Trying to predict spikes

[Anonymous No.13196355]

Why does anything spike ever?

If the conpany is sells well?
So are sales forecasts the only indicator?

And how do you estimate how strong a spike will be (multiplier)?

[Anonymous No.13196627]

hi

[Anonymous No.13196639]

cheas

[Anonymous No.13196644]

>>13196355

[Anonymous No.13196744]

>>13196627
>>13196639
>>13196644
I think I get it now
Hi =stay positive
Cheas = rat race. Where there's a string with cheas you can never reach

Hi + cheas = 10,000k dollars

[Anonymous No.13196769]

>>13196744
Wait, that doesn't work. Cheas is a bad thing because it's trap. I think I am supposed to start my own business and have others chase the cheas.

EUREKA

[Anonymous No.13196823]

>>13196769
cheas fren

[Anonymous No.13196973]

Things only really move because of either the dissemination of information, market manipulation, or "brownian" fluctuations in price

The price of an asset on a short term relative to its previous price is a Markov chain, that is, it is independent of its previous price, much like the roll of a die does not depend on its previous roll. Short term, nothing is predictable, but the longer term you go the easier it will be to predict, albeit not easy at all.

Information does not flow into the market to each individial at equal speeds, and this is what causes the general "flow" of prices. For example, lets say that China needs to produce 300 million catalytic converters for vehicles a year, each which requires a small amount of palladium and platinum. If they needed less last year (if they needed more last year it would be negative information, or if growth predictions shot higher than realized), then people who know this information will be willing to pay a premium for this asset becuase they have information about its true value. The buyer would know he is lowballing, while the seller would think he was getting a premium. Two winners in their own minds. However, after this transaction, it is normally reported somewhere and thus people will see the price increase and think to themselves "somebody knows something". They will try to find out what that is, and if they confirm it, they will be willing to pay the same premium, or even more. As the information reaches all the buyers and sellers, the market then conforms to the "efficient market hypothesis" wherein the price reflects fully the impact of the information.

[Anonymous No.13196986]

Asset bubbles form when a market is running on assumptions, and whoever has the most information (most of it is readily available) wisen up and become sellers. When market participants stop trading based on the chronological arbitrage of information, the market becomes incredibly emotional and succumbs to mass volatility and manipulation. Cryptocurrency can be regarded this way but I think it is the same as any market, and trades on information. The spikes not related to information are manipulation, which are dependent on supply and demand.

The anatomy of a "pump and dump" is as such: buyers purchase a large amount of an asset at a low price over a long time, desiccating the supply, then market buy with the rest that they have, and as speculators who don't trade on information think they can buy a winning lottery ticket buy at a high price, their money is dispensed to the pockets of people with much more money than they have (they get dumped on).

[Anonymous No.13196999]

When this happens naturally, with an asset such as oil, it is not manipulation, becuase the markets are not reflecting the actual supply and demand, but the percieved and most probably the future supply and demand. Markets trade ahead of reality, but current on information. So, the second somebody finds out that Venezeula will stabilize soon, the price of oil might go down, as traders in the know will sell their oil in anticipation of an increased supply. Note: The market is NOT trading on supply and demand. The traders are trading on the INFORMATION about supply and demand and its future implications.

[Anonymous No.13197057]

>>13196973
>As the information reaches all the buyers and sellers, the market then conforms to the "efficient market hypothesis" wherein the price reflects fully the impact of the information.
LOL. Market movers create profitable moves based on technicals, either directly or algorithmically, unilaterally or in cooperation. The msm and uninformed market participants then rationalise some news post hoc.

[Anonymous No.13197086]

To answer you original question, it is very difficult to estimate how strong a movement will actually be, but time in the market trains a sense of value, and different markets are valuated different ways. Cryptocurrency is valued on percieved legitimacy, SaaS companies are valued on userbase, consumer goods companies are valuated on revenue, oil is valued on demand/supply perception. Think relatively when estimating value. How large is this software's userbase actually? And how does its price compare to this company with a smaller userbase? For example, Netflix has about 150 million subscribers and is valued at 150 bil, while facebook has 2 billion subscribers and is valuated at 400 bil. Facebook makes 20 times their revenue and is only valuated at 2.7 times their marketcap? Maybe somebody doesn't know something that I do!

Trading is sitting alone in a room at a party, waiting for the rest of the people to come in and realize how superior the beer pong table in the gallery is to the one in the kitchen. Maybe you're wrong, and this beer pong table is crooked, and just becuase it's red instead of a green doesnt make it a better beer pong table. But then again, we have speakers in this room and the room looks better. So they'll come eventually. Hopefully.

[Anonymous No.13197102]

>>13196769
>cheas is an anagram of chase
holy shit
it was in front of us all along

[Anonymous No.13197138]

>>13197057
This can certainly be said about markets, and I covered it in one of my posts. While I do agree that there are indeed markets movers (ie people who can take larger risks), I don't believe that anyone has gotten to the top by looking at technicals alone. And even you silently agree with me with your language usage "uninformed". This would certainly imply that the movers of the market are informed, But informed about what? Technicals? Algorithms? I guess if I knew, I would be one.

It definitely would be good to learn about algorithmic trading, seeing as its impact on the market is greater every year.

[Anonymous No.13197192]

>>13197138
Good question: "uninformed" about the world they live in. When people like Ray Dalio are openly saying they can't compete with algo trading we should probably pay attention. Only very few bits of news actually move the market in any sort of rational way. Even things like Brexit are just parameters for technical traders to play off.