Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Stock exchanges

  1. Nov 30, 2004 #1
    I never really understood the stock exchange. :cry: Can anyone explain it to me in detail :tongue:
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Nov 30, 2004 #2

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    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)
     
  4. Dec 1, 2004 #3
    How do i buy shares or sell them?
    What is IPO?
    Is making money in stock exchange a gamble?
     
  5. Dec 1, 2004 #4

    iansmith

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

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


    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: Apr 21, 2017
  6. Dec 1, 2004 #5
    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.
     
  7. Dec 1, 2004 #6
    I've heard about the statement "If wall street sneezes the rest of the world gets pneunemonia". What does it mean?
     
  8. Dec 1, 2004 #7

    selfAdjoint

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    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 in to the rest of the world's economies, that if it goes down, they tend to go down too.
     
  9. Dec 1, 2004 #8

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    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: Dec 1, 2004
  10. Dec 2, 2004 #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:
     
  11. Dec 3, 2004 #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.
     
  12. Dec 3, 2004 #11
    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: May 1, 2017
  13. Dec 3, 2004 #12
    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
     
  14. Dec 3, 2004 #13

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    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.
    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.
     
  15. Dec 3, 2004 #14
    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: Dec 3, 2004
  16. Dec 3, 2004 #15

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    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.
    That's true only if you buy once, such as in your previous example:
    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:
     
    Last edited: Dec 3, 2004
  17. Dec 3, 2004 #16

    Nereid

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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!
     
  18. Dec 4, 2004 #17

    selfAdjoint

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    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.
     
  19. Dec 4, 2004 #18

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    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.
    There is nothing conspiracy theory-ish about that: its actually happend 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.
     
  20. Dec 4, 2004 #19

    selfAdjoint

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    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.
     
  21. Dec 4, 2004 #20
    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
     
  22. Jun 16, 2005 #21
    hello all

    I just would like to say that i really enjoyed reading this thread, I have come to realise that the more time you spend on these forums the more you realise that you have missed out on alot 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
     
  23. Jun 17, 2005 #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.
     
  24. Jun 17, 2005 #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
     
  25. Jun 21, 2005 #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 in to 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
     
  26. Jun 21, 2005 #25

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    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.
     
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook