vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
"The simple answer could be that one or more ""people"" decided to buy. By ""people,"" I don't mean individual buyers of 100 shares like you or me, but typically large institutional investors like Fidelity, who might buy millions of shares at a time. Or if you're talking about a human person, perhaps someone like Warren Buffett. In a ""thinly"" traded small cap stock that typically trades a few hundred shares in a day, an order for ""thousands"" could significantly move the price. This is one situation where more or less ""average"" people could move a single stock."
"Warren Buffet isn't using any special sauce. He looks for value and ignores hype, greed, and fear. He buys what he knows and looks for companies that generate cash and/or are available for a discount of their true value. He explains what he looks for in a company and his reasons for buying it. He has said on numerous occasions, ""I look for intrinsic value."" (So there's your formula.) Human nature is often  irrational and investing seems to bring out the fear and greed. I've always been a bit surprised when people ascribe some sort of sixth sense to Warren Buffet's success. He just works hard and doesn't deviate from a sound strategy. ""Be fearful when others are greedy and greedy when others are fearful."" And of course, rule one: ""Don't lose money."" It's not a joke. How many people buy high and sell low because of fear and greed? When the market tanks, buy more. Finally, anyone can invest with Buffet without all the work. Just buy a few shares of BRK.A or BRK.B."
"Professional investors managing large investment portfolios for ""institutions"" -- a college, a museum, a charitable organization, et cetera. I'm not sure whether those managing investments for a business are considered institutional investors or not. The common factor tends to be large to immense portfolios (let's call it $100M and up, just for discussion) and concern with preserving that wealth.  Having that much money to work with allows some investment strategies that don't make sense for smaller investors, and makes some others impractical to impossible. These folks can make mistakes too; Madoff burned a lot of charities when his scam collapsed."
A more recent paper on the subject, which draws similar conclusions, is Martin Gruber's 1996 paper ""Another puzzle: The growth in actively managed mutual funds"". Gruber calls it ""a puzzle"" that investors still invest in actively-managed funds, given that their performance on average has been inferior to that of index funds. He addresses survivorship bias by tracking funds across the entire sample, including through mergers. Since most mutual funds that disappear are merged into existing funds, he assumes that investors in a fund that disappear choose to continue investing their money in the fund that resulted from the merger. Using this assumption and standard measures of mutual fund performance, Gruber finds that mutual funds underperform an appropriately weighted average of the indices by about 65 basis points per year. Expense ratios for my sample averaged 113 basis points a year. These numbers suggest that active management adds value, but that mutual funds charge the investor more than the value added. Another nice paper is Mark Carhart's 1997 paper ""On persistence in mutual fund performance"" uses a sample free of survivorship bias because it includes ""all known equity funds over this period."" It's worth quoting parts of this paper in full: I demonstrate that expenses have at least a one-for-one negative impact on fund performance, and that turnover also negatively impacts performance. ... Trading reduces performance by approximately 0.95% of the trade's market value. In reference to expense ratios and other fees, Carhart finds that The investment costs of expense ratios, transaction costs, and load fees all have a direct, negative impact on performance. The study also finds that funds with abnormally high returns last year usually have higher-than-expected returns next year, but not in the following years, because of momentum effects. Lest you think the news is all bad, Russ Wermer's 2000 study ""Mutual fund performance: An empirical decomposition into stock‐picking talent, style, transactions costs, and expenses"" provides an interesting result. He finds that many actively-managed mutual funds hold stocks that outperform the market, even though the net return of the funds themselves underperforms passive funds and the market itself. On a net-return level, the funds underperform broad market indexes by one percent a year.
It's incredibly difficult to beat the market, especially after you're paying out significant fees for managed funds. The Bogleheads have some good things going for them on their low cost Vanguard style funds. The biggest winners in the financial markets are the people collecting fees from churn or setting up the deals which take advantage of less sophisticated/connected players. Buy, Hold and Forget has been shown as a loser as well in this recession. Diversifying and re-balancing however takes advantage of market swings by cashing out winners and buying beaten down stocks. If you take advantages of general market highs and lows (without worrying about strict timing) every few months to re-balance, you buy some protection from crashes in any given sector. One common guideline is to use your age as the percentage of your holdings that are in cash equivalents, rather than stocks. At age 28, at least 28% of my account should be in bonds, real estate, commodities, etc. This should help guide your allocation and re-balancing strategy. Finally, focusing on Growth and Income funds may give you a better shot at above S&P returns, but it's wise to hold a small percentage in the S&P 500 as well.
