Where do stock traders get realtime updates on Fed announcements? Is there a feed I could scrape?
Tthe easiest place to see Fed announcements as soon as they're published is the Federal Reserve itself. If you want the information as soon as it's made publicly available, scrape the Federal Reserve press releases. I assume you're most interested in the announcements after the FOMC meetings, so you might want to scrape the FOMC calendar. The statements come out right after the meeting, and the minutes are released three weeks later.  If you want to catch instances where the minutes are leaked, that's a bit trickier.  For a lot of other market data, services providers like Bloomberg, Reuters, etc. are usually the best bet for realtime information, since these companies earn their revenue and keep their customers by providing the data as fast as humanly possible. They may offer an analysis or a distilled version of the FOMC minutes for traders to use within minutes of the announcement itself (I'm not sure if they do or not), but the announcements themselves will come from the Federal Reserve itself first and foremost. Bloomberg terminal is a pretty standard way nowadays to get this information (and a lot more) pretty much in real time.
"I'm not a financial expert, but saying that paying a $1 dividend will reduce the value of the stock by $1 sounds like awfully simple-minded reasoning to me. It appears to be based on the assumption that the price of a stock is equal to the value of the assets of a company divided by the total number of shares. But that simply isn't true. You don't even need to do any in-depth analysis to prove it. Just look at share prices over a few days. You should easily be able to find stocks whose price varied wildly. If, say, a company becomes the target of a federal investigation, the share price will plummet the day the announcement is made. Did the company's assets really disappear that day? No. What's happened is that the company's long term prospects are now in doubt. Or a company announces a promising new product. The share price shoots up. They may not have sold a single unit of the new product yet, they haven't made a dollar. But their future prospects now look improved. Many factors go into determining a stock price. Sure, total assets is a factor. But more important is anticipated future earning. I think a very simple case could be made that if a stock never paid any dividends, and if everyone knew it would never pay any dividends, that stock is worthless. The stock will never produce any profit to the owner. So why should you be willing to pay anything for it? One could say, The value could go up and you could sell at a profit. But on what basis would the value go up? Why would investors be willing to pay larger and larger amounts of money for an asset that produces zero income? Update I think I understand the source of the confusion now, so let me add to my answer. Suppose that a company's stock is selling for, say, $10. And to simplify the discussion let's suppose that there is absolutely nothing affecting the value of that stock except an expected dividend. The company plans to pay a dividend on a specific date of $1 per share. This dividend is announced well in advance. Everyone knows that it will be paid, and everyone is extremely confidant that in fact the company really will pay it -- they won't run out of money or any such. Then in a pure market, we would expect that as the date of that dividend approaches, the price of the stock would rise until the day before the dividend is paid, it is $11. Then the day after the dividend is paid the price would fall back to $10. Why? Because the person who owns the stock on the ""dividend day"" will get that $1. So if you bought the stock the day before the dividend, the next day you would immediately receive $1. If without the dividend the stock is worth $10, then the day before the dividend the stock is worth $11 because you know that the next day you will get a $1 ""refund"". If you buy the stock the day after the dividend is paid, you will not get the $1 -- it will go to the person who had the stock yesterday -- so the value of the stock falls back to the ""normal"" $10. So if you look at the value of a stock immediately after a dividend is paid, yes, it will be less than it was the day before by an amount equal to the dividend. (Plus or minus all the other things that affect the value of a stock, which in many cases would totally mask this effect.) But this does not mean that the dividend is worthless. Just the opposite. The reason the stock price fell was precisely because the dividend has value. BUT IT ONLY HAS VALUE TO THE PERSON WHO GETS IT. It does me no good that YOU get a $1 dividend. I want ME to get the money. So if I buy the stock after the dividend was paid, I missed my chance. So sure, in the very short term, a stock loses value after paying a dividend. But this does not mean that dividends in general reduce the value of a stock. Just the opposite. The price fell because it had gone up in anticipation of the dividend and is now returning to the ""normal"" level. Without the dividend, the price would never have gone up in the first place. Imagine you had a company with negligible assets. For example, an accounting firm that rents office space so it doesn't own a building, its only tangible assets are some office supplies and the like. So if the company liquidates, it would be worth pretty much zero. Everybody knows that if liquidated, the company would be worth zero. Further suppose that everyone somehow knows that this company will never, ever again pay a dividend. (Maybe federal regulators are shutting the company down because it's products were declared unacceptably hazardous, or the company was built around one genius who just died, etc.) What is the stock worth? Zero. It is an investment that you KNOW has a zero return. Why would anyone be willing to pay anything for it? It's no answer to say that you might buy the stock in the hope that the price of the stock will go up and you can sell at a profit even with no dividends. Why would anyone else pay anything for this stock? Well, unless their stock certificates are pretty and people like to collect them or something like that. Otherwise you're supposing that people would knowingly buy into a pyramid scheme. (Of course in real life there are usually uncertainties. If a company is dying, some people may believe, rightly or wrongly, that there is still hope of reviving it. Etc.) Don't confuse the value of the assets of a company with the value of its stock. They are related, of course -- all else being equal, a company with a billion dollars in assets will have a higher market capitalization than a company with ten dollars in assets. But you can't calculate the price of a company's stock by adding up the value of all its assets, subtracting liabilities, and dividing by the number of shares. That's just not how it works. Long term, the value of any stock is not the value of the assets but the net present value of the total future expected dividends. Subject to all sorts of complexities in real life." "&gt; how the market going up and down in dramatic fashions due to speculative behavior by traders (of any kind) should have the power to decide the worth of thousands of companies going about their normal business.  