New Members: Be sure to confirm your email address by clicking on the link that was sent to your email inbox. You will not be able to post messages until you click that link.

Help on constructing a valid scan expression looking for for Market Cap / Price times Volume =>.50%

In other words I want a huge turnover of shares exchanging hands at a price that verifies that the amount of the dollar trading activity represents over 50% of the actual market capital.
It means chaos in the boardroom and opportunity for persons looking to go into or out of a burning building.
Anybody that can construct a simple no keep it simple, no BS, scan expression I can use?
Thanks,
Discussion started Feb 18, 2021,
Would appreciate help.


Be well, stay true to your self,\
If I do my homework I are an entrepreneur, If you don't you am a laborer.

Comments

  • markdmarkd mod
    edited February 19
    Apparently, ticker property values like "market cap" and "outstanding shares", even though they appear to be numbers, cannot be used in calculations.

    So, even though this passes syntax, it gets no results (no matter small how you make the market cap multiplier)

    and [volume* close > market cap * .5]

    You could try something like

    [volume > sma(21, volume) * 50]

    in other word, fifty time average daily volume, but you would then have to calculate the dollar volume and look up the market cap yourself to verify your requirement. Nevertheless, at fifty (or even 10 or 20) times average volume, something is up.

  • agreed... as always Mark, I find your responses to be sensible and constructive.
    I appreciate your response.
    Take Care,
    Fred N
    2-19-21.
    Q. What do you think about the Crypto currency craze.
    (hint: since January 1, there are some movers up over 500 percent and the ridiculous one Dogecoin up 1000 percent. Remember the Tulup craze in Holland in 1676? Try the combination of Covid and the Currency expansion. Normal people are losing their bearings.
    Best wishes,
    Fred
  • markdmarkd mod
    edited February 20
    I have read a little bit on bitcoin but haven't thought about it a great deal. I'm not in it.

    But, essentially it's not different from any other fiat currency in terms of acceptability. If people believe in it, it works. If they lose confidence, it will not. Gold has no intrinsic value - but people believe in it because other people believe in it and will accept it. The only thing behind the dollar is people's belief that it will be handled responsibly. As the debt to GDP ratio rises, and if questions of civil unrest continue to bubble up, that belief will be tested hard. The dollar holds up in spite of the lunacy in Washington (no budget for years and years) because other national fiat currency alternatives are viewed as even less reliable or too small (the swiss franc, the krone).

    So the crypto alternative is not without rational underpinnings. The less confidence you have in national currency alternatives the more attractive it is. And institutions are beginning to get involved, lending it more credibility. If it gains widespread acceptance, today's prices are cheap, as crazy as they seem. There are endless trillions of national currencies potentially seeking conversion to crypto. A million dollar bitcoin could become a real thing.

    What will stop it though is national governments cannot let it happen. Control of the currency is essential to sovereignty and no country is going to give that up. It happened with gold in the thirties and the same thing will happen again if push comes to shove.

    Crypto also has an inherent weakness in that it depends on the electrical grid and the telecommunications grid and those depend on domestic and international tranquility. They could both be strategic targets in the event of war or unrest. Natural disasters can also present a problem - ask Texas. It's not money if you can't access it.

    Also, you have to take it on faith that only so much of a crypto currency will be created. How would you know if that promise has been broken? If the promise is kept there may be some interesting consequences. Unlike a fiat currency that becomes worth less and less as more and more is printed, crypto, because its production is limited, becomes more and more valuable as people convert to it. In order to accommodate new entrants, since the total amount is capped, crypto has to be divided into smaller and smaller units (a half coin, a quarter, a third, a tenth, a hundredth, a thousandth, etc.). This means the early adopters become wealthy beyond their dreams for doing nothing but holding on. The long term effect is to create a new financial aristocracy. Do you think the current aristocracy is going to let that happen? I'm doubtful.

    Actually, you don't even need conversion of national currencies for this to happen. Imagine only a crypto currency exists. A currency is a store of value. Value is something created by labor (in the broadest sense). As more work is done, more value is created. But, if the amount of available currency is static, that work becomes worth less and less. (A very simplified example - suppose there are 100 crypto coins in the world, and workers produce ten cars. Each car could be sold for 10 coins. But now suppose there are 100 coins and 20 cars are produced - i.e., more work is done and more value produced. Each car can be sold for only 5 coins). If you were an early adopter, you get richer and richer. But people who come along later - say because they were born later - can never get wealthier because the harder you work, the less you get.

    A real currency has to reflect the amount of value created in the economy. Metals like gold, silver and copper have worked because, by chance, they have been mined near the rate of growth of the world economy, and nobody can manipulate that. Governments gave up on metals in part because there wasn't enough currency from time to time, and in part because they wanted to spend more than they had - mostly on war. A fiat currency works when the central banks get it right and fails when they get it wrong - allowing too much money creation (inflation) or not enough (deflation).

    Basically, in whatever form, the only thing that protects wealth is responsible citizens and the rule of law. When that breaks down, we go back to wealth acquired and protected by force.

Sign In or Register to comment.