Understanding the Stock Exchange: A Beginner's Guide

  • Thread starter chound
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Exchange
In summary, the stock exchange is where companies raise money by selling shares of their ownership to the public. The value of these shares is based on how well the company is performing. Buying and selling shares can be done through a stock broker or online. An IPO is the initial public offering of a company's stock. Making money in the stock exchange can be a gamble, but there are strategies to minimize risks. The stock market is a game of skill, with long-term investments being more reliable than short-term ones. The stock market is important for the economy as it helps allocate resources efficiently. The saying "If Wall Street sneezes, the rest of the world gets pneumonia" means that the stock market is a leading indicator of the US economy
  • #1
chound
164
0
I never really understood the stock exchange. :cry: Can anyone explain it to me in detail :tongue:
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Companies raise money by literally selling the company: a share of stock is a piece of ownership of the company. The stock market is where people buy and sell pieces of a company based on how that company is performing (if its making a proft, the company's value goes up and its stock similarly becomes more valuable)
 
  • #3
How do i buy shares or sell them?
What is IPO?
Is making money in stock exchange a gamble?
 
  • #4
chound said:
How do i buy shares or sell them?

Before, one would go to a stock broker or at bank but now transaction can be done online with virtual stock broker.


chound said:
What is IPO?

Initial Public Offering (IPO): The sale or distribution of a stock of a portfolio company to the public for the first time.

www.ventureeconomics.com/vec/glossary.html[/URL]

[QUOTE=chound]Is making money in stock exchange a gamble?[/QUOTE]

Yes it is because you are dependent on the company performance and on the demand for the stock. However, one can buy stock options that can be sold and bought at a specified price within a time periods. There also other types of stock that bought that offer a certain security. There is also strategies to minimize the risks.

Something most people forget, only gain or lose money when you sell your stock.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #5
chound said:
Is making money in stock exchange a gamble?
It is a game of skill. Long-term, say if you wait at most 5 years, the price will reflect how much money the company earns and the potential for future earnings. You will receive part of those earnings, if any, in the form of cash each year (dividends). Short-term, the price will sometimes depend on mass psychology, sometimes be purely random.

It is sometimes said that the market is efficient, meaning that it is not possible to make money since the price perfectly and instantly reflect all information. Thus a game of chance. That is wrong, and can be illustrated by a joke: "How many economists does it take to pick a 100 dollar bill laying on the street? None, the market has already done that. There is no free lunch".

That said, the stock market is probably the hardest game on the planet. Many of the smartest people in the world spend all or part of their time in predicting stock prices. It probably easier to make money in any other way.

The economic function of stock markets is partly the provide money for often risky new companies. To provide a risky but sometimes high return investment for those with savings. For the founders of the company to gain from their work by selling part of their ownership. Companies on the stock market must provide much public information to their shareholders, meaning that it is often more difficult for a bad management to destroy a listed company. Also, the price gives a good judgement on how well the company is doing, giving the management feedback on how well they are doing and when they should change course. A listing often give free advertisement for a company.

In short, the stock market is a good mechanism for moving the limited resources that society has to those areas where they will be of most use. For example, for quickly moving resources from the production of horses to cars, if that is more efficient considering all factors known. The stock market and related markets like commodities are among the more important brains of the capitalistic system, so it is good that many of the smartest people are making the decisions.
 
  • #6
I've heard about the statement "If wall street sneezes the rest of the world gets pneunemonia". What does it mean?
 
  • #7
Wall street is a leading indicator of the US economy, meaning that if the stock market indices go down and stay down, the economy is likely to go into a slump around six months later. The correlation isn't perfect, and there are other leading indicators, but Wall Street is a closely watched indicator. And the US economy is so big, and so tied into the rest of the world's economies, that if it goes down, they tend to go down too.
 
  • #8
Aquamarine said:
That said, the stock market is probably the hardest game on the planet. Many of the smartest people in the world spend all or part of their time in predicting stock prices. It probably easier to make money in any other way.
I'm a little surprised to hear that coming from you. I has been well documented that a monkey or a dartboard can turn a profit in the stock market over the long term. While it is certainly true that daytrading (hardly worthy of the term "investing") is a game of skill, long term investing, while still a gamble, is a low risk/high yield gamble.