The rest of the market knows when the dividends are paid out, and that will be reflected naturally in the share price. That's why there is no way to consistently beat the market. Because the market is other human beings, who's sum of knowledge is greater than any individual. Everything in the stock market boils down to this in one way or another.
To optimize your return on investment, you need to buy low and sell high.  If you knew that one stock had hit rock bottom, and the others had not, buying the low stock would be the best. However, unless you can predict the future, you don't know if any individual stock has hit the bottom, or if it will continue to drop. If you decide to spend the same amount of money each month on stock purchases, then when the price is low, you will automatically buy more shares, and when the price is high, you will buy fewer shares.  This strategy is sometimes called dollar cost averaging.  It eliminates the need to predict the future to optimize your buying. All that having been said, I agree with @Powers that at the investment amount that you are talking about and the per transaction fee you listed, a monthly investment in several stocks will cause you to lose quite a bit to transaction fees.  It sounds like you need a different strategy.
"Wouldn't any rational person leave those decisions to the managers who have collectively positioned the company to be able to generate those profits in the first place?  I'm sure Carl Icahn and other ""activist investors"" would disagree but part of the reason for investing is you trust management to make a good ROI.  If as an investor I'm not happy with a 30 or 40 percent ROI then I should get out of the stock."
"In the words of David Einhorn, Flash Boys was ""based on a true story."" The way Lewis tells the story is extremely misleading, and you seem to have been suckered in.   HFT has reduced spreads to a small fraction of what they were 20 years ago, they are awesome for average people, who are retail traders. Lewis uses ""ordinary investors"" to mean guys like Einhorn, who do suffer from HFT because they make it hard to buy large blocks of stock without moving the price. But it is not a God-given right to buy stock without moving the price against yourself, and guys like Einhorn now understand how to trade given the current market structure."
The root cause can be said to always be a crisis in confidence.  It may be due to a very real event.  However, confidence is what pushes the markets up and worries are what bring them down.
"Or it could be a Robinhood user just messing around with their free commissions. I've seen ""people that work for organizations"" and other analysts go crazy over some completely benign activity. It is like playing poker with a newbie, unpredictable."
Like an S&amp;P 500 ETF?  So you're getting in some cash inflow each day, cash outflows each day.  And you have to buy and sell 500 different stocks, at the same time, in order for your total fund assets to match the S&amp;P 500 index proportions, as much as possible.  At any given time, the prices you get from the purchase/sale of stock is probably going to be somewhat different than the theoretical amounts you are supposed to get to match, so it's quite a tangle.  This is my understanding of things.  Some funds are simpler - a Dow 30 fund only has 30 stocks to balance out.  Maybe that's easier, or maybe it's harder because one wonky trade makes a bigger difference?  I'm not sure this is how it really operates.  The closest I've gotten is a team that has submitted products for indexing, and attempted to develop funds from those indexes.  Turns out finding the $25-50 million of initial investments isn't as easy as anyone would think.
Even if you have sufficient margin available to cover your short, there are cases when lenders need their shares back. If too many short sellers are forced to close out positions at the same time, they push up demand for the stock, increasing price and deepening their losses. When this happens, it's called a short squeeze. In the eyes of the public who mostly go long buying stock, short sellers are often reviled. However, some people and many short sellers believe they are providing balance to the market and preventing it sometimes from getting ahead of itself. [Disambiguation: A short sale in the stock market is not related to the real estate concept of a short sale, which is when a property owner sells his property for less than he owes the bank.] Additional references:
This happens on dark pools quite often. If I am a large institutional investor with tens of millions of shares, I may want to unload slowly and limit the adverse affects on the price of the stock. Dark pools offer anonymity and have buyers / sellers that can handle large volume.  In the case of a day trader, they often trade stocks with light volume (since they have large fluctuations that can be quite profitable throughout the session). At the end of the session, many traders are unwilling to hold positions on margin and want to unload fast.
Try 2013: S&P 500 was $1402.43 on December 28, 2012 and $1841.10 on Dec. 27, 2013. That's 31.2% growth. That's amazing, but it also means 31.2% is holding even with the market. If your salesman proudly announced that you made 18%... problem! All this to say: when you say the investments performed ""poorly"", don't go by absolute numbers. Find a suitable index and compare to the index. A lot of markets were down in 2015-16, and that is not your investment's fault. You want to know if were down compared to your index. Because that reflects either a lousy funds manager, or high fees. This may leave you wondering ""where can I invest that is safe and has sensible fees? I don't know your market, but here we have ""discount brokers"" which allow self-selection of investments, charge no custodial fees, and simply charge by the trade (commonly $10). Many mutual funds and ETFs are ""index funds"" with very low annual fees, 0.20% (1 in 500) or even less. How do you pick investments? Look at any of numerous books, starting with John Bogle's classic ""Common Sense on Mutual Funds"" book which is the seminal work on the value of keeping fees low. If you need the cool, confident professional to hand-hold you through the process, a fee-only advisor is a true financial advisor who actually acts in your best interest. They honestly recommend what's best for you. But beware: many commission-driven salespeople pretend to be fee-only advisors. The good advisor will be happy to advise investment types, and let you pick the brand (Fidelity vs Vanguard) and buy it in your own discount brokerage account with a password you don't share. Frankly, finance is not that hard. But it's made hard by impossibly complex products that don't need to exist, and are designed to confuse people to conceal hidden fees. Avoid those products. You just don't need them.
