Talk:Closing milestones of the Dow Jones Industrial Average

No more all-time highs

This section is basically speculation and isn't really encyclopedic. In my opinion, the history aspect of this article is great, but the future predictions should be eliminated. Carrp | Talk 05:30, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I very much agree and removed the main speculation and moved the rest of the text up to the intro, above the lists. Seems like the list could use coverage of the Great Depression-related bear market, since it was such a major shaper of the US in the 20th century. Niteowlneils 04:44, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Removed POV statement

"A new bull market cannot begin until market valuation (measured by way of PE ratio) is back to multi-decade lows." That is a POV statement predictive of the future that isn't even sourced. The offical defination of a secular bull market is however such that until the DOW makes an all time high, neither the end of the previous bear market nor the beginning of that bull market can be called. Jon 13:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Add more milestones please

Crossing 10,000, 9000, 8000 in the downward direction is just as interesting as crossing them in the upward direction. Jon 13:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

There should be another table added for the new record close or at least change the title of the table to include 2006 Moorematthews 21:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I added today's (Monday, February 23, 2009) closing score, an 11-year low. I am trying to get the actual date and numbers from Google, etc., but someone with knowledge of how to get these numbers more easily, please add.

Intra day high

On January 14, 2000, the intra day high was 11750.28 this is according to both Forbes magazine and CNN. Moorematthews 13:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Concept of Theoretical vs. Actual Dow

The intraday high on January 14, 2000 was indeed 11750.28 "according to some but not substantiated by any intraday chart" (quote interjected by Anonymous); however, the "theoretical high", which is calculated as if the intraday highs of all 30 stocks were hit at once, was 11908.50 "and substantiated by intraday graphs [links at bottom]" (also interjected by Anonymous). This 150+ point spread between the "actual" and "theoretical" highs may be accounted for by the fact that January 14, 2000 was an extremely volatile trading day, meaning that the individual stock highs may have been highly spread in time.

The "theoretical" method was the only way to calculate highs or lows until early 1992, when technology allowed the index to be calculated every 10 seconds. Even on October 4, 2006, when the actual high eclipsed the intraday high of six years before by 100 points, the theoretical high of 11879 still failed to set a new record. This may have been caused by a number of factors, including the decrease in volatility between 2000 and 2006 and the dynamics of that particular trading day. The actual high of 11851 was set seconds before the close, meaning that in all likelihood the vast majority of the 30 stocks hit their highs simultaneously.

During the 2000-2002 bear market, the lows were (closing, actual, theoretical): (7286, 7197, 7181) on October 9-10, 2002. As many will recall, a market-wide rally ensued upon breaking 7200 on October 10, and virtually no new lows were hit in any of the individual stocks for the rest of the day. Thus, there was only a 16-point spread for actual and theoretical lows in spite of high general volatility.

65.27.233.132 12:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

The above referenced concept of a difference in "theoretical" and "actual" intraday highs is not supported by the graphs below, making it suspect as an indicator.

There is argument over the intraday high since the graphs (links below) substantiate a high on January 14, 2000 of 11,908.50 and none show any such high on October 5, 2006.

http://finance.yahoo.com/charts#chart2:symbol=^dji;range=5d;indicator=volume;charttype=candlestick;crosshair=on;logscale=off;source=

69.110.15.25 06:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The theoretical high of 11,928 is substantiated by marketwatch.com and is shown on a chart from that site (links below). MarketWatch (including BigCharts, linked above) and Yahoo charts usually show the theoretical highs and lows if each bar represents a period of 1 day or longer. Charts from other financial sites (such as StockCharts) show the actual highs and lows reached during intraday trading regardless of the length of time each bar represents. Of course, for intraday charts (such as the Yahoo chart linked above), only actual data can be shown in a continuous manner, regardless of the source. Both "theoretical" sites show highs of 11,921 on October 6 and 11,924 on October 9 - so any way you slice it, the nominal high of 2000 has been passed. Furthermore, in response to the provocative statement above, the "theoretical" vs. "actual" concept is factual (I will find and post the link), although as with many types of market data, its usefulness as an indicator is a matter of opinion. A link to a Yahoo chart of the Dow since 1928 (in log scale for greater visibility) on the main entry page substantiates all the "theoretical" highs except 11,928, which is substantiated by the MarketWatch link.

