Talk:Stock market crash

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Finance (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finance, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Finance on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

2007 crash[edit]

How about "crash" now in 2007,f u b or was that not a so called crash?? Can anyone please point me to some online reading about what happened and why - as I've found not many articles about this, despite looking on many financial websites

It's a little too early to call it a crash just yet. Most commentators are calling it a "correction". As far as causes for the recent downturn, the one that's mentioned the most is the fear that China would clamp down on speculative excesses in their stock market. But sometimes crashes happen, for no apparent reason. When stock prices seem very high, people can get nervous and make a crash a self-fulfilling prophecy. WynnQuon 22:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
How about now? Is it still to early to say the stock market is crashing as we speak? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

What about the Crash of 2000 in the U.S. & the Japanese Crash of 1987?[edit]

Shouldn't the series of crashes that occurred in Nasdaq leading to a decline in market barometer assessment from 5200 to roughly 1600 be included? Or does an 80% decline in value not constitute a market crash? This market decline also starkly affected the European and Asian stock markets that were linked to the Nasdaq...

Also, why isn't the crash in Japan in 1987 or 1988 mentioned? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Stevenmitchell (talkcontribs) 11:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

Yeah they need to be added. If you have time pls do so. --Dilaudid 09:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


Can a crash be purely defined, like a drop in at least 15 or 20% in a single day? And do bubbles count? -- 00:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Sadly i haven't come across any commonly-accepted precise, numerical definition of a crash. Generally speaking most crashes are declines in the double digit percentages that occur over a short period of time. This is sometimes distinguished from a "bear market" where there are equally large declines but over longer periods of time. WynnQuon 03:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
The NYSE will close automatically after a drop of 30%. Maybe that should be the definition of a crash? Also, watch out for edits by They've already vandalized the page a couple times. --Mike
It's an interesting suggestion Mike (the 30% figure), but unfortunately it isn't up to us to define it. If this measure was widely accepted already in the financial industry then we could list it as a definition, but since we have no standard-setting authority, we can't. Also thanks for the warning on :) WynnQuon 20:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


We seem to be experiencing an increase in vandalism. My personal objective is to have any vandalism reverted within 12 hours or less. Goodbye sad vandals. 04:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

External Links[edit]

I think we may need to work on getting some external links on this page, there is not that much information here, and there are resources all over the internet to learn about the various Stock Market crashes domestic and foregin that have happened. What are your opinions on this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 20:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

Would it not be better to label the first figure "DJIA from July to December" Drmurphy 23:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense statement?[edit]

The paragraph about the October 1987 contain the statement "Trading in many stocks encountered a pathological condition where the ask price for a stock exceeded the bid price. These "locked" conditions severely curtailed trading." which is nonsense. I don't know what the author was trying to say, but what they said makes no sense. The "ask price" always exceeds the "bid price". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eregli bob (talkcontribs) 03:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Normally the ask price is higher than bid, but believe it or not, this can break down under severe circumstances and even under normal circumstances across markets. See for example, this discussion: and this long academic study: WynnQuon (talk) 04:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Do you understand what the first link you are refering to says? It describes a situation where the bid price exceeds the ask price, which is an order matching/routing/communication problem if not outright 'pathological'. The original complaint above is correct, the mention in the article is if not nonsense then badly mixed up. It should be 'where the bid price for a stock exceeded the ask price' which I'm going to correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
This was a misunderstanding on my part. I read my own text wrong and didn't catch the mistake! Thanks for the correction. It is now good and makes sense.WynnQuon (talk) 19:49, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

