Talk:January 2008 stock market volatility

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Business and economics Portal

This article is within the scope of the Business and Economics WikiProject.

Start

rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale

???

This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale.

This article was nominated for deletion on February 3, 2008. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

This article was nominated for deletion on April 1, 2008. The result of the discussion was keep.

[edit] indices or indexes

the word indices is just bugging the hell out of me, both forms are proper for the plural of index, its just American English vs British English since its an article about the American stock exchange should it not be the americanized form, Indexes? 72.187.97.71 (talk) 07:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Afaik, it's not an American vs British spelling, but rather a traditional vs contemporary spelling. Mathematics uses indices almost exclusively (c.f. matrix/matrices; one never says matrixes (or matrice for that matter)). I find indices easier to say than indexes, so that's what I typically use. Andareed (talk) 08:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] miscellaneous comments

I don't think it's appropriate to put this up as the situation isn't confirmed yet. 70.69.37.177 (talk) 07:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

It does seem a bit premature. Even the Der Speigel report says "It looks dramatic at the moment, but it is not as bad as it seems," and "One should not assign too much significance to the current dip." Pairadox (talk) 07:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Too soon. Data is not even in yet! -Anon from Buffalo, NY —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.180.65.118 (talk) 07:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Aw Shit, this is it...--142.157.214.6 (talk) 08:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Newspapers here (Ireland) are calling yesterday Blue Monday [1], perhaps the article should be renamed this? 86.154.131.150 (talk) 08:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

"Panic of 2008" seems a fair bit melodramatic since we're still living it. I'd say let's wait a week, give the situation time to mature a bit, then we can see what's going on. --Agamemnon2 (talk) 11:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't fit the definition of a stock market crash, so the entire premise of the article is faulty at this point. Pairadox (talk) 12:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

At the moment the premise is faulty, but depending on where the U.S. markets go in the next eight or ten hours, it might not be. Musashi1600 (talk) 12:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Blue Monday is something else not relevant to the stock markets. It's a bogus formula which claims to calculate the most depressing day of the year. 81.174.226.229 (talk) 09:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

After a few failed attempts, I've moved this to 2008 stock market downturn to better represent the situation (based on the name of 2002). I feel "panic" is a bit too OTT at this time -Halo (talk) 15:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

this is definitely making me panic, and I don't even have any money. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.21.221 (talk) 04:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lacks info

It needs more charts and numbers and stuff and predictions.(189.148.8.224 (talk) 19:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC))

[edit] since when is -0.2% on dow jones industrial considered a black monday?

wow if there ever was an article that was to be deleted, it would be this one.

There is more to the world that just the US. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 20:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

oh ok, so the major indices in europe bieng positive only further supports what i said. yes japan was down, still more like a news article instead of an encyclopedia entry. LightSpeed3 (talk) 20:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

US stock markets WERE CLOSED on Monday as it was a holiday - Martin Luther King - WAS 4.250 (talk) 21:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

What if they gave a panic and nobody came? Time to chuck this article! 24.127.164.40 (talk) 22:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

That's not even english is it ? I think if indian markets fall 15% than that is notable. period. Also, the FED interest cut was the biggest cut in 24 years, and the first emergency cut since 9/11. Seems like something important to me. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 22:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, I think this article does have some potential and — whether this is a short term thing, such as 1987's Black Monday or an event with long-lasting economic effects, such as with the 2007 subprime mortgage financial crisis and the United States housing bubble — someone can learn something from this economic trend someday. Give the article a chance to develop. [[Briguy52748 (talk) 22:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)]]

I vote to let the article stay a bit longer. Yes, as things currently stand, the stock market downturn is not yet of historic proportions. However, it may yet turn out to be a real panic. If and when we see a 1,000 point plus hit on a single day, which is not out of the question in view of overall economic conditions (increasing cutback in consumer spending reinforced by large numbers of people removed from the credit market for 7-10 years; no effective government intervention, etc.), I vote to retain and RENAME the article, "Panic of 2008". Tmangray (talk) 00:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

the only problem with that, tman, is that this article is about monday and tuesday if you read the first sentence. I also like how 95% of the article focuses ont he drops from the month yet the first sentence talks about monday and tuesday even though the major indices of the US recovered already. 146.201.138.38 (talk) 04:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't call a 100 point-plus loss on the day a "recovery". Again, I say let's see how this plays out over the next few days or weeks before merging, deleting or re-naming. Tmangray (talk) 15:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Should be deleted

