Company revenue increased however stock price did not
It's great that you have gotten the itch to learn about the stock market.  There are a couple of fundamentals to understand first though. Company A has strong, growing, net earnings and minimal debt, it's trading for $100 per share.  Company B has good revenue but high costs of goods and total liabilities well in excess of total assets, it's trading for $0.10 per share.  There is no benefit to getting 10,000 shares or 10 shares for your $1,000.  Your goal is to invest in companies that have valuable products and services run by competent management teams.  Sure, the number of shares you own will dictate what percentage of the company you own, and in a number of cases, your voting power.  But even a penny stock will have a market capitalization of several million dollars so voting power isn't really a concern for your $1,000 investment.   There is a lot more in the three basic financial statements (Income Statement, Balance Sheet, Statement of Cash Flows) than revenue.  Seasoned accountants can have a hard time parsing out where money is coming from and where it's going. In general there are obvious red flags, like a fast declining cash balance against a fast growing liabilities balance or expenses exceeding revenue.  While some of these things are common among new and high growth companies, it's not the place for a new investor with a small bankroll. A micro-cap company (penny stocks are in this group) will receive rounds of financing via issuing preferred convertible shares which may include options on more shares.  For a company worth $20mm a $5mm financing round can materially change the finances of a company, and will likely dilute your holdings in common stock.  Small growth companies need new financing frequently to fund their growth strategies. Revenue went up, great... why?  Did you open another store?  Did you open another sales office?  Did the revenue increase this quarter based on substantially the same operation that existed last quarter or have you increased the capacity of your operation?  If you increased the capacity of your operation what was the cost of the increase and did revenue increase as expected?  Can you expect revenue to continue to grow at this rate or was it a one time windfall from an unusual order? Sure, there are spectacular gains to be had in penny stocks.  XYZ Pharma Research (or whatever) goes from $0.05 to $0.60 and you've turned your $1,000 in to $12,000.  This is a really unlikely event...  Buying penny stocks is akin to buying lottery tickets.  Unless you are a high ranking employee at the company capable of making decisions, or one of the investors buying the preferred shares mentioned in point 3, or are one of the insiders of a pump and dump scam on the stock, penny common stocks are not a place to invest.  One could argue that even a company insider should probably avoid buying common stock. Just to illustrate the points above, you mention: Doing some really heavy research into this stock has made me question the whole penny stock market. Based on your research what is the enterprise value of the company? What were the gross proceeds of the last financing round, how many shares were issued and were there any warrants attached? What do you perceive to be heavy research?  What background do you have in finance/accounting to give weight to your ability to perform such research? Crawl. Walk. Then run. Don't kid yourself in to thinking that since you have some level of education you understand the contracts involved in enterprise finance. looking over some historical data I cannot really a find a case where a stock went from $0.0005 to $1 it almost seem that once a stock crosses a minimum threshold the stock never goes back up. Is there any truth to that? That would be a 2000X (200,000%) increase in the per-share value which would be extraordinary.  When looking at stock returns you have to look at percentage returns, not dollar returns.  A gain of $1 would be minuscule for Berkshire-Hathaway stock but would be astronomical for this stock,. If the company is making money shouldn't the stock go up? Not necessarily.  The price of a stock is a measure of expected future performance, not necessarily past performance.  If the earnings had been more that the market expected, then the price might go up, but if the market sees it as an anomaly that won't continue then there may not be enough buyers to move the stock up. looking at it long term would it hurt me in anyway to buy ~100,000 shares which right now would run be about $24 (including to fee) and sit on it? If you can afford to lose all $24 then no, it won't hurt.  But I wouldn't expect that $24 to turn into anything higher than about $100.  At best it might be an interesting learning experience. 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. But that result doesn't indicate that the company is making money.  The word for making money is profit, not revenue.  Profit equals revenue minus costs.  An increasing revenue could mean decreasing profits.  For example, marketing expenses could eat up the entirety of the new revenue.   This is one of the most basic aspects of researching stocks.  If you are having trouble with this, you might find yourself better suited to invest in mutual funds, where they do this research for you.  In particular, the safest kind of mutual funds for an inexperienced investor are index funds that track a major index, like the S&P 500.   Another issue is that stock prices aren't based on historical results but on expected future results.  Many a company has reported smaller than expected profits and had their price fall even though profits increased from previous results.   Looking at it long term would it hurt me in anyway to buy ~100,000 shares which right now would run be about $24 (including to fee) and sit on it? It would cost you $24.  You might get a return some day.  Or you might waste your money.  Given the comparatively large upside, the consensus seems to be that you will probably waste your money.  That said, it's not a lot of money to waste.  So it won't hurt you that much.  