On a side note to the above poster, it is not appropriate to interject your commentary within others' posts on the discussion page; simply post your responses below to show the chronological progression of the discussion.

This link, if accessed between midnight and 9 am on any given weekday or any time on the weekend, shows the Dow for the previous day, with the "actual" intraday chart at right and the "theoretical" high and low documented at left (the 52-week high and low are also shown to be "theoretical" if you check them against StockCharts.com): http://www.marketwatch.com/tools/quotes/quotes.asp?symb=INDU&sid=

Any chart of the Dow on Stockcharts.com will show candlesticks with the "actual" highs and lows, clearly distinct from those shown on MarketWatch and the non-intraday charts on Yahoo. This link shows a MarketWatch chart where the highs and lows are "theoretical", not "actual": http://www.marketwatch.com/tools/quotes/intchart.asp?symb=INDU&siteid=mktw&time=4&freq=1&comp=&compidx=aaaaa%7E0&compind=&uf=0&ma=&maval=&lf=1&lf2=&lf3=&type=2&size=1&txtstyle=&style=&submitted=true&intflavor=basic&origurl=%2Ftools%2Fquotes%2Fintchart.asp

65.27.233.132 11:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Pre-emptive - I will update the theoretical high after midnight tonight - please do not freak out about the vagueness of "11,920s range" - I put it that way since the exact high of 11,928 is disputed.

129.137.238.161 21:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

1000pt Dow High Increments

Interesting to note that the amount of time it took the Dow to go from its first close above 11,000, to its first close above 12,000 - which was about 7 1/2 years - was the longest time it took the Dow to make one of these 1000pt jumps since the Dow made the first 1000pt jump - from 1000 to 2000, which took from 1972-1987 (15 years). Every other jump was completed in a much quicker time-frame - most of them around 1 year. Should this be mentioned in relation to the dot-com bubble bear market? This very slow pace of increase? 155.143.221.252 17:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes this is due to the Dot Com Crash. The tech heavy NASDAQ sell from about 9000pt's down to 2000pt's. Although the Dow index is not tech heavy, there was still a sell off as well as limited growth for the next few years. Also the quickest jump was from 13000-14000pt's this took only months! April 25, 2007 to July 17, 2007, only 113 days.

The Nasdaq fell from 5000, not 9000. Still a fall of more than 60% that weighed on the marker. And please sign your posts. Bravosfan567 17:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

For the record, it took nearly 20 years for the NASDAQ to go from 5,000 to 9,000 with occasional major declines, most notably the Dot-com bubble. 9March2019 (talk) 21:28, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

With a new section detailing how many trading days the Dow took to go from one millenary milestone to the next, it's now appropriate to reopen this discussion. While it's nice to know this information and be excited whenever the Dow reaches its next millenary milestone, 1000-pt increments are going to become meaningless as the Dow continues to rise higher, possibly above 36,000 in a few years. If the Dow does continue its Trump-fueled rally to higher levels, it will be more likely that a point swing of hundreds of points will become normal; this is why we don't apply bold formatting to every 1000-pt milestone. OfficerAPC (talk) 21:55, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

not sure what you're trying to say. עם ישראל חי (talk) 22:01, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Some editors insisted on applying bold formatting for all millenary milestones (1000, 2000, 3000, etc.), but thousand-point jumps are less significant as the Dow continues soaring. OfficerAPC (talk) 22:57, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

ok i thought that was decided already why reopen discussion until at least 30000 500 point increments makes the most sense with bolding every five. עם ישראל חי (talk) 22:59, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Century of the Dow

The link is dead. If anyone knows what this link should point to, please feel free to fix it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CodeCarpenter (talk • contribs) 20:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC).

"2000 - undetermined" Bear market.

