Talk:Share price

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finance & Investment, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Finance and Investment on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Finance & InvestmentWikipedia:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentTemplate:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentFinance & Investment articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Buffet and Graham[edit]

See warren buffet & other graham disciples, perter lynch, hedge funds today, etc. - all successful in spite of transaction costs and bid-ask spreads, what they don't have are the constrainsts placed on or the groupthink of the typical institutional investor or the lack of knowledge of the typical individual investor. Also, when institutional money is 75% of the marketplace, a good deal of it won't beat the market but this doesn't mean there's no expertise. 160.39.190.180 19:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Real value[edit]

I added a "citation needed" note to the claim "When viewed over long periods, the share price is directly related to the earnings and dividends of the firm." because, though the claim may sound believable, I for the life of me can't see any link between share values and any real-world value such as earnings, dividends (which I think is just a few per cent of the stock value and thus almost negligible when considering what one pays for them), the company's total assets or the stock's par value. In fact, it seems to me that the price that is paid for a share at the stock exchange is almost entirely based on expectations on what the share will be worth in the future. To predict the future, some look at the history (i e basically believe they can extrapolate the price graph), so-called "growth investing" and some compare the prices between shares from similar companies and buy those who are cheapest in this comparison, believing that they are under-valued, so-called "value investing". And a value based purely on expectations on future value growth to me seems like buying and selling thin air. I've been searching for any fact that could contradict my claim. If you have one, then please post it, WITH a quotation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.73.73.1 (talk) 12:31, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The wording could use some improvement, but I've added a citation. Roughly the point that I believe was trying to be made is that there is, or should be, some connection between share price and expectations of future dividends and earnings (the latter being needed to support the former.) --j⚛e decker ^talk 22:15, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Prices don't completely follow the random walk theory[edit]

A citation for "Empirical studies have demonstrated that prices do not completely follow random walks" could be Spectral Analysis of New York Stock Market Prices (1962). I'm feeling uncertain about editing the main page, so just talking. PHolzwarth (talk) 20:18, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I just saw this, and added a different source that makes the same point. You're welcome to edit the article diretcly, but I realize that many folks find the referencing syntax here to be pretty baroque. Cheers, --j⚛e decker ^talk 22:16, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]