(GR) Telegraph's Ambrose Evans-Pritchard notes how some EU officials have become more willing to consider a Greek exit from the EU
- Notes recent comments by EU Commission Vice President Nellie Kroes in which she said "it is not the end of the world if someone leaves the eurozone."
- According to Greece's EU commissioner Maria Damanaki, contingency plans are under way for a Greek withdrawal.
- Former BoE member and Citigroup economist said the actions by the ECB have helped minimize the risks related to any Greek exit.
- Article notes that Greece leaving the EMU is now a 50:50 event.
"Perhaps you can really only look at the last 3-6 months for meaningful volume comparisons"
Very true, and not only that - as an element of a trading setup volume has meaning only in relative terms and reasonably short time frame. "Volume on this part of the chart is higher than on that" makes sense and is helpful to validate or contradict the price action. "Volume is at this or that exact figure" - fairly useless for any practical purpose other than risk evaluation (how thin particular market is).
again, a lot depends on the purpose of collecting and analyzing data. For the intricacies of the OBV for instance, yes, that difference matters. For the purpose of evaluating supply/demand - no, it doesn't, and volume on SPY can be safely used. Look at this sentence from the article:
"While the price of an ETF closely tracks the underlying index's value, the volume of an ETF only reflects the popularity of the ETF itself - NOT THE SUPPLY OR DEMAND FOR THE THING THE ETF TRACKS."
Put it in context of comparing SPY volume with something else's, and yes, that statement is correct. But if you want to evaluate the change in supply/demand from bar to bar in SPY itself - it's not, and volume configuration can be used with full validity. I don't feel an author made this distinction clear; meanwhile it's an important one - without it he may leave you with impression that you can't use volume on ETFs an an element of trading setup.
valid question, of course. It's a proxy - one of them. See, any way to evaluate the volume is a relative, via this or that proxy or with that or that disclaimer. Market structure changes rapidly, volume moves between exchanges, ECNs, pools, and even the methodology of calculating it changes. I remember a hoopla about 10 years ago about double count on volume under certain circumstances, which led to a lot of confusion for many technical analysts.
And, as if all that was not enough, the way you need to calculate it pretty much depends on a purpose for which data is being collected and analyzed. For instance, if the idea is to evaluate public participation in the market, one must allow for the fact that increased sophistication of trading technology has led regular folks in areas they never ventured before. Non-traditional markets have become easier accessible, and some part of capital has been drawn out from stock market - but it's still public participating in market activity, only spread thinner. So, will pure stock volume still be a good measure for that particular purpose? Probably not.
There are many more factors to consider, so any approach won't be perfect. Gotta settle on some kind of proxy and some kind of "engineering approximation" :)
"But, it looks like now you want to argue for the sake of arguing and I have no time for that. "
Wow... remind me to never try to answer your question or try to help you again. I thought you wanted to find out what really happens. Instead you take it as arguing or attempt to convince you of something. My mistake. Won't happen again.
Sorry, I have to disagree again... "lowest since 2007" is not really an indicator - we had abnormally high volume readings during sharp market drops, so "lower than average now" can simply be a return to the norm. Original premise that sent you on this quest was that we have volume lowest since 1999, right? That should be a basis for comparison, not the volume peaks during extremely overheated market panic.
You can't make any conclusions from that for the simple reason of NYSE losing market share to competitors. This process accelerated over the last decade, so you need aggregated volume, not NYSE alone.
Doesn't look right to me... See attached SPY chart with volume for the last three years, no such patterns. I went in chart as far as 2005, and volumes were about half of today's, with significant (and understandable) increase in 2007 and 2008. While staying at about 1/3 of that peak now, volume is still significantly higher than in 2005.
"we will know soon who is right: shippers or stock markets"
Jack, I don't know if this is right way to put it... market doesn't move on one factor only, it incorporates a lot of things - especially these days when liquidity is being injected or promised every, umm, couple hours. I mean, if market spikes on another piece of idiotic monetary policy, can you really say that it contradicts shippers? They do not compete as predictors of anything, it's just different piece of mosaic.
If recession comes, can you say that the market was wrong? Of course not - it just did its thing by killing the overconfident suckers that tried to trade on obvious, on headlines, on soundbites fed to them. Then, when they gave up, covered their shorts and went long - well, you know what will have happened then :)
Actually, global trade volume looks differently. That chart ends in Apr 2011, it does indicate anything about the future. Here is today;s situation:
The Baltic Dry Index (BDIY), a measure of commodity shipping costs, slumped for a 33rd session today to the lowest since August 1986. Operators of the global dry-bulk fleet of more than 8,900 ships are accepting unprofitable charters amid a glut of vessels, even as global trade in commodities expands to a record.
Very different picture, isn't it... Building too many ships during enthusiastic phase of economic insanity seems to be behind this dichotomy rather than dropping trade volumes.
(GR) Telegraph's Ambrose Evans-Pritchard notes how some EU officials have become more willing to consider a Greek exit from the EU
- Notes recent comments by EU Commission Vice President Nellie Kroes in which she said "it is not the end of the world if someone leaves the eurozone."
- According to Greece's EU commissioner Maria Damanaki, contingency plans are under way for a Greek withdrawal.
- Former BoE member and Citigroup economist said the actions by the ECB have helped minimize the risks related to any Greek exit.
