Re Buyers and Sellers: (A "persnickety" point) Really isn't it the quantity of shares bought/sold that are equal not necessarily buyers and sellers - one buyer/seller can market a vastly different quantity of shares than the corresponding seller/buyers?
Does the “more buyers than sellers” term not mean that there are more people who want to buy than sell, and as price rises some of those buyers are left on the sideline, disappointed and unwilling to pay the higher price? Semantics, indeed… it’s a discussion I’ve had with my colleagues on the trading desk a number of times over the years.
Agreed. A "seller" is not merely someone who has sold. It is also someone who wants now to sell. I can be a seller of apples, even if I haven't yet sold any apples to anyone today or ever.
A "seller's market" is not generally regarded as a market for "people who have sold"; in normal usage it is a market for "people who want to sell".
When one examines how many "sellers" there are on the fruit market, one looks at how many people are offering fruit for sale (not how many have sold thus far).
We all know that a sale is the agreement to transfer property rights in the subject matter of the sale from vendor to purchaser. But in normal usage "seller" is not confined to someone who has entered into a sales contract as vendor. It includes people who are offering goods for sale. Hence all the above usages.
I think your pet peeve tries to prove too much. You have demonstrated that the number of shares sold equals the number of shares bought, nothing more. Duh. The number of buyers and sellers would rarely be the same, I think, since buyers and sellers don't match up one to one in their orders. If I want to buy 500 shares of ABC Tech, and Joe Doaks and Mary Jones each have 250 shares that are sold to me, we have two sellers, one buyer, and an equal number of shares sold and bought. It would be interesting to know if there actually is a correlation between the ratio of buyers and sellers on up days, and on down days. But your simplistic illustration doesn't get us there. Sorry.
Dear Bill, Are civilizations just like rivers? Every once in awhile they require a devastating flood to stay alive. Oh and regular dredging doesn’t work over the long run. Maybe the greatest generation actually lived at the right time.
Excellent summation Joel .. like a lawyer dissecting the jury ! it fits nicely here into our Oz Sunday session which of course takes place in your future since we are a day ahead .. but sadly in many ways decades behind .. so does the 'automated' share market have a mind of its own? When the EFT's hit their triggers seems to always cause a jump in volume of trades..
just wondering how much of the 'market' is actually real versus automated ?
Re Buyers and Sellers: (A "persnickety" point) Really isn't it the quantity of shares bought/sold that are equal not necessarily buyers and sellers - one buyer/seller can market a vastly different quantity of shares than the corresponding seller/buyers?
Gee really you right and obviously I could have told you 100 years ago!
Does the “more buyers than sellers” term not mean that there are more people who want to buy than sell, and as price rises some of those buyers are left on the sideline, disappointed and unwilling to pay the higher price? Semantics, indeed… it’s a discussion I’ve had with my colleagues on the trading desk a number of times over the years.
Agreed. A "seller" is not merely someone who has sold. It is also someone who wants now to sell. I can be a seller of apples, even if I haven't yet sold any apples to anyone today or ever.
Perhaps they’re a “would be seller”…?
No.
A "seller's market" is not generally regarded as a market for "people who have sold"; in normal usage it is a market for "people who want to sell".
When one examines how many "sellers" there are on the fruit market, one looks at how many people are offering fruit for sale (not how many have sold thus far).
"Selling agent" = an agent acting for someone who wants to sell (whether in fact they manage to enter into a contract for sale).
We all know that a sale is the agreement to transfer property rights in the subject matter of the sale from vendor to purchaser. But in normal usage "seller" is not confined to someone who has entered into a sales contract as vendor. It includes people who are offering goods for sale. Hence all the above usages.
I think your pet peeve tries to prove too much. You have demonstrated that the number of shares sold equals the number of shares bought, nothing more. Duh. The number of buyers and sellers would rarely be the same, I think, since buyers and sellers don't match up one to one in their orders. If I want to buy 500 shares of ABC Tech, and Joe Doaks and Mary Jones each have 250 shares that are sold to me, we have two sellers, one buyer, and an equal number of shares sold and bought. It would be interesting to know if there actually is a correlation between the ratio of buyers and sellers on up days, and on down days. But your simplistic illustration doesn't get us there. Sorry.
Dear Bill, Are civilizations just like rivers? Every once in awhile they require a devastating flood to stay alive. Oh and regular dredging doesn’t work over the long run. Maybe the greatest generation actually lived at the right time.
rather than"sellers or buyers" "trades" would be more accurate
Excellent summation Joel .. like a lawyer dissecting the jury ! it fits nicely here into our Oz Sunday session which of course takes place in your future since we are a day ahead .. but sadly in many ways decades behind .. so does the 'automated' share market have a mind of its own? When the EFT's hit their triggers seems to always cause a jump in volume of trades..
just wondering how much of the 'market' is actually real versus automated ?
number of buyers equal number of sellers??? not necessarily true. Suppose 10 sellers and one buyer is buying from the 10 sellers?