The reason for this is that the stock market is a gamble with a positive return. While a casino takes 5-10 cents from every dollar in play all the time, the stock market gives an average of 12 cents per dollar per year (not inflation adjusted). That means that pretty much as long as you aren't stupid or impulsive (same diff), you will turn a profit from a long-term investment. The way to do that is through wide diversification (such as an S&P index fund), periodic (monthly), and long-term (>15 years) investments.
 
Last edited:
  • #9
Some experiments say that women with no experience score better than a bunch of professionals...

Maybe kwowledge isn't relevant in the world of stock exchange... :cool:
 
  • #10
I have also heard stories of how a lot of people compete against a monkey who randomly picks stocks and always does well...

Also does anyone know what the ramifcations of the extended power of the EU will have on the US economy or should I start a new thread for this discussion... The dollar is sucking right now... is that because of bush or because of other factors.
 
  • #11
russ_watters said:
I'm a little surprised to hear that coming from you. I has been well documented that a monkey or a dartboard can turn a profit in the stock market over the long term. While it is certainly true that daytrading (hardly worthy of the term "investing") is a game of skill, long term investing, while still a gamble, is a low risk/high yield gamble.

The reason for this is that the stock market is a gamble with a positive return. While a casino takes 5-10 cents from every dollar in play all the time, the stock market gives an average of 12 cents per dollar per year (not inflation adjusted). That means that pretty much as long as you aren't stupid or impulsive (same diff), you will turn a profit from a long-term investment. The way to do that is through wide diversification (such as an S&P index fund), periodic (monthly), and long-term (>15 years) investments.
Regarding the return on the stock market in average long-term, is much less. Which should be obvious when considering how big the GDP long-term growth numbers are.
http://faculty.london.edu/edimson/risk.pdf [Broken]
http://www.efficientfrontier.com/ef/499/ms5867.pdf

And unfortunately, most people will lose even this small return. Meaning that most peope will be much more stupid than the monkey regarding stocks (or index funds). Most will buy near the top due psychological reasons. Man is a social animal who likes to travel in flocks. And those buying at the top will wait a long, long time for break-even. For example, those who bought an index fund in Japan 1990 have only seen losses for 15 years. Even before inflation.

It should be obvious that the stock market is not automatically and magically totally and instantly efficient. Man has not created something with omniscience.

Daytrading is game of skill, even if almost all lose. But there are people making hundreds of trades every day and who are consistent winners.

Another evidence comes from just looking at the big financial banks. They have department that only specialize in trading. And they are making billions each year. They are using the fastest computers and the smartest mathematicians and they are consistent winners.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #12
chound said:
I never really understood the stock exchange. :cry: Can anyone explain it to me in detail :tongue:

you should try practiceing with the stock exchange for my economics class we made fake accounts in i believe yahoo finance... there are mutliplse sites out there that do it... I double my earning in a week... a fake 10,000 dollar investment
 
  • #13
pansessualismo said:
Some experiments say that women with no experience score better than a bunch of professionals...

Maybe kwowledge isn't relevant in the world of stock exchange... :cool:
It really is true that in some games, a little knowledge can get in the way of common sense and cause you to over-think things.
Aquamarine said:
Regarding the return on the stock market in average long-term, is much less. Which should be obvious when considering how big the GDP long-term growth numbers are.
Are you talking about my 12% figure? My comments are specific to the US, and the graph in fig 1 of your link actual says about 14%. And since I'm an optomist and consider the US economy to be continually evolving, I think that's a good reason to expect large failures such as the great depression will not be repeated, making the future brighter than the past.
And unfortunately, most people will lose even this small return. Meaning that most peope will be much more stupid than the monkey regarding stocks (or index funds). Most will buy near the top due psychological reasons. Man is a social animal who likes to travel in flocks. And those buying at the top will wait a long, long time for break-even. For example, those who bought an index fund in Japan 1980 have only seen losses for 25 years. Even before inflation.
That's true (depending on what you mean by "most people"), and my point was that the most successful non-professional investors are the ones who completely remove psychology from the game. Or, rather, pick a game where psychology is not an issue: such as a 401K or IRA. The point of the dartboard and monkey examples is the dartboard and monkey are not burdened by overthinking or psychology and thus as long as the groundrules are set up correctly, they can (and do) make money.
 
