A variant of the proof of the first axiom of Dow - page 7
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
Let me give you a hint.
There is the "Dow axiom", which says that all the information available to the market already "sits" in the price of a stock.
There is a conclusion from it that Dow himself drew - only price analysis is necessary and sufficient to predict the price of a stock. There is no point in analysing the fundamentals as they are already "sitting" in the price.
That the profit of a manufacturing company depends on the price of the goods it produces and sells is obvious.
By heroic effort you can still "prove" that a trader's profit depends on the price of the financial asset he trades. Well, genius....
But what does this have to do with the "Dow axiom"?
Yusuf, put out the "local professors" :)))))
Once again - Dow was formulating his "axioms" for the stock market.
No, I have no idea what the cost of a stock is
1. It's not obvious from the quote. I don't know exactly, do you have a specific quote where he talks about it?
2. By cost price I mean the nominal value, i.e. the value of the share in the share capital of the organisation, to this value is added the issue cost - the mark-up on the initial placement of the share, and subsequently the valuation value by the market. Obviously, not all of these components of the share price can be directly influenced by the market, but these indicators will be taken into account in the price structure.
1. it is not obvious from the quote. I don't know exactly, do you have a specific quote where he says that?
2. By cost, I mean the nominal value, i.e. the value of the share in the share capital of the organisation, to this value is added the issue price - the mark-up on the initial placement of the share, and subsequently the valuation value by the market. Obviously, the market may not directly influence all these components of the share price, but these indicators will be taken into account in the price structure.
)
1. Dow was in the US stock market before the advent of Forex. Dow died 70 years before the emergence of Forex)))))
2. The cost of production only exists for manufacturing companies and their products. For trading companies, there is only a purchase price and a sale price.
Well, you can 'imply' a cow by an apple and a cockroach by a hedgehog, but don't extend your 'implying' to other people
)
1. Dow was working in the US stock market even before the advent of Forex)))))
2. The cost of production only exists for manufacturing companies and their products. For trading companies, there is only a purchase price and a sale price.
Well, you can 'imply' a cow by an apple and a cockroach by a hedgehog, but don't extend your 'implying' to other people
1. What does Forex have to do with it, so there is no concrete evidence?
2. You are sorely mistaken, wholesalers have different costs, and they can be accounted for both in the accounting price of goods in stock and separately as a selling expense, i.e. they form the cost of production - the total cost without regard to profit (let's talk sense of words, not quotes from textbook theorists).
1. What does Forex have to do with it? So there is no concrete evidence?
2. You are sorely mistaken, wholesalers have different costs, and they can be accounted for both in the accounting price of goods in stock and separately in sales costs, i.e. they form the cost of production - the total cost without regard to profit (let's talk about the meaning of words, not quotes from textbook theorists).
))))))) What's the evidence? Dow worked in the US stock market. no other financial markets existed then except stock markets.
2. There is a broker who bought a few lots of stocks. What products did he produce and what was their cost of production?
))))))) What evidence? Dow worked in the US stock market. no other financial markets existed then, except stock markets.
2. There is a broker who bought a few lots of stocks. What products did he produce and what is their cost of production?
1. Yes little where the person has worked - fantasy (academic interests) can go beyond the scope of the job. I'm not claiming anything - it's up to his admirers to dig into his history.
2. Why did the broker buy the stock? It is likely that he has made a financial investment, respectively spent his resources on it - at a minimum - employee wages, stock exchange fees - this will be the actual cost of the expenditure. When he sells the stock, he will therefore make a profit minus the cost of acquiring the stock (cost price).
All this was solved a long time ago in linear programming and microeconomics.
Yusuf has once again discovered America for the thousandth time.
That's why I didn't even comment on his article - as much as I can....
No, you little brat, you're shitting in the thread again...