Just wondering why the Yahoo website
(that Quicken links to for charting)
shows the chart using a default LOG scale,
with the optional selection for the Linear scale ?
ie -
Don't know for sure, but since the LOG scale reacts quicker to changes,
maybe they feel it gives a better picture of the stock movement.
They do give you a choice of Simple Moving Averages or EMAs, which the basic
charts at E*Trade do not.
Clark
"Phil Schuman" <> wrote in message
news:VPsJf.9011$
> Just wondering why the Yahoo website
> (that Quicken links to for charting)
> shows the chart using a default LOG scale,
> with the optional selection for the Linear scale ?
> ie -
>
>
>
>
>
Don't know for sure, but since the LOG scale reacts quicker to changes,
maybe they feel it gives a better picture of the stock movement.
They do give you a choice of Simple Moving Averages or EMAs, which the basic
charts at E*Trade do not.
Clark
"Phil Schuman" <> wrote in message
news:VPsJf.9011$
> Just wondering why the Yahoo website
> (that Quicken links to for charting)
> shows the chart using a default LOG scale,
> with the optional selection for the Linear scale ?
> ie -
>
>
>
>
>
On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 23:17:09 GMT, Phil Schuman wrote:
> Just wondering why the Yahoo website
> (that Quicken links to for charting)
> shows the chart using a default LOG scale,
> with the optional selection for the Linear scale ?
> ie -
I believe the default setting is Yahoo's. I've overridden it,
though, using proxomitron.
p.
On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 23:17:09 GMT, Phil Schuman wrote:
> Just wondering why the Yahoo website
> (that Quicken links to for charting)
> shows the chart using a default LOG scale,
> with the optional selection for the Linear scale ?
> ie -
I believe the default setting is Yahoo's. I've overridden it,
though, using proxomitron.
p.
On a log scale, each percentage increase shows as the
same vertical distance. Thus, if a stock price increases from 2 to 4
or 4 to 8, it would look like same vertical increase. On the other
hand,
in a linear scale, it would clearly look different. Thus, if an
investment
is rising at a constant rate of increase per year, it would look like a
straight line if the Y-scale (price) is logarithmic. I like log
scales.
Kaspa
On a log scale, each percentage increase shows as the
same vertical distance. Thus, if a stock price increases from 2 to 4
or 4 to 8, it would look like same vertical increase. On the other
hand,
in a linear scale, it would clearly look different. Thus, if an
investment
is rising at a constant rate of increase per year, it would look like a
straight line if the Y-scale (price) is logarithmic. I like log
scales.
Kaspa
"kaspakhine" <> wrote in message
news:
> On a log scale, each percentage increase shows as the
> same vertical distance. Thus, if a stock price increases from 2 to 4
> or 4 to 8, it would look like same vertical increase. On the other
> hand,
> in a linear scale, it would clearly look different. Thus, if an
> investment
> is rising at a constant rate of increase per year, it would look like
a
>
> straight line if the Y-scale (price) is logarithmic. I like log
> scales.
>
> Kaspa
>
interesting emotional response to the graph -
Using log, it's a flat line increase on percentages,
but the linear shows the actual delta increase vs the percentage.
If my 100 shares of a stock went from $2 to $4 - I gained $200
but if it went from $4 to $8 - I gained $400
I think I'd cheer more for the 2nd gainer :)
"kaspakhine" <> wrote in message
news:
> On a log scale, each percentage increase shows as the
> same vertical distance. Thus, if a stock price increases from 2 to 4
> or 4 to 8, it would look like same vertical increase. On the other
> hand,
> in a linear scale, it would clearly look different. Thus, if an
> investment
> is rising at a constant rate of increase per year, it would look like
a
>
> straight line if the Y-scale (price) is logarithmic. I like log
> scales.
>
> Kaspa
>
interesting emotional response to the graph -
Using log, it's a flat line increase on percentages,
but the linear shows the actual delta increase vs the percentage.
