Talk:Day trading

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee Day trading was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
February 8, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed

Untitled[edit]

My changes to this article were significant and I hope to add more to this article as well as the empty tributary articles. If you see any mistakes or faux pas, please let me know. --Tony C- 22:09, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Tech Analysis[edit]

Technical analysis has been added to See Also section. Fundamental analysis is listed there, and day traders use just as much (probably more) technical analysis as fundamental analysis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.55.173.184 (talk) 03:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

anti day-trading bias in 1st para[edit]

I have fixed some of the anti day trading bias in the 1st para but there is work to be done. I do not see why the activity is any more risky than any other trading: If you are dealing in cars, in tomatoes or, say, stocks and shares, then all these can be risky - especially so if you do so with a loan from your bank or broker. And margin trading is just that, a loan from your broker. Losses are common but so are gains, not just "occasionally". And of course professionals (i.e. successful day traders) and banks do day trading also!!!! It does not just refer to Joe Soap, bored househusband, risking the housekeeping money. Paul Beardsell 19:33, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't know how to put this other than to be blunt. This article is just plain wrong. The definitions are largely incorrect. I have checked several investment dictionaries and Google to see if there is more than one common usage of the terms, and I have not found any of them at odds with what I would have considered the standard. I have daytraded full-time for a living for four years now.
To my mind, the information as a whole is misleading and omits most of the action that makes up "daytrading".
I'm open to discussion and correction, but I'm going to go ahead and rewrite it top to bottom. --Masonbarge
The current article isn't bad at all. I used to be a day trader too, and can attest to the accuracy of what we have here now. One thing missing is the formal "Regulation T" definition of how the US IRS defines day trading. I'll add it to my to-do list. Owen× 17:17, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
I should be more specific, I guess, if I allege mistakes (I have already redone some of this):
  • Trend trading has almost nothing to do with time period. It refers to a strategy that can be used in any time frame from 5 minutes to 5 years, although probably 2 hours to 6 months would be more common.
  • Swing trading has to do with time period
  • "Position trading" involves holding issues over long periods of time
  • There is an enormous emphasis on spread trading. I really don't know of anyone other than market makers who do this as their primary strategy any more. The "SOES bandits" made fortunes on it, but that is historical and the market makers will fleece anyone they notice doing it today. Really, this belongs in the historical section.
  • There is no real discussion of trend trading, news and earnings trading, technical trading, range trading, or scalping, which are the techniques used by most day traders.
Reg. T is a Federal Reserve Bank regulation, not an IRS reg. I think the IRS only defines "trader" as opposed to "investor". The IRS also is important in the choice of accounting methods (specifically, using mark-to-market accounting). These are all important to the professional day trader but are not peculiar to day trading as opposed to other kinds of trading. --Masonbarge

Move to WikiBooks?[edit]

I've recently been reading about WikiBooks and there is some desire to move How-To information out of WikiPedia over there. Obviously this page has quite of a bit of How-To information (e.g. Techniques) which could be moved. I think it'd be nice to have a real instruction manual for Day Trading but it sounds like a bigger project than just editing this page, but maybe it doesn't have to be. For example see wikibooks:Technical Analysis Any thoughts? Ewlyahoocom 14:50, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Merge with day trader?[edit]

Shouldn't this article be merged with day trader? S Sepp 16:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

No. In fact, it should simply never have been created. It appears to have existed happily as a redirect until 11 March 2006 when User:Typelighter started turning it into an article (see the history of that page). (Even more confusing is that he never even seems to have made an edit to Day trading.) I'll post a note on his page asking him to explain. Ewlyahoocom 17:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
No. For the same reason that we have articles for economics and economist; biology and biologist; or science and scientist. Typelighter 12:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
I'd have different articles. though they'd definately have very similar content in each article.Mynameiscurtis

external links[edit]

Removed Stock Broker Career from external links. Talous 10:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Merge Suggestion[edit]

This article should be merged into day trading for the following reasons:

