Talk:Closing milestones of the Dow Jones Industrial Average

message: This section is basically speculation and isn't really encyclopedic. In my opinion, the history aspect of this article is great, but the future predictions should be eliminated. Carrp | Talk 05:30, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I very much agree and removed the main speculation and moved the rest of the text up to the intro, above the lists. Seems like the list could use coverage of the Great Depression-related bear market, since it was such a major shaper of the US in the 20th century. Niteowlneils 04:44, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: No more all-time highs

message: "A new bull market cannot begin until market valuation (measured by way of PE ratio) is back to multi-decade lows."
That is a POV statement predictive of the future that isn't even sourced. The offical defination of a secular bull market is however such that until the DOW makes an all time high, neither the end of the previous bear market nor the beginning of that bull market can be called. Jon 13:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed POV statement

message: Crossing 10,000, 9000, 8000 in the downward direction is just as interesting as crossing them in the upward direction. Jon 13:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Add more milestones please

message: On January 14, 2000, the intra day high was 11750.28 this is according to both Forbes magazine and CNN. Moorematthews 13:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Intra day high

message: The intraday high on January 14, 2000 was indeed 11750.28 "according to some but not substantiated by any intraday chart" (quote interjected by Anonymous); however, the "theoretical high", which is calculated as if the intraday highs of all 30 stocks were hit at once, was 11908.50 "and substantiated by intraday graphs [links at bottom]" (also interjected by Anonymous). This 150+ point spread between the "actual" and "theoretical" highs may be accounted for by the fact that January 14, 2000 was an extremely volatile trading day, meaning that the individual stock highs may have been highly spread in time. 
The "theoretical" method was the only way to calculate highs or lows until early 1992, when technology allowed the index to be calculated every 10 seconds. Even on October 4, 2006, when the actual high eclipsed the intraday high of six years before by 100 points, the theoretical high of 11879 still failed to set a new record. This may have been caused by a number of factors, including the decrease in volatility between 2000 and 2006 and the dynamics of that particular trading day. The actual high of 11851 was set seconds before the close, meaning that in all likelihood the vast majority of the 30 stocks hit their highs simultaneously. 
During the 2000-2002 bear market, the lows were (closing, actual, theoretical): 
(7286, 7197, 7181) on October 9-10, 2002. As many will recall, a market-wide rally ensued upon breaking 7200 on October 10, and virtually no new lows were hit in any of the individual stocks for the rest of the day. Thus, there was only a 16-point spread for actual and theoretical lows in spite of high general volatility.
65.27.233.132 12:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Concept of Theoretical vs. Actual Dow

message: The link is dead.  If anyone knows what this link should point to, please feel free to fix it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CodeCarpenter (talk • contribs) 20:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Century of the Dow 

message: With the Dow now above 10% from the pre-Bear market high, I think we can safely say 2002 was the end of the Dow Bear Market and that also marks the beginning of the current Dow Bull market. (Note that we can not say the same thing for the S&P and especally not the Nasdaq) Jon 16:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 2003 or 2004, the bear market was still prevailant.  By 2004 and 2005, the market was beginning to recover thanks to China and the housing market.   However, since 2006, there's has been a bull market.  The showing of the full recovery from that subprime mortgage meltdown in February and the unexpected earnings this quarter shows the economy has been tested through housing bubble brusting.  Today's show has me wondering if we're back to this 90s bull market. Spongefan 21:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  But isn't the defination of the end of the bear market for a stock index, the lowest such price from the previous peak? Per this article that was in Oct 2002. Jon 23:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Answering my own question, I guess not; since otherwise the Great Depression era Bear Market would be recorded as ending in early 1932. Jon 23:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

text:  The start of the bull market is controversial and more discussion is needed before its causes can be identified in an encyclopedic fashion.  I would say the Dow was very bullish from March 2003 all the way to February 2004, and then pretty bearish for most of 2004. Then, some would argue we were still in a bear because the Dow was down for the 2005 calendar year, yet it seems superficial to call the start of the bull market 2006 just because the old high was passed then. The other bull market start dates in this article (1949, 1982, etc.) seem to be based on when the P/E ratio of the Dow hit its low for the time period. If anyone knows when this happened in the past five years, they should edit the article accordingly. Until then, it should probably be reverted. 129.137.228.196 22:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "2000 - undetermined" Bear market. 