- Article notes that Greece leaving the EMU is now a 50:50 event.
Westcoaster
TradeTheNews, my news feed supplier, same guys that write Market Week Update every Friday
"Perhaps you can really only look at the last 3-6 months for meaningful volume comparisons"
Very true, and not only that - as an element of a trading setup volume has meaning only in relative terms and reasonably short time frame. "Volume on this part of the chart is higher than on that" makes sense and is helpful to validate or contradict the price action. "Volume is at this or that exact figure" - fairly useless for any practical purpose other than risk evaluation (how thin particular market is).
Quasi,
again, a lot depends on the purpose of collecting and analyzing data. For the intricacies of the OBV for instance, yes, that difference matters. For the purpose of evaluating supply/demand - no, it doesn't, and volume on SPY can be safely used. Look at this sentence from the article:
"While the price of an ETF closely tracks the underlying index's value, the volume of an ETF only reflects the popularity of the ETF itself - NOT THE SUPPLY OR DEMAND FOR THE THING THE ETF TRACKS."
Put it in context of comparing SPY volume with something else's, and yes, that statement is correct. But if you want to evaluate the change in supply/demand from bar to bar in SPY itself - it's not, and volume configuration can be used with full validity. I don't feel an author made this distinction clear; meanwhile it's an important one - without it he may leave you with impression that you can't use volume on ETFs an an element of trading setup.
Dave,
valid question, of course. It's a proxy - one of them. See, any way to evaluate the volume is a relative, via this or that proxy or with that or that disclaimer. Market structure changes rapidly, volume moves between exchanges, ECNs, pools, and even the methodology of calculating it changes. I remember a hoopla about 10 years ago about double count on volume under certain circumstances, which led to a lot of confusion for many technical analysts.
And, as if all that was not enough, the way you need to calculate it pretty much depends on a purpose for which data is being collected and analyzed. For instance, if the idea is to evaluate public participation in the market, one must allow for the fact that increased sophistication of trading technology has led regular folks in areas they never ventured before. Non-traditional markets have become easier accessible, and some part of capital has been drawn out from stock market - but it's still public participating in market activity, only spread thinner. So, will pure stock volume still be a good measure for that particular purpose? Probably not.
There are many more factors to consider, so any approach won't be perfect. Gotta settle on some kind of proxy and some kind of "engineering approximation" :)
http://tradinglog.realitytrader.com/2012/02/ttn-fe...
"But, it looks like now you want to argue for the sake of arguing and I have no time for that. "
Wow... remind me to never try to answer your question or try to help you again. I thought you wanted to find out what really happens. Instead you take it as arguing or attempt to convince you of something. My mistake. Won't happen again.
Sorry, I have to disagree again... "lowest since 2007" is not really an indicator - we had abnormally high volume readings during sharp market drops, so "lower than average now" can simply be a return to the norm. Original premise that sent you on this quest was that we have volume lowest since 1999, right? That should be a basis for comparison, not the volume peaks during extremely overheated market panic.
You can't make any conclusions from that for the simple reason of NYSE losing market share to competitors. This process accelerated over the last decade, so you need aggregated volume, not NYSE alone.
Doesn't look right to me... See attached SPY chart with volume for the last three years, no such patterns. I went in chart as far as 2005, and volumes were about half of today's, with significant (and understandable) increase in 2007 and 2008. While staying at about 1/3 of that peak now, volume is still significantly higher than in 2005.
"what if Romney says before the election that he will appoint Ron Paul Sec of Treasury if elected. Could that help him beat Obama?"
If he has a chance to win, such announcement would send it to zero, IMO.
http://goo.gl/dKMrj
"we will know soon who is right: shippers or stock markets"
Jack, I don't know if this is right way to put it... market doesn't move on one factor only, it incorporates a lot of things - especially these days when liquidity is being injected or promised every, umm, couple hours. I mean, if market spikes on another piece of idiotic monetary policy, can you really say that it contradicts shippers? They do not compete as predictors of anything, it's just different piece of mosaic.
If recession comes, can you say that the market was wrong? Of course not - it just did its thing by killing the overconfident suckers that tried to trade on obvious, on headlines, on soundbites fed to them. Then, when they gave up, covered their shorts and went long - well, you know what will have happened then :)
http://tradinglog.realitytrader.com/2012/02/market...
Actually, global trade volume looks differently. That chart ends in Apr 2011, it does indicate anything about the future. Here is today;s situation:
The Baltic Dry Index (BDIY), a measure of commodity shipping costs, slumped for a 33rd session today to the lowest since August 1986. Operators of the global dry-bulk fleet of more than 8,900 ships are accepting unprofitable charters amid a glut of vessels, even as global trade in commodities expands to a record.
Very different picture, isn't it... Building too many ships during enthusiastic phase of economic insanity seems to be behind this dichotomy rather than dropping trade volumes.
*(US) JAN CHANGE IN NONFARM PAYROLLS: 243K V 140KE; CHANGE IN PRIVATE PAYROLLS: 257K V 160KE
Man, you are killing it. Good job!
Catch of the Day for non-FB users:
http://tradinglog.realitytrader.com/2012/02/feb-02...
http://goo.gl/mCzTR
C&H on daily, 7.50 break
Gold $4500 this year? I am betting against it, any amount. The more the merrier, that's my early retirement chance. Anyone?