Talk:Stock market bottom

It will take several weeks before the article is done. In the mean time, feel free to add.--Chakreshsinghai (talk) 23:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Dear Charesh, I compliment you on having taken a lot of time to create a page with many footnotes, charts and references.At the same time I would like to give some respectful criticsm. The article covers a lot of topics in a short period of time and introduces new concepts and terminology that are not always explained in the article and may not be understood by most readers. I have tried to fix some of this by adding a few words or a synonym in parenthesis. Also I feel that some of the subpoints listed below each section are a little obscure. A viewpoint stated plainly by the author of the Valueline article at the top his web page. Again hats off to you and all your hard work and contributions. But maybe consider this feedback next time you have time to add to and edit this page. In the meantime I have done some editing mostly for spelling and grammer. I hope you like the changes. Best Wishes,Keithbob --Keithbob (talk) 13:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Keithbob for your comments.

You are right about the need for introcuction to concepts and terminology. I believe that finance/investments article on Wikipedia are too few, with very little detail, and often not well written. Do leave your suggestions about what concepts need articles (or additional details here).

I appreciate your help in improving the article.

--Chakreshsinghai (talk) 02:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Original research

Note: A discussion on this article has also been listed at WP:ORN.

I've gotten pretty concerned about this article. I'm reluctant to do a drive-by tagging of this as being chock-full of OR, especially since it seems like the content could be taken as investment advice, which can be particularly dangerous. But, the whole thing is supported by little more than primary sources and almost all the content blatantly violates WP:NOTHOWTO. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Mendaliv, I have spent a lot of time editing this article because it was in need. At the same time I agree with you. The topic matter is obscure, on the fringe of the stock market subject and implies 'how to' on a dangerous topic. I would hate for someone to read the article and think they could use the principals in this article to guide them in investing their money. Even professional traders often stay away from a market bottom as they are very dangerous to your financial health. I would also hate to see all my hard work go to waste but if the page was removed I would certainly understand why. The irony is that the stock market is in the process of creating a significant market bottom even as we speak. Best Wishes, Keithbob--Keithbob (talk) 19:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh no, I'm not saying that deletion is the solution- honestly I would've just taken it straight to AfD in that case. I'm reasonably sure there's an encyclopedic topic here, and probably some encyclopedic content. But there are clearly significant amounts of original research which need to be remedied. My suggestion would be to find a couple economics textbooks and see how they define the subject, and especially reference research papers. I've also tagged this article as needing expert attention from someone at the Economics WikiProject, which may help. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, good. But in light of the NOHOWTO rules we should delete the section "Investing in a Market Bottom" yes? Even if it were allowed, the information there is dangerously two demensional. Keithbob --Keithbob (talk) 12:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

There are some related journal articles. It will take some work to dig them out. I will try to do that, help form others will be appreciated.

There are some related text-books. Generally they don't address these issues in detail. I will look for some specialized texts or monographs. There are a number of popular books, I would avoid them unless they are by experts.

Finance is a probabilistic field. With the exception of FDIC-insured bank deposits and money market funds (which are approximately near-zero risk), everything else is probabilistic. I think those looking for concrete formulas that will always work be disppointed. I have attempted to add links to actual data for concrete illustration.

I believe that the indicators mentioned in the articles are the once that are often used and are mentioned by experts. There cannot be any assurances that any one of them will identify the exact bottom.

--Chakreshsinghai (talk) 02:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Chakresh, nice to hear from you. I'm glad you appreciate the changes I have made. Feel free to undo or amend anything that I have done. I will work on other related pages for a while and give you time to research and add references. Keep up the good work. Keithbob--Keithbob (talk) 19:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Removed original reseach on 2008

The section on 2008 was almost all WP:OR and had more than a touch of WP:Crystal Ball about it. Just as an example, there was material on Warren Buffett saying that he was buying. But the words "market bottom" were not mentioned in the referenced article, and with just a bit of intelligence in reading, you could have figured out that the whole concept of "market bottom" is anathema to Buffett. The whole article has this OR problem, but most especially this section. The concept is actually rather vague - is it something that you can get from a simple mathematical formula - or is it supposed to mean something - like a prediction? If it's a predictive device, is there any evidence that it works? Pretty close to WP:Fringe.