With the Dow now above 10% from the pre-Bear market high, I think we can safely say 2002 was the end of the Dow Bear Market and that also marks the beginning of the current Dow Bull market. (Note that we can not say the same thing for the S&P and especally not the Nasdaq) Jon 16:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

2003 or 2004, the bear market was still prevailant. By 2004 and 2005, the market was beginning to recover thanks to China and the housing market. However, since 2006, there's has been a bull market. The showing of the full recovery from that subprime mortgage meltdown in February and the unexpected earnings this quarter shows the economy has been tested through housing bubble brusting. Today's show has me wondering if we're back to this 90s bull market. Spongefan 21:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

But isn't the defination of the end of the bear market for a stock index, the lowest such price from the previous peak? Per this article that was in Oct 2002. Jon 23:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Answering my own question, I guess not; since otherwise the Great Depression era Bear Market would be recorded as ending in early 1932. Jon 23:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The start of the bull market is controversial and more discussion is needed before its causes can be identified in an encyclopedic fashion. I would say the Dow was very bullish from March 2003 all the way to February 2004, and then pretty bearish for most of 2004. Then, some would argue we were still in a bear because the Dow was down for the 2005 calendar year, yet it seems superficial to call the start of the bull market 2006 just because the old high was passed then. The other bull market start dates in this article (1949, 1982, etc.) seem to be based on when the P/E ratio of the Dow hit its low for the time period. If anyone knows when this happened in the past five years, they should edit the article accordingly. Until then, it should probably be reverted. 129.137.228.196 22:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)DAP

About the graph

Linear

Logarithmic

The graph is a nice addition to the page, but I think if someone can find a good one, we should add a logrythmic graph. Most financial data of this kind is shown on logrythmic graphs, and it will give a lot more detail on the period before 1980. Prnd3825 20:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Ask and you shall receive. Here's a logarithmic version, you can replace the graph if you want. Up to you. I like the linear one better, but I'm an aesthete, not an economist :P

Lalala666 03:30, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Just curious about the new graph. Why in the world would it start in 1901 when the DJIA started in 1896? Why the arbitrary dismissal of the first 5 years? I imagine it would be easy to add those first 5 years at the beginning of the graph? (JosephASpadaro 02:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC))

If you can find me data for those years, that would be great. The source I had only had daily (and even monthly) closes from 1901. See the image page for more detail. Lalala666 21:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Isn't that type of data readily available somewhere? I just stumbled across this page and am not an expert on the DJIA ... but it would seem to me that that would be data that is very readily available somewhere or another ... am I wrong? (JosephASpadaro 21:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC))

I don't know if it's readily available either, since I haven't really done an exhaustive search. But if you can find the data raw (ie, text), then I'll put in the graph. Thanks! Lalala666 12:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Would you be able to update this graph? Current closings are off the chart. (ArqMage 20:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC))

I tried that, but since the graph covers 100 years, a few months' worth of data are negligible. You can't really tell the difference unless you zoom in really far. So I don't think it's worth updating the graph every month when the data is invisible!

Lalala666 17:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I've heard numerous times from market historians and financial analysts that stocks have historically returned an average of about 10% per year since the 1920s, but the data in these graphs don't support this claim. For example, consider the Dow's closing value of 200.93 on Dec. 19, 1927, and its record-high closing value of 14164.53 on Oct. 9, 2007, covering a time-span of approximately 80 years. Using the annual-compound-interest formula N(t) = N(to)*(1+i)^n, where N(t) and N(to) = Dow's closing values at times t and to, respectively; i = annual compound interest rate; and n = number of years between to and t; then: 14164.53 = 200.93*(1+i)^80. Solving for i yields i = 5.463%. That is, according to my calculations, the Dow has increased, on average, only 5.463% (not 10% as market historians claim) per year over the past 80 years, and this doesn't even include the Dow's current skid (in which the Dow is currently below 8400 at the time of this writing). Are these data inaccurate or my calculations incorrect? Where do the market historians obtain their numbers to make their 10% claim? Agr0223 (talk) 21:56, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

+ dividends?? Nurg (talk) 04:33, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Commas in big nos