  • Article in day trading is in much more depth than this one. This article should thus be merged into, NOT merged from
  • Many info in this article is an duplication of day trading
  • This term is related to day trading, so this article qualifies a redirect type of {{R from related word}}
  • Other articles do the same (eg scalper, scalpers, scalping)

--Wai Wai 19:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I oppose the merging because day trader is the professional and day trading is the activity/investment strategy. Your proposal was made many times before, and I think the conclusion was to maintain two articles, one for day trading and other for day trader. Page Up 12:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Merge (to here) the only thing day trader talks about is daytrading --Smallbones 12:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I merged most contents related to day trading here and remove the redundancy on "day trader" article first. Please discuss whether a redirect is more suitable since it qualifies "Category:Redirects from related words" --Wai Wai 10:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Zero-sum[edit]

I removed a paragraph describing day-trading as "negative-sum". This looked like original research, and was not strictly true: The number of players in the "game" is always changing, and inflation as well as economic growth make stock prices grow on average. Therefore zero-sum or non-zero-sum comparisons are of little use. Yandman 08:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Lack of any peer reviewed references or criticism[edit]

This article is completely devoid of any peer reviewed papers studying day trading. Furthermore, very little criticism of day trading is mentioned. Scott5834 16:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Scott. When starting new threads on talk pages, always add them to the bottom. And don't forget to sign your posts with ~~~~. Anyway, I agree that there are few references. However, the article is, in my opinion, neutral. The facts, and risks, are presented fairly. Remember that we are here to give facts, not to help the reader by giving him advice. Previous versions of this article read like warning leaflets, and so we changed them to try and keep an encyclopaedic tone. What particular criticisms would you like to add? yandman 09:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, I feel the article is still giving advice. Sections like Key of success read like a magazine article promoting day trading. I'd like some analysis (in the form of reviewed papers) on whether day trading really involves skill/strategies or is merely gambling. There's one paper mentioned in the article (the only referenced peer reviewed paper), "Do Individual Day Traders Make Money? Evidence from Taiwan", but I've read many others contradicting this. I'll see if I can dig up references. Scott5834 13:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
True. Would you be interested in trying to bring this article to GA (or even FA) status? Anyone else interested? Tell me, and maybe I'll set up a wiki-project so that we can get this show on the road... yandman 14:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Sounds like a lot of work, but I'd be willing to help! Scott5834 18:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Froody. I'll get a few things up and running tomorrow. yandman 20:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Citecheck template[edit]

Citecheck is an unusual template that has a very narrow purpose: it points to misuse of citations, such as quotes taken out of contexts or article statements that aren't supported by a cited source. Citecheck doesn't apply if the problem is a need for more citations or if the article has an imbalanced point of view. I suspect that some other template would be more appropriate for this article. Please review. Durova 21:05, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Sounds right. Go ahead and change the template to something more appropriate. Scott5834 21:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Put some new templates up. yandman 08:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Improvement Drive[edit]

This section of the talk page is for discussing changes that have been, and should be, made to Day trading in order to get it to GA-status. Reply to the posts below if you've found something suitable, or add a new item if you think we've overlooked something. yandman 09:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

  • References. We need to get more refs, preferably online, but if anyone's got magazine/newspaper articles on day trading, that would be a great help.
  • Images. A few images would be good. One of a hectic floor-trading session, one of a graph showing important variations over the course of the day, and maybe one for each technique.
I've put up "Cisco_Oct_30.JPG", but I'm sure there are better ones. yandman 13:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Tone. As it stands, this article has lots of decent content, but reads more like a manual rather than an encyclopaedia article. We aren't here to gice advice or warnings. We're here to give facts.

