Talk:Hindenburg Omen

message: In the conclusion section, the last sentence reads:
"On the other hand there has never been a significant stock market decline in history, that was not preceded by a confirmed Hindenburg Omen."
"stock market decline in history" might be a little broad a claim, since referenced material only traces the indicator back to 1985.  The indicator itself is based on the NYSE which hasn't existed as long as the stock markets in general, nor is the indicator valid on other markets as stated.
24.17.81.163 16:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting. Followed by a confirming instance on August 11th, just within the 36 day period. That doesn't look good. -- Derek Ross | Talk 22:49, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

text: That link help clarify where the 79 figure came from. It is just used as an example of a number that would be over the 2.2% threshold. It was NOT saying or implying that such would be the minimum required. The minimum is a fixed ration = (NYSE New Issues) x 0.022, and then round a fractional number up to the next whole number. Carltonh (talk) 14:40, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

text: Bwrs (talk) 15:22, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

text: A copyright violation of what? DeeDeeKerby (talk) 18:13, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: > The 2.2% number seems to be tied to (or gives the appearance of being) the average growth within the US economy since 1955, an average of only about 2%.
What is the source for this? Even if there was somebody who made such a guess, this has no place on the page.
Also, the discussion of central banks being able to rig the market in order to prevent the omen from appearing is a little far fetched, I propose to remove this as well.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kotika98 (talk • contribs) 03:56, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested Improvements 

message: In the Mechanics section it is stated:
 "1.) A substantial number of stocks set new annual highs
  2.) A substantial number of stocks set new annual lows
  3.) Conditions 1 & 2 cannot both take place at the same time, it is either one or the other—but not both"
Emphasis is that both conditions can NOT occur.
However in the next section(Criteria) it is stated:
 "The daily number of NYSE new 52 Week Highs and the daily number of new 52 Week Lows must both be greater than 79..."
Now the emphasis is on "both". So, which is it? Both or not both?
Second, the above line from the criteria section indicates that the "magic number" is 79, however the first example(Aug 12) from the "Recent Occurrences" section reads:
  "...failing only in that 67 stocks hit new lows, rather than the required 69"
So, is it 79 or 69 as the target number?
Gcronau (talk) 17:19, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you look at the article you linked, you'll see that the target number is defined as greater than 2.2% of the number of NYSE issues traded on the given day. If there were 3600 issues traded, the number will be 79, but if there are only 3100 issues traded, then the number will be 69. The article simply uses 79 as an example. Tghw (talk) 20:04, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  What you say is simply not true. The article says that if the number is > 79 you may start to consider if there are other conditions met for a HO to be true or not. If the 79-criteria is not met, there is no need checking any of the other conditions.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.155.127.83 (talk) 21:03, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

text:  A hard number of 79 (or any hard number) does not make sense, as the measure is of a certain portion of the market is experiencing high volatility. If you were to apply this to another exchange, the 2.2% number would still work, but 79 would not because fewer issues were traded. On some exchanges, 79 could represent 10% of the days issues. Also, see http://www.investopedia.com/articles/trading/07/HindenburgOmen.asp for another reference to 2.2%. There is no mention of 79 being an indicator. Tghw (talk) 23:29, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistencies 

message: Here is the nutshell opening sentence from WP:CAPS, which has full guideline status: "Convention: For page titles, always use lowercase after the first word, and do not capitalize second and subsequent words, unless the title is a proper noun." So the only issue that needs to be addressed in an RM is whether the subject is in fact a proper noun. Kauffner (talk) 10:07, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Which is doubtless why so few of these discussions have mentioned the issue. But this is a proper noun; it's the name of a particular thing.  JCScaliger (talk) 19:38, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: We usually decide what's a proper noun by looking at sources.  In this case, since I couldn't find again the one source that had it lower case, I thanked the closer for his service even though it went against me.  But if you look at the arguments, Tony did present evidence that the term is not always used for a particular thing, and that's part of how we determine proper nouns from sources, too. So don't be a sore winner.  Dicklyon (talk) 21:55, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Post-RM discussion

message: One or more example charts are needed for fast grasp or full comprehension.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocdcntx (talk • contribs) 17:03, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  NEEDS CHART