder could unilaterally decide to sell a company's buildings or other assets. This is not a ponzi scheme because when you buy or sell your Apple stock, it has no impact on Apple, you're simply transacting with another random shareholder (barring a share-repurchase or direct issue).  Apple doesn't receive the proceeds of your private transaction, you do. As far as value goes, yes the stock market provides tons of value and is a staple of capitalism.  The stock market provides an avenue of financing for companies.  Rather than taking a loan, a company's board can choose to relinquish some control and take on additional owners who will share in the spoils of the enterprise.   Additionally, the exchanges deliver value via an unbelievable level of liquidity.  You don't have to go seek out Joe or Sally when you want to sell your Apple stock.  You don't need to put your shares on Craigslist in the hope of finding a buyer.  You don't have to negotiate a price with someone who knows you want to sell.  You just place an order at an exchange and you're aligned with a buyer.   Also understand that anything can move up or down in value without any money actually changing hands.  Say you get your hands on a pair of shoes (or whatever), they're hot on the market, very rare and sought after.  You think you can sell them for $1,000. On tonight's news it turns out that the leather is actually from humans and the CEO of the company is being indicted, the company is falling apart, etc.  Your shoes just went from $1,000 to $0 with no money changing hands (or from $1,000 to $100,000 depending on how cynical you are)." In practical terms, it shouldn't.  Market cap changes every day (assuming public trading, of course) or even second-by-second, and focusing on investor sentiment toward your company's stock is not the wisest way to make strategic decisions. That being said, company execs do need to be mindful of unusual swings in their company's share prices because it can sometimes be an indicator of news/information of which they're unaware.  At the same time, you can't just disregard your shareholders, especially the big institutional players who may have large voting blocks with which to replace you if they feel you're not responsive to events.  They are the ones who make strategic decisions based on your company's share price, right? (grin) The issue around swings in market cap is more about public perception than reality, so it is important for companies to have a good public relations strategy ready to go that can address questions/concerns in case of some market event.  After all, consumers who hear that a company's share price has suddenly fallen by, say, 30% might be more hesitant to do business with that company because there's a (perhaps irrational) fear the company's not doing well and may not be around much longer. Investors are, by their very nature, emotional rather than rational.  Any kind of news can cause a stampede toward or away from a stock for no reason that an investment professional could ever explain.  That's why it's impossible to spend any real time focusing on market cap (leave that to your P.R. department to worry about). IF, as a company executive, you focus on doing the right things to make your company successful then any questions/concerns about market cap will resolve themselves. Good luck! Stock prices are set by the market - supply and demand. See Apple for example, which is exactly the company you described: tons of earnings, zero dividends. The stock price goes up and down depending on what happens with the company and how investors feel about it, and it can happen that the total value of the outstanding stock shares will be less than the value of the underlying assets of the company (including the cash resulted from the retained earnings). It can happen, also, that if the investors feel that the stock is not going to appreciate significantly, they will vote to distribute dividends. Its not the company's decision, its the board's. The board is appointed by the shareholders, which is exactly why the voting rights are important. "Sure, it doesn't, but realistically they can't/shouldn't do anything about it in their index funds, because then they're just another stock picker, trying to gauge which companies are going to do best.  Their funds not all being indexes is what I was getting at with my original question. How much leeway do they have in their definitions of other funds? IE, if they had a dividend fund that included all large cap dividend paying stocks above 3% yield, they couldn't take out Shell just because of climate risk without fundamentally changing what the fund is. But if it's just ""income fund"" then they can do whatever in that space." I have a personal theory that due to Warren Buffett having the entire faith and backing of Wall Street, that it definitely plays into his returns. Look at the mortgage originator he sank money into that was truly a terrible business. A whole lot of Wall Street poured money into it right after as well. I don't think he would be as consistent if he were only buying a handful of shares and couldn't influence the entire price as a whole, but I'm not denying historically he's made a lot of good picks. I do not know or care about their motivations. But if I KNEW that they were motivated by money – and most, but not all, stockholders probably are, and why not? – that would be a clue about how to make a pitch for clean energy. Is there a money-based case to be made for climate action? Certainly Michael Bloomberg, author of Climate Hope, thinks so.