What can make a stock price rise without good news or results?
As a general principle the stock price on the stock market is controlled by an agreement between buyers and sellers. Some initial observations on this stock So, my take on this is one/more of the following My suspicion is the latter. It could be an endless number of reasons for it.  It could simply just be a break through a long term resistance causing technical traders to jump in.  It could be an analyst putting out a buy recommendation.  If fundamentals have not changed then maybe the technicals have changed. Momentum could have reached an oversold position causing new buyers to enter the market. Without knowing the actual stock, its fundamentals and its technicals, no one will ever know exactly why. "The simple answer could be that one or more ""people"" decided to buy. By ""people,"" I don't mean individual buyers of 100 shares like you or me, but typically large institutional investors like Fidelity, who might buy millions of shares at a time. Or if you're talking about a human person, perhaps someone like Warren Buffett. In a ""thinly"" traded small cap stock that typically trades a few hundred shares in a day, an order for ""thousands"" could significantly move the price. This is one situation where more or less ""average"" people could move a single stock."
"The price of a company's stock at any given moment is established by a ratio of buyers to sellers.  When the sellers outnumber the buyers at a given price, the stock price drops until there are enough people willing to buy the stock to balance the equation again.  When there are more people wanting to purchase a stock at a given price than people willing to sell it, the stock price rises until there are enough sellers to balance things again.  So given this, it's easy to see that a very large fund (or collection of very large funds) buying or selling could drive the price of a stock in one direction or another (because the sheer number of shares they trade can tip the balance one way or another).   What's important to keep in mind though is that the ratio of buyers to sellers at any given moment is determined by ""market sentiment"" and speculation.  People selling a stock think the price is going down, and people buying it think it's going up; and these beliefs are strongly influenced by news coverage and available information relating to the company.  So in the case of your company in the example that would be expected to triple in value in the next year; if everyone agreed that this was correct then the stock would triple almost instantly.  The only reason the stock doesn't reach this value instantly is that the market is split between people thinking this is going to happen and people who think it won't.   Over time, news coverage and new information will cause one side to appear more correct than the other and the balance will shift to drive the price up or down.  All this is to say that YES, large funds and their movements CAN influence a stock's trading value; BUT their movements are based upon the same news, information, analysis and sentiment as the rest of the market.  Meaning that the price of a stock is much more closely tied to news and available information than day to day trading volumes.  In short, buying good companies at good prices is just as ""good"" as it's ever been.   Also keep in mind that the fact that YOU can buy and sell stocks without having a huge impact on price is an ADVANTAGE that you have.  By slipping in or out at the right times in major market movements you can do things that a massive investment fund simply cannot." "The company released its 2nd Quarter Revenue of $1,957,921 a couple days ago however the stock did not move up in any way. Why? If the company is making money shouldn't the stock go up. During the time between earnings announcements, analysts occasionally publish their assessment of a company, including their estimate of the company's value and future earnings. And as part of an earnings report, companies often include ""guidance"": their prediction for the upcoming quarter (this will frequently be a conservative estimate, so they're more likely to achieve it). Investors make their purchase and sale decisions based on this information. When the earnings report comes out, investors compare these actual returns to analysts' predictions and the company's guidance. If their results are in line with these predictions, the stock price is unlikely to move much, as those results are already incorporated into the stock price. If the company is doing better than predicted, it's usually a good sign, and the price often rises; conversely, if it's doing worse, the price will likely fall. But it's not as simple as this. As others have explained, for long-term investors, stock prices are based on expectations of future activity. If the results of that quarter include some one-time actions that are unlikely to repeat, investors will often discount that portion." I am from Australia, so my answer is based on my experience over here, however it should be similar for the USA. Generally, what determines both the price of houses/apartments and the rents for them is supply and demand. When there is high demand and low supply prices (or rents) generally go up. When there is low demand and high supply prices (or rents) usually go down. What can sometimes happen when house prices go down, is that the demand can drop but so can supply. As the prices drop, developers will make less money on building new houses, so stop building new houses. Other developers can go bankrupt. As less people (including investors) are buying houses, and more people (including investors) try to sell their existing houses, there will be more people looking to rent and less rental properties available to rent. This produces a perfect storm of high demand and low supply of rental properties, causing rents to rise strongly. When the property prices start to go up again as demand increases, there is a shortfall of new properties being built (due to the developers not building during the downturn). At this time developers start to build again but there is a lag time before the new houses can be completed. This lack of supply puts more pressure on both house prices and rents to go up further. Until equilibrium between supply and demand is realised or an oversupply of rental properties exists in the market, rents will continue to rise. "I don't agree that the market as a whole is a ponzi scheme, but there are some ponzi-like aspects to it. If you buy high quality stocks like Coca Cola, Johnson and Johnson, AT&amp;T, Verizon, Kraft, Wells Fargo (the vanilla bank, not one of the crazy ones), IBM, Berkshire Hathaway etc and simply hold onto them for the next 10-20 years, you will make money. Even over the last decade, when stocks ""went nowhere"", you still came out ahead through the dividend payments. It was just at an unsatisfactory rate of return. Also ""the market"" consists of a lot more than just stocks. Corporate bonds are a big market and I always recommend people to look at bonds. If you cannot judge whether a company is credit worthy, how can you invest in the common stock? I've made a lot more money myself in the bond market than in the stock market.  