6 ms·

We've had single day market "corrections". So not the fastest stock market correction on record. But then again, it depends on how one defines "correction". 19

We've had single day market "corrections". So not the fastest stock market correction on record. But then again, it depends on how one defines "correction". 1987-10-19 −22.61% 1929-10-28 −12.82% 1929-10-29 −11.73% https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_daily_changes_in_the_Dow_Jones_Industrial_Average https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_daily_changes_... Wish news just stated facts instead of looking for every angle to spice things up for clicks. But then again, bloomberg and most "news" companies aren't in the news business, they are in the ad business. What's wrong with "X index has entered correction territory with Y percentage decline"? Or something like that?

nathanaldensr 7y ago
You answered your own question before even asking it. Bravo!
solveit 7y ago
What's up with October? It looks incredibly overrepresented on the top 20 list as well.
- sk5t 7y ago
  October is historically a scary trading month, but I've never read anything arguing there's a good reason for it.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - timmbo 7y ago
    In general there isn't really a good reason for any of it. Most of the markets are based on feelings.
- casefields 7y ago
  Good eye. It's called the October Effect: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/o/octobereffect.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/o/octobereffect.asp
MR4D 7y ago
You’re correct. Most sure why you are being downvoted.
resource0x 7y ago
They mean "the time interval between the peak date and the date of 10% correction" The data you cited is not that.
vineyardmike 7y ago
Bloomberg is one of the more interesting news agencies in terms of business, especially now that Mike Bloomberg is in the news a lot, diving into the incentives for the news organization to write headlines could be fun, so I'll attempt to answer or shed light on "why" the article headline might be how it is, since I don't believe its for ad clicks from regular readers. But first, as others have pointed out, the definition of correction is not just "change", there's more to it, so that's why the wiki link you shared isn't contradictory. So I do want to preface the rest of this, by saying that they are "stating facts", since again, Wall Street has a more precise definition of correction. BloombergNews is actually not in the ad business like most "News businesses". I turned off my ad-block and signed out of my Bloomberg account, then checked the website and there was rare "sponsored content" and occasional ads, yes. BUT according to Wiki: "[Bloomberg] provides financial software tools and enterprise applications such as analytics and equity trading platform, data services, and news to financial companies and organizations" So BloombergNews actually is in the financial news business, comingling with enterprise software. If you check out their pay wall for regular people, you have to pay a lot for their news (~500 a year, compared to ~100 for WSJ). The news business of Bloomberg was created to service the customers of the Bloomberg Terminals, in the hopes to sell more terminals (85% of their business) - according to Wikipedia. So that raises the question again, why would they spice things up in headlines, since it may not be (solely) for ad clicks? Clearly, their audience is not ad-clickers. This is news that people see at work, from their 24k-plus-a-year Bloomberg Terminal. And the audience who view it at work is the "Financial" people, who likely work on wall street. Many of these workers read news all day at work, and try to make trading decisions based on the news they read - for example, they may want to sell stocks when the largest manufacturing nation shuts down production due to a spreading pandemic. They are paying for that sort of news. To dive back into the Bloomberg-side of the business, look past ads clicks and towards their compensation structure for reporters: "Bloomberg News has an unusual practice of paying some of its reporters explicitly for publishing “market-moving” stories." [business insider] So, reporters have an incentive to write articles that their primary readers would find compelling enough to change their trading behavior. That said, I can't imagine how this article would actually change the behavior of trading in measurable way, so maybe it's just informative of the scope of price drops in historical context, meant to inform the target audience, and ensure they keep get news from BloombergNews instead of elsewhere. Citations, Accessed Feb2020 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloomberg_Terminal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloomberg_Terminal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloomberg_L.P.#Bloomberg_L.P._v._Bloomberg_Ltd https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloomberg_L.P.#Bloomberg_L.P._... https://www.businessinsider.com.au/bloomberg-reporters-compensation-2013-12 https://www.businessinsider.com.au/bloomberg-reporters-compe...

nathanaldensr 7y ago

You answered your own question before even asking it. Bravo!

solveit 7y ago

What's up with October? It looks incredibly overrepresented on the top 20 list as well.

sk5t 7y ago
October is historically a scary trading month, but I've never read anything arguing there's a good reason for it.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- timmbo 7y ago
  In general there isn't really a good reason for any of it. Most of the markets are based on feelings.
casefields 7y ago
Good eye. It's called the October Effect: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/o/octobereffect.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/o/octobereffect.asp

MR4D 7y ago

You’re correct. Most sure why you are being downvoted.

resource0x 7y ago

They mean "the time interval between the peak date and the date of 10% correction" The data you cited is not that.

vineyardmike 7y ago

Bloomberg is one of the more interesting news agencies in terms of business, especially now that Mike Bloomberg is in the news a lot, diving into the incentives for the news organization to write headlines could be fun, so I'll attempt to answer or shed light on "why" the article headline might be how it is, since I don't believe its for ad clicks from regular readers. But first, as others have pointed out, the definition of correction is not just "change", there's more to it, so that's why the wiki link you shared isn't contradictory. So I do want to preface the rest of this, by saying that they are "stating facts", since again, Wall Street has a more precise definition of correction. BloombergNews is actually not in the ad business like most "News businesses". I turned off my ad-block and signed out of my Bloomberg account, then checked the website and there was rare "sponsored content" and occasional ads, yes. BUT according to Wiki: "[Bloomberg] provides financial software tools and enterprise applications such as analytics and equity trading platform, data services, and news to financial companies and organizations" So BloombergNews actually is in the financial news business, comingling with enterprise software. If you check out their pay wall for regular people, you have to pay a lot for their news (~500 a year, compared to ~100 for WSJ). The news business of Bloomberg was created to service the customers of the Bloomberg Terminals, in the hopes to sell more terminals (85% of their business) - according to Wikipedia. So that raises the question again, why would they spice things up in headlines, since it may not be (solely) for ad clicks? Clearly, their audience is not ad-clickers. This is news that people see at work, from their 24k-plus-a-year Bloomberg Terminal. And the audience who view it at work is the "Financial" people, who likely work on wall street. Many of these workers read news all day at work, and try to make trading decisions based on the news they read - for example, they may want to sell stocks when the largest manufacturing nation shuts down production due to a spreading pandemic. They are paying for that sort of news. To dive back into the Bloomberg-side of the business, look past ads clicks and towards their compensation structure for reporters: "Bloomberg News has an unusual practice of paying some of its reporters explicitly for publishing “market-moving” stories." [business insider] So, reporters have an incentive to write articles that their primary readers would find compelling enough to change their trading behavior. That said, I can't imagine how this article would actually change the behavior of trading in measurable way, so maybe it's just informative of the scope of price drops in historical context, meant to inform the target audience, and ensure they keep get news from BloombergNews instead of elsewhere. Citations, Accessed Feb2020 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloomberg_Terminal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloomberg_Terminal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloomberg_L.P.#Bloomberg_L.P._v._Bloomberg_Ltd https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloomberg_L.P.#Bloomberg_L.P._... https://www.businessinsider.com.au/bloomberg-reporters-compensation-2013-12 https://www.businessinsider.com.au/bloomberg-reporters-compe...