Wikipedia is becoming more and more trivial. Articles like this are watering down "real" events. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.31.106.35 (talk) 22:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Merge with 2007_subprime_mortgage_financial_crisis#Impact_on_stock_markets. At least do that -- as that article already has a section for "Impact on Stock Markets". The opening sentence to this article clearly shows that relation. KyuuA4 (talk) 22:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

How is it trivial? Counteries like austrlaia that dropped 7% in one day, loosing $110 billion. Biggest down turn for over 20 years. I would say thats notable.--155.144.251.120 (talk) 23:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

It is not trivial. But it may not turn out to be significant enough not to merge. I say leave it for the time being while events play out over the next several weeks. Tmangray (talk) 00:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

It is trivial in the sense it is hardly worthy of an enclyclopedia article OF ITS OWN. It is certainly worth mentioning on the encyclopeadic entries for the various country's stock markets. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.235.132.32 (talk) 01:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

newsflash. your opinion isn't the "absolute truth" --fs 01:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Monday-Tuesday Time problem

pretty sure when I watched th news yesterday, they called it "black tuesday". The crash occurred on our tuesday, not monday. need for fixing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dengero (talk • contribs) 23:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I think what this user is indicating at is that the drop of the asian markets is all under Monday, whereas for Hong Kong for instance, it was a small fall on Monday, and a heavy fall on Tuesday... ??? --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 00:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

yeah, the statistics provided for Australia and Hong Kong happened on Tuesday, not monday.Dengero (talk) 02:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Indian market fell 10% on the Tuesday, fell heavily but not as much on Monday. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.181.49.119 (talk) 04:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tables

It might make sense to convert the prose into a series of tables. Something like (Note: not real figures):

Exchange	Monday change	Tuesday chage
TSX	-5%	+2%
DOW	N/A	+6%

Comments? Andareed (talk) 00:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I think this would be a useful addition to the article. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Why is this notable?

Please leave in the basic data - the Dow fell 1.1%. That is definitely not notable. Do we have about 5 crashes (since 1900) as articles? I'll bet everyone of them had a 10% or greater drop.

It was the monday that saw the big falls, and the dow jones futures (which were trading) saw a drop of more than 4%, and the S&P500 4.5%.82.211.86.2 (talk) 14:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe the non-us markets were notable - but I think people should do some comparisons to show that they are, and not just assume. Perhaps the 3/4's % cut in Fed funds is notable, but then the title of the article is all wrong (merge it into a Fed article).

In general it would be a very good idea not to write articles about crashes, until the crash has already happened. Stock market downturns are not notable.

BTW, I write perfectly good American : )

24.127.164.40 (talk) 00:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Compared to other "one day in the market articles"

1929 - no good one day numbers, but it was about 15-20% on worst day

10-19-87 -24%

1989 "mini-crash" -6.91%

1997 "mini-crash" -7.18%

Chinese correction - 9% (China only noted - this gets less than 2 paragraphs)

Please don't go predicting any crashes - and what's happened so far?

24.127.164.40 (talk) 01:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Shanghai Market fell 7.9% on Monday.. probably worth noting —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.39.148 (talk) 07:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Votes for/against deletion

This "article" is not worth being present on Wikipedia, perhaps being merged with the sub-prime pages but not on its own. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.235.132.32 (talk) 01:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

newsflash. your opinion isn't the "absolute truth" --fs 01:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

neither is the person's who originally decided this should be an article!