2008 Crash[edit]

Do you think it's safe to say that the Dow's performance today would be considered a stock market crash? Richiekim (talk) 20:59, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Biggest one in history. Zazaban (talk) 22:44, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Only in point terms. It is not even close in percent terms. Dtaw2001 (talk) 22:56, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Still worth mentioning. Zazaban (talk) 02:59, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Just had a bigger one, I believe someone went down 9,000 points. Zazaban (talk) 06:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
The Dow is down nearly 20% in the last five trading days, 10% in the last two. This is a crash. Andywall (talk) 21:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
This is not a crash. A crash would be a one day drop of 20% or more - the 1987 event was an actual crash. Stop buying the media hype. LowLevelMason (talk) 00:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
A crash is not necessarily a one-day affair. There was no "one day drop of 20% or more" in 1929. We are experiencing a crash. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inquisitor84 (talkcontribs) 20:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
I think it is safe to call this a crash now. Biggest one week drop in history. Dtaw2001 (talk) 17:35, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
I just added the missing citations for the Stock Market Crash of 2008 and added a few new ones. Dtaw2001 (talk) 18:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I worked on Wall Street as a technologist from 1990 to 2002, and in 2002 I took all my retirement money out of the stock market because I saw a series of problems that I believed--correctly--could only lead to a crash. With 20/20 hindsight, I have expanded on my initial fears with real estate realities that I witnessed up-close as a concrete mixer driver, and other items from the news:

  • The shipping of American factories and factory jobs to other countries, most notably Communist China
  • The raping of the technology "new economy," with "pump and dump" strategies
    • The prosecutor who pursued the technology investment corruption became the New York State governor, and then became a criminal himself: sexual perversion
  • The shipping of American technology to the upper-caste of India
  • US Government obfuscation of information about the shipping of money overseas for manufacturing, and a complete blackout of information about shipping money overseas for services
  • Development of a real estate economy that produces no returns
    • A bubble in this model
    • Purely illegal jobs at slavery wages
    • Mexican border drug smuggling associated with its illegal labor base
    • Environmental destruction
      • Destruction of wildlife habitat
    • Sub-prime lending to fuel home sales
      • Initiates crash
    • Construction of poor quality but huge homes, or McMansions
    • Congestion
    • Destruction of existing stable local economies to build low-salary "mall economies"

This I would describe as simple economic model that has produced returns in comparison to the losses of those who followed other more complicated models. The other models will be "corrected" with an obviously socialistic bailout by the US government. If the US actually had a free market economy this bubble would be allowed to completely deflate, and the guilty would be fired: the policy-makers who created it. Instead the corruption that caused it will be preserved.

I am fleshing out these ideas here: Crash of 2008--John Bessa (talk) 17:31, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

"consumer spending accounts for more than two-thirds of U.S. economic activity" [1] Dow plunges 733, Oct 15

This means to me that Americans consume twice what they, or we, produce. The article implies that a recession is near if this number falls, yet I find it hard not to notice the 2:1 shortfall between consuming and creating. This implies to me that 25% of American cash is being exported continually to make up the shortfall, and this is being funded through credit. How could this possibly not lead to disaster? --John Bessa (talk) 21:56, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Truthfully, I virtually ignored finances and the economy while working on Wall Street; I concentrated on the Perl language and promoting free software. Later on I thought about the American economy and mentality while at the wheels of big rigs during the years 2004 - 2006, as I had the entire US in plain view nearly all the time. Getting back to my previous "contribution," the idea that we continually have a 25% shortfall in our economy that had been made up for with credit in recent years makes sense, and hence the present credit-driven crash. For the years 2000 to 2004 I read that the US economy was bouyed by the bank accounts of US citizens, and for the years 2004 to the present I believe that the economy has relied on global credit. I hear rumors that the "tax incentive" was borrowed from China.
The first four years of shortfall would account for 100% of savings consumption, and the second four years would account for 100% of credit. This is a seat-of-the-pants analysis, but it "feels" right.--John Bessa (talk) 19:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
With some thought and discussion during this "crisis," I am finding no fault with my thinking though much of it remains unsupported because, I believe, much of the data remains hidden to protect the recent global model. There is a poetic irony in this crash; it is truly global. The banks of nations that have been subsidized by the export of cash from the US because of contemporary globalism are suffering just as much as American banks because of the viral downside of global capital.--John Bessa (talk) 19:04, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Article Lock[edit]