Recycle Bin[edit]

If you've removed material from the article but feel it could be useful, put it here. If you've found some useful info but don't know where it should go, put it here. yandman 09:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Key of success

Day trading is never intended to be an easy game. It is a very difficult game in which 80-90% of day traders lose. In order to be successful in day trading, one should satisfy the following requirements:

  1. Trader's Requirements:
    1. Good Mentality - Day trading is a mentally and psychologically challenging activity and is by no means meant for everyone
    2. Quick Decision-making - one needs to think very quickly in order to make prompt and correct decisions.
    3. Fast Reaction - even if one can spot on opportunities very quickly, it needs fast hands to execute your decisions. Opportunities can be missed within a second in a rapid market.
    4. Discipline - Day trading requires strong discipline, or one will easily deviate from what one plans beforehand
    5. Risk and money management - good risk and money management helps to minimize losses and maximize profits. Some may suggest one should limit their losses to no more than 2-5% of the working capital on a single trade. An Anti-Martingale approach to money management will reduce the chance of devastating losses.
    6. Technical Analysis - Technical analysis is required to gain a winning edge in the day trading world. Fundamental analysis has nothing to do with predicting daily or short-term price movements.
  2. Facilities Requirements:
    1. Enough Capital - At least US$25,000 is required for US citizens according to the US National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. (NASD) Rule. Accounts with significantly more balances are better because this can help day traders to withstand a period of drawdown from a series of bad trades, and to allow some diversification among strategies.
    2. Advanced Facilitates and tools - Many day traders use computers, technical analysis software and the Internet as their main working tools.
    3. Direct access to the exchange - They need direct access trading systems to facilitate their trades. They need to know to route their orders to get the fastest executions and the best prices.
I removed this from the article, it reads too much like a manual. But there's some useful information that could be worked into the rest of the article. yandman 09:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Risk of day trading

According to the US Securities and Exchange Commission, "most individual investors do not have the wealth, the time, or the temperament to make money and to sustain the devastating losses that day trading can bring." [1] They list several facts that every daytrader should know

  • Be prepared to suffer severe financial losses
Day traders typically suffer severe financial losses in their first months of trading, and many never graduate to profit-making status.
  • Day traders do not 'invest'
  • Day trading is an extremely stressful and expensive full-time job
  • Day traders depend heavily on borrowing money or buying stocks on margin
Borrowing money to trade in stocks is always a risky business.
  • Don't believe claims of easy profits
  • Watch out for 'hot tips' and 'expert advice' from newsletters and websites catering to day traders
  • Remember that "educational" seminars, classes, and books about day trading may not be objective
  • Check out day trading firms with your state securities regulator
Same reason. yandman 09:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Reference:

GA nomination[edit]

Failure[edit]

I guess my issue is, overall, are the sources for this article, or the lack of. Further tone seems a bit encyclopaedic, such as referring to the day-traders as "they" in many concurrent sentences.

I think overall the article is good, but not good enough to fulfil the "good article" requirements (see WP:WIAGA). It would be hard to verify a lot of what is said in this article. However, If you could somehow incorporate citations and backup the claims in the article, then that would make a huge different and the article should then be re-considered for review.

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is well written.
    a (prose): b (structure): c (MoS): d (jargon):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (inline citations): c (reliable): d (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
  5. It is stable.
  6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
    a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):

--Nja247 (talkcontribs) 20:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Retail day trading locations?[edit]

It seems very strange that in America, you can go to a casino to pull a slot machine lever and lose several percent of your money on average with each pull, but there aren't (that I know of) places where you can go to wager limited amounts of cash on day trading. It would seem a very attractive retail idea - set up a coffeehouse environment with computers and multiple news monitors and coin-operated "slot machines" that automatically buy a number of shares (on the house's margin) from a given exchange, and sell them some seconds later, returning a percentage of any profits as a payout (also perhaps providing a valuable information source...). People could hang out there, eat, chat, watch the news, try their luck on the machines, and unlike at the casino, they'd come out ahead a little more often than behind, and with much more enjoyment. I remember seeing a documentary describing that people often buy and sell stocks in a social retail environment in China - is something like this legal in the U.S.? If so, is it done? Mike Serfas 05:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I've never heard about anything like this in the United States. It would be fun to establish that sort of a business, but, entirely subjectively, I doubt it would attract many customers, even in New York City. Cww (talk) 07:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
There were such places back in the beginning of the 20th century. They were called "bucket shops" (take a look here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bucket_shop_%28stock_market%29 ). But today, with electronic markets and internet I doubt such an enterprise makes any sense. 77.240.251.193 (talk) 09:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Stock graph[edit]

