Are quarterly earnings released first via a press release on the investor website, via conference call, or does it vary by company?
the financial information is generally filed via SEDAR (Canada) or SEC (US) before the conference call with the investment community.  This can take before either before the market opens or after the market closes.  The information is generally distribute to the various newswire service and company website at the same time the filing is made with SEDAR/SEC. Companies typically release their earnings before the market opens, and then later host an analyst/investor conference call to discuss the results. Here's a link to an interesting article abstract on the subject:  Disclosure Rules For Earnings Releases And Calls | Bowne Digest.  Excerpt: In the aftermath of the   Sarbanes-Oxley Act, the SEC changed   regulations to bring quarterly   earnings announcements in line with   the generally heightened sensitivity   to adequate disclosure. New   regulations required that issuers file   or furnish their earnings press   releases on Form 8-K and conduct any   related oral presentations promptly   thereafter, to avoid a second 8-K. [...] Sample from a news release by The Coca Cola Company: ATLANTA, September 30, 2009 -   The   Coca-Cola Company will release third   quarter and year-to-date 2009   financial results on Tuesday, October   20, before the stock market opens. The   Company will host an investor   conference call at 9:30 a.m. ( EDT ),   on October 20. [...] Sample from a news release by Apple, Inc.: CUPERTINO, California—January 21,   2009—Apple® today announced financial   results for its fiscal 2009 first   quarter ended December 27, 2008. The   Company posted record revenue of [...]   Apple will provide live streaming of   its Q1 2009 financial results   conference call utilizing QuickTime®,   Apple’s standards-based technology for   live and on-demand audio and video   streaming. The live webcast will begin   at [...] Companies release their earnings reports over news agencies like Reuters, Dow Jones and Bloomberg before putting them on their website (which usually occurs a few minutes after the official dissemination of the report). This is because they have to make sure that all investors get the news at the same time (which is kind of guaranteed when official news channels are used). The conference call is usually a few hours after the earnings report release to discuss the results with analysts and investors.
"No, a jump in market capitalization does not equal the amount that has been invested.  Market cap is simply the stock price times the total number of shares. This represents a theoretical value of the company. I say ""theoretical"" because the company might not be able to be sold for that at all.  The quoted stock price is simply what the last buyer and seller of stock agreed upon for the price of their trade. They really only represent themselves; other investors may decide that the stock is worth more or less than that.  The stock price can move on very little volume. In this case, Amazon had released a very good earnings report after the bell yesterday, and the price jumped in after hours trading. The stock price is up, but that simply means that the few shares traded overnight sold for much higher than the closing price yesterday.  After the market opens today and many more shares are traded, we'll get a better idea what large numbers of investors feel about the price. But no matter what the price does, the change in market cap does not equal the amount of new money being invested in the company. Market cap is the price of the most recent trades extrapolated out across all the shares." Your friend is investing time & money in a business that does not list an address or phone number on its website, not even in its 'press kit'. Even when they make a press release about moving into a new building, it does not list the address or even the street! C'mon, this is obviously a scam.  No real business acts like this. "This is an excellent question, one that I've pondered before as well. Here's how I've reconciled it in my mind. Why should we agree that a stock is worth anything? After all, if I purchase a share of said company, I own some small percentage of all of its assets, like land, capital equipment, accounts receivable, cash and securities holdings, etc., as others have pointed out. Notionally, that seems like it should be ""worth"" something.  However, that doesn't give me the right to lay claim to them at will, as I'm just a (very small) minority shareholder. The old adage says that ""something is only worth what someone is willing to pay you for it."" That share of stock doesn't actually give me any liquid control over the company's assets, so why should someone else be willing to pay me something for it? As you noted, one reason why a stock might be attractive to someone else is as a (potentially tax-advantaged) revenue stream via dividends. Especially in this low-interest-rate environment, this might well exceed that which I might obtain in the bond market. The payment of income to the investor is one way that a  stock might have some ""inherent value"" that is attractive to investors. As you asked, though, what if the stock doesn't pay dividends? As a small shareholder, what's in it for me? Without any dividend payments, there's no regular method of receiving my invested capital back, so why should I, or anyone else, be willing to purchase the stock to begin with? I can think of a couple reasons: Expectation of a future dividend. You may believe that at some point in the future, the company will begin to pay a dividend to investors. Dividends are paid as a percentage of a company's total profits, so it may make sense to purchase the stock now, while there is no dividend, banking on growth during the no-dividend period that will result in even higher capital returns later. This kind of skirts your question: a non-dividend-paying stock might be worth something because it might turn into a dividend-paying stock in the future. Expectation of a future acquisition. This addresses the original premise of my argument above. If I can't, as a small shareholder, directly access the assets of the company, why should I attribute any value to that small piece of ownership? Because some other entity might be willing to pay me for it in the future. In the event of an acquisition, I will receive either cash or another company's shares in compensation, which often results in a capital gain for me as a shareholder.  