Talk:Dow Jones Industrial Average/Archive 2

Reindexing in 1914

"When the markets reopened on December 12, 1914, the index closed at 54, a drop of 24.39%."

First, the ref appears to require registration to view. Second, according to the sources at List of largest daily changes in the Dow Jones Industrial Average, it was not a drop, but rather a reindexing, since the adjustment of values stopped at the four month break in 1914. RJaguar3 | u | t 00:52, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I made an attempt to fix that. I added an additional sentence with a referenced link from the NY Times explaining the discrepency. RT6543 (talk) 15:15, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

GM De-listing and effects

Now that GM has been removed from the DJIA (an effect not yet shown in the article), do we know yet how it will be replaced? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.66.170.230 (talk) 20:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

GM and C's removal is mentioned below the table. They will be replaced by CSCO and TRV. It hasn't happened yet and is scheduled to happen on June 8th.DavidRF (talk) 20:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Former components

It seems a little bit odd. Why does this section start from the year of 1999? There were numerous and notable changes in previous years as well. There should maybe be an introduction about "changes in general" being made with nothing relating to exact specifics. The specifics part should be left to the link at the bottom of the paragraph which provides detailed info on all changes that were ever made. It just doesn't sound right by starting off this section from events during 1999. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.160.244 (talk) 22:39, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I moved the link to Historical components of the Dow Jones Industrial Average to the top of that section. 1999 is an arbitrary date... the paragraph in this article just intends to gloss over some of the "recent changes". At some point the details in this article could be trimmed to only include "since 2005" or "since 2008" as 1999 is not that recent anymore.DavidRF (talk) 23:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, it looks alot better now. Thanks. comment added by 71.190.160.244 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC).

Reducing oiverlinking and other edits

I am restoring my edits that were reverted for the following reasons:

• words like "war", "terrorism", "natural disasters" and "20th century" are plain English words -- they do not need to be linked because they are understood by people who can read English -- see WP:OVERLINK
• it is incorrect to capitalize "war", "terrorism" and "natural disasters" in English
• SEC is an acronym that may not be familiar to many readers, especially non-U.S. readers -- it should be spelled out the first time it is used -- see Wikipedia:MOS#Acronyms_and_abbreviations

Ground Zero | t 15:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Can we truncate the see also section?

The list is getting to be over a screen long. Is there a way we can get that down? Perhaps collection groups of them into templates? Thanks.DavidRF (talk) 19:51, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think its a big deal. Listen, its an informative section. The subjects of the "Dow" and the "Stock Market" are comprehensive, detailed and complex. Info about it, will never be summed up with one wiki link. I think though, its come towards its conclusion. It doesn't appear like that list will get expanded in the near term, unless people go overboard and add links that are completely irrelevant; such as adding a link for the New York Mercantile Exchange. That trading facility is a subsidiary of the CME Group, but commodities are not directly relevant towards the subject matter of the Dow in particular. Kriss456 —Preceding undated comment added 00:37, 28 August 2009 (UTC).

Oh, it isn't a big deal, but its a longer list of see-also links than I've seen anywhere else on wikipedia. Normally, when the list of see-also links gets that big, the links are collected into navigation template(s).DavidRF (talk) 00:56, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Dow History Update

Since the 10,000 point level is highly important in the DJIA, I added in a statement about the reclaiming of that level in mid-October. --Press208 (talk) 23:30, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Market capitalisation

What is the current/historical market capitalisation of DJIA 30? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.113.232.2 (talk) 11:50, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Unique IDs for market indices?

I'm trying to find the unique ID codes for various market indices. Different sources disagree. For example, different sources identify the NASDAQ 100 index as 'IXNDX', or 'NDX'; the Dow Jones Industrial Average as 'NDU', '$NDU', 'INDU', or 'DJIA30'; the NIKKEI 225 as 'N225', '^N225', or '.N225'; the FTSE 100 as 'FTSE', 'FTSE100' or 'UKX100' - and so on.

Does each market index have a standard unique ID code (like shares do - eg. MSFT for Microsoft)? If so, where can I find them, and could someone add these codes to the wikipedia article for each market index?

TC 203.122.223.121 (talk) 02:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, there's your answer. There doesn't appear to be a standard symbol. Different sources provide different codes. I'm not sure if we should include it in the article, if there is no definitive symbol which all organizations adhere to. RT6543 (talk) 15:19, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm surprised there are no common symbols. IMHO, it would be useful to include that fact. Would a statement along the following lines, be appropriate in the article for each market index? : "The Blah Blah 100 index is commonly referred to by the symbols BB-100, BL/B100, and BLAH/B 100. However, there is no definitive common standard for market index symbols." TC 203.122.223.121 (talk) 02:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Well I can't say I see it as pertinent information. In some of the websites within the External Links section, the codes are provided. Like with the Yahoo link, it displays their code which they use. You see, if we made a sentence like that, what if someone would want to know which particular company uses a particular symbol. Like for instance, if one of the symbols used in the sentence is ^DJI - What if a reader wants to know which organization uses it? That information we insert with the symbols in the article would have to be longer than one sentence. Also, many of these organizations that use their own symbols are basically media companies. Its something opinionated on their part. RT6543 (talk) 16:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

What "it" are you saying is not pertinent? The example codes, or the fact there are no standard codes? I agree that quoting examples could be problematic. But I believe that the absence of standard codes, is pertinent. It sure was to me, because I spent quite some time, trying to find them! Not sure what to suggest at this point. TC 203.122.223.121 (talk) 05:09, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

May 6 2010 event?

