When a Company was expected and then made a profit of X $ then that X$ increased it's share price. or those the Sellers and Buyers [duplicate]
There are a few reason why share prices increase or decrease, the foremost is expectation of the investors that the company/economy will do well/not well, that is expectation of profit/intrinsic value growth over some time frame (1-4 qtrs.)there is also demand & supply mismatch over (usually) short time. If you really see, the actual 'value' of a company is it's net-worth (cash+asset+stock in trade+brand value+other intangibles+other incomes)/no of shares outstanding, which (in a way) is the book value, then all shares should trade at their book value, the actual number but it does not, the expectation of investors that a share would be purchased by another investor at a higher price because the outlook of the company over a long time is good.
"The blue line is illustrating the net profit or loss the investor will realise according to how the price of the underlying asset settles at expiry. The x-axis represents the underlying asset price.  The y-axis represents the profit or loss. In the first case, the investor has a ""naked put write"" position, having sold a put option.  The strike price of the put is marked as ""A"" on the x-axis.  The maximum profit possible is equal to the total premium received when the option contract was sold.  This is represented by that portion of the blue line that is horizontal and extending from the point above that point marked ""A"" on the x-axis.  This corresponds to the case that the price of the underlying asset settles at or above the strike price on the day of expiry.  If the underlying asset settles at a price less than the strike price on the day of expiry, then the option with be ""in the money"".  Therefore the net settlement value will move from a profit to a loss, depending on how far in the money the option is upon expiry.  This is represented by the diagonal line moving from above the ""A"" point on the x-axis and moving from a profit to a loss on the y-axis.  The diagonal line crosses the x-axis at the point where the underlying asset price is equal to ""A"" minus the original premium rate at which the option was written - i.e., net profit = zero.  In the second case, the investor has sold a put option with a strike price of ""B"" and purchase a put option with a strike price ""A"", where A is less than B.  Here, the reasoning is similar to the first example, however since a put option has been purchase this will limit the potential losses should the underlying asset move down strongly in value. The horizontal line above the x-axis marks the maximum profit while the horizontal line below the x-axis marks the maximum loss. Note that the horizontal line above the x-axis is closer to the x-axis that is the horizontal line below the x-axis.  This is because the maximum profit is equal to the premium received for selling the put option minus the premium payed for buying the put option at a lower strike price.  Losses are limited since any loss in excess of the strike price ""A"" plus the premium payed for the put purchased at a strike price of ""A"" is covered by the profit made on the purchased put option at a strike price of ""A""." In general over the longer term this is true, as a company whom continuously increases earnings year after year will generally continue to increase its share price year after year. However, many times when a company announces increased earning and profits, the share price can actually go down in the short term. This can be due to the market, for example, expecting a 20% increase but the company only announcing a 10% increase. So the price can initially go down. The market could already have priced in a higher increase in the lead up to the announcement, and when the announcement is made it actually disapoints the market, so the share price can go down instead of up. Dividend yield is a tough thing to track because it's a moving target.  Dividends are paid periodically the yield is calculated based on the stock price when the dividend is declared (usually, though some services may update this more frequently).   I like to calculate my own dividend by annualizing the dividend payment divided by my cost basis per share.  As an example, say you have shares in X, Co.  X issues a quarterly dividend of $1 per share and the share price is $100; coincidentally this is the price at which you purchased your shares. But a few years goes by and now X issues it's quarterly dividend of $1.50 per share, and the share price is $160. However your shares only cost you $100. Your annual yield on X is 6%, not the published 3.75%.  All of this is to say that looking back on dividend yields is somewhat similar to nailing jello to the wall.  Do you look at actual dividends paid through the year divided by share price?  Do you look at the annualized dividend at the time of issue then average those?  The stock price will fluctuate, that will change the yield; depending on where you bought your stock, your actual yield will vary from the published amount as well. 1) Yes, both of your scenarios would lead to earning $10 on the transaction, at the strike date. If you purchased both of them (call it Scenario 3), you would make $20. 2) As to why this transaction may not be possible, consider the following: The Call and Put pricing you describe may not be available. What you have actually created is called 'arbitrage' - 2 identical assets can be bought and sold at different prices, leading to a zero-risk gain for the investor. In the real marketplace, if an option to buy asset X in January cost $90, would an option to sell asset X in January provide $110?  