  • #14
russ_watters said:
Are you talking about my 12% figure? My comments are specific to the US, and the graph in fig 1 of your link actual says about 14%. And since I'm an optomist and consider the US economy to be continually evolving, I think that's a good reason to expect large failures such as the great depression will not be repeated, making the future brighter than the past. That's true (depending on what you mean by "most people"), and my point was that the most successful non-professional investors are the ones who completely remove psychology from the game. Or, rather, pick a game where psychology is not an issue: such as a 401K or IRA. The point of the dartboard and monkey examples is the dartboard and monkey are not burdened by overthinking or psychology and thus as long as the groundrules are set up correctly, they can (and do) make money.
You are looking at the return during the decade of the greatest bull market in world history.

Reading the papers and you will see that the US have been exceptional in making a real return of about 4% to its investors. Much lower in other countries. This number is more consistent with GDP growth.

I agree that index funds are better if you are not a professional. But, you must still time the market to some degree, for example by looking at the p/e number for the market as a whole.
 
Last edited:
  • #15
Aquamarine said:
You are looking at the return during the decade of the greatest bull market in world history.
My bad, I was looking at the wrong bar - the bar for 1900-2001 is at about 6% (I thought 14% seemed high...). But I'm pretty sure that's inflation adjusted. The author says his numbers are about 1.5% lower than what most sources report: I have often heard that the inflation adjusted return is ~8%. In any case, the 12% I used was not inflation adjusted. We're just talking about two different things.
I agree that index funds are better if you are not a professional. But, you must still time the market to some degree, for example by looking at the p/e number for the market as a whole.
That's true only if you buy once, such as in your previous example:
For example, those who bought an index fund in Japan 1980 have only seen losses for 25 years. Even before inflation.
That's not how an IRA or 401K works. What if you bought the same dollar (yen) quantity of stock every year (or every month) of that 25 years?

edit: I thought I posted this before, but now can't find it. "The Only Investment Guide You'll Ever Need", page 125:
From 1926 to the beginning of 2001, according to Ibotson Associates... the total compounded annual rate of return that you would have had from buying risk-free US T-bills was 3.8%; the return from slightly riskier corporate bonds would have been 5.7%; the return from blue-chip stocks would have been 11%; and the return from the stocks of small companies would have been 12.4%, although there is some controversy over the way the small stock figures are arrived at...
 
Last edited:
  • #16
Plot the distribution of those who 'beat the index' ... does it look like a Gaussian? AFAIK, there's no statistical basis for any claims that a strategy, fund, or person can consistently beat the indices over more than one business cycle (crudely, 5-10 years). Oh, and index funds have much lower MERs!
 
  • #17
I hope this is not too conspiracy theory-ish.

From some stock dealings I had back in the 60's and 70's I concluded that there is a small group of Wall Street insiders who run deliberate bubbles every year. They make their money by taking it away from suckers who are led to invest in the bubble. The evidence for this is that every year there is a hot group of penny stocks that soar for a while, but only one of them reaches a high peak ( though for no good reason), then in the Fall they drop.
 
  • #18
Nereid said:
Plot the distribution of those who 'beat the index' ... does it look like a Gaussian? AFAIK, there's no statistical basis for any claims that a strategy, fund, or person can consistently beat the indices over more than one business cycle (crudely, 5-10 years). Oh, and index funds have much lower MERs!
To make sure there is no misunderstanding here, I'm not saying you can beat an index (in fact, I'm saying you should use an index fund). I'm simply saying that you can turn a profit relatively easily.
selfAdjoint said:
I hope this is not too conspiracy theory-ish.

From some stock dealings I had back in the 60's and 70's I concluded that there is a small group of Wall Street insiders who run deliberate bubbles every year. They make their money by taking it away from suckers who are led to invest in the bubble. The evidence for this is that every year there is a hot group of penny stocks that soar for a while, but only one of them reaches a high peak ( though for no good reason), then in the Fall they drop.
There is nothing conspiracy theory-ish about that: its actually happened on a number of occasions and in the 20s (I think) it was a pretty common thing. There are two variations:

What you are describing sounds like a "pump and dump" - the movie "Boiler Room" depicted something like this. Basically, a company hypes a specific, worthless stock and through an influx of money from gullible investors, the stock rises dramatically in a short period of time. The company that started it has a bunch of money in it and pulls their money out, turning a tidy profit, and leaving their customers to lose everything when the price of the stock collapses. This is, naturally, illegal.