The most likely result remains that the company will go bankrupt, leaving your stock worthless. "Note that we do not comment on specific stocks here, and have no place doing so. If your question is only about that specific stock then it is off topic. I have not tried to answer that part below. The key to valuation is predicting the net present value of all of a company's cash flows; i.e. of their future profits and losses. Through a number of methods to long to explain here investment banks and hedge funds work out what they expect the company's cash flows to be and trade so that these future profits, losses etc. are priced into the stock price. Since future cash flows, profits or whatever you want to call them are priced in, the price of a stock shouldn't move at all on an earnings statement. This begs the question ""why do some stock prices move violently when they announce earnings?"" The models that the institutional investors use are not perfect and cannot take into account everything. An unexpected craze for a product or a supply chain agreement breaking down on not being as good as it seems will not be factored into this pricing and so the price will move based on the degree to which expectation is missed or exceeded. Since penny socks are speculative their value is based far more on the long term expected cash flows and less on the short run cash flows. This goes a long way to explaining why some of the highest market capitalisation penny stocks are those making consistent losses. This means that they can be far less susceptible to price movements after an earnings announcement even if it is well out of the consensus range. Higher (potential) future value comes with the higher risks of penny stocks which discounts current value. In the end if people's expectation of the company's performance reflects reality then the profitability is priced in and there will be no price movement. If the actuality is outside of the expected range then there will be a price movement." If you believe in the efficient market hypothesis then the stock price reflects the information known to market participants. Consequently, if the 'market' expected earnings to rise, and they did, then the price won't change. Clearly there are circumstances, especially in the short term and for illiquid stocks, where this isn't true, but a lot of work points to this being the case on average. "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."
"Probably the biggest driver of the increased volumes that day was a change in sentiment towards the healthcare sector as a whole that caused many healthcare companies to experience higher volumes ( https://www.bloomberg.com/press-releases/2017-07-11/asset-acquisitions-accelerate-in-healthcare-sector-boosting-potential-revenue-growth ). Following any spike, not just sentiment related spikes, the market tends to bounce back to about where it had been previously as analysts at the investment banks start to see the stock(s) as being overbought or oversold. This is because the effect of a spike on underlying ratios such as the Sharpe ratio or the PE ratio makes the stock look less attractive to buyers and more attractive to sellers, including short sellers. Note, however, that the price is broadly still a little higher than it was before the spike as a result of this change in sentiment. Looking at the price trends on Bloomberg (https://www.bloomberg.com/quote/CDNA:US) the price had been steadily falling for the year prior to the spike but was levelling out at just over $1 in the few months immediately prior to the spike. The increased interest in the sector and the stock likely added to a general change in the direction of the price trend and caused traders (as opposed to investors) to believe that there was a change in the price trend. This will have lead to them trading the stock more heavily intraday exacerbating the spike. Note that there traders will include HFT bots as well as human traders. You question the legality of this volume increase but the simple answer is that we may never know if it was the target of traders manipulating the price or a case of insider trading. What we can see is that (taking ""animal spirits"" into account) without any evidence of illegality there are plenty of potential reasons why the spike may have occurred. Spikes are common where traders perceive a change in a trend as they rush to cash in on the change before other traders can and then sell out quickly when they realise that the price is fundamentally out of sync with the firm's underlying position. You yourself say that you have been watching the stock for some time and, by that fact alone, it is likely that others are for the same reasons that you are. Otherwise you wouldn't be looking at it. Where people are looking at a stock expecting it to take off or drop you expect volatility and volatility means spikes!" Companies pay their employees in stocks and stock options, so they have an incentive towards increasing a company's share price. There are many elements that go into a stock's price. For example, if you hold a stock for eternity you should be indifferent if the expected present value of all its future dividends (i.e. earnings) equals the price you paid for it. Also, buy-back policies and voting rights determine stock price as well. The theory is that since shareholders want return on their investments they would promote company executives in such a way that their incentives are aligned to increase the share price. The stock market is no different in this respect to anything that's bought or sold. The price of a stock like many other things reflects what the seller is prepared to sell it at and what the buyer is prepared to offer for it. If those things match then a transaction can take place. The seller loses money but gains stocks they feel represent equivalent value, the reverse happens for the buyer. Take buying a house for example, did the buyer lose money when they bought a house, sure they did but they gained a house. The seller gained money but lost a house. New money is created in the sense that companies can and do make profits, those profits, together with the expected profits from future years increase the value that is put on the company. If we take something simple like a mining company then its value represents a lot of things: and numerous other lesser things too. The value of shares in the mining company will reflect all of these things. It likely rises and falls in line with the price of the raw materials it mines and those change based on the overall supply and demand for those raw materials. Stocks do have an inherent value, they are ownership of a part of a company. You own part of the asset value, profits and losses made by that company. Betting on things is different in that you've no ownership of the thing you bet on, you're only dependent on the outcome of the bet. "I think Fidelity has a very nice introduction to Growth vs Value investing that may give you the background you need.  