message: Any reason why the milestone values are NOT formatted with a comma (e.g., 13000) but the actual closing values ARE formatted with a comma (e.g., 13,000)?  Is this intentional or oversight?  Thanks.  (JosephASpadaro 03:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Commas in big nos

message: Why are some of the numbers and dates in italics?  Do these have some special significance? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ArqMage (talk • contribs) 17:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They seem to be the "milestones" within the milestones: 100 - then 1,000 - then 5,000 - then 10,000 - etc.  I suspect the next will be 15,000.  Thanks. (JosephASpadaro 21:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think that it is evrytime another digit is added, for example 100, 1000, 10000, 100000, etc... If someone else has any idea about the italics, please chime in. King1257 (talk) 20:20, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

text: I think the italicized milestones should be 100, 1000, 5000, 10000, 15000, 20000, 25000, 30000, etc. For me, having the italicized at each 5000 milestone makes the table easier to read. 71.188.25.68 (talk) 05:46, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Italics in chart 

message: Could someone please source this?  Either a citation or a link to Wikipedia somewhere...definitely not a link to the War in Iraq!  I've never heard of this commodity boom, so either cite it or pull it out!  Thanks :)  --Lalala666 22:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 2000s commodity boom?

message: Reports on new all-time highs for the Dow Jones or any other stock market have always bothered me, and fortunately others    as well, as inflation is stubbornly ignored. This happens elsewhere as well; two years back I converted the list of most expensive paintings to an inflation-adjusted list in which Van Gogh's "Irises", that sold for $54 million in 1987, rightfully beats Picasso's  "Dora Maar au Chat" that sold for $95 million in 2006. Still, you can be sure that the next painting sold for a dollar over $140 million (the ridiculous 2006 record price for a Jackson Pollock painting, of all things) will be hailed everywhere as the most expensive work of art ever sold. Somehow the proclamations of new highs remind me of the announcements in Nineteen Eighty-Four on the supposedly ever-declining price of chocolate. I'm blissfully ignorant of economics, and someone may explain here (and in the article, please) why inflation does not matter. Otherwise, an inflation adjusted graph should be welcome here. In it, one would see that the January 14, 2000 high of 11723 still represents an all-time high. Afasmit (talk) 21:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The presence of inflation is only significant when analyzing real value of the stock market. This page is purely to report the milestones by the DJI, which are nominal figures. Your point is well taken, but is not  appropriate for this page I would imagine. Bravosfan567 (talk) 19:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Inflation

message: This article should include info about the Dow's all time low.  This is the info that I was looking for, and it isn't here.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.203.144.158 (talk) 16:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: All time low

message: I added this sub-section -Manic Monday - since this is sub-milestone by itself, record one day for 112 years and since 75 years per LA Times and NYT.--Florentino floro (talk) 08:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes the removal of anything related to current events is appropriate since they are still unsettled at the moment and the article has a longer perspective. Either of three things was inevitable when one looks at the DOW over it's entire history with respect to the observed curve: a smooth continued exponential growth either under the bases of the bubbles or thru their midpoints which would have brought the DOW to 20K by 2010; a leveling out at some point and then lateral movement; or a crash and complete deflation of the bubbles as well as a deep cut into the overall secular trend since the mid eighties. At this point it's still unclear what the final outcome would be and in the perspective of this article at least a years worth of observation would be necessary before naming the current stage. Lycurgus (talk) 01:57, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Since 75 years ago

message: The article needs definitions of secular bear market and cyclical bear market. It has the equivalents for bull markets. Nurg (talk) 04:46, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bear market definitions needed 

message: Sorry, this Theoretical Dow stuff needs to be deleted.  To be clear, the reason is because the higher the volatility, the higher the theoretical high.  Volatility should be irrelevant.  We could care less about how the dow was calculated long ago.  It's not relevant whatsoever to anything.  It just causes confusion.  It's like publishing the weekly highs, or the S&P daily high if all the stocks in the S&P reached their highs at the same time in the week.  It's total nonsense.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasontaylor7 (talk • contribs) 19:17, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm inclined to agree with you.  If they track all 30 components all day long, why would it be useful to have a number which assumes that all 30 components reached their daily high at the same time of the day (when they almost never do).  These "theoretical" numbers have been part of the article for years, though.  Anyone want to jump to their defense before we remove them?DavidRF (talk) 19:48, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. I find the theoretical value more interesting for longterm informational purposes. It shows, arguably to a point, whether the actual high was a blip in the radar or if the actual high was maintained for a prolonged period of time. As a side note the theoretical high might take place on a different day from the actual high, further strengthening my point. King1257  — Preceding unsigned comment added by King1257 (talk • contribs) 20:37, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: My take is that its the opposite of what you say.  If Chevron and ExxonMobil hit their highs in the morning and P&G and J&J hit their highs in the afternoon then the Theoretical Dow will have moved a lot more in the day than the Dow.  I thought the point of using many stocks in your index was to smooth out the noise of each individual stocks behavior... but with the theoretical Dow the intra-day radar blips will be magnified which is the opposite of telling you if things are being maintained for a long period of time.DavidRF (talk) 22:27, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess you have convinced me especially due to the outdated nature of the theoretical high. The only other reason to keep it would be to compare the pre-1992 closings which used the theoretic high numbers to the current theoretical high as this is more appropriate compariblity to pre-1992.King1257 (talk) 13:56, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theoretical Dow BS 