The other vatiation is legal, but no longer works: when the market was much smaller, it was possible for a single large investor to put enough money into it to increase its value, ride his own bounce, then sell for a nice profit. IIRC, a billionare tried this in the 80s and it didn't work because the market is simply too big for one person to affect it.
 
  • #19
Right, and I think the illegal "pump and dump" still goes on, but spread over a handful of independent inside investors intead of a single company. Since these folks establish their parameters with a wink and a nod and "advertise" them by leaks to investor newletters, they are almost impossible to catch in the act.
 
  • #20
Nereid said:
Plot the distribution of those who 'beat the index' ... does it look like a Gaussian? AFAIK, there's no statistical basis for any claims that a strategy, fund, or person can consistently beat the indices over more than one business cycle (crudely, 5-10 years). Oh, and index funds have much lower MERs!

It is probably not possible to find that distribution due to tax evasion.

There is an ongoing paradigm shift from efficient markets to behavioral finance:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=349660#PaperDownload
 
  • #21
hello all

I just would like to say that i really enjoyed reading this thread, I have come to realize that the more time you spend on these forums the more you realize that you have missed out on a lot of great discussions, well I would like to ask I have a major interest in portfolio theory, the global financial system, investment and equities analysis, would this forum be suitable to discuss such topics? and can you tell me about what other related topics that also can be discussed in this forum ? thank you, and I'll look forward to discussions we will have in future

Steven
 
  • #22
Hello all, I just joined. The stock price bubbles explained in your postings need not be conspiratorial. This is a social science section and this subject should use science to answer it. We are social animals, are we not? We behave EN MASS very often, like herd animals. When a field of commerce has had a big play in the market---let us say, for example, gold stocks---then the wise investor stays away from them because they are seen as over-priced. What then happens is that the cheap gold stocks drift down as the actual price of gold holds steady or rises. The unsophisticated speculators loose interest and sell down their gold stock holds. The more the price drifts lower, the more of them who give up and sell, thus depressing the price even further. The speculation is going on in other sectors and these "sheep" want to get rid of their gold stocks so they can play in the "hot" stocks of the moment.

However, who is buying these now depressed, cheap gold stocks from the "sheep"? The savy trader, of course. He is patient. When the price gets so low even the sheep won't sell, the sophisticate becomes more aggressive in his buying and the prices rise. Then, the "sheep" begin to take note and begin to buy back in again---pushing up prices until they get so high the savey traders start to sell.

This goes on all the time, over and over again in the stock market. It is the nature of human nature that is behind all this. It is natural for people to take cues from what they perceive is the alpha male as they do in other primate groups. In the stock market, the "alpha male" is symbolized by the stock exchange! People are innately driven to take their cue from it and do what it is doing. It is suicidal, but it is human nature and the ones who make money are the ones who understand this and, for example, pay no attention to what the speakers say on the stock market tv channels.

All this does not mean there is no dishonesty also. On cheap gold stocks, the man on the stock exchange floor who makes the market for the stock is full of dirty little tricks. He makes a good living scalping a bit here and a bit there on the price. In low volume stocks, he can actually run the whole show and be both buyer and seller at the price shown in quotes.
 
  • #23
hello Charles

i would like to say that we are happy to have you as part of this forum and we look forward to having discussions with you in future, by the way that was pretty interesting what you have written above, i have always tried to understand the psychology beind the stock market but didnt get anywhere because of my lack of long term experience with the market but you put it all together and made it so simple thank you, now from my understanding you believe in a passive investment style right? I would like to ask you what is you perspective on the efficiency of the market today?

Steven
 
  • #24
Anyone who is active in stocks is well advised not to discuss it at all with other people. You either let your broker lead you so that you have someone else to blame when you lose money, or you make your own decisions completely. There is hardly any middle ground. When you tell other people about your position or your strategy, you never really forget that you told them when your strategy is going through the usual bad times--no prices just go straight up!--you are conscious of the other person judging you! You have trapped yourself into a situation that is emotionally draining when the whole job of trying to make money from stocks is emotionally draining enough as it is!

