Talk:Market trend

Split Apart

 * 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)

Merge
I've merged all the bull/bear market related articles here, expanded and rewritten top-down; it is now basically new article. &mdash;Quarl (talk) 2006-02-01 03:50Z 
 * Ummm...was this conducted after a consultation? I did not see any merge tags over the last few days/weeks.  --nirvana2013 00:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I tend to be bold in the article space ("it's easier to ask for forgiveness than permission"). Do you prefer the way it was before?  &mdash;Quarl (talk) 2006-02-03 05:08Z 
 * Is there anyway I can refer back to the separate articles to compare? --nirvana2013 16:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, you can use the history tool. Or are you asking something else?  &mdash;Quarl (talk) 2006-02-03 16:43Z 
 * Yes it looks OK to me. In time a sub-article may need to open up for bull market and bear market, which could list all famous bull/bear markets etc. --nirvana2013 13:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

stubs
User:165.247.45.61 changed Bull market and Bear market from redirects to substubs. I don't see any reason to do that so I'm reverting if it's not justified. —Quarl (talk) 2006-03-22 05:03Z 

How do bears make money
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).

Through Spread Betting —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.109.66.150 (talk) 04:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

It's called a short position. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 21:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Intro edits, etc.
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)

Bull and bear
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) I think the Bear Market section has got messed up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_trend#Bear_market --Cwardell (talk) 12:57, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Numbers of Buyers and Sellers
"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)


 * 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)

Note in the third paragraph the following undocumented statement: Market trends are described as periods when bulls (buyers) consistently outnumber bears (sellers)....

This can not be true. The stock market is made up of willing sellers and willing buyers - there must be one willing seller and one willing buyer - there can not be "more" of one than the other. When there are more buyers than sellers, buyers are left out and can not buy, as seen in many IPO stocks where people want to buy on day one but the existing shares are already claimed by buyers who qualified to get the shares as they begin trading on day one. Likewise, when there are more sellers than buyers, the market for a security will collapse, as we saw in the recent seizure of the credit markets.

I think what someone wants to say here is that in a bear market, willing buyers will agree to purchase a stock reluctantly and at substantially lower prices. In a bull market, sellers are convinced to part with their shares because a willing buyer is eager to pay more. This is what is known as the "auction" marketplace -- and while there are many things that help "grease" the wheels of the market to avoid major disruptions, such as exchange approved "market makers" in individual stocks, essentially the rule must by any common sense standard continue to be someone willing to buy and someone willing to sell - two parties brought together in a complex marketplace. To say there are more buyers or sellers makes no sense to describe bear or bull markets. It makes sense only if you are describing a market collapse or an oversold IPO issue, where such a phrase would be accurate. Moneymattersradioshow (talk) 02:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear friends, you are correct there must be a one to one correlation for each stock market transaction ie one buyer and one seller. However stock trading is done auction style and if there are ten bidders and only two sellers the price will be driven up because there are more buyers bidding ie supply and demand. But I agree the article should state this concept more clearly and not assume that folks know this otherwise it creates confusion. thanks. Keithbob--Keithbob (talk) 13:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keithbob (talk • contribs)

Random walk etc
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)

"Secular"
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)

Esjones, your confusion is understandable, however in this case secular is the correct term and indicates a very long term trend that lasts 10-20 years. Keithbob--Keithbob (talk) 13:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Note on Etymology:
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)

What about now?
"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)

Hi Loganberry, The above paragraph refers to a downturn or correction within a bull (uptrending) market. What we are currently experiencing is a violent downturn within a bear market that most professionals are referring to as a market crash. Keithbob --Keithbob (talk) 02:57, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Random walk model & long term trend
"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)
 * 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)

Stock market bottom
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)

POV
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)


 * 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)

The Dollar
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)

Clean Up to Lead Section
I have today made several changes to the lede section to: 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
 * Succinctly introduce and define the topic see WP:LEDE
 * Remove POV and weasel wording such as "belief" etc. see WP:NPOV
 * 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)

Thank you to the editor who put the 'citation needed' tag in my comment above. You are correct it is not my place as an editor to say that something is real or not. What I should have said is that the concept of 'market trends' is a known concept that has been recognized and reported in various Wiki acceptable sources. This article is a work in progress and it may take some time for a few Wiki volunteer editors like me to cite the sources so please be patient if you can. At the same time if an editor feels that the topic is not notable or legitimate than they can nominate the article for deletion. However, having said these things I stand by my assertion that the lead of the article is to establish the topic and is no the place to undermine or attack the topic. Criticism from reliable sources can and should be included but in the body of the article but has no place in the lead. See WP:LEAD -- — Kbob •  Talk  • 15:30, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

The lead section of the unicorn article starts off by making it clear (in case the reader did not know) that the unicorn is a mythological creature. The concept of market trends is similarly mythological, and an encyclopedia should make this clear. Ehrenkater (talk) 17:09, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for your comments. According to Wiki policy we don't create standards for an article based on the practices of another article. We can and should include criticisms of the topic that are cited in reliable sources but this should be done in the body of the article. The article lead is not the place for controversy.-- — Kbob • Talk  • 15:33, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Could someone fix the wording here, make it clearer, more concise: Traders identify market trends using technical analysis, a framework which characterizes market trends as a predictable price tendencies within the market when price reaches support and resistance levels, varying over time.205.228.108.186 (talk) 00:10, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Unsupported, unlikely etymology
"The term comes from the historically triumphant seasons of the Chicago Bears in the 1920s{Citation needed}." This was added on October 5 and challenged soon afterwards. I'm removing it since it's wholly unsupported and even contradictors the concept of a bear market.

there isn't a standard view
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)

Criticism and Controversy section
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)


 * 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)
 * 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)

Examples
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)

Article an utter piss take
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)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link 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 II  Talk to my owner :Online 18:07, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

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

External links modified
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)

External links modified
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)

Begin and end points
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)