People love to put stocks in categories however the distinction is more of a range and can change over time. JB King makes a good point that for most people the two stocks you mentioned would both be considered value right now as they are both stable companies with a significant dividend.  You are correct though Pfizer might be considered ""more growth."" A more drastic example would be the difference between Target and Amazon.  Both are retail companies that sell a wide variety of products.  Target is a value company: a established company with stable revenues that uses its income to give a fairly stable dividend.  Amazon is a growth company: that is reinvesting its revenues back into the corporation to grow itself as fast as possible.   The price of the Amazon stock reflects what people think will be future growth (future income) for the company.  Whereas Target's price appears to be based on the idea that future income will be similar to current income.  You can see why growth companies like Amazon might be more risky as that growth you paid a high price for may not be realized, but the payout may be much higher as well." So, the price-earnings ratio is price over earnings, easy enough. But obviously earnings are not static. In the case of a growing company, the earnings will be higher in the future. There will be extra earnings, above and beyond what the stock has right now. You should consider the future earnings in your estimate of what the company is worth now. One snag: Those extra earnings are future money. Future-money is an interesting thing, it's actually worth less than present-money- because of things like inflation, but also opportunity cost.  So if you bought $100 in money that you'll have 20 years from now, you'd expect to pay less than $100. (The US government can sell you that money. It's called a Series EE Savings Bond and it would cost you $50. I think. Don't quote me on that, though, ask the Treasury.) So you can't compare future money with present-money directly, and you can't just add those dollars to the earnings . You need to compute a discount. That's what discounted cash-flow analysis is about: figuring out the future cash flow, and then discounting the future figuring out what it's worth now. The actual way you use the discount rate in your formula is a little scarier than simple division, though, because it involves discounting each year's earnings (in this case, someone has asserted a discount of 11% a year, and five years of earnings growth of 10%). Wikipedia gives us the formula for the value of the future cash flow:  essentially adding all the future cash flows together, and then discounting them by a (compounded) rate. Please forgive me for not filling this formula out; I'm here for theory, not math. :) In the long term, a P/E of 15-25 is the more 'normal' range. With a 90 P/E, Facebook has to quadruple its earnings to get to normal. It this possible? Yes. Likely? I don't know.  I am not a stock analyst, but I love numbers and try to get to logical conclusions. I've seen data that worldwide advertising is about $400B, and US about $100B. If Facebook's profit runs 25% or so and I want a P/E of 20, it needs profit of $5B on sales of $20B (to reconcile its current $100B market cap). No matter what FB growth in sales is, the advertising spent worldwide will not rise or fall by much more than the economy. So with a focus on ads, they would need about 5% of the world market to grow into a comfortable P/E.  Flipping this around, if all advertising were 25% profit (a crazy assumption), there are $100B in profit to be had world wide each year, and the value of the companies might total $2T in aggregate.    The above is a rambling sharing of the reasonable bounds one might expect in analyzing a stock. It can be used for any otherwise finite market, such as soft drinks. There are only so many people on the planet, and in aggregate, the total soft drink consumption can't exceed, say 6 billion gallons per day. The pie may grow a bit, but it's considered fixed as an order of magnitude.   Edit - for what it's worth, as of 8/3/12, the price has dropped significantly, currently $20, and the P/E is showing as 70X. I'm not making any predictions, but the stock needs a combined higher earnings or lower valuation to still approach 'normal.' Companies pay their employees in stocks and stock options, so they have an incentive towards increasing a company's share price. There are many elements that go into a stock's price. For example, if you hold a stock for eternity you should be indifferent if the expected present value of all its future dividends (i.e. earnings) equals the price you paid for it. Also, buy-back policies and voting rights determine stock price as well. The theory is that since shareholders want return on their investments they would promote company executives in such a way that their incentives are aligned to increase the share price. "Well, they don't ""make"" money in the sense of income, but they receive money in exchange for shares of stock (more of the company is owned by the public).  The Warrant entitles the holder to purchase stock directly from the company at a fixed price.  It is very much like an open-market call option, but instead of the option holder buying stock from a third party (which does not affect the company at all), the holder buys it directly from the company, increasing the number of shares outstanding, and the proceeds go directly to the company. If the holders do not exercise the warrants, the company does not receive any cash, but they also don't issue any new shares."