Also, the other person may use your information and get into a similar situation in stocks. Then, you are even worse off. You are burdened with his losses. You say he might, instead, win, but the very fact that you were so confident that you told him is a good sign that the stocks were overbought. Most trading positions are filled with anxiety. You feel like waiting to get a better price but it goes up and you are afraid to buy should it then turn down, so you anxiously wait more. Finally, you are so fed up with being wrong and waiting when you should have bought that you give into stop the anxiety and buy---right at the top! Then, you have sleepless night wondering about whether you should sell or not. The cycle reverses.

My real point is that the stock market is an emotional ride and anyone who is not able to master that is in for a miserable ride.

charles
 
  • #25
Charles Brough said:
My real point is that the stock market is an emotional ride and anyone who is not able to master that is in for a miserable ride.

charles
If your point is that if you can't afford to lose what you're investing, don't do it, otherwise it could be upsetting, you're right.

A lot of people are in long term stock investment and don't worry about small fluctuations, they also realize they're not likely to make a lot of money either. Others (like my friend that has an actual stock ticker in his house) get their jollies from staying on it minute by minute. That doesn't mean he's good at it, he just can afford to lose money and it's a plaything.
 
  • #26
One thing to note is that a lot of the stock market is based on speculation and big brokerage houses. If a stock is in a sense, "chosen" by a brokerage firm, the firm will buy enormous amounts of its stock. This will boost the prices because people will think the firm believes the company will do well. The company is now an inflated stock based solely on speculation. Also, companies could be doing very well and go nowhere in the stock market because no one has "picked up" on it. I believe Krispy Kreme was a highly speculated stock that didn't show any profit for years but was just beloved by the people and the investment community. It recently plummeted to only a fraction of its price from a few years ago after i believe a lot of people got sick of its under-performance and dropped it. I believe the problem came about when they tried to press into the western parts of the US and they just hit a brick wall (there donuts were absolutely pathetic compared to what we're use to here in California).

A few terms and concepts should be discussed here.

Dividends are given by a lot of, especially large, companies. Since they are large, their stock prices don't fluctuate much so they give out a percentage of their profit to shareholders. If you had 100 shares of a stock that gives $0.10 share, you would get $10 every quarter (or month or whatever they have their dividend release schedule as). "Income" mutual funds are mutual funds that invest heavily in large companies that give out big dividends. They are meant to provide supplementary income to people. They'll buy like, $300,000 worth of stocks and might be getting $20,000 a year out of dividends so as you can see, its a supplementary income (and since there normally large, established companies, there is a very low chance of them going anywhere or expanding)

PE ratios are Price-to-Earnings ratios. You want a low ratio (relative to the industry). The price is the stock price. Earnings are calculated as revenue divided by # of stocks. The ratio is Stock price / Earnings per share. Earnings per share is also called the EPS.

Mutual funds are funds that buy in industries, sectors, types, indexes, and locations. You buy into a pool of stocks. For a cheap price, you get a share of a pool of say, a thousand companies. They will buy into different types. Industry mutual funds buy into certain industries like fast food, steel, security systems, etc. Sector funds will invest into say, Energy, Electronics, Food and Ag, etc. Types are say, income, growth, mid-cap, etc. Income stocks, i have already explained. Growth stocks are high risk, no/low dividend companies that are relatively new and are expected to grow (or at least you hope). Mid-cap means mid-capitalization. These are companies that have a relatively decent amount of money invested into it. They are not expected to grow incredibly well and they are not large, well-established names. They normally have some lower end dividends. Indexes are mutual funds that cover an index like the Dow Jones Industrial or the S&P500. These are actually normally lower-cost funds because they don't have a large staff maintaining the fund since the index is pre-defined. These are good for people who don't really want to do a lot of research. Regional funds are funds that are devoted to certain regions. There are some for North America, Southeast Asia, Europe, Africa, etc and some for specific countries like China or Japan or Spain. They focus on all companies in that region regardless of sectors and such.
 