People have been trying to add information to the article about a 2008 stock market crash (which never happened). This will probably continue, so I propose that we temporarily lock this article to prevent it from happening in the future. History Wizard (talk) 14:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Most business media outlets are referring to it as a stock market crash. Also, it was the biggest decline in US history and in other parts of the world, some stock markets lost more than half their value. I also added that the IMF suggests that the entire financial system faces a "meltdown." The stock market crash happened, like it or not. Dtaw2001 (talk) 18:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Wall Street Journal: "the stock market is either in, or nearly in, a crash"[edit]

It's pretty severe right now in terms of points and percentages. Down +20% in a few days is crash. And it is world wide. Here are citations of a "crash" in Japan, Egypt and North American. Citations:

The best citation is from the Wall Street Journal article above:

"Thursday's decline -- the 11th largest in percentage terms in the Dow's history -- put the stock market either in, or nearly in, a crash."

--John Bahrain (talk) 15:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

This is not enough evidence to declare a stock market crash, your copying and pasting the same article from different sources. No actual economist has declared a crash, and a vast majority have said this is NOT a crash. Stop trying to fear monger. LowLevelMason (talk) 20:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Your personal opinion doesn't matter at all, no offense. Wikipedia relies on citations of credible sources. Here are some more sources on the matter:
(1) Forbes
"A 20 percent decline over a longer time is called a bear market. A bear market is a prolonged decline in prices for stocks, bonds, commodities, or all three. While there's debate about whether the decline of the seven trading days ending Thursday was a crash, there's no argument that we are in a bear market. The Dow Jones industrial average is nearly 42 percent lower than it was at its highest point last October; marking the largest decline since 1973-1974."
(2) The Times
"The meltdown was being dubbed the Crash of 2008 and older traders were comparing it with Black Wednesday in 1987. The fall this week of 21 per cent was not as bad as the 28.3 per cent fall 21 years ago. But some traders were saying it was worse. “At least then it was a short, sharp, shock on one day. This has been relentless all week.”"
(3) The Motley Fool
"Make no mistake about it, when we look back at what's happened over the past 10 days, we'll refer to it as the "Crash of 2008," putting it in the same category as the infamous plunges of 1929 and 1987."
--John Bahrain (talk) 21:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Your personal opinion of copying the same newspaper feeding off the same AP doesn't matter at all. A crash did not occur, keep putting it in and I will warn you for vandalism. (talk) 04:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

It's really semantics whether what is happening/happened is a "crash" or not. I wonder whether this article really does justice to market corrections and also whether there may be better articles we don't know about on the same subject.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 01:32, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Stop with the NPOV fear mongering[edit]

As some wikipedia editors have decided to engage in fear and panic mongering on the non-existent crash of 2008, I'm going to leave it as a testament to all on how much wikipedia is wrong. However, every source you add with the media using hysteria and panic to call this a "crash" I will counter with one that says no crash exists. Stop the fear mongering. LowLevelMason (talk) 05:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

You can't be serious. The market is down 40% since it highs.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 12:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
LowLevelMason, you are only citing your own opinion. Please learn how Wikipedia works -- read WP:NOR and WP:RS. Also, Wikipedia itself isn't going to cause a widespread panic, we are just trying to follow reality. Also, do not accuse me of vandalism (as you did here [1]) when I use proper citation and you rely on only your own opinion, doing so is pretty ridiculous and is clearly out of line. I do totally accept that whether or not it is a crash right now is debatable, but it is clearly debatable and being discussed in reputable sources and thus that debate is clearly open for inclusion in Wikipedia as long as we present it accurately. --John Bahrain (talk) 12:55, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Please learn how wikipedia works. I am citing sources to confirm your fear mongering. You, on the other hand, are engaging in original research and NPOV. Stop it. If you continue I will continue to warn you for vandalism and report you. You need to review WP:RS, as the sourced cited are not only credible but far further than the fear mongering sources you are using. LowLevelMason (talk) 22:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
The head of the IMF says that we are facing a global financial meltdown. The IMF is not an organization that supports fear mongering my friend. This is not original research, they are documented facts with references to back them up. Dtaw2001 (talk) 18:14, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