Any reason why the milestone values are NOT formatted with a comma (e.g., 13000) but the actual closing values ARE formatted with a comma (e.g., 13,000)? Is this intentional or oversight? Thanks. (JosephASpadaro 03:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC))

It's intentional - based on the formatting of the source that was used to begin this page. 65.27.236.224 20:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)DAP

Italics in chart

Why are some of the numbers and dates in italics? Do these have some special significance? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ArqMage (talk • contribs) 17:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

They seem to be the "milestones" within the milestones: 100 - then 1,000 - then 5,000 - then 10,000 - etc. I suspect the next will be 15,000. Thanks. (JosephASpadaro 21:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC))

I think that it is evrytime another digit is added, for example 100, 1000, 10000, 100000, etc... If someone else has any idea about the italics, please chime in. King1257 (talk) 20:20, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I think the italicized milestones should be 100, 1000, 5000, 10000, 15000, 20000, 25000, 30000, etc. For me, having the italicized at each 5000 milestone makes the table easier to read. 71.188.25.68 (talk) 05:46, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Daily Closing Values

Does any one know: where can I find daily closing values (and change from the preceding close) of the DJIA going back to 1896? In particular, I am interested to know IF -- and WHEN -- the DJIA ever had a daily change of 0.00 points from the preceding day. In other words, were there days in which there was no change at all (0.00 points) between one day and the next? Thanks. (JosephASpadaro 21:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC))

Here are a list of days when the DJIA closed the same the next day, to within a TENTH of a point (my data isn't for a hundredth)...beyond me why you'd want to know this. Obviously this list depends heavily on the margin of error. If I did the math right in Excel, of course. Lalala666 01:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

12/21/2005
9/15/2005
12/24/2001
11/3/1998
12/2/1996
8/8/1995
7/21/1995
1/18/1994
3/12/1992
9/5/1991
7/19/1991
12/19/1990
7/17/1990
3/14/1989
6/17/1987
10/7/1986
4/22/1985
6/13/1984
5/5/1982
3/6/1981
7/27/1979
6/19/1979
5/2/1979
2/21/1979
9/11/1978
12/28/1977
8/9/1977
6/17/1977
3/19/1976
12/31/1975
7/10/1975
11/13/1974
1/18/1973
10/30/1972
10/2/1972
6/1/1972
3/29/1971
10/1/1970
4/8/1970
3/25/1969
10/21/1968
7/27/1967
1/24/1967
9/16/1966
11/24/1965
3/31/1965
4/9/1963
10/12/1962
9/19/1962
4/13/1960
11/9/1959
5/4/1959
8/25/1958
7/1/1957
5/24/1957
3/20/1957
1/13/1956
12/30/1954
5/24/1954
11/10/1952
7/16/1952
3/11/1952
3/3/1952
11/8/1951
9/26/1951
8/15/1950
8/3/1950
11/18/1948
8/13/1948
6/4/1945
10/24/1944
5/9/1944
1/25/1944
9/17/1942
5/25/1942
1/15/1942
1/8/1941
8/29/1940
7/3/1940
1/2/1936
12/4/1933
3/2/1933
10/27/1930
9/2/1930
3/3/1930
1/30/1929
12/20/1927
10/24/1927
10/6/1927
11/15/1926
7/17/1924
2/5/1924
9/27/1923
2/8/1923
5/5/1922
4/7/1922
2/11/1921
12/7/1920
7/5/1920
4/11/1919
10/24/1918
6/17/1918
2/5/1918
3/7/1917
8/18/1916
7/12/1916
6/15/1916
3/8/1916
8/6/1915
7/20/1914
5/5/1914
4/7/1914
4/2/1914
3/18/1914
12/18/1913
8/26/1913
6/16/1913
5/23/1913
4/16/1913
12/30/1912
12/10/1912
6/13/1912
1/30/1912
8/3/1911
6/21/1911
4/4/1911
1/31/1911
6/28/1910
4/1/1910
1/31/1910
11/12/1909
11/11/1909
10/25/1909
8/10/1909
4/2/1909
2/9/1909
1/22/1909
11/20/1908
6/26/1908
9/30/1907
5/23/1906
2/19/1906
7/18/1905
6/27/1905
5/9/1904
12/9/1903
6/24/1903
2/17/1903
10/20/1902
8/29/1902
6/13/1902
4/8/1902
10/23/1901

