Talk:Stock market

History

This section starts out with "Braudel". It should start as "Fernand Braudel" or "Historian Fernand Braudel" so readers who have no ]] 00:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

About the 'common misbelief' of the location of the van der beurze building : I'm pretty sure the story about Brugges is right after all. In the late 13th century Brugge was much more a location of trade than Antwerp was. There was a shift in activity from Brugges to Antwerp indeed, but this was later, it only came after the usage of the first stock market buildings. And yes, Antwerp soon had its own stock market building too when trade in the city flourished, it was named after the 'beurze' of brugges, and its activities were also modelled after those in Brugges.. however, this building had nothing to with the family van de beurze of Brugges anymore. Antwerp only started to become a primary place for trading after Brugges lost its gateway to the sea. At the height of Brugges trading periode Antwerp was only a minor city. Stock markets originated from the golden time of Brugges, so there is a lot wrong with the attempt to debunk this 'common misbelief'.

I'm not sure if I can juist replace this whole piece of text, I might do it when I got the right sources for it. (84.196.118.82 (talk) 14:35, 23 May 2010 (UTC))

I am concerned that a very straightforward piece of information, appropriate in an article about the stock market is missing. When did the US Stock Market, under any heading, begin? Ending the section on the "History" with something from the 16th century seems poorly finished. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.54.37.223 (talk) 23:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

History of Stock Market and Buffets comments

It seems to me the history is interesting, but there is hardly anything about the American stock market. I'd suggest that the stock market in the United States has changed quite a bit since it started.

I'd like to know when Mr Buffet made the comment quoted in the article. And, I'd suggest that the man started his career with a lot less than $100. He was only a boy, buying and re-selling candy. I think he bought several acres at the age of 11. Brian Pearson 23:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

U.S. Stock Market returns table

The table showing historical stock market returns has some use, but wouldn't it be more useful if it showed real returns after adjusting for inflation? It's possible that in this table, returns are already adjusted for inflation - but if so, this should pointed out in the section containing the table. --78.149.16.92 (talk) 11:22, 23 June 2011

I have no idea if this table is correct, nor what it is saying. And the footnote points to a page that only has figures going to 2002. (1) How can the compounded return be lower than simple return, if the returns are positive?? (2) Do these returns include dividends? Probably not, if the author did indeed use the source cited. And, if the returns don't include dividends, then it's not much of a table since, obviously, an investor wants to know what the TOTAL return would be.Star-lists (talk) 13:19, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Sources?

I barely see any sources mentioned, which is kind of scary since the stock market's such an important topic. For example, the claim that states, "Furthermore, the stock market comprises a large amount of speculative analysts, or pencil pushers, who have no substantial money or financial interest in the market, but make market predictions and suggestions regardless," is sourceless. Me, who's ignorant on that topic, has no idea whether or not to believe it. Tlasco Rydrion

Yes that particular sentence looks a little "unencyclopedic". I've asked around a bit, concerning sources, and I've created some links. But, I don't think I'm ready to tackle sources at this point, especially for an article like this. Brian Pearson 01:08, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I removed the sentence. Brian Pearson 03:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Please provide source for this sentence: "Over time, markets have become more "institutionalized"; buyers and sellers are largely institutions (e.g., pension funds, insurance companies, mutual funds, index funds, exchange-traded funds, hedge funds, investor groups, banks and various other financial institutions)". Please provide a study which shows that buyers and sellers are largely institutions. Charybdisz (talk) 15:23, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

We need something like the Securities Industry Fact Book: http://www.sifma.org/research/statistics/fact_book.html But it is not free. The 2002 edition, which is free, asserts: "Institutional investors owned a record 61.3% of the total value of U.S. equities outstanding last year, or $9.3 trillion of the $15.2 trillion of equities outstanding by the end of 2001." Charybdisz (talk) 10:41, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that no one really publishes reliable and free information about this sort of stuff. I can put in some references, but they'll be from books I have to get out of a university library. Even online journals that discuss the subject will likely be subscription based. P.gandal (talk) 17:59, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Infobox

Is there a compelling reason to include {{Financial markets}} here? It only causes clutter and it doesn't add anything relevant that the navbox at the bottom doesn't already add. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 20:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I like that infobox. I don't think it looks pretty in its current use. Probably there should be a picture above it, and then the infobox, but I haven't figured out the layout markup to make that happen. CRETOG8(t/c) 21:30, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Criticism?

In lieu of the global financial crisis this article could be more balanced if it provided criticism about the Stock Market system. ~~anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.101.201.143 (talk) 22:10, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that there shopuld be a Criticisms section. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree also. Surely it has been called gambling by some religious groups? Stars4change (talk) 05:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone call it idolatry (a false way)? Stars4change (talk) 04:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree there should be a section on the impact of the stock market on real life economy, what with the virtual values traded there not having any basis in actual produced goods and services. A big part of the mess we're in right now is due to the overinflated stock market as well as the shareholder-driven corporate governance.--88.152.127.97 (talk) 12:02, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

This is what an article titled "Stock Market Crash" is for. If criticism were to be included on this page, there would have to be a ton of competing views discussed, and the page would get long fast. Also, I don't think that people who come to this page with legitimate questions should have to read what various religious pressure groups think about it. P.gandal (talk) 17:50, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Derivatives market

I think it would be helpful to explain the world derivatives market, instead of just having it in an opening sentence. I didn't know what it was referring to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.136.219.237 (talk) 02:43, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

It is a link to a page about derivatives. That should be sufficient rather than explaining it again. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Public equity market title