Without adding additional complexity about the features of asset x or the features of the options, buying a Call option is the same as selling a Put option [well, when selling a Put option you don't have the ability to choose whether the option is exercised, meaning buying options has value that selling options does not, but ignore that for a moment]. That means that you have arranged a marketplace where you would buy a Call option for only $90, but the seller of that same option would somehow receive $110.  For added clarity, consider the following: What if, in your example, the future price ended up being $200? Then, you could exercise your call option, buying a share for $90, selling it for $200, making $110 profit. You would not exercise your put option, making your total profit $110. Now consider: What if, in your example, the future price ended up being $10? You would buy for $10, exercise your put option and sell for $110, making a profit of $100. You would not exercise your call option, making your total profit $100. This highlights that if your initial assumptions existed, you would earn money (at least $20, and at most, unlimited based on a skyrocketing price compared to your $90 put option) regardless of the future price. Therefore such a scenario would not exist in the initial pricing of the options. Now perhaps there is an initial fee involved with the options, where the buyer or seller pays extra money up-front, regardless of the future price. That is a different scenario, and gets into the actual nature of options, where investors will arrange multiple simultaneous transactions in order to limit risk and retain reward within a certain band of future prices.  As pointed out by @Nick R, this fee would be very significant, for a call option which had a price set below the current price. Typically, options are sold 'out of the money' initially, which means that at the current share price (at the time the option is purchased), executing the option would lose you money. If you purchase an 'in the money' option, the transaction cost initially would by higher than any apparent gain you might have by immediately executing the option. For a more realistic Options example, assume that it costs $15 initially to buy either the Call option, or the Put option. In that case, after buying both options as listed in your scenarios you would earn a profit if the share price exceeded $120 [The $120 sale price less the $90 call option = $30, which is your total fee initially], or dropped below $80 [The $110 Put price less the $80 purchase price = $30]. This type of transaction implies that you expect the price to either swing up, or swing down, but not fall within the band between $80-$120. Perhaps you might do this if there was an upcoming election or other known event, which might be a failure or success, and you think the market has not properly accounted for either scenario in advance. I will leave further discussion on that topic [arranging options of different prices to create specific bands of profitability / loss] to another answer (or other questions which likely already exist on this site, or in fact, other resources), because it gets more complicated after that point, and is outside the root of your question. To be fair, the analyst is talking about the book value of the firm. Basically, the value of all the stuff it owns now. There are plenty of companies with negative book value that can justify a positive share price. Ford, for instance, had negative book value but positive future earnings. I think you are mixing up the likelihood of making a profit with the amount of profit. The likelyhood of profit will be the same, because if you buy $100 worth of shares and the price moves up you will make a profit. If you instead bought $1000 worth of the same shares at the same price and the price moved up you would once again make a profit. In fact if you don't include commissions and other fees, and you buy and sell at the same prices, you percentage profit would be the same.  For example, if you bought at $10 and sold at $12, you percentage gain of 20% would be the same no matter how many shares you bought (not including commissions). So if you bought $100 worth your gain would have been 20% or $20 and if you bought $1000 worth your gain would have been 20% or $200. However, if you include commissions, say $10 in and $10 out, your net profit on $100 would have been $0 (0%) and your net profit on $1000 would have been $180 (18%). 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. Stock values are generally reflective of a company's overall potential; and to some extent investor confidence in the prospect of a continued growth of that potential. Sales over such a short period of time such as a single weekend do not noticeably impact a stock's valuation.  A stock's value has more to do with whether or not they meet market expectations for sales over a certain period of time (generally 1 quarter of a year) than it does that they actually had sales (or profits) on any given day. Of course, catastrophic events, major announcements, or new product releases do sometimes cause significant changes in a stock's value.  For this reason you will often see stocks have significant volatility in periods around earnings announcements, merger rumors, or when anything unexpected happens in the world that might benefit or hurt their potential sales and growth. But overall a normal, average weekend of sales is already built into the price of a stock during normal trading.