However, for many stocks, they do look a lot like ponzi schemes. This is true, in particular, with many of the tech stocks (Cuban was a tech investor, so that is probably where his sentiment is coming from). You have many of these companies that create great products. However, they never have positive cash flow because all the money is spent to develop new products. As the share price goes up, the company issues new shares to fund research, stock options to employees to enrich them, etc. However, eventually, they run into a string of bad research that do not yield a new product and the share price plunges. Perhaps the company goes bankrupt. So you have a company that developed great products, but the shareholders never got a penny in dividends and the final shareholders have paper worth zero.  Take a look at Research in Motion for example. Creating the Blackberry has to be one of the biggest successes in tech over the last decade. However, has the shareholders gotten any richer? Only if they traded amongst themselves, nobody got a dividend. What happened to the many billions of dollars they made during the peak popularity years of Blackberry? It went to executives, employees, and was squandered on development that did not effectively defend the phone's dominant market position. Now the stock price is back down to the pre-prime years, and if a shareholder held onto it throughout the entire period, he would not have received a single penny. And this is a profitable enterprise, things look even more bizarre when you start looking at the tech companies that have NEVER had a positive earnings quarter and no plans to ever have positive earnings (something like Pandora comes to mind). Often, management at these more bizarre companies run the company as a toy - to play with their own ideas and to issue themselves stock as compensation. And of course, they sell a lot of the stock to cash in before they delve into the next risky venture. They have no intention of ever enriching anybody who holds into the stock in the long run. If for some reason they make money, they will put it all into their next toy project until one of them fails and wipes everything out.  If you invest in a profitable business with reasonable management, you will generally come out ahead. Some businesses get displaced by unpredictable circumstances and they go bankrupt. But on average, if a company is good at doing something and they pay out the earnings, you come out ahead. You get in trouble when businesses are good at something, and they take all the money they make and put it into doing something they are not good at. A business might only provide good cashflow for 10-20 years when the product is popular and before competitors cut into margins. If that money is squandered, the long term shareholder may ultimately have very terrible results. The long term shareholder ends up being the guy who keeps going all-in on a 80%-chance-to-win bet (that is what management is doing when they bet the company on the next unproven product), but eventually he gets zeroed out on one loss.  This is why if you look at Buffett's investments, they are all in simple businesses that spits off cash to the owner/shareholder. Businesses like soft drinks, snacks, rail roads, vanilla banking, utility-like energy companies, insurance, etc. You might be good at judging the odds of whether a business will succeed or not (aka make more money than your original investment or not). But you don't want management of that company to make a wildly different bet for you. Just because they are great at operating a company doesn't mean they are good enough at judging odds or disciplined enough to make those bets for you. I may have predicted accurately that Business X will be a great success, but if manage takes those profits and goes all in on Business Y, without giving me a chance to cash out, that may have disasterous results." Stock prices are set by supply and demand. If a particular stock has a high EPS, say, $100, then people will bid more for that stock, driving up its price over one with a $10 EPS. Your job as an investor is to find stocks with low share prices, but which will give you high earnings (either in dividends, our future share price). This means finding stocks which you believe the market has priced incorrectly, for whatever reason (as an example, many bank stocks are being punished right now, even if the underlying banks are in good shape financially). If you want to beat the market indices, be prepared to do a lot of research, because you're trying to outsmart the market as a whole. If you look at S&P 500's closing price for the first trading day on December and January for the last 20 years, you will see that for 10 of these years, stocks did better overall and for 10 others they did worse. Thus you can see that the price of stocks do no necessarily increase. You can play around with the data here "Your explanation is nearly perfect and not ""hand wavy"" at all. Stock prices reflect the collective wisdom of all participating investors. Investors value stocks based on how much value they expect the stock to produce now and in the future. So, the stability of the stock prices is a reflection of the accuracy of the investors predictions. Investor naivity can be seen as a sequence of increasingly sophisticated stock pricing strategies: If investors were able to predict the future perfectly, then all stock prices would rise at the same constant rate. In theory, if a particular investor is able to ""beat the market"", it is because they are better at predicting the future profits of companies (or they are lucky, or they are better at predicting the irrational behavior of other investors......)" The relation between inflation and stock (or economic) performance is not well-understood.  Decades ago, economists thought inflation corresponded with periods of high growth and good real returns, but since then we have had periods of low inflation and high growth and high inflation with low growth.  It is generally understood among current economists that inflation levels (especially expected inflation) are neither indicative nor causative of real stock returns. Many things can affect inflation, and economic performance is only a minor one.  Many things can cause economic performance, and inflation is only a minor one.  It's not clear whether the overall relation between inflation and real stock returns is positive or negative. Notice, however, that in principle stock returns are real.  That is, the money companies make is in inflated dollars so profit and dividends for a company whose prospects have not changed should go up and down at the same rate as inflation. This would mean if inflation goes up by 5% and nothing else changes, you would expect stock prices to go up by the same proportion so you wouldn't have strong feelings about inflation one way or the other.  In real life stock prices will go up by either more or less than 5% but I'm not comfortable saying which, on average. Bottom line: current levels of inflation can't really be used to predict real stock returns, so you shouldn't let current inflation guide your decision about whether to buy stock.