If I obtain a capital gain via cash as part of the deal, then this proves my point: the original, non-dividend-paying stock was worth something because some other entity decided to acquire the company, paying me more cash than I paid for my shares. They are willing to pay this price for the company because they can then reap its profits in the future. If I obtain a capital gain via stock in as part of the deal, then the process restarts in some sense. Maybe the new stock pays dividends. Otherwise, perhaps the new company will do something to make its stock worth more in the future, based on the same future expectations. The fact that ownership in a stock can hold such positive future expectations makes them ""worth something"" at any given time; if you purchase a stock and then want to sell it later, someone else is willing to purchase it from you so they can obtain the right to experience a positive capital return in the future. While stock valuation schemes will vary, both dividends and acquisition prices are related to a company's profits: This provides a connection between a company's profitability, expectations of future growth, and its stock price today, whether it currently pays dividends or not." "I knew before I clicked that this was going to refer to Saez. I don't mean to disparage his scholarship, but he's clearly a guy with an agenda. For example, the reason this number is so outrageous is because 2010 was a *terrific* year for the stock market, and a middling to bad year for employment and wage growth. Stocks tend to be a leading indicator, while job growth is a trailing one. In fact, Saez also tries to make hay by comparing the first two years of this ""recovery"" with the entirety of the (much longer) '90's and '00's booms. If you target your analysis at years when the market has recovered but jobs haven't, of course you'll see greater income gains for the investor class.  But by that same token, Saez could have been putting out press releases for studies in 2008 showing how the rich were getting absolutely screwed by losing the lion's share of their income as the market tanked, while ordinary folks were perhaps losing only a little because the full force of job losses hadn't hit yet. But he didn't, AFAIK." They're all in one place. The OCC provides: http://www.optionsclearing.com/webapps/flex-reports I can make that election to pay taxes now (even though they aren't vested) based on the dollar value at the time they are granted? That is correct. You must file the election with the IRS within 30 days after the grant (and then attach a copy to that year's tax return). would I not pay any taxes on the gains because I already claimed them as income? No, you claim income based on the grant value, the gains after that are your taxable capital gains. The difference is that if you don't use 83(b) election - that would not be capital gains, but rather ordinary salary income. what happens if I quit / get terminated after paying taxes on un-vested shares? Do I lose those taxes, or do I get it back in a refund next year? Or would it be a deduction next year? You lose these taxes. That's the risk you're taking. Generally 83(b) election is not very useful for RSUs of established public companies. You take a large risk of forfeited taxes to save the difference between capital gains and ordinary gains, which is not all that much. It is very useful when you're in a startup with valuations growing rapidly but stocks not yet publicly trading, which means that if you pay tax on vest you'll pay much more and won't have stocks to sell to cover for that, while the amounts you put at risk are relatively small. It's a way to help normalize the meaning of the earnings report. Some companies like Google have a small number of publicly traded shares (322 Million). Others like Microsoft have much larger numbers of shares (8.3 Billion). The meaning depends on the stock. If it's a utility company that doesn't really grow, you don't want to see lots of changes -- the earnings per share should be stable. If it's a growth company, earnings should be growing quickly, and flat growth means that the stock is probably going down, especially if slow growth wasn't expected. Many brokers administer their own dividend reinvestment plans.  In this case, on dividend payment date, they automatically buy from the market on behalf of their reinvestment customers, and they administer all fractional shares across all customers.  All of your shares are in the broker's street name anyway, the fractional share is simply in their account system.   The process is well documented for several common online brokers; so any specific questions you may have about differences in policies or implementation should be directed to your broker:  https://us.etrade.com/e/t/estation/help?id=1301060000 https://www.tdameritrade.com/retail-en_us/resources/pdf/TDA208.pdf