If my 100 shares of a stock went from $2 to $4 - I gained $200
but if it went from $4 to $8 - I gained $400
I think I'd cheer more for the 2nd gainer :)
It is not how much shares I own, but how much investment I have in a
particular stock/fund. Thus, if I have $5000 to invest, depending on
the
share price, I will get 2500 or 1250 shares (for $2 or $4/share). The
gain
would be same in either case for the same percentage increase in price.
Look at it another way. If you are trying to compare two funds, of NAV
10 and 20. On a log graph comparing the funds on the same page, the
slope would be same, if their NAV is growing at the same percent
increase rate. On a linear graph, you may think that the fund with
NAV of 20 is growing faster (slope would be higher), but if you invest
the same money in both, your portfolio would have increased the same.
Kaspa
It is not how much shares I own, but how much investment I have in a
particular stock/fund. Thus, if I have $5000 to invest, depending on
the
share price, I will get 2500 or 1250 shares (for $2 or $4/share). The
gain
would be same in either case for the same percentage increase in price.
Look at it another way. If you are trying to compare two funds, of NAV
10 and 20. On a log graph comparing the funds on the same page, the
slope would be same, if their NAV is growing at the same percent
increase rate. On a linear graph, you may think that the fund with
NAV of 20 is growing faster (slope would be higher), but if you invest
the same money in both, your portfolio would have increased the same.
Kaspa
The real reason is that if a stock price doubles in value,
this doubling shows up in equal vertical amounts on a LOG scale,
but not on a linear scale. Most investors are interested in the
percentage by which their investment increases (or decreases).
So for example if one stock sells for $10 on one day and then rises
to $20 some time later, while another stock sells for $100 and rises
to $200 later, these rises will be shown by equal vertical amounts
on the LOG-scaled plot but not on a linear-scaled plot. This corresponds
to the fact that the investor only is interested in the relative gain
because he/she will buy ten times as many shares of the $10 stock
compared to the $100 stock.
Clark wrote:
> Don't know for sure, but since the LOG scale reacts quicker to changes,
> maybe they feel it gives a better picture of the stock movement.
>
> They do give you a choice of Simple Moving Averages or EMAs, which the basic
> charts at E*Trade do not.
>
> Clark
>
> "Phil Schuman" <> wrote in message
> news:VPsJf.9011$
>
>>Just wondering why the Yahoo website
>>(that Quicken links to for charting)
>>shows the chart using a default LOG scale,
>>with the optional selection for the Linear scale ?
>>ie -
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
The real reason is that if a stock price doubles in value,
this doubling shows up in equal vertical amounts on a LOG scale,
but not on a linear scale. Most investors are interested in the
percentage by which their investment increases (or decreases).
So for example if one stock sells for $10 on one day and then rises
to $20 some time later, while another stock sells for $100 and rises
to $200 later, these rises will be shown by equal vertical amounts
on the LOG-scaled plot but not on a linear-scaled plot. This corresponds
to the fact that the investor only is interested in the relative gain
because he/she will buy ten times as many shares of the $10 stock
compared to the $100 stock.
Clark wrote:
> Don't know for sure, but since the LOG scale reacts quicker to changes,
> maybe they feel it gives a better picture of the stock movement.
>
> They do give you a choice of Simple Moving Averages or EMAs, which the basic
> charts at E*Trade do not.
>
> Clark
>
> "Phil Schuman" <> wrote in message
> news:VPsJf.9011$
>
>>Just wondering why the Yahoo website
>>(that Quicken links to for charting)
>>shows the chart using a default LOG scale,
>>with the optional selection for the Linear scale ?
>>ie -
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
I assume you do not expect this ng to have a personal connection to
yahoo's decision making and besides it is what yahoo bought.