Hi. Thanks for the information. May I ask, where do you get the raw data for the daily opening and closing values? I had assumed that an unchanged DJIA value (i.e., a change of 0.00 points from one day to the next) was a rare occurrence. But you have shown dozens of incidences of this -- although, only four in the last 10 years. (JosephASpadaro 20:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC))

Source: [1] This is only a change of 0.0, and it's rarer recently because a tenth of a point was a bigger deal in the past than it is now -- like if the DJIA is 50, 50.1 is a 2% difference, but if it's 5000, it's a .02% difference, which is harder to nail.

Lalala666 17:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I looked at the source data that you provided, and it raised another question for me that perhaps you can answer. I had always assumed that the DJIA opening value for any day was exactly the same number as the DJIA closing value for the day before. Is that assumption wrong? In other words, if the market closes on the afternoon of June 4 at exactly 13,000.00 -- does not the market open on the morning of June 5 at exactly 13,000.00? If not, why not? (What happens to the number in the interim between one day's close and the next day's opening?) If so, how come your source data has different opening and closing values for consecutive days? Thanks. (JosephASpadaro 18:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC))

Also, as a correction to your prior posting: one-tenth of a point when the DJIA is 50 equates to 0.2% and one-tenth of a point when the DJIA is 5,000 equates to 0.002%. But I see your point ... the bigger the DJIA, the smaller the percentage value of any one-tenth of a point ... and the smaller the DJIA, the bigger the percentage value of any one-tenth of a point. (JosephASpadaro 18:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC))

Yeah, good call on the percentage. Gives you a lot of faith that I did the math right on those graphs, huh? Anyway I don't know why opening and closing prices are different, but my guess is that the DJIA only follows the exchanges which close in the afternoon, but Late trading alters the pricing at night. Just a guess. --Lalala666 22:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Might check me on this, but I believe the change on 7/17/1990 actually was 0.00 - I read somewhere the market closed at 2,999.75 for two consecutive days before plunging into the Gulf crisis. 65.27.236.224 20:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)DAP

Yes, that really happened, and I made note of it on the 3000 milestone. That had to be really painful.69.248.22.114 (talk) 04:35, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

2000s commodity boom?

Could someone please source this? Either a citation or a link to Wikipedia somewhere...definitely not a link to the War in Iraq! I've never heard of this commodity boom, so either cite it or pull it out! Thanks :) --Lalala666 22:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Inflation

Reports on new all-time highs for the Dow Jones or any other stock market have always bothered me, and fortunately others [2] [3] [4] as well, as inflation is stubbornly ignored. This happens elsewhere as well; two years back I converted the list of most expensive paintings to an inflation-adjusted list in which Van Gogh's "Irises", that sold for $54 million in 1987, rightfully beats Picasso's "Dora Maar au Chat" that sold for $95 million in 2006. Still, you can be sure that the next painting sold for a dollar over $140 million (the ridiculous 2006 record price for a Jackson Pollock painting, of all things) will be hailed everywhere as the most expensive work of art ever sold. Somehow the proclamations of new highs remind me of the announcements in Nineteen Eighty-Four on the supposedly ever-declining price of chocolate. I'm blissfully ignorant of economics, and someone may explain here (and in the article, please) why inflation does not matter. Otherwise, an inflation adjusted graph should be welcome here. In it, one would see that the January 14, 2000 high of 11723 still represents an all-time high. Afasmit (talk) 21:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The presence of inflation is only significant when analyzing real value of the stock market. This page is purely to report the milestones by the DJI, which are nominal figures. Your point is well taken, but is not appropriate for this page I would imagine. Bravosfan567 (talk) 19:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