WP:AFD is the correct process for voting for or against deletion. Pairadox (talk) 01:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] deleted?

can some please stop doing that and start realizing way less notable articles are online? --fs 01:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

There's unsolved murders in the world. Does that mean we shouldn't try to investigate robbery cases? Andareed (talk) 01:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

agreedDengero (talk) 02:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Opener Improvement

The opener should really be quoting some figures from international markets. The U.S. losses were by far the least significant, yet they are the only ones cited. How about the DAX and the FTSE losses well over 5%? DJLayton4 (talk) 02:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] delete this, markets recovered, asia markets recovered, and the us markets recovered on the same day

go 146.201.138.38 (talk) 04:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

u got a crusade there going. --fs 04:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

If you have stock in hand you might not think the same way... Shanghai market dropped nearly 20% in 4 days, and only recovered about 2%...

Clearly, the US markets have not recovered as of Wednesday morning. Let's let this volatility play out a bit longer before deleting, merging or even renaming this article. Tmangray (talk) 15:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

1 more hour and i think they'll be good.--mitrebox (talk) 20:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

In all seriousness, I stress that we editors need to wait for this market volatility to play out over time. I do not mean hours or days, but several weeks or months. Only after the market has stabilized can this article be appropriately written and the effects of this recent downturn assessed. And remember, the 1987 stock market drop appeared to be just a blip on the radar at first but there were economic effects that were felt for a long time. Also, if one deletes this article now, it will likely be re-created. Properly sourced, this article — although documenting a current event — can be very meaningful and useful. [[Briguy52748 (talk) 20:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)]]

It came roaring back but hopfully it will stay and grow were it is at, but lets give it a day or two. Supergodzilla^20|90 20:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

People need to not watch cable news and start wikipedia articles. Anyone who's familiar with twisted sister videos will find great humor in the fact that Dean Snyder rang the closing bell after such a overrated hiccup. --mitrebox (talk) 20:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

What is it with the US market obsession ? This is as even more about non-US markets than anything else. Also, the fact that most US markets were as good as bear already and the .75 interest cut likely heavily influenced the markets. The volatility in the market atm is unusual and something that will definitely be remembered very clearly in the financial markets and thus article worthy. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 20:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

'We're living in an American world and I am an American Girl' --mitrebox (talk) 21:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

For whatever reason, foreign markets are still more reactive to the US market than vice versa.

They are largest to start with.--Svetovid (talk) 23:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

In light of todays upswing, I say we give this article until tomorrow. If there's no further substantial drop, I vote to merge a digest of this article into the article on the subprime mortgage debacle. Tmangray (talk) 21:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I would give this one more week before moving or merging. Things have been crazy so far and it's hard to tell when it will stop. Remember (talk) 02:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Especially hard as it never really began. Give it to the end of January. That way it can be deleted or it would have to be renamed. I'm pulling for Groundhog sees its shadow, causes stock market downturn 2008--mitrebox (talk) 09:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Y'know, now I'm starting to see why some editors are uneasy about articles depicting current events. First of all, neither Wikipedia nor us editors are crystal balls, so there is no real way to know whether the market upswing of January 23, 2008 is a short-lived recovery or something that made the recent downturn/recession fears a blip on the radar. While I admit I am not a real fan of this article, I suggest waiting until the true impact of the recent turn of events concerning worldwide/the U.S. market are known before deciding the fate of this article. And to the editor who suggested that this article be renamed "Black Monday (2008)," have you heard that name used in the media, and if so where? [[Briguy52748 (talk) 13:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)]]

of course wiki sint a crystal ball, but this article is about monday and tuesday of last week (according to first sentence of article, which is supposed to be what the article is about), which doesnt require a crystal ball to know. its done, it was minor, and it wasnt a black monday unless you count that one reference to a small site. LightSpeed3 (talk) 20:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rename

I suggest renaming to Black Monday (2008). WAS 4.250 (talk) 11:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Some question whether reliable sources have used "Black Monday" to descibe the stock market downturn/crash/panic on Monday. Yes, they have. [2]

[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
and literally hundreds more

