Net income correlation with Stock Price
Ideally, stock price reflects the value of the company, the dividends it is expected to pay, and what people expect the future value of the company to be. Only one of those (maybe one and a half) is related to current  sales, and not always directly. Short-term motion of a stock is even less directly linked, since it also reflects previous expectations. A company can announce disappointing sales and see its stock go up, if the previous price was based on expecting  worse news. A company's stock price will reflect the general sentiment about a company's value now and in the future. Net income is only one figure. You need to crack open the net summary and see what's inside it. In the financials you reference in your question (http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/FTNT/financials), you'll also notice that  Ultimately, the stock price is just a reflection on what the market feels its (current) future is worth (you, me, other investors with future value calculators and strong opinions on what would provide value for them).
Generally speaking, each year, mutual funds distribute to their shareholders the dividends that are earned by the stocks that they hold and also the net capital gains that they make when they sell stocks that they hold. If they did not do so, the money would be income to the fund and the fund would have to pay taxes on the amount not distributed.  (On the other hand, net capital losses are held by the fund and carried forward  to later years to offset future capital gains).  You pay taxes on the amounts of the distributions declared by the fund. Whether the fund sold a particular stock for a loss or a gain (and if so, how much) is not the issue; what the fund declares as its distribution is. This is why it is not a good idea to buy a mutual fund just before it makes a distribution; your share price drops by the per-share amount of the distribution, and you have to pay taxes on the distribution. Metals and Mining is an interesting special case for stocks.  It's relationship to U.S. equity (SPX) is particularly weak (~0.3 correlation) compared to most stocks so it doesn't behave like equity.  However, it is still stock and not a commodities index so it's relation to major metals (Gold for instance) is not that strong either (-0.6 correlation). Metals and Mining stocks have certainly underperformed the stock market in general over the past 25years 3% vs 9.8% (annualized) so this doesn't look particularly promising.  It did have a spectacularly good 8 year period ('99-'07) though 66% (annualized).  It's worth remembering that it is still stock.  If the market did not think it could make a reasonable profit on the stock the price would decrease until the market thought it could make the same profit as other equity (adjusted slightly for the risk).  So is it reasonable to expect that it would give the same return as other stock on average?  Yes.. -ish.  Though as has been shown in the past 25 years your actual result could vary wildly both positive and negative. (All numbers are from monthly over the last 25 years using VGPMX as a M&M proxy) "If the time horizon is not indicated, this is just a ""fair price"". The price of the stock, which corresponds with the fair value of the whole company. The value, which the whole business is worth, taking into consideration its net income, current bonds yield, level of risk of the business, perspective of the business etc.. The analyst thinks the price will sooner or later hit the target level (if the price is high, investors will exit stocks, if the price is cheap, investors will jump in), but no one knows, how much time will it take." gross profits 2011 31 billion http://www.wikinvest.com/stock/Wal-Mart_(WMT)/Data/Gross_Profit/2011/Q1  Net income 16.99 income http://www.wikinvest.com/stock/Wal-Mart_(WMT)/Data/Net_Income/2011  The simple truth is that companies that post these sort of net profits are basically off loading the cost of their labor onto the taxpayer by paying a non-livable wage.  And we let them. Americans need to remember why they unionized a hundred years ago and grow some balls again. Corps are able to do shit like this only because we (the people) let them. Metals and Mining is an interesting special case for stocks.  It's relationship to U.S. equity (SPX) is particularly weak (~0.3 correlation) compared to most stocks so it doesn't behave like equity.  However, it is still stock and not a commodities index so it's relation to major metals (Gold for instance) is not that strong either (-0.6 correlation). Metals and Mining stocks have certainly underperformed the stock market in general over the past 25years 3% vs 9.8% (annualized) so this doesn't look particularly promising.  It did have a spectacularly good 8 year period ('99-'07) though 66% (annualized).  It's worth remembering that it is still stock.  If the market did not think it could make a reasonable profit on the stock the price would decrease until the market thought it could make the same profit as other equity (adjusted slightly for the risk).  So is it reasonable to expect that it would give the same return as other stock on average?  Yes.. -ish.  Though as has been shown in the past 25 years your actual result could vary wildly both positive and negative. (All numbers are from monthly over the last 25 years using VGPMX as a M&M proxy) How is it possible that a publicly traded investment company's net asset value per share is higher than their share price? Wouldn't you (in theory) be able to buy the company and liquidate it to make a profit of (NAV/share - price/share)*number of shares, ignoring transaction costs and such?   I realize that since part of their portfolio is in private equity, NAV is hard to calculate and hard to liquidate as well, but it doesn't really seem to make sense to me. Would love some input.   The company I'm talking about in this instance is 180 Degree Capital Corp, but this isn't the first time I've seen this. As said previously, most of the time volume does not affect stock prices, except with penny stocks. These stocks typically have a small volume in the 3 or 4 figure range and because of this they typically experience very sharp rises and drops in stock prices, contrasting normal stocks that go up and down constantly every minute. Volume is not one thing you should be looking at when analyzing a stock in most cases, since it is simply the number of people of trades made in a day. That has no effect on the value of the company, whereas looking at P/E ratios, dividend growth, etc all can be analyzed to see if a company is growing and is doing well in its field. If I buy an iPhone, it doesn't matter if 100 other people or 100,000 other people have bought it as well, since they won't really affect my experience with the product. Whereas the type of iPhone I buy will. In my mind its not the same.   If growth is stock value then this is incorrect because of compound interest in stock price. $100 stock price after one year would be $105 and a dividend would be $2 Next year the stock would be  $110.20 (Compound Interest) and would the Dividend really go up in lock step with the stock price? Well probably not, but if it did then maybe you could call it the same. Even if the dollars are the same the growth rate is more variable than the dividends so its valuable to segregate the two. I am open to criticism, my answer is based on my personal experience and would love to hear contrary positions on this.