All time low

This article should include info about the Dow's all time low. This is the info that I was looking for, and it isn't here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.203.144.158 (talk) 16:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Since 75 years ago

I added this sub-section -Manic Monday - since this is sub-milestone by itself, record one day for 112 years and since 75 years per LA Times and NYT.--Florentino floro (talk) 08:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes the removal of anything related to current events is appropriate since they are still unsettled at the moment and the article has a longer perspective. Either of three things was inevitable when one looks at the DOW over it's entire history with respect to the observed curve: a smooth continued exponential growth either under the bases of the bubbles or thru their midpoints which would have brought the DOW to 20K by 2010; a leveling out at some point and then lateral movement; or a crash and complete deflation of the bubbles as well as a deep cut into the overall secular trend since the mid eighties. At this point it's still unclear what the final outcome would be and in the perspective of this article at least a years worth of observation would be necessary before naming the current stage. Lycurgus (talk) 01:57, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Bear market definitions needed

The article needs definitions of secular bear market and cyclical bear market. It has the equivalents for bull markets. Nurg (talk) 04:46, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Theoretical Dow BS

Sorry, this Theoretical Dow stuff needs to be deleted. To be clear, the reason is because the higher the volatility, the higher the theoretical high. Volatility should be irrelevant. We could care less about how the dow was calculated long ago. It's not relevant whatsoever to anything. It just causes confusion. It's like publishing the weekly highs, or the S&P daily high if all the stocks in the S&P reached their highs at the same time in the week. It's total nonsense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasontaylor7 (talk • contribs) 19:17, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with you. If they track all 30 components all day long, why would it be useful to have a number which assumes that all 30 components reached their daily high at the same time of the day (when they almost never do). These "theoretical" numbers have been part of the article for years, though. Anyone want to jump to their defense before we remove them?DavidRF (talk) 19:48, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. I find the theoretical value more interesting for longterm informational purposes. It shows, arguably to a point, whether the actual high was a blip in the radar or if the actual high was maintained for a prolonged period of time. As a side note the theoretical high might take place on a different day from the actual high, further strengthening my point. King1257 — Preceding unsigned comment added by King1257 (talk • contribs) 20:37, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

My take is that its the opposite of what you say. If Chevron and ExxonMobil hit their highs in the morning and P&G and J&J hit their highs in the afternoon then the Theoretical Dow will have moved a lot more in the day than the Dow. I thought the point of using many stocks in your index was to smooth out the noise of each individual stocks behavior... but with the theoretical Dow the intra-day radar blips will be magnified which is the opposite of telling you if things are being maintained for a long period of time.DavidRF (talk) 22:27, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I guess you have convinced me especially due to the outdated nature of the theoretical high. The only other reason to keep it would be to compare the pre-1992 closings which used the theoretic high numbers to the current theoretical high as this is more appropriate compariblity to pre-1992.King1257 (talk) 13:56, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

To reopen this discussion from five years ago, I propose we remove the theoretical record information as that cannot be found for the other two indices on Wall Street: NASDAQ Composite and S&P 500 Index. Also, everyday people don't seem to care about this information, not even the investors! OfficerAPC (talk) 23:14, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

if you want to reopen this discussion add a new section and refer back to this section since the original discussion was 5 years ago עם ישראל חי (talk) 20:54, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

New Graphs

Is there anyway we can get new graphs? The current ones are five years old, which by itself doesn't sound that old, but we have gone through a deep bear market and bull market since then. King1257 (talk) 20:56, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Consecutive highs

Is there a way to add (or link to) consecutive high record days such as 12/20/13, 12/23/13 and 12/24/13? Or is it in here somewhere and I'm not seeing it? Fiveinchheels (talk) 22:17, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Removal of some 100-point milestone increments

This is about the recent removal of some 100-point milestone increments. Note that the Dow Jones has been essentially undergoing exponential growth (as expected, perhaps). The 100-point increments would be more appropriate for something that grows linearly, not exponentially. Taking this into consideration, it is not unfathomable that in the future, the Dow Jones will fluctuate daily by thousands of points, and the 100-point increments would not adequately reflect the activity of the DJIA.