Even if the market fully recovers, billions of dollars and stocks changed hands. It was a real event. It had a real impact. If 1000 people die in an event and 1000 people are born, we don't say well it all evens out so let's not have an article on the event that killed 1000 people. WAS 4.250 (talk) 13:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I suggest naming it insignificant hand change 2008. 1000 people didn't die, Its a paper exchange. (In fact there are very few historical events in which 1000 people or more died in 1 day and only slightly more within 1 week.) If anyone was really impacted by this they had ridicously unbalanced portfolios, panacked, or didn't see somewhat obvious warning signs. Wikipedia does not write articles about people who stub their toes. --mitrebox (talk) 21:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Traders paniced in non-American stock markets on Monday. that caused NOTABLE losses worldwise. The unease this blaclk monday reflected is now increased. The psychological impact remains. The financial gains and losses remain. Your lack of concern is not shared by reliable sources. Your claim that it is not notable is sheer fiction or "Original research" as the in-house terminology goes. WAS 4.250 (talk) 13:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Incomplete table

I'm moving this from the article proper because it's obviously not ready for rollout. Pairadox (talk) 14:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Stock Market changes
Stock Market	2007	Jan 1-20	21	22	23	24	25
FTSE 100	?	?	?	?	?	?	?
TSX	?	?	?	?	?	?	?
Hang Seng	?	?	?	?	?	?	?
Dow Jones	?	?	482; .% ↓	96; .% ↓	298.98 ; .% ↑	?	?
S&P 500	?	?	?	?	?	?	?

[edit] Categories:"CRASH" removed as well as black Monday

Some folks have been using this article to push their personal opinions that the stock market is in a crash. How long does the market have to go up before it becomes clear that this is not the case? The first versions of the article lead off with the words "Panic" "Crash" and "Black Monday" and these words stayed in for about a full day. The category "stock market crashes" has stayed in almost the whole time (I've previously removed it).

Everything written in this article must have an NPOV. Everything must be sourced to a reliable source, which BTW means that everything must be written in the past tense. We cannot be making predictions here, and those folks who have made predictions here have made some pretty horrendous ones - crash indeed!

I suggest that anybody who adds anything here look at WP:NOT, in particular

People who say that we should wait a few months to see what happens before considering whether to delete the article, should especially consider the crystal ball prohibition. Finally, I have to say that some folks have literally been panic mongering, and that this type of "investment advice" can cost our readers money. Please don't do it.

Smallbones (talk) 18:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

There are indeed many misunderstandings. You have corrected pointed out some of them, but have a few yourself. The term "Black Monday" is indeed applicable and has been widely used by reliable sources. A crash or panic or downturn does not have to be permanent to be notable. Billions of dollars and stocks changed hands. some people are now richer and others poorer. But one major misunderstanding is that it was a non-US black Monday. The US financial markets were closed on Monday and thus the panic was confined to foreign markets; also some say the US market had already dropped enough and foreign markets were catching up with that drop. In any case, yes, past tense only. No forecasts in this article. This is about what has already happened in World markets in Jan 2008 and why according to reliable sources. WAS 4.250 (talk) 18:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Rather than get in an edit war over the "Crash" category - let's do some sort of mediation. It's just not a "crash" comparable to any of the other stock market event commonly called a crash (Feel free to come up with statistics to prove me wrong). Since it is not a crash, there cannot be a crash category here. You've made some claims about notability and the use of the word "downturn." Please elaborate. When the market bounces around and then goes up, how can it be called a "downturn?" What is a notable downturn? What is a notable event in the stock market? We just can't have daily stock market commentary here, so what do you suggest as a cut-off for notability?

Smallbones (talk) 20:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The crash defintion is cetinally out as US markets are concerned. The notability cut-off really needs to determine if the article is a world market article or a US article. What was the most pressing cause of the event? Speculation of a US recession has gone on for weeks (though its no where near the economic definition.)

Was it a panic of overseas investors of a US recession?

After hours trading (overseas?) brought down the markets Tue & Wed but intraday went up both days

If so then the article is notabale because no crash hit the US, only a small catchup due to afterhours sales overseas.

If the most pressing cause was a general slowdown of overseas markets then, as written, the article is not notable.

--mitrebox (talk) 21:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Our job at wikipedia is to merely repeat the terminology used by reliable sources, not to create our own criteria or to pick and choose between terms used by reliable sources. If reliable sources present more than one term or interpretation , then WP:NPOV policy says we present them all; but pay attention to due weight. Due weight suggests "downturn" is a better title than "crash", but the length of time of the panic, if there is no more panicing this month, suggests "Black Monday (2008)" may be a better title. WAS 4.250 (talk) 13:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Why a table of the Dow?