Log is like the shit head penny pumpers here who yell SHIT is up 20%
meaning they made 200 on a 1k bet. Won't pay my rent. OTOH, making
20% on a 10k FTO bet will buy the cheese cake.
a
==
On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 23:17:09 GMT, "Phil Schuman"
<> wrote:
>Just wondering why the Yahoo website
>(that Quicken links to for charting)
>shows the chart using a default LOG scale,
>with the optional selection for the Linear scale ?
>ie -
I assume you do not expect this ng to have a personal connection to
yahoo's decision making and besides it is what yahoo bought.
Log is like the shit head penny pumpers here who yell SHIT is up 20%
meaning they made 200 on a 1k bet. Won't pay my rent. OTOH, making
20% on a 10k FTO bet will buy the cheese cake.
a
==
On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 23:17:09 GMT, "Phil Schuman"
<> wrote:
>Just wondering why the Yahoo website
>(that Quicken links to for charting)
>shows the chart using a default LOG scale,
>with the optional selection for the Linear scale ?
>ie -
Again, it is what yahoo bought. Read the bottom of every page.
a
==
On 21 Feb 2006 10:14:07 -0800, "dumbstruck" <>
wrote:
>Speaking of yahoo charting quirks, what is it that often kicks their
>chart into grossly overscaled state? You may be tweaking the
Again, it is what yahoo bought. Read the bottom of every page.
a
==
On 21 Feb 2006 10:14:07 -0800, "dumbstruck" <>
wrote:
>Speaking of yahoo charting quirks, what is it that often kicks their
>chart into grossly overscaled state? You may be tweaking the
"kaspakhine" <> wrote in message
news:
> Look at it another way. If you are trying to compare two funds, of
NAV
> 10 and 20. On a log graph comparing the funds on the same page, the
> slope would be same, if their NAV is growing at the same percent
> increase rate. On a linear graph, you may think that the fund with
> NAV of 20 is growing faster (slope would be higher), but if you invest
> the same money in both, your portfolio would have increased the same.
>
> Kaspa
>
thanks - that helps -
because that is certainly how we tend to compare the past performance..
"kaspakhine" <> wrote in message
news:
> Look at it another way. If you are trying to compare two funds, of
NAV
> 10 and 20. On a log graph comparing the funds on the same page, the
> slope would be same, if their NAV is growing at the same percent
> increase rate. On a linear graph, you may think that the fund with
> NAV of 20 is growing faster (slope would be higher), but if you invest
> the same money in both, your portfolio would have increased the same.
>
> Kaspa
>
thanks - that helps -
because that is certainly how we tend to compare the past performance..
Phil Schuman wrote:
> interesting emotional response to the graph -
> Using log, it's a flat line increase on percentages,
> but the linear shows the actual delta increase vs the percentage.
>
> If my 100 shares of a stock went from $2 to $4 - I gained $200
> but if it went from $4 to $8 - I gained $400
> I think I'd cheer more for the 2nd gainer :)
Logarithmic is prefered by technical traders on funds and stocks,
linear by commodities and short-selling issues. As logarithmic
distances decrease, assets increase. When something increases a bit, in
addition, to two bits on the dollar, one bit has effectively "moved"
through an initial two-bit asset, to render a 50% profit at an
accumulative of 75cents. Yet, if an addition bit were to move through
a sum of 3 bits, it corresponds to 33% rendition at an accumulitive
total, as one dollar. Whereas a linear graph with the same premise
holds the latter movement identical to the former, as they represent a
sum difference of 25cents at equidistantly plotted juxtipositions. On
the logarithmic scale, noteworthy are where percentages reside for a
key to a short-selling strategist: that 50% is to be depicted for
significantly more than a 33% movement. The delta factor at change
"moves" as a result of valuation, through gamma, as a derivative for
its "speed" theta measures, were time factors effectively known to
limit delta, so for vega to guage and augment overall implied volatity,
such by bullish greed or bearish fear, as like sentiments are given by
some extent, extensible measures.
Phil Schuman wrote:
> interesting emotional response to the graph -
> Using log, it's a flat line increase on percentages,
> but the linear shows the actual delta increase vs the percentage.
