Are stock prices likely drop off a little bit on a given friday afternoon?
It is called the Monday Effect or the Weekend Effect. There are a number of similar theories including the October Effect and January Effect. It's all pretty much bunk. If there were any truth to traders would be all over it and the resulting market forces would wipe it out. Personally, I think all technical analysis has very little value other than to fuel conversations at dinner parties about investments. You might also consider reading about Market efficiency to see further discussion about why technical approaches like this might, but probably don't work. There are classes of 'traders' who close their positions out every evening, not just on fridays.  But their are other types of businesses who trade shortly before or nearly right at market close with both buys and sells  There are lots of theories as to how the market behaves at various times of day, days of the week, months of the year.  There are some few patterns that can emerge but in general they don't provide a lot of 'lift' above pure random chance, enough so that if you 'bet' on one of these your chances of being wrong are only very slightly different from being right, enough so that it's not really fair to call any of them a 'sure thing'.  And since these events are often fairly widely spaced, it's difficult to play them often enough to get the 'law of large numbers' on your side (as opposed to say card-counting at a blackjack table) which basically makes betting on them not much different from gambling
The short answer: it depends. The long answer.. Off the top of my head, there are quite a number of factors that an analyst may look at when analyzing a stock, to come up with a recommendation.  Some example factors to look at include: The list goes on.  Quite literally, any and all factors are fair game for a recommendation.  So, the question isn't really what analysts do with financial data, it is what do analysts do with financial data that meets your investment needs? As an example, if you have two analysts, one who is focused on growth stocks, and one who is focused on dividend growth, they may have completely different views on a company.  If both analysts were to analyze Apple (AAPL) 5 years ago, the dividend analyst would likely say SELL or at the most HOLD, because back then Apple did not have a dividend.  However, an analyst focused on growth would likely have said BUY, because Apple appeared to be on a clear upward trend in terms of growth.  Likewise, if you have analysts who are focused on shorting stocks, and ones who are focused on deep value investing, the sell analyst may be selling SELL because they are confident the stock will go down in price, so you can make money on the short position.  Conversely, the deep value investor may be saying BUY, because they believe that based on the companies strong balance sheet, and recent shake-ups in management the stock will eventually turn around.  Two completely different views for the same company: the analyst focused on shorting is looking to make money by capitalizing on falling share price, while the analyst focused on deep value is looking for unloved companies in a tailspin whom s/he believe will turn around, the thesis being that if you dollar-cost-average as the price drops, when it corrects, you'll reap the rewards. That all said, to answer the question about what analysts look for: So really, you should be looking for analysts who align with your investment style, and use those recommendations as a starting point for your own purchases.  Personally, I am a dividend investor, so I have passed many BUY recommendations from analysts and my former broker because those were based on growth stories.  That does not mean that the analysts, my former broker, or myself, are wrong.  But we were all incorrect given the context of how I invest, and what they recommend. "As I understand it, Implied Volatility represents the expected gyrations of an options contract over it's lifetime.  No, it represents that expected movement of the underlying stock, not the option itself.  Yes, the value of the option will move roughly in the same direction the value of the stock, but that's not what IV is measuring. I even tried staring at the math behind the Options pricing model to see if that could make more sense for me but that didn't help. That formula is correct for the Black-Scholes model - and it is not possible (or at least no one has done it yet) to solve for s to create a closed-form equation for implied volatility.  What most systems do to calculate implied volatility is plug in different values of s (standard deviation) until a value for the option is found that matches the quoted market value ($12.00 in this example).  That's why it's called ""implied"" volatility - the value is implied from market prices, not calculated directly. The thing that sticks out to me is that the ""last"" quoted price of $12 is outside of the bid-ask spread of $9.20 to $10.40, which tells me that the underlying stock has dropped significantly since the last actual trade.   If the Implied Vol is calculated based on the last executed trade, then whatever algorithm they used to solve for a volatility that match that price couldn't find a solution, which then choose to show as a 0% volatility.   In reality, the volatility is somewhere between the two neighbors of 56% and 97%, but with such a short time until expiry, there should be very little chance of the stock dropping below $27.50, and the value of the option should be somewhere around its intrinsic value (strike - stock price) of $9.18." "I only follow the news of stocks I already own.  I use the GlobeInvest Watchlist  http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/my-watchlist/ each Friday night.    