Smallbones (talk) 21:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Nice edits Smallbones. I agree that the 2008 stuff really pushed the envelope. At the same time I would support Chakresh comments above in that the concept of a market bottom is a widely held and widely discussed concept. It cannot be accurately predicted by anyone but just the same it still has validity as a concept is not OR in my opinion. That said, I do agree that there are some primary (and mildly promotional) references and sources that might need to be cleaned up. I own a few books on technical analysis, one that is textbook type, but none of the books discuss 'market bottom' per se although the topic of trend reversals in general is covered in depth.--Keithbob (talk) 02:46, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Market bottoms are unambiguous only in retrospect. It's too soon to talk about any market bottom in the current year. For past crashes and recessions, there will be reliable sources. --John Nagle (talk) 03:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

There has been a lot of discussion about a bottom recently involving views of several experts. These views are significant and must be used. Actual data must be used as illustrations.--Chakreshsinghai (talk) 19:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

All analysis of equities is probabilistic. There is no fundamental equity valuation or technical analysis that can make exact predictions. The supposedly rigorous formulas, such as the Dividend Discount Model too are probabilistic when you have to fill in the numbers/parameters. Those looking for mathematical expressions that work exactly, should stay with pure mathematics and not finance.--Chakreshsinghai (talk) 19:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Removing promotional web links and content

Chakresh-ji, I removed some promotional and spam content from this article. I know that you did not intend for the content and links to be promotional but there were some blatant examples such as references, content and links that praised services and paid subscriptions offered by Morningstar and Valueline. We have to be careful with this kind of thing or else Wiki can be abused by private industry for free advertising. I believe that are more web links in the article that could be classified as spam because they offer various investment subscriptions and services on the web link pages. WP:ADS or WP:SPAM According to Wiki policy we are required to use verified sources like books, published research, newspapers etc. I'd like to have a second opinion on this before I delete further. The stock chart links fall into this category of Spam but also create an impression of Original Research WP:NOR which is also against Wiki policy. For example you have used a StockChart link to subtantiate your point on Black Monday. A textbook reference would be most appropriate. I have several investing and technical analysis books but none mention Black Monday or market bottoms so I can't be of help here. If you have any references please replace the web links as much as you can in the article when you have time. Best Wishes, Keithbob --Keithbob (talk) 18:46, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Stockcharts site generates plots using publically available data. Someone could generate the plots using some software and upload to Wikipedia. That will be a singificant amount of work.

Personally I think discussion of finance is not meaningful without real data.

This text as it is currently, is hard to interpret, since the name of the metric is no longer there:

"Subscribe to an investment service that attempts to project a stock's appreciation over the next 3-5 years. Its use has been studied by Peter Bernstein and Dan Seiver, who uses it in his PAD system report. When the Valueline indicator rises above 100, it is taken to be a buy signal".

It originally referred to a certain metric (VLMAP) that is computed algorithmically, and has been studied academically, and that is where its value lies. Others, if they are capable, are free to construct their metrics, or use one defined by others. The question is how well do these metrics work? I think Wikipedia should mention that such metrics have been studied (or amenable to a systematic study). If you have any suggestions, please let me know.

Can we replace "Subscribe to an investment service that attempts to project a stock's appreciation over the next 3-5 years" by something better?

--Chakreshsinghai (talk) 02:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Chakresh, thanks for your comments. I have re-edited that section with your points in mind. However now there are bigger issues and this article is marked for deletion. If you want to save it please make a case for keeping it here on the discussion page.--Keithbob (talk) 21:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Article Marked for Deletion

I also have some reservations about this article. Our friend Chakresh has spent some quality time in developing the article but it has the following potential issues:

1. WP:HOWTO It is a bit of a 'how to' article. Explaining to readers the various ways they can determine a market bottom for investing purposes. This appears to violate Wiki policy and also contradicts other statements in the article saying that a market bottom is a 'falling knife' and that it can only be reliably determined in hindsight.

2. WP:AD and WP:SPAM Some of the points seem a bit commercial, as if Wiki is promoting the website or service they are referring to. This can be fixed, of course, if it is decided the overal topic is valid and I have started some of this editing already but will cease now that the article as a whole is in question. I want to note however that I do not believe that Chakresh the original author had any malintent.

My immediate suggestion would be to delete the section(s) on how to determine a market bottom and develop the article along the lines of the term 'market bottom' in a more academic manner rather than a 'how to' invest in the stock market angle. What do others think? --Keithbob (talk) 22:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with both 1 and 2 above.

--Chakreshsinghai (talk) 03:33, 17 January 2009 (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) 03:32, 17 January 2009 (UTC)