Talk:Market trend

message: *I believe that this page should be a type of disambiguation. The sections should be split into different articles as they deserve their own pages. Seperate pages would allow the articles to grow. There is more than enough content on bear markets, bull markets, and secular markets to allow for seperate articles.Smallman12q (talk) 16:46, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Split Apart

message: How do bears make money when they expect the market to go down? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.49.168.93 (talk) 00:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: How do bears make money 

message: I cleaned up the introduction and added references. The section on random walk/EMH seemed completely out of place, perhaps another editor can write something about those topics that fits this article.
Rgfolsom 15:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro edits, etc. 

message: This article is ambiguous about which trends define a "bull" and which a "bear" market. It just states these are "terms" and not which is which. Is a bull market "overwhelmed by buyers" (normally driving prices up), or a "buyer's market" (normally driving prices down)?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.148.109.151 (talk) 14:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Bull and bear

message: Market trends are described as periods when bulls (buyers) consistently outnumber bears (sellers), or vice versa. A bull or bear market describes the trend and sentiment driving it, but can also refer to specific securities and sectors ("bullish on IBM", "bullish on technology stocks," or "bearish on gold", etc.).
The last period is superfluous, but more important, *every* stock market transaction has a buyer and a seller. Thus, buyers cannot outnumber sellers or vice versa, at least in terms of *actual* buyers or sellers. This balance is critical to understanding the market! I suggest:
Market trends are described as periods when bulls (investors who think stocks are undervalued or fairly valued compared to Treasury bonds) consistently outnumber bears (investors who think stocks are overvalued), or vice versa. A bull or bear market describes the trend and sentiment driving it, but can also refer to specific securities and sectors ("bullish on IBM", "bullish on technology stocks," or "bearish on gold", etc.) But, every seller has a buyer, and vice versa.
Sorry, sellers cannot 'outnumber' buyers, nor vice versa.  This is a common error, but the number of buyers always must equal the number of sellers.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.251.222.11 (talk) 17:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear SineBot, you are correct there must be a one to one correlation for each stock market transaction, however stock trading is done auction style and if there are ten bidders and only two sellers the price will be drive up because there are more buyers bidding. But I agree the article should state this otherwise it creates confusion. thanks. Keithbob--Keithbob (talk) 13:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Numbers of Buyers and Sellers 

message: The references to random walk and efficient market hypothesis are NOT out of place, as they represent a scientific approach while the concept of 'trends' is neolithic mumbo-jumbo which cannot be put forward in isolation. I have deleted the statement "Market trends are described as periods when bulls (buyers) consistently outnumber bears (sellers)....": as stated above, this cannot be true. Ehrenkater (talk) 18:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Random walk etc 

message: First paragraph refers to "primary," "secondary" and "secular" trends.  I'm unsure how the adjective "secular" is used in describing a trend. Is this my failing, or should the word "tertiary" perhaps be used? Esjones (talk) 19:03, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: "Secular"

message: I'm the guy who posted the "bulla" and "bearer" origin that's in need of a citation.  Sorry to say I don't remember exactly where I heard it but I believe it was on a TV show and I am pretty sure it was referring to traders in the Netherlands centuries ago, like in the 16th or 17th century.  I'll keep my eye peeled for some hard evidence, but if anyone else wants to try to find a citation this might offer some clue as to where to look.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.64.30 (talk) 22:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note on Etymology:

message: "Market corrections are shorter than a bear market and have a total measured decline of less than 20%" - so what about this last week or two, when there's been a >20% decline in a short period? I appreciate that the "bear market" description works anyway, since the Dow has fallen something like 40% from its peak, but is there another word? Someone told me that, informally at least, "crash" requires 10% in a day, which I don't think has happened this time. So what is the word for the last week? Loganberry (Talk) 18:04, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about now? 

message: "random walk model ... any apparent past 'trends' are purely an accumulation of random variations." So does random walk model say that what some people call a bull market is purely random variation? For example, does RWM think it pure chance that the DJIA is now above 40.94 (where it started in 1896), rather than being below it, and that long term economic growth does not generate long term market trends? Nurg (talk) 03:51, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nurg, good point. I have edited the section to describe random walk theory (an application of the random walk model/mathematical formula and its application to the stock market)and given a reference for RWT as well.  Please tell me if you feel it is satisfactory now or if it needs more attention. Your feedback is greatly appreciated. --Keithbob (talk) 02:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Random walk model & long term trend 

message: I was away when the article Stock market bottom was nominated for deletion. I disagree. There was no original research, the indictors mentioned are the ones commonly mentioned by analysts, as the citations clearly show.
Since the artilce has already been removed, I will not argue. I have saved the materials at  User:Chakreshsinghai/stock_market_bottom for potentially use in related articles.
--Chakreshsinghai (talk) 03:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stock market bottom 