Someone thoughtfully included a table of one stock index, the Dow Jones. Unfortunately, since the U.S. markets were barely affected, that table doesn't illustrate this article very well. More relevant indices would be Nikkei, Hang Seng (Asia) and maybe EuroStoxx 50 for Europe. Peterbr (talk) 21:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The Dow is the largest US market. The majority of finacial speculation over here (US) is the problems overseas were caused by fears of a US recession. I created the table to show that the US market has not had large drops, and only has had drops in after hours trading (a sign of oversead trading?) If someone who is more familair with foregin markets wants to make a table for comparison please do. --mitrebox (talk) 22:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's be careful not to call trading in Dow futures, which takes place outside of equity market hours (9:30 AM to 4:00 PM EDT) "after hours" trading in the Dow. There is an after hours session that lasts from 4:00 to 8:00 EDT in equities, but the Dow's value as an index is not changing during this after hours session (only individual stocks and ETFs are being traded). The Dow futures contract, which you're referring to, is still trading after the equity markets close (until 4:30 EDT) and before equity markets open the next day and does have a bearing on the next day's trading, but Dow value in the cash market is not changing after 4:00 EDT. Clinevol98 (talk) 01:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I added the indices I mentioned earlier. As you see the numbers indicate a roller-coaster ride. Compared to those, the Dow numbers don't matter. So I place that table here: Peterbr (talk) 19:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

DJIA changes ^[1]
Stock Market	18-Jan	22-Jan	23-Jan	24-Jan	25-Jan
Previous Close	12,159.21	12,099.30	11,971.19	12,270.17	12,378.61
Open	12,265.37	11,759.03	11,799.26	12,272.69	12,391.70
Open change	106.16 (0.87%) ▲	-340.27 (-2.89%) ▼	-171.93 (-1.46%) ▼	2.52 (0.02%) ▲	13.09 (0.11%) ▲
Close	12,099.30	11,971.19	12,270.17	12,378.61	?
Change to Open	-166.07 (-1.35%) ▼	212.16 (1.80%) ▲	470.91 (3.99%) ▲	105.92 (0.86%)▲	? (?)
Change to Previous	-59.91 (-0.49%) ▼	-128.11 (-1.06%) ▼	298.98 (2.50%) ▲	108.44 (0.88%)▲	? (?)

[edit] Root Cause?

Looking at recent events the trigger appears to be the closing of options by the French Bank. It discovered over $7 Billion in rouge trading futures (likely across all markets) and decided to close them out before going public It started selling Friday and ended Wednesday. The heavy sell off likely triggered a monkey see monkey do fear response from other traders, that went on to affect markets worldwide. --mitrebox (talk) 17:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

A new york times article published a couple hours ago quotes one of that banks officials as saying their bank's unwinding of these positions did NOT influence this crash. But they could be lying. We should put both claims (maybe it had an effect, and no we know it did not) in the article for now. WAS 4.250 (talk) 17:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I probably watch too much of Chris Matthews and Jim Cramer, but I have to wonder if Cramer's comments on Friday evening, January 18, on Hardball with Chris Matthews didn't play some role in the background of this. I happened to be watching Cramer predict, I believe for the first time, that a number of the US's biggest banks would go under in the next couple of weeks, and that the market was going to drop 2000 points unless some extremely dramatic actions were taken by the Fed. It's been in a few articles;[9][10]; I haven't seen anyone describe this as a cause, it just made me wonder (the fact that it started overseas throws a bit of a wrench in it, admitedly). Mackan79 (talk) 19:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AGAIN !!!

Someone keeps refusing to read either this page or the sources and claims that "crash" has not been used by a reliable published source for this event. AGAIN:

http://business.scotsman.com/economics/84bn-lost-on-Black-Monday.3695586.jp says "Finance ministers and stock-market traders will today watch anxiously for Wall Street's reaction to yesterday's global shares crash."

