• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What makes the stock market go up or down?

JohnfrmClevelan

DP Veteran
Joined
May 12, 2014
Messages
6,815
Reaction score
4,420
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
While discussing privatizing Social Security, I started to think about what would happen if such a law forced bunches of dollars into the stock market, and how disconnected stock prices seem to be from the company that originally issued the stock. So my question is simple:

What makes the stock market (as a whole) go up or down?
 
While discussing privatizing Social Security, I started to think about what would happen if such a law forced bunches of dollars into the stock market, and how disconnected stock prices seem to be from the company that originally issued the stock. So my question is simple:

What makes the stock market (as a whole) go up or down?

There's no doubt that trillions of extra dollars going into the stock market would cause prices to increase.
 
Declining interest rates reducing bond yields.
 
While discussing privatizing Social Security, I started to think about what would happen if such a law forced bunches of dollars into the stock market, and how disconnected stock prices seem to be from the company that originally issued the stock. So my question is simple:

What makes the stock market (as a whole) go up or down?

Greed and fear run the markets.
 
While discussing privatizing Social Security, I started to think about what would happen if such a law forced bunches of dollars into the stock market, and how disconnected stock prices seem to be from the company that originally issued the stock. So my question is simple:

What makes the stock market (as a whole) go up or down?

Privatising SS imo is a very bad idea.

The more money that flows into the stock market increases the price. It also has to do with the real and perceived value/production of the stock (company) compared to its current or past value/production. It also, as CSBrown was thinking on a macro level, for stable or "hard" currency countries is affected by perception.

When Colarado legalised Marijuana some poor pothead might actually have deferred purchasing a new car or that ass-kicking PS3/4 he'd been saving up and put 300-800 dollars into a Publicly traded Coloradan legal pot firm. He would have purchased in, and assuming he'd gotten out Perfectly would have made iirc ~700% meaning 2,100-5,600 dollars. As he lept out that would have decreased the demand for the stock, while in no way affecting the pot firms actual capability to produce (besides equity credit lines, which is real but w/e). I think the stock market generally goes up with average productivity gains and an increased flow of money relative to other sectors. Otherwise if the stock didn't go up with productivity gains, on the average, the P/E ratios on all stocks would be too disgustingly low for any Sane individual Not to buy in. Plus, of course, the devil of perception.

I think privatising SS would simply lift the stock market's average acceptable/common P/E ratios but would, obviously, enhance the company equities of stock firms across the board. Worth losing our asses of 99-1% of what we put in to gain a 5-10% yearly return? I think not.
 
Mainly, the belief of people as to whether it will go up or down. Tends to become a self-fulfilling prophecy.


Of course, actual economic activity does factor in... but it is mostly people.
 
Meaning, what, that people are moving money from bonds into stocks?

Bonds yield on interest.

If interest decreases, bond yields (interest revenues) decrease.

Thus the Stock market becomes more attractive (or other forms of investment non-written/fixed) and people will shift their monies from Bonds (generally in a secondary/derivative market) towards more liquid, higher yield investments.
 
Bonds yield on interest.

If interest decreases, bond yields (interest revenues) decrease.

Thus the Stock market becomes more attractive (or other forms of investment non-written/fixed) and people will shift their monies from Bonds (generally in a secondary/derivative market) towards more liquid, higher yield investments.

So, at least in this example, the effect on the stock market is simply due to new money leaving bonds and looking for a place to be invested, and not due to anything in the underlying economy, right?

In my mind, there is a certain amount of investment in the stock market that seems "organic," in that it relates to how much ownership of a piece of some company is actually worth. If the going price of a share of stock in XYZ Corp. takes into account the dividend yield, liquidation value of the company, earnings, and whatever other stuff knowledgeable investors take into account when they value stock, that's great, buy the stock. Let's say that stock is properly valued at $100/share.

But anything over that price has got to be due to something less organic - either irrational exuberance, or excess dollars with no better place to be invested, driving up the price of a limited, inelastic supply of stock. Basically, the more dollars in the hands of the rich, the more dollars that will end up invested in the stock market.