>
> If my 100 shares of a stock went from $2 to $4 - I gained $200
> but if it went from $4 to $8 - I gained $400
> I think I'd cheer more for the 2nd gainer :)
Logarithmic is prefered by technical traders on funds and stocks,
linear by commodities and short-selling issues. As logarithmic
distances decrease, assets increase. When something increases a bit, in
addition, to two bits on the dollar, one bit has effectively "moved"
through an initial two-bit asset, to render a 50% profit at an
accumulative of 75cents. Yet, if an addition bit were to move through
a sum of 3 bits, it corresponds to 33% rendition at an accumulitive
total, as one dollar. Whereas a linear graph with the same premise
holds the latter movement identical to the former, as they represent a
sum difference of 25cents at equidistantly plotted juxtipositions. On
the logarithmic scale, noteworthy are where percentages reside for a
key to a short-selling strategist: that 50% is to be depicted for
significantly more than a 33% movement. The delta factor at change
"moves" as a result of valuation, through gamma, as a derivative for
its "speed" theta measures, were time factors effectively known to
limit delta, so for vega to guage and augment overall implied volatity,
such by bullish greed or bearish fear, as like sentiments are given by
some extent, extensible measures.
Flasherly writes:
> Logarithmic is prefered by technical traders on funds and stocks,
> linear by commodities and short-selling issues. As logarithmic
> distances decrease, assets increase. When something increases a bit, in
> addition, to two bits on the dollar, one bit has effectively "moved"
> through an initial two-bit asset, to render a 50% profit at an
> accumulative of 75cents. Yet, if an addition bit were to move through
> a sum of 3 bits, it corresponds to 33% rendition at an accumulitive
> total, as one dollar. Whereas a linear graph with the same premise
> holds the latter movement identical to the former, as they represent a
> sum difference of 25cents at equidistantly plotted juxtipositions. On
> the logarithmic scale, noteworthy are where percentages reside for a
> key to a short-selling strategist: that 50% is to be depicted for
> significantly more than a 33% movement. The delta factor at change
> "moves" as a result of valuation, through gamma, as a derivative for
> its "speed" theta measures, were time factors effectively known to
> limit delta, so for vega to guage and augment overall implied volatity,
> such by bullish greed or bearish fear, as like sentiments are given by
> some extent, extensible measures.
For us members of "The Great Unwashed", would you please give an example
of how this will make someone a $........
What stock should be bought at the market at tommorows' opening and what
should it do through any specified time-frame of your choice(1 day, 1 week,
1 month, etc.)???
Flasherly writes:
> Logarithmic is prefered by technical traders on funds and stocks,
> linear by commodities and short-selling issues. As logarithmic
> distances decrease, assets increase. When something increases a bit, in
> addition, to two bits on the dollar, one bit has effectively "moved"
> through an initial two-bit asset, to render a 50% profit at an
> accumulative of 75cents. Yet, if an addition bit were to move through
> a sum of 3 bits, it corresponds to 33% rendition at an accumulitive
> total, as one dollar. Whereas a linear graph with the same premise
> holds the latter movement identical to the former, as they represent a
> sum difference of 25cents at equidistantly plotted juxtipositions. On
> the logarithmic scale, noteworthy are where percentages reside for a
> key to a short-selling strategist: that 50% is to be depicted for
> significantly more than a 33% movement. The delta factor at change
> "moves" as a result of valuation, through gamma, as a derivative for
> its "speed" theta measures, were time factors effectively known to
> limit delta, so for vega to guage and augment overall implied volatity,
> such by bullish greed or bearish fear, as like sentiments are given by
> some extent, extensible measures.
For us members of "The Great Unwashed", would you please give an example
of how this will make someone a $........
What stock should be bought at the market at tommorows' opening and what
should it do through any specified time-frame of your choice(1 day, 1 week,
1 month, etc.)???