What governs the shape of price history graphs?
"Let me see if I can restate your question: are speculative investments more volatile (subject to greater spikes and drops in pricing) than are more long-term investments which are defined by the predictability of their dividend returns? The short answer is: yes.  However, where it gets complicated is in deciding whether something is a speculative investment. Take your example of housing.  People who buy a house as an investment either choose to rent it out (so receive ""rent"" as ""dividend"") or live in it (foregoing dividends).  Either way, the scale of the investment is large and this is often the only direct investment that people manage themselves.  For this reason houses are bound up in the sentimental value people attach to a home, the difficulty of uprooting and moving elsewhere in search of cheaper housing or better employment, or the sunk cost of debt that can't be recovered by a fire-sale.  Such inertia can lead to sudden sell-offs as critical inflection points are reached (such as hoped-for economic improvements fail to materialise and cash needs become critical). At different levels that is true of just about every investment. Driving price-volatility is the ease of sale and the trade-offs involved.  A share that offers regular and dependable dividends, even if its absolute value falls, is going to be hung on to more frequently than those shares that suffer a similar decline but only offer a capital gain.  For the latter, the race is on to sell before the drop neutralises any remaining capital gain the investor may have experienced. A house with a good tenant or a share with stable dividends will be kept in preference for the quick cash-return of selling an asset that offers no such ongoing returns. This would result, visually, in more eratic curves for ""speculative"" shares while more stable shares are characterised by periods of stability interspersed with moments of mania. But I have to take your query further, since you provide graphical evidence to support your thesis.  Your charts combine varying time-scales, different sample rates and different scales (one of which is even a log scale).  It becomes impossible to draw any sort of meaningful micro-comparison unless they're all presented using exactly the same criteria." I agree with @Turukawa that the x-axes need to be the same to make a direct comparison.  However, the graphs you linked make me think of introductory calculus:  If you time averaged plots, speculative investments (gold, housing) seem to have many large concave up time periods and the dow jones has many concave down sections.  Using the concavity test: If the first derivative tells you about the rate of change, the second derivative tells you about the rate of change of rate of change.  Remember back to Physics 101:  1st derivative is velocity & second derivative is acceleration.   It would be interesting to have the same time scales for your plots & compare these accelerations between the two.  I suspect the more volatile investments would have larger (in magnitude) accelerations during boom/bust cycles than less speculative investments. "Dividend-paying securities generally have predictable cash flows. A telecom, electric or gas utility is a great example. They collect a fairly predictable amount of money and sells goods at a fairly predictable or even regulated markup. It is easy for these companies to pay a consistent dividend since the business is ""sticky"" and insulated by cyclical factors. More cyclic investments like the Dow Jones Industrial Average, Gold, etc are more exposed to the crests and troughs of the economy. They swing with the economy, although not always on the same cycle. The DJIA is a basket of 30 large industrial stocks. Gold is a commodity that spikes when people are faced with uncertainty. The ""Alpha"" and ""Beta"" of a stock will give you some idea of the general behavior of a stock against the entire market, when the market is trending up and down respectively."
&gt; Mostly it's about things like the origin of the graph though - look how many of the graphs on that page start in the mid fifties, not zero, thus magnifying things drastically.  I agree, I've made the argument with other graphs.  FWIW, That's what FRED does by default, so that you can see the differences due to their magnification. Oh really?  Did you have proof that those were their goals, or are you just overlaying the party line on the decisions, because that’s what others told you?  Because I don’t recall our government being socialist or touted as socialist at any point in history.  But that is the narrative they are selling now.  Edited for grammar. Ha! What a fucking shill you are. Your post history is like a fucking billboard on the side of a highway advertising your dishonesty! I'm curious, do you get paid by the Chinese government directly for advancing propaganda or do you just do it so they don't put everyone in your family in a work camp? I am genuinely curious. "&gt; I have a bachelor's degree in management, but for the most part, we skimmed through several finance-related subjects like investments, project analysis.  I wish I could flag the question of ""why do they do this to you kids"" for future discussion with those more knowledgable, because surely there are incentives shaping these programs.  However, you asked for assistance, so I will share the limited knowledge that I have.  From the other advice, it seems clear that you should absolutely pursue a stronger background in accounting and finance in order to accomplish your long-term goals.  This work will need to extend past the point of this particular interview, whether you are hired by this company or not.  So you should probably approach that as a concurrent educational goal, rather than tying it to your preparations for this interview per se.  With regards to seeming smart, per se:  don't sweat it too much.  If you're qualified for the job without a certified educational background, then it's not a position where relative intelligence, short of frame-breaking brilliance, is going to be decisive.  Past the point where your prospective competence is established, other factors will quickly overshadow it.  