message: Is there anyway we can get new graphs? The current ones are five years old, which by itself doesn't sound that old, but we have gone through a deep bear market and bull market since then. King1257 (talk) 20:56, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: New Graphs

message: Is there a way to add (or link to) consecutive high record days such as 12/20/13, 12/23/13 and 12/24/13?  Or is it in here somewhere and I'm not seeing it?
Fiveinchheels (talk) 22:17, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Consecutive highs

message: This is about the recent removal of some 100-point milestone increments. Note that the Dow Jones has been essentially undergoing exponential growth (as expected, perhaps). The 100-point increments would be more appropriate for something that grows linearly, not exponentially. Taking this into consideration, it is not unfathomable that in the future, the Dow Jones will fluctuate daily by thousands of points, and the 100-point increments would not adequately reflect the activity of the DJIA.
Further incentive for the removal of some of the increments is that it does not put the jump from, say 500 to 600 into perspective. Reaching 600 from 500 is far more significant than reaching 16100 from 16000.
Please voice any concerns here, or, post on my talk page (this is faster, and preferred) if you disagree with this action. Thanks. — Andy W. (talk · contrib) 18:03, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: After consideration I liked your point and agree that the way it was being handled before with 100-point increments all of the way up to current the old data was not being emphasized enough. Along that same line I added some data to the bottom end of the spectrum. I made the following changes: 10-point increments are used up to the 200 level, 50 to 500, 100 to 2,000, 500 to 5,000, and 1,000-point increments thereafter. Let me know if this sounds appropriate, I figured that we should use the same scale all the way up for consistancy and to show the old data with the same level of detail that the newer data is being shown with. The only issue I see is if this pattern is extrapolated out, there will be a 5,000-point jump after 20,000, however, in theory if the dow keeps growing exponentially this would only be a temporary problem. Anyone let me know if they have any better solutions to the exponential problem. Thanks King1257 (talk) 13:39, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I have been wondering when this kind of change would happen. It seems obvious to me that one is losing prospective of how indexes are changing when there is too much data. I would suggest that one should ignore the point changes in favor of percentage changes, but that would be difficult to implement and to understand. But I feel uncomfortable with the details of your suggestion, as it seems to introduce inequality in the changes of the jumps. To make the changes understandable and even are conflicting goals. But let suggest this as one which falls on the evenness side: From 100 to 200, jumps of 10; from 200 to 400, jumps of 20; from 400 to 800, jumps of 40; ... from 100 x 2n to 100 x 2n+1, jumps of 10 x 2n. To repeat myself, this is not practicable or understandable and I most surely do not favor it. (A mathematician might suggest: From 100 to 316 (square root of 10), jumps of 10; from 316 to 1000, jumps of 30; ... .) Anyway, I strongly agree  with the idea of scaling the increments in proportion to the base, even if I have cavils about the details.     Of course, the same is true of the S&P 500, and whatever change it ought to be applied equally to both indexes.  TomS TDotO (talk) 09:39, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: One idea that I had in changing the scaling point that the milestones occure is haing it be in increments of 10 from 100 to 200, increments of 20 from 200 to 500, increments of 50 from 500 to 1000, 100 from 1000 to 2000, 200 from 2000 to 5000, etc... This doesn't completely eliminate the inequalities, but it does lessen them. I am going to change the increment scale on the chart to reflect this change. Let me know if anyone has any more input on this. King1257 (talk) 14:06, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Your suggestion makes me think of the common changes in currency denominations: 1, 2, 5, 10, 20, 50, 100. Easy to understand.   TomS TDotO (talk) 15:29, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

text: King1257, I am strongly in favor of reverting your recent additions on 6 June 2014, back to increments starting with 10, not 5. The list currently takes up half the scrolling length of the article. Is this article meant to be text-heavy, or be primarily a list of Dow points with dates? One of the minor reasons for my cuts a few days ago is to reduce the size of the list, as it has begun overshadowing much of the other content of the article. If you really prefer a list that long, I may suggest cutting some text, so that the article feels more like a list (if that was intended). Otherwise, I'm in favor of cutting some of the increments again. Thanks. — Andy W. (talk · contrib) 23:15, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Upon reflection, I just changed my mind; it was just a thought that not many people would need that amount of detail, and having a list that long would have a negative impact for the reader... but please do what you see fit. — Andy W. (talk · contrib) 23:22, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of some 100-point milestone increments 