Should we cover the event that happened one the Dow Jones today?76.21.122.234 (talk) 04:32, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I think thats an understatement. But truthfully speaking, I think the core issue revolves around the subject of "computer automated trading", and not necessarily the Dow Jones in particular. But its pretty much a given that it had to mentioned in the article. RT6543 (talk) 14:46, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

The S&P 500 page doesn't have a mention of the "flash crash" and I think the paragraph in this article is entirely too long. Even though there are a ton of articles related to the recent financial crisis, I think the flash crash deserves its own article. I can't be tied to just one index or just automated trading now. It effected the whole market and we will eventually learn more about it in the coming years.--NortyNort (talk) 13:37, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

investing in leveraged etfs via margin

I was under the impression that the average investor isn't allowed to invest in leveraged ETFs on margin anymore. Shouldn't that entire discussion now be removed from that section? In any case, it has nothing to do with the Dow Industrials, it has to do with investing on margin. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 16:17, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

What you are saying is indeed true. New rules instituted by the SEC in either late 2009 or early 2010 (I don't exactly recall) currently forbid margin use on leveraged ETFs. Due to the volatility experienced in the 2008 stock market downfall, the authorities would not allow an investor to potentially be exposed to large price movements from many double and triple leveraged ETFs which has become commonplace. So in fact, under the new regulations, its not possible to leverage your money say, 600% on a triple ETF; or 400% on a double ETF–even though at one time in the past it was allowed. 64.115.130.66 (talk) 14:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Random world events paragraph

I have removed the following content from the article as it is completely unsourced and has nothing that connects it in any way to the rest of the article:

"The decade of the 2010s would see a continuation of certain global conflicts such as the War in Afghanistan, the Iraq War, the War in North-West Pakistan, the War in Darfur as well as the Mexican Drug War which at times influences American politics regarding illegal immigration."

Looking for feedback from others about whether or not they see it as relevant or a random, unconnected statement.--Terrillja _talk 00:13, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I did not choose to ignore this discussion. There's no need to insert those comments. I just simply answered your query originally on my page. As far as the content is concerned, the subject matter of the decade of the 2010s goes along with the rest of the page. It's in chronological order. There are numerous events that might influence the Dows's movement, and some that may not. In this case, American politics sometimes does. I don't understand why all of a sudden you decide to be bold and make a decision that it doesn't belong in the article. No one has objected to economic or political history as being completely irrelevant to the Dow's movement. Fyllis (talk) 01:04, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

By edit warring without replying, even with a notice of this discussion on your talkpage, yes, you did choose to ignore it in a deliberate action. Many things can influence the Dow, but without a reliable source to provide a connection, it is unsourced conjecture at best and original research at worst. I was simply returning the article to the status quo by removing an unconnected and unsourced statement. Looking through the article history, it had been unsouced for a very long time anyways, against WP:V--Terrillja _talk 01:15, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

As far as "choosing" is concerned, you seem to pick and choose a reply for certain comments that your comfortable with. I know what vandalism is, and I also know what Original Research and the 3-Revert rules mean too. You don't need to individually pick and choose which comments you'd like to answer. You seemed to ignore my response about the vandalism anonymous IP editing as well as the subject matter of why and how economic and political events influence finance. Here is a simple example of how it can. An event such as 9/11 had an immediate financial impact on the Dow's movement even though it had nothing to do with the stock market. It was an entirely political event aimed at creating chaos. Never the less, it influenced the movement. Government spending on terrorism as well as on immigration needs might also have an indirect impact on the finance world as well. Is it necessary to say outright that it doesn't? Fyllis (talk) 01:29, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

For someone who claims to know Wikipedia policies, you have managed to ignore a number of them. Also, please look at WP:INDENT, it's annoying to keep fixing your malformatted comments.I didn't respond to your comments about IPs because the past actions are not relevant to the here and now. And I didn't ignore that there could be a connection. I said that there needed to be a reliable source that connected it. Wikipedia is not a collection of random information and without a reliable source to connect it to the article, that's exactly what it is.--Terrillja _talk 01:45, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Let's wait for a thorough response and opinion from other major contributors to the article before drawing conclusions. That should dictate whether the economic and political events warrant insertion in the page. Fyllis (talk) 01:55, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Either way, it's still unsourced and subject to immediate removal per WP:V.--Terrillja _talk 02:06, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

financial crisis/ bailout

in the 08 finanial crisis section it states:

A series of "bailout" packages, including the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, proposed and implemented by the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury, as well as FDIC-sponsored bank mergers, did not prevent further losses.

That seems somewhat misleading, implying it had no impact at all, by not mentioning it possibly prevented further, more damaging losses. I'm not very informed on the subject so i'm just pointing this out for someone more knowledgeable to fix. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lerikson (talk • contribs) 16:53, 19 November 2010 (UTC)