The earlier answers answered the question on how a more practical trader can lose money. Here I'd like to mention some obtuse ways  Using debt to buy stocks. If one is borrowing at a higher rate than they are getting back, from an economics prospective their stocks are losing money even if the value of those stocks are going up. Using debt to buy stocks. I'll simplify the nightmare situation. I know someone who has Y dollars of cash. Their broker will loan them X. With their X+Y money, they purchase some equities through the broker. The agreement of the loan is that if the value of those equities drops below a certain percentage of the outstanding debt (ex 150%), the broker will automatically and without notification, sell some equities indiscriminately to reduce the outstanding debt. Being in high-interest debt but buying stocks. There are millions of people who are paying 15+% interest rates on consumer debt while investing and getting 5% returns or less on average. Similar to an earlier point, from an economics prospective the choice to buy equities is a profit losing choice.
You say: Every time it seems the share price dips. Does it?  Have you collected the data?   It may just be that you are remembering the events that seem most painful at the time. To move the market with your trade you need to be dealing in a large amount of shares.    Unless the stock is illiquid (e.g most VCT in the UK), I don’t think you are dealing in that large a number; if you were then you would likely have access to a real time feed of the order book and could see what was going on.
The very term 'market conditions' is subjective and needs context.  There are 'market conditions' that favor buying (such as post crash) or market conditions that favor selling (such as the peak of a bubble).  Problem with mutual funds is you can't really pick these points yourself; because you're effectively outsourcing that to a firm.  If you're tight on time and are looking for weekly update on the economy a good solution is to identify a reputable economist (with a solid track record) and simply follow their commentary via blog or newsletter.
I would not advise any stock-picking or other active management (even using mutual funds that are actively managed).  There is a large body of knowledge that needs learning before you even attempt that. Stay passive with index funds (either ETFs or (even better) low-cost passive mutual funds (because these prevent you from buying/selling). But I have not problem saying you can invest 100% in equity as long as your stomach can handle the price swings.  If you freek out after a 25% drop that does not recover within a year, so you sell at the market bottom, then you are better off staying with a lot less risk.  It is personal. There are a lot of valid reasons for young people to accept more risk - and equally valid reason why not.  See list at http://www.retailinvestor.org/saving.html#norisk
Most Americans (if they were honest) really can't relate to this and the few that can would agree. Another popular item to have, which doesn't physically exist, is a rare, but valuable skill that will be needed in a crisis. For instance, being highly skilled at negotiation and knowing the right people both come in handy at difficult times. Can you pay for learning or increasing those skill sets now? Never forget that self-investment can go far. And as a financial note and word of advice from someone who's been a financial adviser for over half a decade, a good financial adviser always seeks to get the person's information before providing advice and almost never says that a particular choice is always bad or always good; I would seldom say that a person should do one thing and it will always be good advice because that may not work in their country/state/environment/situation/etc. As they say in the SQL Server community - ""it depends"" and that holds true for finance. In the long run, those items which we may not think of as good investments or stores of value may end up having their day. To paraphrase Solomon, ""There's a time and place for everything under the sun."" Even in my short life, I've witnessed a period of gold and silver routing the stock market and the stock market routing gold and silver. I suspect I'll see both again if I live a few more decades. tl;dr"
"Easiest thing ever. In fact, 99% of people are loosing money. If you perform worse then 10% annually in cash (average over 5-10 years), then you better never even think about trading/investing. Most people are sitting at 0%..-5% annually. They win some, loose some, and are being outrun by inflation and commissions. In fact, fall of market is not a big deal, stock indexes are often jump back in a few months. If you rebalance properly, it is mitigated. Your much bigger enemy is inflation. If you think inflation is small, look at gold price over past 20 years. Some people, Winners at first, grow to +10%, get too relaxed and start to grow already lost position. That one loose trade eats 10% of their portfolio. Only there that people realize they should cut it off, when they already lost their profits. And they start again with +0%. This is hard thing to accept, but most of people are not made for that type of business. Even worse, they think ""if I had bigger budget, I would perform better"", which is kind of self-lie."