^ [9]The Great Media Depression Report

^ [10]Seeking Alpha: This is not a Crash

Both of these citiations are ridiculous: If you read the BMI information, it's referring to media coverage earlier this year. BMI quotes articles in March, while the topic of discussion in the wikipedia article is what has happened in Sept. and Oct. The citations used don't even pertain to what we're talking about here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:53, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Wrong, Seeking Alpha is a leading market analysis website and the BMI quotes are relevant. Stop vandalizing.LowLevelMason (talk) 01:25, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
No, Seeking Alpha is a web republisher that mainly copies blogs and articles. It does have some good stuff but it would depend on the reliability of the individual author.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 02:41, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Annoying Ipse Dixit Statement[edit]


"Stock market crashes are in fact social phenomena where external economic events combine with crowd behavior and psychology in a positive feedback loop where selling by some market participants drives more market participants to sell."

Would that concept not in fact describe all stock market motion in general? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

This entire article is a mess. The '29 section doesn't cite any sources and is written like a high school essay. The heave-ho over the latest market moves is really a side issue.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 00:50, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

op. cit.[edit]

The Wikipedia Manual of Style advises against abbreviations like op. cit., suggesting "named references" instead. However, the Manual of Style also advocates using the most specific reference possible: references to a specific page or specific chapter instead of a whole work. Unfortunately, as far as I know there is no way to use a single named reference to refer repeatedly to different chapters or pages of the same work. Therefore I think it is appropriate that some editors have used op. cit. instead of "named references". But if someone else knows a better way of dealing with this, please go ahead. --Rinconsoleao (talk) 14:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

1987 - Monday or Tuesday??[edit]

I'm confused by the section on the 1987 crash. In the second paragraph of the Black Tuesday section, this article states that "The crash on Oct 19, 1987, a date that is also known as Black Tuesday..." But October 19, 1987 was on a Monday and the link to Black Tuesday (1987) actually redirects to Black Monday (1987).

My assumption is that the initial drop occurred on Monday the 19th and there was additional drop off the next day, Tuesday - similar to the Black Monday and Black Tuesday of 1929 (see Wall Street Crash of 1929).

I think some minor correction/clarification is needed but I leave that to someone who actually knows something about this topic, which I do not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by J bradford21 (talkcontribs) 17:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

It says Black Monday now. Anomalocaris (talk) 20:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


I noticed some vandalism by user at IP address and fixed what was obvious in the See Also section. While doing so and trying to track back to the origin of the vandalism I noticed what looked like vandalism from other user IPs, though did not have the time available to check which had been corrected and which still needed to be corrected. Just wanted to bring this to the attention of those working on this project and page. Hopefully this helps, perhaps this would be a good page to require users to be registered to edit it? Der.Gray (talk) 03:36, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Crash of March 2009?[edit]

I am surprised this is not mentioned. On a graph it certainly looks like a crash, a sharp almost diving pattern to around 6500. Is this not considered a crash by anyone? I would expect there to be some consensus on this. I will investigate. TimL (talk) 20:35, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

here is one source, TimL (talk) 20:43, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I have modified the article to reflect reality. TimL (talk) 08:05, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Comparing different market crashes[edit]

It'd be nice to see different crashes compared in real GDP per capita, e.g. from early 1900s to today. Cheers! Ben T/C 16:35, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Well documented[edit]

"A recent phenomenon, known as the RR Reversal, has also been well documented in recent years – where a rapidly increasing stock experiences an inexplicable and sudden pullback to the magnitude of 10 – 40%[clarification needed] within a month. [citation needed]"

I love information that is "well documented" yet unsourced. However, in this case there are two tags within one sentence. Isn't that a bit of a tag overkill? -- (talk) 08:54, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

  1. ^