message: The other page has little to add, but is at best redundant and, if not merged, deleted.   TomS TDotO (talk) 15:58, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical record closes of the Dow Jones Industrial Average 

message: Earlier this morning, I thought about a consistent set of milestone increments for Wall Street's major stocks: Dow Jones, NASDAQ, and S&P 500. 1-point increments are used up to the 50-point level; 5 to 100; 10 to 500; 20 to 1,000; 50 to 3,000; 100 to 10,000; 200 to 20,000; and 500-point increments thereafter.--OfficerAPC (talk) 21:09, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consistent Increments of Wall Street 

message: When we use milestones, we mean the Dow Jones has surpassed a certain level, whether it is predetermined or a peak from a previous year.  Same thing goes for the NASDAQ and S&P 500.--OfficerAPC (talk) 00:12, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding Milestones 

message: What do I misunderstand about the theoretical high? The Barron's page records the theoretical high, as I read it, reaching new highs. Can someone explain to me why that has been reverted?     TomS TDotO (talk) 20:46, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theoretical high 

message: ...it's an average. Strictly speaking, the value should be given in dollar terms.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.2.34.156 (talk) 09:09, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  It's not an index... 

message: ISTM that the numbered notes should be done by the ordinary means, like footnotes for citations, rather than the clumsily with marking superscripts etc. The standard method has many benefits. I would go on to make the change, but it will take some effort, and anyone would be deterred from the task with the prospect that it will be reverted. Or, for that matter, if there is some method to make it easier.    TomS TDotO (talk) 14:57, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notes 

message: The "Records" section (which says the currently standing closing, intraday, and theoretical intraday records) is currently in the middle of the page, with a bunch of less interesting stuff below it. Can we please move it back to the very bottom, where it was for at least a year and where the corresponding section is on the analogous articles for the S&P 500 and the NASDAQ Composite? I can understand wanting to put something more important (the "Records" section) above something less important, but if it is buried in the middle that is actually worse, the top and the bottom give more salience to this especially useful section. If nobody objects than I might personally make this edit. Fluoborate (talk) 03:03, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can we please move the "Records" section to the very bottom again? 

message: With a related article merged into this one, I'm thinking we should clean up the article to make it easier to navigate.--OfficerAPC (talk) 22:55, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clean Up Needed 

message: I found a Yahoo Finance article that includes a table showing the number of all-time highs by year.  All but the following years report the same number.
* 1927 (Difference by 2: 48 on Wikipedia and 50 on Yahoo)
* 1954 (Difference by 1: 13 on Wikipedia and 14 on Yahoo)
* 1958 (Difference by 1: 25 on Wikipedia and 26 on Yahoo)
* 1966 (Difference by 1: 8 on Wikipedia and 9 on Yahoo)
* 1987 (Difference by 1: 55 on Wikipedia and 56 on Yahoo)
* 1990 (Difference by 1: 15 on Wikipedia and 16 on Yahoo)
* 1994 (Difference by 1: 12 on Wikipedia and 13 on Yahoo)
* 2017 (Difference by 1: 35 on Wikipedia and 34 on Yahoo)
I think we should figure out what we are missing.--OfficerAPC (talk) 02:43, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of All-Time Highs 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Closing milestones of the Dow Jones Industrial Average. 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/20131005004342/http://www.automationinformation.com/DJIA/dow_jones_closing_prices_1911_to_1920.htm to http://www.automationinformation.com/DJIA/dow_jones_closing_prices_1911_to_1920.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131005004054/http://www.automationinformation.com/DJIA/dow_jones_closing_prices_1921_to_1930.htm to http://www.automationinformation.com/DJIA/dow_jones_closing_prices_1921_to_1930.htm
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) 17:24, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Prediction of an economic effect of a major change in market valuations so far seems about as reliable as astrological charts. A stock market crash as in 1987 can be a blip -- or a sign of an impending meltdown in the economy. The 28.3% reduction in share values (I write this on 3/13/2020) is a huge, swift  drop in valuation; we may have different interpretations of what such means. We do not know what follows.
Most serious recessions have a big decline in securities prices as at the least a portent. 
We do not know yet. I have thus treated the statement that the world is not on the brink of a serious recession as dubious. So far market valuations look like a 'falling knife'. That can continue or come to an end, and nobody can predict when that perception (and reality) come to an end. Pbrower2a (talk) 07:22, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  March 2020 crash not a portent of a serious recession? 

message: The  section lists the all-time low closing price of 41.22 on July 8, 1932. Shouldn’t it be 40.94 on May 26, 1896 (the first day of the DJIA calculation), listed in the  section? — UnladenSwallow (talk) 08:06, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  All-time low closing price