Talk:Stock market crash

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It is imperative to mention the 1987 crash! --Daniel C. Boyer

1837, 1857, 1873, 1909-- keeping the purely Ameicocentric POV... --Wetman 12:20, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 2007 crash 2 What about the Crash of 2000 in the U.S. & the Japanese Crash of 1987? 3 Definition 4 Vandalism 5 External Links 6 Nonsense statement?

[edit] 2007 crash

How about the "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)

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

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 (talk • contribs) 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)

[edit] Definition

Can a crash be purely defined, like a drop in at least 15 or 20% in a single day? And do bubbles count? --70.111.218.254 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 65.8.155.185... 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 65.8.155.185 :) WynnQuon 20:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

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.74.12.249.98 04:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External Links

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 65.118.190.226 (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)

the stock market crash of 09  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.75.108.139 (talk) 16:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC) 

[edit] Nonsense statement?

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 (talk • contribs) 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: http://www.financetech.com/featured/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=14702074 and this long academic study: http://www.fma.org/Chicago/Papers/LockednCrossedMarkets-FMA.pdf 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 82.131.12.97 (talk) 20:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)