Further incentive for the removal of some of the increments is that it does not put the jump from, say 500 to 600 into perspective. Reaching 600 from 500 is far more significant than reaching 16100 from 16000.

Please voice any concerns here, or, post on my talk page (this is faster, and preferred) if you disagree with this action. Thanks. — Andy W. (talk · contrib) 18:03, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

After consideration I liked your point and agree that the way it was being handled before with 100-point increments all of the way up to current the old data was not being emphasized enough. Along that same line I added some data to the bottom end of the spectrum. I made the following changes: 10-point increments are used up to the 200 level, 50 to 500, 100 to 2,000, 500 to 5,000, and 1,000-point increments thereafter. Let me know if this sounds appropriate, I figured that we should use the same scale all the way up for consistancy and to show the old data with the same level of detail that the newer data is being shown with. The only issue I see is if this pattern is extrapolated out, there will be a 5,000-point jump after 20,000, however, in theory if the dow keeps growing exponentially this would only be a temporary problem. Anyone let me know if they have any better solutions to the exponential problem. Thanks King1257 (talk) 13:39, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I have been wondering when this kind of change would happen. It seems obvious to me that one is losing prospective of how indexes are changing when there is too much data. I would suggest that one should ignore the point changes in favor of percentage changes, but that would be difficult to implement and to understand. But I feel uncomfortable with the details of your suggestion, as it seems to introduce inequality in the changes of the jumps. To make the changes understandable and even are conflicting goals. But let suggest this as one which falls on the evenness side: From 100 to 200, jumps of 10; from 200 to 400, jumps of 20; from 400 to 800, jumps of 40; ... from 100 x 2ⁿ to 100 x 2ⁿ⁺¹, jumps of 10 x 2ⁿ. To repeat myself, this is not practicable or understandable and I most surely do not favor it. (A mathematician might suggest: From 100 to 316 (square root of 10), jumps of 10; from 316 to 1000, jumps of 30; ... .) Anyway, I strongly agree with the idea of scaling the increments in proportion to the base, even if I have cavils about the details. Of course, the same is true of the S&P 500, and whatever change it ought to be applied equally to both indexes. TomS TDotO (talk) 09:39, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

One idea that I had in changing the scaling point that the milestones occure is haing it be in increments of 10 from 100 to 200, increments of 20 from 200 to 500, increments of 50 from 500 to 1000, 100 from 1000 to 2000, 200 from 2000 to 5000, etc... This doesn't completely eliminate the inequalities, but it does lessen them. I am going to change the increment scale on the chart to reflect this change. Let me know if anyone has any more input on this. King1257 (talk) 14:06, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Your suggestion makes me think of the common changes in currency denominations: 1, 2, 5, 10, 20, 50, 100. Easy to understand. TomS TDotO (talk) 15:29, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

King1257, I am strongly in favor of reverting your recent additions on 6 June 2014, back to increments starting with 10, not 5. The list currently takes up half the scrolling length of the article. Is this article meant to be text-heavy, or be primarily a list of Dow points with dates? One of the minor reasons for my cuts a few days ago is to reduce the size of the list, as it has begun overshadowing much of the other content of the article. If you really prefer a list that long, I may suggest cutting some text, so that the article feels more like a list (if that was intended). Otherwise, I'm in favor of cutting some of the increments again. Thanks. — Andy W. (talk · contrib) 23:15, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Upon reflection, I just changed my mind; it was just a thought that not many people would need that amount of detail, and having a list that long would have a negative impact for the reader... but please do what you see fit. — Andy W. (talk · contrib) 23:22, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

500 point increments still need to be used. The time for 1000 point increments isn't until at least DOW 30,000. 1779Days (talk) 06:17, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Historical record closes of the Dow Jones Industrial Average

The other page has little to add, but is at best redundant and, if not merged, deleted. TomS TDotO (talk) 15:58, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

There is some useful information not shown in the Closing milestones of the Dow Jones Industrial Average; it is best to merge this article into Historical record closes of the Dow Jones Industrial Average.--OfficerAPC (talk) 03:41, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Consistent Increments of Wall Street