  • #27
hello all

I just wanted to know we have so many analysts in this world, consuming so much time analysing all these existing companies, is it in any sanario really possible to estimate the future stock price of any company using the methods they use to analyse these companies, or are they seriously wasting there time, one thing that's seems to amaze me is that investment banks cut out a big piece of there revenue to pay these analysts, and all these analyst do is estimate stock prices, and each analyst has a different estimate from one another,so is the stock market random or can it be predicted?

steven
 
  • #28
Evo said:
A lot of people are in long term stock investment and don't worry about small fluctuations, they also realize they're not likely to make a lot of money either.
Slight nitpick: over the short term, an index fund doesn't look all that exciting, but over the long term you really can make an enormous amount of money. But I mean looooooooooooong term: 50+ years of safe investing can turn a frugal hermit cashier into a millionaire (you read about these about once a year).
 
  • #29
Pengwuino said:
One thing to note is that a lot of the stock market is based on speculation and big brokerage houses. If a stock is in a sense, "chosen" by a brokerage firm, the firm will buy enormous amounts of its stock. This will boost the prices because people will think the firm believes the company will do well.
Catch: if someone changes a stock from a "hold" to a "buy" they've already bought it and are hoping you will buy it to pump up the price. So its already too late for you to profit much. Better to buy a solid stock that had a bad quarter making everyone knee-jerk sell.
 
  • #30
steven187 said:
I just wanted to know we have so many analysts in this world, consuming so much time analysing all these existing companies, is it in any sanario really possible to estimate the future stock price of any company using the methods they use to analyse these companies, or are they seriously wasting there time, one thing that's seems to amaze me is that investment banks cut out a big piece of there revenue to pay these analysts, and all these analyst do is estimate stock prices, and each analyst has a different estimate from one another,so is the stock market random or can it be predicted?

The fact that they can come close and come to some sort of consensus is the key. Without them, you have absolutely no idea wherea stock might go. These analysts just gobble up information and try to process enough of it to get a decent estimate and you gather up estimates to figure a decent estimated price. Its not a waste of money simply because without them, you wouldn't have a clue where to go.
 
  • #31
These issues are still being carefully scrutinized by academicians.

This is a very good article by John Cochrane, author of a graduate financial economics textbook called Asset Pricing. It's pretty good at covering some fairly recent academic studies.

http://gsbwww.uchicago.edu/fac/john.cochrane/research/Papers/ep3Q99_3.pdf

Also, books by academicians like Andrew Lo of MIT (Non-Random Walk Down Wall Street, and Econometrics of Financial Markets) are worth checking out. The first is probably better suited for a layperson.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #32
hello there

well i have a few questions to ask, so any advise would be helpful thank you
now the thing that i don't understand is that i have looked at brokerage reports on the same company, but from different investment banks, and they all seem to have different estimates, now obviously only one of them is going to be the closest to the future price, so how could it be reliable, I mean could some of these reports be biased? like if an investment bank has invested money into a company, wouldn't it also advise its investors to also invest into that same company? or is there some kind of law to stop them from doing things like that, and if there is how could anybody find out that the investment bank is doing such a thing.

also if all these reports give different prices wouldn't an investor be better of if he made guesses and go witht he gamble?

also these reports wouldn't they need to be updated everyday especially since different things happen in this world, that would be very time consuming especially considering that there are millions of companies listed in the world.

is the stock price suppose to converge to these estimated prices on these reports if so in what period?

lastly if we had unlimited human resourse, and access to all the public information, would it be possible to predict the companies future price over the next year or so and actually come very close to the actual movements in the stock price? from my understanding the best accurate estimate anybody can make would be tomorows, but how about in a year time?

thank you

steven
 
  • #33
juvenal said:
These issues are still being carefully scrutinized by academicians.

This is a very good article by John Cochrane, author of a graduate financial economics textbook called Asset Pricing. It's pretty good at covering some fairly recent academic studies.

http://gsbwww.uchicago.edu/fac/john.cochrane/research/Papers/ep3Q99_3.pdf

Also, books by academicians like Andrew Lo of MIT (Non-Random Walk Down Wall Street, and Econometrics of Financial Markets) are worth checking out. The first is probably better suited for a layperson.

hello there

by the way what is a layperson? and thanxs these links look pretty interesting

steven
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #34
steven187 said:
what is a layperson?
A non-expert, as in "clergy and laity."
 

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
2
Replies
46
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
Replies
13
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
Replies
1
Views
882
  • Materials and Chemical Engineering
Replies
4
Views
125
  • General Discussion
Replies
34
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
41
Views
2K
Replies
40
Views
5K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
24
Views
2K
  • Chemistry
Replies
2
Views
502
Back
Top