And since buying and selling stock is primarily a rich man's game, the same dollars are going to be bouncing around between the same hands, while every transaction pushes prices up a little higher and leads to some gains on paper.

Am I off base here?
 
So, at least in this example, the effect on the stock market is simply due to new money leaving bonds and looking for a place to be invested, and not due to anything in the underlying economy, right?

In my mind, there is a certain amount of investment in the stock market that seems "organic," in that it relates to how much ownership of a piece of some company is actually worth. If the going price of a share of stock in XYZ Corp. takes into account the dividend yield, liquidation value of the company, earnings, and whatever other stuff knowledgeable investors take into account when they value stock, that's great, buy the stock. Let's say that stock is properly valued at $100/share.

But anything over that price has got to be due to something less organic - either irrational exuberance, or excess dollars with no better place to be invested, driving up the price of a limited, inelastic supply of stock. Basically, the more dollars in the hands of the rich, the more dollars that will end up invested in the stock market.

And since buying and selling stock is primarily a rich man's game, the same dollars are going to be bouncing around between the same hands, while every transaction pushes prices up a little higher and leads to some gains on paper.

Am I off base here?

Organic is a difficult word in Stocks.

Yes 100/stock is a correct assestment.

But there may be a Rich man (or rather men) who want to purchase the stock believing the "Organic" price to be 130 or 150 over a span of 5 years. That's roughly a 6 to 10% return per year. The more men that believe that to be true, the higher the discrepenacy between the *current* Organic valuation and its *current* actual/additional in-organic valuation.

But, in essensce, you are correct.

It's just the intentions of individuals stock holders varies and its the job of the Stock Market to valuate companies from the very short to longish (or rather medium, in reality) terms. (Long range tends to be for non-rich, i.e. low-to-mid-to-low rich income groups)

So such the Stock Market is a valuation method trying to delienate the difference between all these groups.

Am I making sense to you, sir? But essentially, you are correct. The rational or irrational exuberance/rumination is something that we cannot predict or Even justify but simply... understand? If that makes any sense xP
 
While discussing privatizing Social Security, I started to think about what would happen if such a law forced bunches of dollars into the stock market, and how disconnected stock prices seem to be from the company that originally issued the stock. So my question is simple:

What makes the stock market (as a whole) go up or down?

Schools of anchovies.
 
Yep and stocks are a better hedge against inflation as well.

To be fair, there are many bond instruments that are indexed to inflation. Not to say you're incorrect, you are correct but that hedging against inflation comes to a "real" or balance sheet loss risk. Depending on the time horizon of the investor, i.e. an old woman ready to retire in 1-5 years compared to a young buck that can re-gain losses over a span of 20-40 years on higher yield stock investments.
 
Last edited:
The stock market is a gamble, and we have always been gamblers. Our million year old predecessors on the African savanna had to gamble. Would those roots and berries be in the same place today? Would another predator have eaten them, and if so, would it still be around? Would the water hole still be there, and would there be lions about, if so? Gambling has entered our DNA. And it is even more exciting today, as otherwise, we have so little to gamble about. We are pretty sure the coffee will be on in the morning,the car will start, and not much else will go wrong.

Gambling depends on one's particular slant. We often try to hedge on gambles, and make them safer and more assured. One can imagine a Marxist simian at the ancient water hole, violently head-locking others, and throwing their roots and berries to the less capable. Or an unevolved FDR, making rudimentary, but effective grunting noises, that allowed for at least some roots and berries to be more effectively used. Libertarian apes of course, would accept that whoever grabbed the food would be entitled to it, too bad for the others. Our prehistoric version of John Adams would be sitting by the water, and scratching his head, as he had thought all the roots and berries would be magically distributed to exactly who needed them.

We gamble on the markets, partly because we must. There is no sure thing in life. The market's are an invitation to spread risk, and as so not such a bad thing. Placing one's wealth on the line means anxiety though, and anxiety can morph into fear. When markets drop,there is a tendency for many to bail, as if not, there will be no more roots and berries, ever, ever, ever again, so the imagination runs. When markets are going up, what the heck, throw some of those berries in the pond, we don't need 'em. Let the fish eat 'em. Complacency sets in. Or worse yet, unwarranted projection takes place. If that was a particularly tasty berry, we are never ever going to eat a different one.