Wow. I don't even know where to start.  First: why shouldn't traders be able to decide (as a group) what the companies are worth? If not them, who? Some committee you and your friends in the government get to appoint?  Second: do you really think that intraday (or even intraweek) prices are really representative of what ""the market"" thinks a company is valued at?   Third: compared to the effect of long term buy and holders changing their mind about a company, the effect of any HFT people on the valuation of a stock is practically nothing - like I said, there's just about no evidence of speculators causing significant mispricing over any significant period.   Fourth: there's no credible evidence that outside of individual events like the Knight Capital farce HFT has actually increased volatility." "does it mean uncontrolled severe deflation/inflation is more likely to   occur compared to ""normal"" currencies such as USD, EUR etc? Look at the chart referenced in the link in your question.  It took approximately 50 years for annual production of gold to double from 500 tons to 1000 tons.  It took approximately 40 years for annual production to double from 1000 tons to 2000 tons. Compare that to the production of US dollars by the Federal Reserve (see chart below obtained from here).  US dollar production doubled in DAYS.  Which one do you think will lead to uncontrolled inflation/deflation? Update: Why did I include a chart of the FED's balance sheet?  Because this is the way newly printed money is introduced - the FED will purchase something from banks (mortgage-backed securities, US treasuries, etc.) with newly printed money.  The banks can then loan this money to people who then deposit the money into other banks who loan those deposits to other people and so on.  This is how the fractional reserve process expands the money supply.  This is why I did not include a chart of the money supply since that is counting the same money multiple times.  If I deposited 100 newly minted coins into a bank and that bank proceeded to loan out 80 of my coins where 80 are deposited into another bank who then proceeds to loan out 60 of the coins, and so on....the production of coins only changed by the initial 100 that I minted - not by the fractional reserve multiple. There are historical examples of inflation with gold and silver as duff has pointed out.  None of them come close in magnitude to the inflation experienced with government fiat money." @MichaelBorgwardt gave an excellent answer. Let me add a little analogy here that might help. Suppose you bought a car from Joe's Auto Sales. You pay your money, do all the paperwork, and drive your car home. The next day Joe's goes bankrupt. What affect does that have on your ownership rights to your car? The answer is, Absolutely none. Same thing with stocks and a stock exchange. A stock exchange is basically just a store where you can buy stock. Once you buy it, it's yours. That said, there could potentially be a problem with record keeping. If you bought a car from Joe's Auto Sales, and Joe went out of business before sending the registration paperwork to the state, you might find that the state has no record that you legally own the car and you could have difficulty proving it. Likewise if a stock exchange went out of business without getting all their records properly updated, their might be an issue. Actually I think the bigger concern here for most folks would be their broker and not the stock exchange, as your broker is the one who keeps the records of what stocks you own long term. In practice, though, most companies are responsible enough to clean up their paperwork properly when they go out of business, and if they don't, a successor company or government regulators or someone will try to clean it all up. Hopefully some Economist will answer this question I have about ZeroHedge.   I see all these terrible news about the economy going to hell and the world economy is going to go into another great depression or some kind of disaster.   **How reputable is this source and should I take all the negative things so seriously? Are there any information that they are skewing?** "any major brokerage firm will have something like this. more speculative rumors will typically not make their way to the ""news"" there, though; the news feeds are from established wires, who don't report on those things until confirmed." The biggest issue with Yahoo Finance is the recent change to the API in May. The data is good quality, includes both dividend/split adjusted and raw prices, but it's much more difficult to pull the data with packages like R quantmod than before.  Google is fine as well, but there are some missing data points and you can't unadjust the prices (or is it that they're all unadjusted and you can't get adjusted? I can't recall). I use Google at home, when I can't pull from Bloomberg directly and when I'm not too concerned with accuracy.  Quandl seems quite good but I haven't tried them. There's also a newer website called www.alphavantage.co, I haven't tried them yet either but their data seems to be pretty good quality from what I've heard. TdAmeritrade offers this service for free using 3rd party company markit. From markit's site, below is their guarantee.  http://www.markit.com/product/markit-on-demand Markit On Demand delivers an average of two million alerts per day   through various technology platforms and via multiple channels,   including email, instant messages, wireless, RSS and Facebook.   Investors can subscribe to their alerts of choice, and Markit On   Demand guarantees that they will receive an alert within five minutes   of the event trigger for all price and volume alerts