From an article I wrote a while back: “Dalbar Inc., a Boston-based financial services research firm, has been measuring the effects of investors’ decisions to buy, sell, and switch into and out of mutual funds since 1984. The key finding always has been that the average investor earns significantly less than the return reported by their funds. (For the 20 years ended Dec. 31, 2006, the average stock fund investor earned a paltry 4.3 average annual compounded return compared to 11.8 percent for the Standard & Poor’s 500 index.)” It's one thing to look at the indexes. But quite another to understand what other investors are actually getting. The propensity to sell low and buy high is proven by the data Dalbar publishes. And really makes the case to go after the magic S&P - 0.09% gotten from an ETF.
"For some studies on why investors make the decisions they do, check out  For a more readable, though less rigorous, look at it, also consider Kahneman's recent book, ""Thinking, Fast and Slow"", which includes the two companion papers written with Tversky on prospect theory. In certain segments (mostly trading) of the investing industry, it is true that something like 90% of investors lose money. But only in certain narrow segments (and most folks would rightly want traders to be counted as a separate beast than an 'investor').  In most segments, it's not true that most investors lose money, but it still is true that most investors exhibit consistent biases that allow for mispricing. I think that understanding the heuristics and biases approach to economics is critical, both because it helps you understand why there are inefficiencies, and also because it helps you understand that quantitative, principled investing is not voodoo black magic; it's simply applying mathematics for the normative part and experimental observations for the descriptive part to yield a business strategy, much like any other way of making money."
The snide answer is because they can. The psychological answer is that it drives loyalty. Because you have spent money on the membership, you are more likely to go back several times in the year in order to get your money's worth. Once you are in the store, impulsiveness can have its way with you, as you leave the store with a cart full of items that you didn't know you needed until you saw their low price.
The problem with commodities is that they don't produce income. With a stock or bond, even if you never sold it to anyone or it wasn't publicly traded, you know you can collect the money the company makes or collect interest. That's a quantifiable income from the security. By computing the present value of that income (cf. http://blog.ometer.com/2007/08/26/money-math/) you can have at least a rough sense of the value of the stock or bond investment. Commodities, on the other hand, eat income (insurance and storage). Their value comes from their practical uses e.g. in manufacturing (which eventually results in income for someone); and from psychological factors. The psychological factors are inherently unpredictable. Demand due to practical uses should keep up with inflation, since in principle the prices on whatever products you make from the commodity would keep up with inflation. But even here there's a danger, because it may be that over time some popular uses for a given commodity become obsolete. For example this commodity used to be a bigger deal than now, I guess: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankincense. The reverse is also possible, that new uses for a commodity drive up demand and prices. To the extent that metals such as silver and gold bounce around wildly (much more so than inflation), I find it hard to believe the bouncing is mostly due to changes in uses of the metals. It seems far more likely that it's due to psychological factors and momentum traders. To me this makes metals a speculative investment, and identifying a bubble in metals is even harder than identifying one in income-producing assets that can more easily be valued. To identify a bubble you have to figure out what will go on in the minds of a horde of other people, and when. It seems safest for individual investors to just assume commodities are always in a bubble and stay away. The one arguable reason to own commodities is to treat them as a random bouncing number, which may enhance returns (as long as you rebalance) even if on average commodities don't make money over inflation. This is what people are saying when they suggest owning a small slice of commodities as part of an asset allocation.
The main reason, as far as I can see, is that the dividends are payments with which the shareholders may do what they want. Capital that the company has no use for does not make a significant positive return on investment, as you pointed out, yes the company could accrue interest, but that is not going to make the company large sums of cash. While the company may be great at making shoes - maybe even the best in the world - doesn't mean they are good investors. Sure they could dabble at using their capital to invest in other equities, but they don't, because they just want to focus on making shoes. If the dividend goes to the investors, they can do what they wish, be it reinvest in the company, or invest elsewhere. Other companies that may make good use of the capital, and create significant returns on it are one such example. That is the rational answer, beyond that, one of the main reasons is that people like the feeling of receiving dividends - it might not be the answer you are looking for, but many people prefer companies that pay dividends for no rational reason over companies which grow their asset value.
News-driven investors tend to be very short-term focussed investors. They often trade by using index futures (on the S&P 500 index for instance).
I think to answer this question it is best for you to learn more about why people diversify through asset allocation. Look at related questions involving Asset Allocation here.   I've asked a couple questions about asset allocation - I think you'll find the top rated answer on this post useful.