Aug
31
Quote of the Day, from Kim Zussman
August 31, 2010 |
"'There's nothing to take us higher so we're continuing to go lower,' said Dan Greenhaus , chief economic strategist at Miller, Tabak and Co."
(NOT A JOKE).
Nick White writes:
That's bad, but the all time award had to go to the guy some years ago who made the prescient and wise call: "Well, Maria, the market went down today because there were more sellers than buyers…."
Full marks, sir.
Comments
4 Comments so far
Archives
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- Older Archives
Resources & Links
- The Letters Prize
- Pre-2007 Victor Niederhoffer Posts
- Vic’s NYC Junto
- Reading List
- Programming in 60 Seconds
- The Objectivist Center
- Foundation for Economic Education
- Tigerchess
- Dick Sears' G.T. Index
- Pre-2007 Daily Speculations
- Laurel & Vics' Worldly Investor Articles
“Well, Maria, the market went down today because there were more sellers than buyers….”
well Nick, my experience says that the probability of buyers causing the market to go down, is greater than, or equal to the probability of the market going down on selling.
Admittedly my results are skewed due to restrictions of what stocks to admit into portfolios, set by relative float size.
when a big, medium or even small hedge fund is known to be going down, shutting its doors, or for watever reason abandoning daily operations, those sales are guaranteed to be met with lower prices, which is systemic utility.
in most all other circumstances, its public buying that causes prices to fall, simply because the rinse function is the surest way to sustain and neutralize activity, before trying to locate that which is bought is subject to review and audit.
Well, I’m not particularly clever, so you may be right. However, my belief is different to yours. I suppose your point is somewhat analogous to jumping and the laws of physics. You have a hypothesis that you can defy gravity, so you test it. It’s easy to say - at at the apex of your jump - that you are triumphing over gravity…yet a split second later, the laws re-assert themselves and you find yourself back on the ground.
And so it is with your point.
Whilst my comment was tongue in cheek, the truth remains: price fluctuations are, in part - but nonetheless a very large part - a function of supply and demand.
Revisit here: http://www.amazon.com/Principles-Microeconomics-N-Gregory-Mankiw/dp/0324319169/
and here:
http://www.amazon.com/Trading-Exchanges-Market-Microstructure-Practitioners/dp/0195144708/
Your hedge fund example is odd, too: those redemption sales are met with lower bids….because the other participants know the liquidating fund must sell!!! (see LTCM). Why pay 10 for a stock when you know a seller is reloading volume at every step on the way down? Vice-versa where the fund holds shorts.
I kind of see your point; buyers might be waiting for prices to go down….but they are in no way “causing” prices to go down as you suggest. In fact, they are behaving precisely as microeconomics 101 would suggest…lots of supply from sellers…less demand from buyers. Your probability comment definitely needs some revision!
Again, dumb public buying in the face of reloading paper is not “causing” prices to fall….it’s the paper doing it!
You actually believe what you believe. Here is what actual Supply is; The markets float is a relative constant, i’m surprised more folks dont appreciate that.
The Nasdaq Market Float Since 1997
Mon/Yr..Trade Days..# Compy..TotlVol…AverD Vol
Jul-97. 22…..6388… 14,659,052,996.. 666,320,591
Mar-98. 21…..6143… 17,694,084,535.. 842,575,454
Jul-99. 21…..5400… 21,249,135,986.. 1,001,863,618
Jan-00. 20…..5233.…. 33,859,912,232.. 1,692,995,612
Jul-03. 22…..3671… 38,984,813,325.. 1,772,036,969
Jan-04. 20…..3560… 46,649,555,963.. 2,332,477,798
Jul-05. 20…..3441.…. 33,681,072,462.. 1,684,053,623
Apr-06. 19…..3384… 40,846,016,058.. 2,149,790,319
Jul-07. 21…..3348… 46,780,102,818.. 2,227,623,944
Jan-08. 21…..3299… 56,616,100,438.. 2,696,004,783
Nov-08. 19…..3199… 42,460,731,579.. 2,234,775,346
Jul-09. 22…..3024… 48,456,198,558.. 2,202,554,480
Apr-10. 21…..2982… 53,597,263,077.. 2,552,250,623
May-10………2977….57,205,068,222.. 2,860,253,411
Sept10 2914companies avg daily Vol about 1.9bil.
Ha ha….Good one Nick !