I can find more. Can you find any that claim it was not a crash? WAS 4.250 (talk) 17:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Is Crash is a term with a specific economic definition, and not a hyperbolic headline designed to get readers? If so wikipedia should probably follow the first and not the latter. --mitrebox (talk) 19:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a common misunderstanding in the use of language. Words have multiple meanings. Many times there is a very specific defined term-of-art meaning in addition to other common meanings. Those common meanings are not wrong as meanings of the word as used and understood by the general public; they are only wrong meanings in a technical context where the term-of-art definition is needed and expected. Wikipedia is not a technical publication, but a publication for the general public who will understand words in terms of their common dictionary usage. At wikipedia we use the terminology of reliable published sources. If you have a reliable published source that explicitly says that Monday was not a crash by some specific technical definition, then that source and claim would make an excellent addition to the article. But it would be against our policy for you to look up a definition and apply it yourself and write in the article that it really was not a crash. WAS 4.250 (talk) 21:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow that really was a great collection of words there and now I have no idea what we were talking about. If you owned stock it was a crash, if you didn't it was a fox news alert that came between Clinton wins NV and Heath Ledger dead --mitrebox (talk) 08:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] related article?

Is there yet a related article on the new 2008 US tax refunds to stimulate the economy? Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 07:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

godz, I hope not. Check WikiNews. Pairadox (talk) 07:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

$600 check (2008)--mitrebox (talk) 08:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Define article - What does "downturn" mean?

The major problem with this article is that we have never defined the topic. Was it a "Global market crash" as the article first appeared on Monday. (Sorry, but the US market didn't go down) Or then a "non-US" downturn? How long did this downturn go? Since we are only allowed to report the past, the topic seemed to move forward one day at a time, until somebody could find a real downturn. Well Friday is over, nobody is seriously writing about crashes anymore (except in India), the US and Australia are UP, the UK and Europe have settled down to what looks like minor losses, what's left of the "crash"?

Let's use the best sources here - why not use the Wall Street Journal, the Finanical Times, and the Economist? With all due respect, Al Jeezera and the Scotsman are not really known for their financial writing.

Let's finally define what time period the article is about - say the week ended Friday, January 25?

Let's also be specific what we are talking about - it wasn't a general "January 2008 stock market downturn" at all. Let's rename the article "January 2008 stock market volatility" - that can be supported without redefining the subject every day, and we don't have to make predictions. And let's keep panic terms out of this - who wants to keep crying "the sky is falling, the sky is falling" when it just hasn't?

Smallbones (talk) 19:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The desire for the human psyche to accept bad news and abhore its relinquishment is cleverly notated in this article. 24.13.69.32 (talk) 20:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Index data for week ended Jan.25 from WSJ 1/28/08 p. c4

This should put to bed any idea that there was a crash last week. Was there a downturn? Maybe, maybe not!

World DJ world Index +0.05%

DJ World ex US -0.41%

MSCI EAFE -0.61%

DJ Wilshire Global -0.18%

DJ Wilshire Global ex US -0.83%

Excerpts - only the most important

Canada +1.24%

Mexico +2.49%

DJ Stoxx 600 -1.62%

CAC 40 -4.21%

DAX -6.80%

FTSE 100 -0.55%

DJ Asia Pacific -0.38%

S&P/ASX +1.97% (Australia)

Hang Seng -0.32%

Sensex -3.43%

Nikkei -1.67%

Straits Times +1.78%

Kospi -2.44%

[edit] days of the week

This article is looking very dated with "Monday", "Tuesday", etc. This should be changed to "January 21", etc. Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Feb. 29?

The aftermath section could use some material. But I'd guess that nobody really has much to say about the aftermath - what really did happen?

On the other hand, I removed the following - since it is not clear what the relation is of the January volatility to Feb. 29 (other than time)

"Stocks fell sharply February 29, 2008 after a series of depressing economic and corporate reports and high oil prices stoked concerns about the health of the economy."^[2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smallbones (talk • contribs) 14:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

"what really did happen?" - Answer: Some people got richer and some people got poorer in a world-wide finance panic that resulted in governments having an emergency lowering of interest rates and France in particular being made aware of its inadequate banking investment regulations. All this in the context of a world-wide housing bubble burst and lack of liquidity in the home loan finance market. WAS 4.250 (talk) 16:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Headline writers and Disapearing news source in Italian

I've removed the following since a) the site is in Italian and b) the story doesn't appear to be there anymore. If the fact is indeed correct, I'm sure you can get it from a reputable source in English.