The "stock" graph at the top of this article is abysmal. It has no labels, no values, and no real content other than a jagged line. I'm not at liberty to post screenshots of my own trading software, but perhaps someone else could? Cww (talk) 07:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

maximum increase or decrease in a value of a stock[edit]

On the TSE, what is the maximum increase or decrease per day on a single stock —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.80.159.194 (talk) 13:01, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Characteristics section[edit]

In particular the first section (Trade frequency) is poorly written. I have a number of issues with it.

1. It hardly talks about frequency at all. Do we even need a sub header at all?

2. It talks about scalping and shaving... shouldn't these be in the Techniques section?

3. What is even the difference between scalping and shaving... I am unclear....

4. I think bid and ask are mixed up, ie why would someone sell at 10.209 when someone's bidding 10.21? I think the article meant to say the offer is 10.21.

5. In US equities, how do you even place sub-penny orders? ie I don't think you can even send at order at 10.209

6. After describing the scalping strategy, which is making profit on the spread, the article talks about making money by trading large price movements. I find it confusing because it doesn't clearly explain this is a different strategy... and in any case should this also go in the Techniques section?

I'm new to editing but I'm going to go ahead and take a stab at it with these ideas.Timidpueo (talk) 05:11, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Opinion in article. Comment invited[edit]

The following, or similar, has been added by several anonymous IPs. I happen to agree with the sentiments expressed, but it doesn't sound very encyclopaedic to me. Would anyone like to comment or improve the paragraphs? The source seems to be an Italian social journal. Could we quote this directly instead of copying the opinion as fact? Dbfirs 12:13, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Added paragraphs:
Day trading is not to be considered as investment since its objective is merely to speculate. Speculation, as a personal behavior, is condemned in a moral context.
A great concern is the moral evaluation of the behavior of the individuals within the economic system; individual is bound to refrain from conduct detrimental to the moral good in itself, particularly from speculative forms morally reprehensible. The endorsement of social and legal does not exempt from moral responsibility towards binding moral , once the latter was seen and accepted. [1]
Whether day trading is an investment seems relevant to the article. Whether speculation is immoral is beyond the scope of this article; it might have a place at speculation, but then I'd like to see some better sources. Huon (talk) 07:04, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. Our anon IPs from Italy have been particularly persistent. Dbfirs 18:28, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
151.19.34.196;
151.19.49.77;
151.36.75.13;
151.43.49.240;
151.43.115.43;
151.44.130.242;
151.44.153.8;
151.44.205.161;
151.47.186.25
and 151.82.154.14 have all been adding the same opinion. Are they all the same editor, or are they members of a group who have been collaborating to get their material into the Wikipedia article? Dbfirs 18:17, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Google translations of the reference do not seem to address day trading specifically so is not really relevant. Either way, discussion of the ethics of day trading should be in its own section and does not at this time belong in the lead. Until there is a consensus about the ethics the lead should not specifically mention it. noq (talk) 23:57, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I agree, so we'll just continue reverting these irrelevant additions from this IP range. Dbfirs 08:22, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


The following comment was added by our anonymous Italian friend on April 1st 2016 (moved to here from top of page and unbolded): Dbfirs 08:28, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

DAY TRADING, SPECULATION AND THE MORAL PROBLEM[edit]

Day trading is not investment since its objective is MERELY TO SPECULATE; in fact main difference between speculation and investment is the time horizon: the trader search profit continuously, while the investor manages its savings in an enlarged time frame. As indicated in the Journal of ethics and social sciences INDIVIDUALS ARE OBLIGED TO AVOID SPECULATIVE FORMS MORALLY REPREHENSIBLE. The social and legal endorsement does not exempt from moral responsibility. http://tradingonline-a-moral-problem.blogspot.it/ Unsigned comment added at 09:40 on April 1, 2016‎ by 5.170.14.158