In the drop-down views choose ALL NEWS I believe that there is a strong ""grass is greaner .."" effect from always looking at what other stock are doing - leading to switching just before your first stock takes off. It is only when I sell some position that I go looking at other possibilities." "In theory, investing is not gambling because the expected outcome is not random; people are expecting positive returns, on average, with some relationship to risk undertaken and economic reality. (More risk = more returns.) Historically this is true on average, that assets have positive returns, and riskier assets have higher returns. Also it's true that stock market gains roughly track economic growth. Valuation (current price level relative to ""fundamentals"") matters - reversion to the mean does exist over a long enough time. Given a 7-10 year horizon, a lot of the variance in ending price level can be explained by valuation at the start of the period. On average over time, business profits have to vary around a curve that's related to the overall economy, and equity prices should reflect business profits. The shorter the horizon, the more random noise. Even 1 year is pretty short in this respect. Bubbles do exist, as do irrational panics, and milder forms of each. Investing is not like a coin flip because the current total number of heads and tails (current valuation) does affect the probability of future outcomes. That said, it's pretty hard to predict the timing, or the specific stocks that will do well, etc. Rebalancing gives you an objective, automated, unemotional way to take advantage of all the noise around the long-term trend. Rather than trying to use judgment to identify when to get in and out, with rebalancing (and dollar cost averaging) you guarantee getting in a bit more when things are lower, and getting out a bit more when things are higher. You can make money from prices bouncing around even if they end up going nowhere and even if you can't predict the bouncing. Here are a couple old posts from my blog that talk about this a little more:" Stock valuation is a really sticky business, although they are ways to value it, it is somewhat subjective(expectations are calculated). But it will be at premium most likely, can't tell how much without any numbers.(wouldn't be able to tell with the numbers as well since i do not have any knowledge in the sector) "Am I being absurd? No. Should I be worrying? Yes. If I sell in the morning, I've only lost a couple hundred dollars, and   learned a valuable lesson. Is there any reason to believe it won't be   that simple? If you're lucky, you'll be able to dump your stocks to someone like you who'll be punching himself in the face tomorrow night. If not - you're stuck. You may end up selling them to your broker as worthless. You might have become a victim of a ""pump and dump"" fraud. Those are hard to identify in real-time, but after been burned like that myself (for much lesser amounts than you though), I avoid any ""penny"" stocks that go up for no apparent (and verifiable) reason. In fact, I avoid them altogether." "The current stock price you're referring to is actually the price of the last trade.  It is a historical price – but during market hours, that's usually mere seconds ago for very liquid stocks. Whereas, the bid and ask are the best potential prices that buyers and sellers are willing to transact at: the bid for the buying side, and the ask for the selling side.  But, think of the bid and ask prices you see as ""tip of the iceberg"" prices.  That is: The ""Bid: 13.20 x200"" is an indication that there are potential buyers bidding $13.20 for up to 200 shares.  Their bids are the highest currently bid; and there are others in line behind with lower bid prices.  So the ""bid"" you're seeing is actually the best bid price at that moment.  If you entered a ""market"" order to sell more than 200 shares, part of your order would likely be filled at a lower price. The ""Ask: 13.27 x1,000"" is an indication that there are potential sellers asking $13.27 for up to 1000 shares.  Their ask prices are the lowest currently asked; and there are others in line behind with higher ask prices.  So the ""ask"" you're seeing is the best asking price at that moment.  If you entered a ""market"" order to buy more than 1000 shares, part of your order would likely be filled at a higher price. A transaction takes place when either a potential buyer is willing to pay the asking price, or a potential seller is willing to accept the bid price, or else they meet in the middle if both buyers and sellers change their orders. Note: There are primarily two kinds of stock exchanges.  The one I just described is a typical order-driven matched bargain market, and perhaps the kind you're referring to. The other kind is a quote-driven over-the-counter market where there is a market-maker, as JohnFx already mentioned.  In those cases, the spread between the bid & ask goes to the market maker as compensation for making a market in a stock.  For a liquid stock that is easy for the market maker to turn around and buy/sell to somebody else, the spread is small (narrow).  For illiquid stocks that are harder to deal in, the spread is larger (wide) to compensate the market-maker having to potentially carry the stock in inventory for some period of time, during which there's a risk to him if it moves in the wrong direction.    Finally ... if you wanted to buy 1000 shares, you could enter a market order, in which case as described above you'll pay $13.27.  If you wanted to buy your shares at no more than $13.22 instead, i.e. the so-called ""current"" price, then you would enter a limit order for 1000 shares at $13.22.  And more to the point, your order would become the new highest-bid price (until somebody else accepts your bid for their shares.)  Of course, there's no guarantee that with a limit order that you will get filled; your order could expire at the end of the day if nobody accepts your bid." Depending on the structure of you're portfolio, it could be that your portfolio is delta neutral to take advantage of diminishing time value on options, short straddles/strangles would be an example.