European stocks closed with their worst result since September 11, 2001,^[3]

^ DOW JONES INDUSTRIAL AVERAGE INDEX (2008-01-24). Retrieved on 2008-01-25.
^ http://edition.cnn.com/2008/BUSINESS/02/29/dow.down.ap/index.html
^ AGI. "European Stocks Close With Worst Result Since 9/11", AGI News On, Rome: AGI S.P.A., 2008-01-21. Retrieved on 2008-01-22.

The evidence claiming that this was "Black Monday" is remarkably weak. Several of the citations for "Black Monday" don't even mention the words in the story, only in the headline. The AP story didn't mention "BM" only an Omaha TV station's headline for the story - do they even give the headline of the story on Omaha TV? The "Financial Times" article that supposedly show that people call it "BM" actually shows pretty much the opposite. The headline on the personal finance article from a back section (is that the only "BM" headline from the FT?) used the term. But in the text it was placed in quotation marks, as if to say "so-called Black Monday." The general news commentator from Toronto did use "BM" (once in headline, once in story) but the article shows that he knows nothing about stock markets. His thesis - we could enter a great depression because, well, it's happened before.

The renaming this article "per" the deletion debate, is grossly misleading. There was no consensus, no ruling, and very few mentions of renaming the article in the AFD. I will change it back at my convenience.

Finally I have to say that I am still expecting to get an apology for what looks like 2 calculated insults [11] [12] from WAS 4.250. I can have no discussion with somebody who flouts the rules of civilized discourse like that. Let's go into mediation if you have anything to say (unless you precede it with an apology). Smallbones (talk) 13:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted that the Guardian used the term "BM" and referred to this article in Wikipedia! [13] essentially making fun of it and also of an earlier use of the term in the Guardian. Smallbones (talk) 14:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I initially supported using the title Black Monday (2008), as I thought the term was widely used outside the United States. However, after looking at http://www.google.com/trends?q=%22black+monday%22, I think I was wrong. So I'd support a name change. But to what? January 2008 stock market volatility is much worse. This article is not about January 2008 (and shouldn't be), and not merely about stock market volatility (and shouldn't be), it's about the related events of 36 hours or so during January 2008. I'd support a merge and redirect, if a decent one could be made. Economic crisis of 2008 might be a good candidate, though I don't like that title either. Anthony (talk) 01:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

And I'm not sure January 1, 2008 is a good starting point if we're going to write an article about the current credit crunch. Check out this article from August 10, 2007: "The Federal Reserve's moves today were just part of a worldwide effort to reassure markets concerned about the availability of credit. All together, central banks have pumped some $326 billion into the global financial system in the past 48 hours." And take a look at the TED spread. There's an obvious blip on January 22, 2008, but as Paul Krugman, who gets the credit for pointing to the TED spread [14], said, "The financial crisis...began late last summer..." [15] Anyway, my view of this is admittedly quite US-centric. So please feel free to point out any bias you think I'm making here, like that I didn't mention the September 2007 Northern Rock bank run (which apparently doesn't even have its own article). Anthony (talk) 01:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely rotten sources were reinserted. I've found nothing in them that would convince anybody that reliable sources believe that the day was a "Black Monday." Some headline writters, yes. But little or NOTHING in the article itself. Example from cited source:"It may have been Black Monday, but the Christian Dior show kicked off haute couture week in Paris yesterday unbowed by the plummeting financial markets." Sorry, but fashion news?