Let's be clear about this: we're trying to build an encyclopedia here, not a guide to good behaviour. If you want to launch a moral crusade please don't do it here. It's possible that there's scope for an article on Criticism of day trading. If you can find enough reliable sources that criticism of day trading is widespread enough to be notable then perhaps you'd like to register and make that your first article. But please be sure that you are doing it for the right reason - to improve the encyclopedia, not to push your point of view. 09:38, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 February 2016[edit]

Characteristics=

Day trading is not to be considered investment since its objective is merely to speculate.


LucRos (talk) 22:42, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:12, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
I wouldn't object to the addition of the statement if it can be reliably sourced. I'd rephrase it as "Day trading is not normally considered to be investment since its objective is to speculate", but we do need to cite an authority that says this. Dbfirs 23:47, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

The latest addition by 151.57.14.38 is better, but it repeats a fact already stated twice in the article, and still pushes a point of view (though at least it's referenced). I've reverted it because I still think the article is better without any moralising. Dbfirs 23:08, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Dbfirs and have once again removed the exaggerated moralizing. "Significant studies worldwide" apparently was code for "a single Italian paper published in an obscure journal". Besides, that article does not seem to even mention day trading, making it irrelevant to this topic. Huon (talk) 23:12, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm amazed at the wide range of IP addresses that add this opinion to the article. Is it just one editor who travels, or is there some group or organisation behind the edits? Dbfirs 07:46, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Personally I'd guess it's one person. The main issue is, the Italian article that's ultimately, time and again, used as a source for this content on the morality of day trading does not say anything about day trading. This is not the appropriate article to discuss the morality of speculation in general, and putting this comparatively insignificant aspect in the lead - even if we could find a reliable source that explicitly discusses the Catholic stance on day trading - would give it undue weight. Huon (talk) 19:02, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Agreed, and the recent French article added as a reference doesn't mention day trading either. Dbfirs 08:05, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. There may be something worth coverage here, but the cite is not adequate, the editor's English isn't clear, and it probably best belongs on the Christian finance article. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 10:06, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

The Italian moralizer[edit]

@Dbfirs, Huon, Philip Trueman, Escape Orbit, Sargdub, Versageek, and Noq: both 151.0.0.0/8 (actually more narrow) and 5.170.0.0/16 IPs belong to an author who forced us (at it.wiki) to editprotect many pages or set up a couple of abusefilter rules. Trying discussing with him is, sadly, just a waste of time. --Vituzzu (talk) 09:14, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

This also applies to scalping (trading) and you'll soon see him doing the same on many more pages. I'll globally blacklist his blogs and, starting from now, I'll have to globally block on sight (instead of local blocking) @OwenX, Marianna251, JaconaFrere, and John M Baker: --Vituzzu (talk) 09:21, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for the warning about that anon editor. He seems to use a very wide range of IP addresses. Dbfirs 11:29, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Purposes of contributions: author's reply

Ethical considerations on finance activities are useful information and I was encouraged to continue the contributions in connection with the constructive recent revisions of Dbfirs: for any further contributions I would like to receive adequate comments for each revisions, as received from him; certain contributions were reverted without any explanations.(Again in Wikimedia 's policy:We believe that everyone in the world has a fundamental right to freely share and access knowledge. And we strongly oppose censorship, including blocking, filtering, and any other efforts to remove legitimate information). Unsigned comment added at 19:19 on April 30, 2016‎ by anon editor 151.57.26.22

You seem to be distorting the purpose of Wikipedia, and ignoring conventions about not editing other user's comments. Your persistence in re-adding the same content without adequate references is unacceptable, even to me. There is no censorship here on Wikipedia, just consensus about what sort of content belongs in each encyclopaedia article. Pushing your point of view against consensus will only serve to annoy even inclusionist editors. You have already been told which article might be appropriate for your opinion, but it will need WP:reliable sources. Dbfirs 18:44, 30 April 2016 (UTC)