Perhaps the article should be named "Public Equity Market" instead of "Stock market?" There are so many different asset classes that are investable in the stock exchanges, that I think it may be a misnomer to call it a stock market. 68.239.242.145 (talk) 15:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

If we did that, no one would be able to find the article. The article is called Stock Market because it describes the thing called the Stock Market. Besides, "public equity" means "stock". P.gandal (talk) 17:56, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Largest Stock Markets

It is surprising how much controversy a single sentence can generate at times. Since By78 has been blocked for two weeks because of his sock-puppetry and disruptive edits, maybe we can now reach some kind of consensus. The data from this article lists the largest stock exchanges in the world as follows:

Major Stock Exchanges : Year ended 31 December 2011 [1]

Rank	Economy	Stock Exchange	Location	Market Capitalization (USD Billions)	Trade Value (USD Billions)
1	United States Europe	NYSE Euronext (US & Europe)	New York City	14,242	20,161
2	United States Europe	NASDAQ OMX (US & North Europe)	New York City	4,687	13,552
3	Japan	Tokyo Stock Exchange	Tokyo	3,325	3,972
4	United Kingdom	London Stock Exchange	London	3,266	2,837
5	China	Shanghai Stock Exchange	Shanghai	2,357	3,658
6	Hong Kong	Hong Kong Stock Exchange	Hong Kong	2,258	1,447
7	Canada	Toronto Stock Exchange	Toronto	1,912	1,542
8	Brazil	BM&F Bovespa	São Paulo	1,229	931
9	Australia	Australian Securities Exchange	Sydney	1,198	1,197
10	Germany	Deutsche Börse	Frankfurt	1,185	1,758
11	Switzerland	SIX Swiss Exchange	Zurich	1,090	887
12	China	Shenzhen Stock Exchange	Shenzen	1,055	2,838
13	Spain	BME Spanish Exchanges	Madrid	1,031	1,226
14	India	Bombay Stock Exchange	Mumbai	1,007	148
15	South Korea	Korea Exchange	Seoul	996	2,029
16	India	National Stock Exchange of India	Mumbai	985	589
17	South Africa	JSE Limited	Johannesburg	789	372
18	Russia	MICEX	Moscow	771	514

To keep the list short and concise while making everyone happy, would it suffice to say that the largest markets are located in Canada, China, India, Japan, Spain, Germany, the United States and the United Kingdom? While this is a relatively minor edit, I feel that to avoid disruptive edits (i.e. By78's edits) it would be a good idea for us to reach some kind of consensus on this.

Vedant (talk) 00:56, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Gaussian versus Non-Gaussian Market Behavior

Inclusion of an external link to Non-Gaussian behavior in the body of the article violates Wikipedia standards, especially because there is a Non-Gaussianity link available to a stub article. Instead of relying on an unidentified external link not subject to the Wiki discipline, that stub should be expanded.

Lee-Anne (talk) 09:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Merge with Stock exchange?

Seems like they cover the same territory for the most part? Opinions? Vedant (talk) 04:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Charybdisz (talk) 15:25, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I disagree a bit. Combining the articles might make the result too long. The distinction between the economics of stocks and the physical places they are traded might be a useful dividing line. -- Beland (talk) 01:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Strongly Disagree. Stock Market is completely different from Stock Exchange. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajaychowdhery (talk • contribs) 00:51, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Disagree. They are different things and deserve dedicated articles in their own right. Unobjectionable (talk) 01:37, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Disagree. 'Stock Market' is a concept. 'Stock Exchange' is a physical manifestation of this concept. People who type SM into the search bar, likely aren't interested in the building that Japan's major stock exchange is located in. Can we get rid of the 'Merge' suggestion at the top of the page yet? It's been there for more than 6 months. P.gandal (talk) 17:46, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. The stock exchange runs the market. The share market is the shares that are traded. Information on the stock exchange relates to its rules and function. Information about the stock market is information about what shares are and their behaviour. Stephencalder (talk) 00:23, 7 June 2011 (UTC)Stephencalder

Disagree. Like others say above, the stock exchange is the concept of exchanging stocks. The stock market is an official place and market to hold such an exchange. There are several stock markets around the world. The two articles could be modified to show more differentiation. The two are very similar, but there is a fine line that separates them, they should not be merged in my opinion. MusicMan374 (talk) 03:33, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

To-Do List

The table showing historical stock market returns has some use, but wouldn't it be more useful if it showed real returns after adjusting for inflation? It's possible that in this table, returns are already adjusted for inflation - but if so, this should pointed out in the section containing the table. --78.149.16.92 (talk) 11:22, 23 June 2011 (UTC)User:kikuitadaki Why are "list all market makers ever" and "make new section on downside of stock market" on the to-do list? Where's the discussion about these points? A list of every market maker would be impossibly long, and far too specific for this page. The "downside" of the stock market seems to be pretty well addressed in the "irrational behaviour" and "stock market crash" sections. What other downsides are there? Those are the big ones that I am familiar with. P.gandal (talk) 17:16, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

up 300-down 200-up 150-down250

wait good news europe is fine-up 270.no hold up europe is not fine-down 330.ok we got this europe and unemployment is gonna be alright-up 230.no wait god damn hit the breaks europe and GDP is fa-kak-ta-down 370.you know the market has moved(up and down)about 6000 points in the last several months because of this it's fine it's not fine bullshit.as long as it's moving the pigs are making money. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.29.190.21 (talk) 21:21, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I am thinking about adding

I am thinking about adding a section to the stock market, specifically how it relates to wallstreet protests. Any ideas?

I am thinking about adding

I am thinking about adding a section to the stock market, specifically how it relates to wallstreet protests. Any ideas?Matt500180 (talk) 19:22, 1 December 2011 (UTC)