Smallbones (talk) 12:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Everybody was talking about how it was a "Black Monday". Even the Fashion page folk. Only people who are trying to rewrite history such as yourself deny that there was a world wide financial panic that was commonly called "Black Monday". Arguing that it should not have been called that is something that if you have sources for would make a nice addition to the article. Just don't violate WP:NOR. You have to source the claim to reliable published sources that actually make the claim that "it should not have been called 'Black Monday'" rather than find facts and you yourself draw the conclusion. WAS 4.250 (talk) 12:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] No Black Monday in reliable sources

Let's start off with the definition of newspapers as reliable sources from WP:RS

"News organizations

Further information: Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons

Material from mainstream news organizations is welcomed, particularly the high-quality end of the market, such as the The Washington Post, The Times of London, and The Associated Press. When citing opinion pieces in newspapers and magazines, in-text attribution should be used if the material is contentious."

I've checked the references offered and there is essentially nothing in them about Jan. 21 2008 being "Black Monday" One quote in the Scotsman, fashion news, some headlines without backup in the article, a nutty general news columnist in Toronto...

I've also checked what I consider to be the most reliable sources of business journalism: The Wall Street Journal, the Financial Times, the Economist, as well as Barron's, Business Week, Fortune, Forbes with the New York Times and the Washington Post thrown in to boot.

None of them use the term "Black Monday" to refer to Jan. 21, 2008 with the minor exception of the FT article (as noted above) that has a personal finance article 2 days afterword the uses the term in quotation marks, as if to say "so-called Black Monday." Fortune, 3 weeks later, refers to Jan 14 as "Black Monday" about the TV writers strike. The WSJ had a short reference to Black Monday 1987 in an article on Jan. 22, implicitly making a parallel with Jan.21, but in the next sentence implicitly dismisses the parallel. If the above 9 sources don't refer to January 21 as "Black Monday" it's not Black Monday - how could they possibly miss it? Well, it just wasn't there.

As noted earlier, moving the article from January 2008 stock market volatility by claiming a consensus on the topic was completely misleading. I'm moving it back and taking out most of the references to Black Monday.

And please, no more insults.

Smallbones (talk) 02:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Is there a reliabile source for the assertion that January 2008 was an especially volatile month for global stock markets? IMO you've replaced a bad title with an even worse one. It's not clear to me how reliable sources matter for a title anyway. Titles should reflect popular naming, not reliable sources. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions. Anthony (talk) 12:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I feel like I'm getting it from both sides now! Was it a crash? (NO) Was it especially volatile? (yes) but ultimately it's a good question, where are the sources? Wall Street Journal, March 1 2008 is an ok reference, but it summarizes the whole quarter (but with some empahasis on January). Quote from article

"The S&P 500 moved more than 1% on 51% of the trading days in the first quarter, the biggest percentage since 1934 and the fifth-largest percentage in the index's history."

I'll try to find something more direct, but for now I think that justifies the title.

Smallbones (talk) 14:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

More directly to the point Markets, Uncertain Times, The Economist, February 4, 2008, inserted into the article

Smallbones (talk) 20:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the two good links. If I'm reading them correctly it looks like the volatility, at least in the US markets, began in early January, well before the 21st. Anthony (talk) 00:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the rewrite. I'm a bit lost now on what to do with the article. I found it absolutely inconcievable that Wikipedia could have an article calling Jan.21 a stock market crash (and that is what "Black Monday" means) when there simply was no crash. Now the only question is: what is the article supposed to be about? The volatility in itself is probably notable, but not really that notable. Does the article makes sense as it now stands? Well it's a bit disjointed, but I've seen worse. I'll suggest that A) anybody who wants to should propose "What this article should be about," and then we can clean it up; or B) just forget about it. Smallbones (talk) 16:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd say maintain the article as best as possible for the next few months, until the NBER declares a business cycle peak, and then merge and redirect into Recession of 2008 (which can be renamed once the NBER declares a recession). I'm not sure of a quantitative and NPOV definition of stock market crash, but I'd certainly consider the largest point drop (and sixth largest percentage drop) in the FTSE 100 to be notable, and I consider a 125 basis point cut in the fed funds rate in just over a week to be notable as well. As far as general stock market volatility in the month of January 2008, if you can make that into an article I'd be happy to support it, but those other two events are more to my interest, especially the actions of the Federal Reserve. Anthony (talk) 19:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC)