3 ms·
It looks like it might be in the top 100 though. Considering these are changes per day, and the chart covers around 100 years or 25,000 trading days, this puts
by starpilot 9y ago
It looks like it might be in the top 100 though. Considering these are changes per day, and the chart covers around 100 years or 25,000 trading days, this puts it in the top 0.4% of largest percentage daily losses. So, it does appear to be a significant losing day if 99.6% of such days are smaller in magnitude.
- quickthrower2 9y agoAbout 0.3% of days are my birthday.
- jerkstate 9y agowell, happy birthday to you then!
- hamandcheese 9y agoDespite the downvotes, the point seems valid on its surface. We should expect a losing day this bad or worse more frequently than once per year, which doesn’t sound that scary. On the other hand, I wouldn’t expect losing days to be evenly distributed (in the short to medium term at least) but rather clumped together.
- Obi_Juan_Kenobi 9y agoIt's also significant given the overall state of the market. http://www.macrotrends.net/1319/dow-jones-100-year-historical-chart http://www.macrotrends.net/1319/dow-jones-100-year-historica... http://www.multpl.com/inflation-adjusted-s-p-500 http://www.multpl.com/inflation-adjusted-s-p-500 Even accounting for an overall growth trend (e.g. real GDP) the market is looking quite overbought and prepared for a major crash. Signs of weakness like this are significant. It certainly doesn't guarantee a crash, but it's newsworthy IMO. Especially in the context of a decade of QE and the fed raising rates.
- Retric 9y agoDow has more up days than down. So among down days this is closer to 1% than 0.4%.
- talmand 9y agoBut then you could compare a different day and say it's in the top 200. Or the top 300. At which point does "X falls within top Y" no longer means anything?