message: Sentence like "A primary trend has broad support throughout the entire market or market sector and lasts for a year or more." or "A market trend is the direction of the market." are simply assertions saying that such a thing as a market trend exist.  We cannot make these assertions.  There has to be a reliable source saying them.  For all we can tell this entire article is just made up voodoo.  Smallbones (talk) 17:27, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with your overriding point which is that this article does not have sufficient references in many of the sections.  I have therefore placed an OR banner at the top of the article.  Personally, I feel the article is accurate but this is just my opinion (orginal research) which means nothing on Wiki unless it is sourced.  For this reason I have placed the banner which alerts readers that some material is unsourced and alerts editors to try to find more sources. --Kbob (talk) 16:05, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: Have any theories been advanced relating long-term market trends to the value of the Dollar? In the free market, Dollars are a commodity like gold or wheat and the marketplace is apparently glutted with them. Gold in particular underwent a sustained bull-market price increase from $275 per oz. to $850 per oz. between 01/01/02 and 01/01/08. Gold price has had its ups and downs in recent months but seems to be supported in the $900 - $950 range. If the price increase was some sort of speculation bubble, it would have collapsed by now. According to the Consumer Price Index, prices of other things only went up by 14% in the same period. How are differences between CPI trends and commodities trends reconciled? The article should discuss the relationship between market trends and the value of the Dollar and investor confidence in it (if any).
This is bothersome because, a decade ago, people in the Congress discussed program costs in terms of billions of Dollars. Today, they're talking trillions. If people are talking in terms of quadrillions two years from now, should we be concerned? --Virgil H. Soule (talk) 15:48, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Dollar 

message: I have today made several changes to the lede section to:
*Succinctly introduce and define the topic  see WP:LEDE
*Remove POV and weasel wording such as "belief" etc.  see WP:NPOV
The concept of market trends is real. The concept is not on trial here. Although all points of view about the subject can be included in the article, the lede is not the place for 
opposition or controversy.  see WP:LEDE  
*Remove duplication and give a good overview of the subject as per guidelines on creating a lede.-- — Kbob • Talk •  17:36, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clean Up to Lead Section 

message: there isn't a 'standard view', if you ask Burton Malkiel he'll tell you one thing, and if you ask Jeremy Siegel he'll tell you another thing, and if you ask Andrew Lo he'll tell you another thing, and if you ask Paul Jones he'll tell you another thing, and besides this stuff doesn't belong in the lede  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.170.59.138 (talk) 22:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  there isn't a standard view 

message: I have started a Criticism and Controversy section at the bottom of the article. Please feel free to add sourced material to it. Keep in mind that editors can also place sourced criticisms in other appropriate sections of the article as well. Thanks. -- — Kbob • Talk •  15:41, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: yeah but, that just repeats what we already said, if there really are bear and bull markets, then EMH is wrong, and EMH is wrong  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.170.59.139 (talk) 22:20, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I believe this needs to be removed right away.  It is contradictory to the topic and should not be included on this page.  The section is also way too short to have its own section --Ryan Vesey (talk) 14:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism and Controversy section 

message: While the 1929 Wall Street crash is an example of a market doing poorly, I don't believe it accurately portrays most bear markets.  I think a better example would have been the period between mid 2007 to early 2009 when the markets consistently fell.--Ryan Vesey (talk) 13:24, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Examples

message: I have no idea which voodoo theory this is based (probably elliot wave) but it's 90% pseduoscientific drivel, no different ot astronomy. I'm not even sure if it's salvageable. Egg Centric 07:13, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article an utter piss take 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Market trend. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140705092716/http://books.google.com/books?id=gtrLvlojNzIC&pg=PA91&dq=stock+market+trends to http://books.google.com/books?id=gtrLvlojNzIC&pg=PA91&dq=stock+market+trends#v=onepage&q=stock%20market%20trends&f=false
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:07, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Reference [12] link is broken. 151.207.250.61 (talk) 18:01, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Link Broken 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Market trend. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110717184619/https://retirementplans.vanguard.com/VGApp/pe/PubVgiNews?ArticleName=Stayingcalmbearmkt to https://retirementplans.vanguard.com/VGApp/pe/PubVgiNews?ArticleName=Stayingcalmbearmkt
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:45, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Market trend. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160509115004/http://www.feltzwealthplan.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/compliance-Bull-and-Bear-Markets-chart-Oct-2014.pdf to http://www.feltzwealthplan.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/compliance-Bull-and-Bear-Markets-chart-Oct-2014.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160509115004/http://www.feltzwealthplan.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/compliance-Bull-and-Bear-Markets-chart-Oct-2014.pdf to http://www.feltzwealthplan.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/compliance-Bull-and-Bear-Markets-chart-Oct-2014.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:17, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I can't find authoritative sources for when bull and bear markets, and corrections, begin and end. For example, I've seen references to a bull market beginning as soon as stocks start moving upwards from the bottom of a trough, but I believe bull markets technically only begin once a new high is reached. Similarly, my understanding has been that a correction begins at the date when the market has declined by 10% and doesn't end until a new high is reached. However, some writers talk about markets entering and exiting correction territory whenever the market goes below or above the 10% threshold, to the irritation of others who hold that it remains in place until the next high. If someone could find authoritative sources to clarify this, that would be helpful. Pdxuser (talk) 11:09, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Begin and end points