So a company decides to raise money by selling shares of its stock. The stock is offered at an initial price of their determination. The stock is then traded in a market where forces of supply and demand, as well as speculation, affect its price.

When a company performs well (or makes decisions that will likely increase the company's earnings in the future), more people want to buy that stock than do people wanting to sell it. This creates demand for that stock which causes its sell/bid prices rise. When a company performs poorly, the opposite occurs; more people want to sell the stock than want to buy. This creates a surplus that causes sell/bid prices to fall. Understanding this, people speculate over company performance to determine the future behavior of a stock, and attempt to "buy low, sell high" or "borrow high, return low" in order to make a profit.

But my question is regarding the first part of that process. What is it about company performance that causes the perceived value of its stock to rise? This is especially perplexing since I would guess that most people don't exercise their voting rights, and many stocks don't pay dividends. It's not like a shareholder has any direct financial gains from increased company earnings (speculative stock pricing notwithstanding). What is the intrinsic value of the stock?

It seems to me that all participants in a stock market tacitly agree that stock price will have a direct correlation with company performance. So another way of asking the question is, would an opposite agreement hold? What financially (this isn't a question about logistics, communication, or feasibility) stops all participants in a market from agreeing to value a particular company's stock inversely with respect to the company's performance?

Since I feel like I can't quite nail down my question, another form of it would be, why is stock market behavior driven by company performance?

  • 2
    Great question. I've had the same doubts for a long time. – user1175 Sep 16 '10 at 15:47
  • 1
    "When a company performs well (or makes decisions that will likely increase the company's earnings in the future), more people want to buy that stock than do people wanting to sell it." That's incorrect. (A) It's completely commonplace that a company performs well - and the price goes down. (B) We have no clue about what more or less people are doing. Commonly, prices are moved by one party taking a dramatic position one way or another. – Fattie Aug 5 '18 at 16:31
  • It may be "common" for a company to perform well and for the price to go down, but it seems much much less common than for the price to stay constant or to go up. That's just my layman's impression based on no market analysis. – G-Wiz Aug 7 '18 at 19:31

The primary reason to hold any stock is the the expectation that at some point in the future it will return money to whoever is holding it at the time, by one or more of the following mechanisms:

  • Paying dividends
  • Share buybacks, where the company buys out some of its own shares (in some ways this is quite similar to paying a dividend, but often has different tax implications)
  • A takeover by another company for cash (some takeovers are for shares, or a mixture, in which case the same question of valuing the new shares arises)
  • Liquidation, at which point the company's assets are sold and all cash is returned to the shareholders

Just because it isn't paying anything out now, doesn't mean it won't in the future, and even if the current shareholder sells before receiving anything, the next shareholder or the one after that (etc) will get the money.

The hope of those future payouts is what ultimately makes a stock worth something - the current market value fluctuates at least in part based on the expectations of the people buying and selling of what those payouts will be. Even though many people do just trade on sentiment or other factors, it's the fact that stocks have some intrinsic value from those eventual payouts that distinguish the stock market from a Ponzi scheme.

A secondary benefit of owning stock is the control via voting it gives you of the underlying company. This gives holders the opportunity to influence the direction of the company in a way that suits them - e.g. to encourage earlier payouts of spare cash via dividends. But even if you have 51% of the votes, the other shareholders retain their economic interest in the company - you can't just vote to pay all the money it holds to yourself. If you have 100%, then you can broadly do anything you like with the assets - this is normally how takeovers work.

  • 5
    I think by using the specific words "taken over" that Ganesh is referring to a corporate takeover, which is when another company likes the one you're holding so much that it wants to own all of it, and makes a successful offer to buy all outstanding shares at a price significantly higher than the market price. – Chris W. Rea Apr 12 '10 at 0:09
  • 4
    I've now edited the answer to add buybacks and another mechanism I remembered - liquidation. – Ganesh Sittampalam Apr 12 '10 at 14:47
  • 7
    Although I think your answer is the best that can be given, it's not very satisfying to me--I don't think most investors think about these events. When's the last time you heard investors speculating about when a company was going to start paying dividends? I agree with the original question that relation between stock price and company performance seems tenuous. – user1175 Sep 16 '10 at 15:45
  • 5
    Surprised this answer was so easily accepted. It's undeniably wrong. "All stocks are held in the expectation that they will eventually return money to the shareholders, by one or more of the following mechanisms..." No, a lot of people hold stock in expectation its price will go up, and then they expect to sell it. This is not one of the mechanisms listed. – Chan-Ho Suh Apr 28 '15 at 2:54
  • 4
    What I was trying to get at is that if it would never return money to shareholders, noone would want to buy it. – Ganesh Sittampalam Apr 28 '15 at 4:34

The intrinsic value of a company is based on their profits year on year along with their expect future growth. A company may be posting losses, but if the market determines there's any chance they will turn a profit one day, or be a takeover target, it assigns value to those shares. In normal times, you'll observe a certain P/E range. Price to earning ratio is a simple way to say the I will pay X$ for a dollar's worth of earnings. A company that's in a flat market and not growing may command a P/E of only 10. Another company that's expanding their products and increasing market share may see a 20 P/E. Both P/Es are right for the type of company involved.


If a company is doing well, it seems less likely to go bankrupt. If a company is doing poorly, it seems more likely to go bankrupt. The problem is, where is the inflection point between "well" and "poorly"? When does a company start to head into oblivion? Sometimes it is hard to know. But if you don't call that right and hold onto your shares when a company is tanking, others, who call it before you do, will sell off, devalue the share price, and now you've missed your chance to get out at a good profit. If you hang on too long, the company may just go bankrupt and you've lost your investment entirely.

A healthy profitability of the company therefore has to bolster investor confidence in avoiding this very unpleasant scenario. Therefore, the more profitable a company is, the more shareholder confidence it inspires, and the more willing to pay for it in the form of increased share price.

And, this then has a "meta" effect, in that each shareholder thinks, "all other investors think this way, too," and so each feels good about holding the stock, since he knows he can likely easily liquidate it for good cash if he needs to, either now or in the next year or sometime hence.

  • Thank you. I'm trying to understand the real value of a stock, and this strikes me as a very helpful answer, in line with Ganesh's but demonstrating the value of the stock related to investor confidence. The intrinsic value of a stock is demonstrated at a liquidation event when shareholders are required to be paid some value for the shares they own out of their current capital. – firebush Jul 3 '18 at 17:43
  • There is no "real" value in a stock whatsoever. (In practice, momentum is a bigger factor than anything.) – Fattie Aug 5 '18 at 16:34

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.