Today I think, as mentioned above, that there is a certain disconnect of the stock and bond markets, and the larger society. The financial sector of society has grown out of all healthy proportion, and capital has become ever more migrated to the ultra wealthy. The tendency to make wilder bets, when there are too many berries about, is much more pronounced. I think we can see the effects of this today. High speed computers are added to the mix, so that traders, hyperactive as they are, are superseded by machines making decisions in nano-seconds, and using algorithms, not quite the same as human logic. It's more a rich man's game, and involves more peripheral mechanisms than before.
 
The stock market in general goes up or down based interest, depreciation, and the like. IE, when alternative investments look less appealing (banks and bonds falter due to inflation, "securities" are subject to interest rates which are set by the Fed, etc).

Individual stocks rise and fall in value based on speculation by the 1%. A company can be in the red, bleeding out, but if Warren Buffet thinks it's valuable, then it is. That's why stocks are volatile. Because the wealthy play follow the leader, and create bubbles, which must pop.
 
Declining interest rates reducing bond yields.

Truer today than ever, putting your money in to a CD or savings account will decrease you buying power as inflation rates out do the pathetic 0.5% interests on savings and measly 0.95 one year CDs. As to the original question it is not one clearly defined, if it was we could time the market and buy low and sell high. Bad news and world instability drive the market down, all markets all over the world. Just yesterday watching Fox finance channel one of the member admitted she is totally in the dark now as to what to expect. What drives the market in one way is people simply buying in to it like today when people have little choice because of the horribly low interest rates. "Confidence" is a word you will hear constantly when referring to market upswings and when something like 911 happens the markets react by plunging. It is not something you can define so long term investing is the key riding out the downswings and profiting from the upswings.
 
Truer today than ever, putting your money in to a CD or savings account will decrease you buying power as inflation rates out do the pathetic 0.5% interests on savings and measly 0.95 one year CDs. As to the original question it is not one clearly defined, if it was we could time the market and buy low and sell high. Bad news and world instability drive the market down, all markets all over the world. Just yesterday watching Fox finance channel one of the member admitted she is totally in the dark now as to what to expect. What drives the market in one way is people simply buying in to it like today when people have little choice because of the horribly low interest rates. "Confidence" is a word you will hear constantly when referring to market upswings and when something like 911 happens the markets react by plunging. It is not something you can define so long term investing is the key riding out the downswings and profiting from the upswings.

The Entire point of having .5 interest rates is so people Spend rather than Save...
 
The stock market in general goes up or down based interest, depreciation, and the like. IE, when alternative investments look less appealing (banks and bonds falter due to inflation, "securities" are subject to interest rates which are set by the Fed, etc).

Individual stocks rise and fall in value based on speculation by the 1%. A company can be in the red, bleeding out, but if Warren Buffet thinks it's valuable, then it is. That's why stocks are volatile. Because the wealthy play follow the leader, and create bubbles, which must pop.

pretty accurate

But Buffett doesnt usually care what the market thinks about a certain company....he only cares what he thinks, and that in relation to the current valuation

He is a value investor....and in his book, he reminds all investors that "mr market" is a very fickle individual

On any given day, week, or month, "mr market" may value a company too high, or too low based on way too many criteria to list

So he doesnt try to ever time the market.....he buys companies, that have good earnings, and holds them virtually forever

He tries to buy companies with what he call moats....something that protects them (think coca cola, and their brand....i could give you a billion dollars, and a new good tasting soft drink, and you would be lucky to take 1-2% market share away from coca cola)

I invest the same way....i dont care what GE is selling for today.....i will care what the value is 20-25 years from now

In the meantime, they will pay me to own a small portion of their company

If you will need your money in less than 7 years, then you have to be more cautious....but if not....the market is really the only game in town
 
Back
Top Bottom