Attempting to impress people with intelligence, rather than concrete achievements, should by rights serve as a red flag for prospective employers.  Intelligence cultivates its own set of liabilities and deficiencies.  The world is full of intelligent people who would rather be measured by what they *could* have achieved, rather than what they *did* achieve.  If attempting to be hired for this job involves a fully transparent approach --- that is, the company would be interested in knowingly hiring someone with an incomplete background   *in the work they will eventually be expected to perform* --- then your ability to prepare for the interview is a significant part of your resumé.  Low-hanging fruit, nonetheless easily missed, are histories of the industry, the technology, and the particular company." Yes traders, living or algorithmic, are the only direct factors that can cause a change in the price of a marketable item. Traders can be affected by news, broken exchanges ;), emotional cycles, lunar cycles, time the trader goes to lunch (or a power cycle if you are an algo running on that unfortunate OS), anything. "First, I would like to use a better chart.  In my opinion, a close of day line chart obscures a lot of important information.  Here is a daily OHLC log chart:  The initial drop from the 1099.23 close on Oct 3 was to 839.8 intraday, to close at 899.22 on Oct 10.  After this the market was still very volatile and reached a low of 747.78 on Nov 20, closing only slightly higher than this.  It traded as high as 934.70 on Jan 6, 2009, but the whole period of Nov 24 - Feb 13 was somewhat of a trading range of roughly 800-900.  Despite this, the news reports of the time were frequently saying things like ""this isn't going to be a V shaped recovery, it is going to be U shaped.""  The roughly one week dip you see Feb 27 - Mar 9 taking it to an intraday low of 666.79 (only about 11% below the previous low) on first glance appears to be just a continuation of the previous trend.   However... The Mar 10 uptrend started with various news articles (such as this one) which I recall at the time suggested things like reinstating the parts of the Glass–Steagall Act of 1933 which had been repealed by the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act.  Although these attempts appear to have been unsuccessful, the widespread telegraphing of such attempts in the media seemed to have reversed a common notion which I saw widespread on forums and other places that, ""we are going to be in this mess forever, the market has nowhere to go but down, and therefore shorting the market is a good idea now.""  I don't find the article itself, but one prominent theme was the ""up-tick"" rule on short selling: source From this viewpoint, then, that the last dip was driven not so much by a recognition that the economy was really in the toilet (as this really was discounted in the first drop and at least by late November had already been figured into the price).  Instead, it was sort of the opposite of a market top, where now you started seeing individual investors jump on the band-wagon and decide that now was the time for a foray into selling (short).  The fact that the up-tick rule was likely to be re-instated had a noticeable effect on halting the final slide." "If there is a very sudden and large collapse in the exchange rate then because algorithmic trades will operate very fast it is possible to determine “x” immediately after the change in exchange rate. All you need to know is the order book. You also need to assume that the algorithmic bot operates faster than all other market participants so that the order book doesn’t change except for those trades executed by the bot. The temporarily cheaper price in the weakened currency market will rise and the temporarily dearer price in the strengthened currency market will fall until the prices are related by the new exchange rate. This price is determined by the condition that the total volume of buys in the cheaper market is equal to the total volume of sells in the dearer market.   Suppose initially gold is worth $1200 on NYSE or £720 on LSE. Then suppose the exchange rate falls from r=0.6 £/$ to s=0.4 £/$.  To illustrate the answer lets assume that before the currency collapse the order book for gold on the LSE and NYSE looks like: GOLD-NYSE   Sell (100 @ $1310) Sell (100 @ $1300) <——— Sell (100 @ $1280) Sell (200 @ $1260) Sell (300 @ $1220) Sell (100 @ $1200) ————————— buy (100 @ $1190) buy (100 @ $1180)   GOLD-LSE Sell (100 @ £750) Sell (100 @ £740) ————————— buy (200 @ £720) buy (200 @ £700) buy (100 @ £600) buy (100 @ £550) buy (100 @ £530) buy (100 @ £520) <——— buy (100 @ £500)   From this hypothetical example, the automatic traders will buy up the NYSE gold and sell the LSE gold in equal volume until the price ratio ""s"" is attained. By summing up the sell volumes on the NYSE and the buy volumes on the LSE, we see that the conditions are met when the price is $1300 and £520. Note 800 units were bought and sold.   So “x” depends on the available orders in the order book. Immediately after this, however, the price of the asset will be subject to the new changes of preference by the market participants. However, the price calculated above must be the initial price, since otherwise an arbitrage opportunity would exist." As far as trading is concerned, these forward curves are the price at which you can speculate on the future value of the commodity.  Basically, if you want to speculate on gold, you can either buy the physical and store it somewhere (which may have significant costs) or you can buy futures (ETFs typically hold futures or hold physical and store it for you).  If you buy futures, you will have to roll your position every month, meaning you sell the current month's futures and buy the next month's.  However, these may not be trading at the same price, so each time you roll your position, you face a risk.  If you know you want to hold gold for exactly 1 year, then you can buy a 1-year future, which in this case according to your graph will cost you about $10 more than buying the front month.  The forward curve (or sometimes called the futures term structure) represents the prices at which gold can be bought or sold at various points in the future.