Earlier this morning, I thought about a consistent set of milestone increments for Wall Street's major stocks: Dow Jones, NASDAQ, and S&P 500. 1-point increments are used up to the 50-point level; 5 to 100; 10 to 500; 20 to 1,000; 50 to 3,000; 100 to 10,000; 200 to 20,000; and 500-point increments thereafter.--OfficerAPC (talk) 21:09, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Regarding Milestones

When we use milestones, we mean the Dow Jones has surpassed a certain level, whether it is predetermined or a peak from a previous year. Same thing goes for the NASDAQ and S&P 500.--OfficerAPC (talk) 00:12, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Theoretical high

What do I misunderstand about the theoretical high? The Barron's page records the theoretical high, as I read it, reaching new highs. Can someone explain to me why that has been reverted? TomS TDotO (talk) 20:46, 15 July 2016 (UTC) TomS TDotO (talk) 20:46, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

It's not an index...

...it's an average. Strictly speaking, the value should be given in dollar terms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.2.34.156 (talk) 09:09, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Notes

ISTM that the numbered notes should be done by the ordinary means, like footnotes for citations, rather than the clumsily with marking superscripts etc. The standard method has many benefits. I would go on to make the change, but it will take some effort, and anyone would be deterred from the task with the prospect that it will be reverted. Or, for that matter, if there is some method to make it easier. TomS TDotO (talk) 14:57, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Can we please move the "Records" section to the very bottom again?

The "Records" section (which says the currently standing closing, intraday, and theoretical intraday records) is currently in the middle of the page, with a bunch of less interesting stuff below it. Can we please move it back to the very bottom, where it was for at least a year and where the corresponding section is on the analogous articles for the S&P 500 and the NASDAQ Composite? I can understand wanting to put something more important (the "Records" section) above something less important, but if it is buried in the middle that is actually worse, the top and the bottom give more salience to this especially useful section. If nobody objects than I might personally make this edit. Fluoborate (talk) 03:03, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Clean Up Needed

With a related article merged into this one, I'm thinking we should clean up the article to make it easier to navigate.--OfficerAPC (talk) 22:55, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Please get consensus before making large changes to this page. I do however feel that having a complete list of record closes and grouping the records by year is not necessary. The records are already stated above with the milestone that were achieved during that particular bull/bear market. The records are grouped better by market period than by year in my opinion. --Figfires (talk) 21:19, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Number of All-Time Highs

I found a Yahoo Finance article that includes a table showing the number of all-time highs by year. All but the following years report the same number.

• 1927 (Difference by 2: 48 on Wikipedia and 50 on Yahoo)
• 1954 (Difference by 1: 13 on Wikipedia and 14 on Yahoo)
• 1958 (Difference by 1: 25 on Wikipedia and 26 on Yahoo)
• 1966 (Difference by 1: 8 on Wikipedia and 9 on Yahoo)
• 1987 (Difference by 1: 55 on Wikipedia and 56 on Yahoo)
• 1990 (Difference by 1: 15 on Wikipedia and 16 on Yahoo)
• 1994 (Difference by 1: 12 on Wikipedia and 13 on Yahoo)
• 2017 (Difference by 1: 35 on Wikipedia and 34 on Yahoo)

I think we should figure out what we are missing.--OfficerAPC (talk) 02:43, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Update: There is another source that confirms the Dow made 70 record high closes (the most ever in a year) to match with what we have on this article.OfficerAPC (talk) 05:39, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Closing milestones of the Dow Jones Industrial Average. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131005004342/http://www.automationinformation.com/DJIA/dow_jones_closing_prices_1911_to_1920.htm to http://www.automationinformation.com/DJIA/dow_jones_closing_prices_1911_to_1920.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131005004054/http://www.automationinformation.com/DJIA/dow_jones_closing_prices_1921_to_1930.htm to http://www.automationinformation.com/DJIA/dow_jones_closing_prices_1921_to_1930.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:24, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

March 2020 crash not a portent of a serious recession?

Prediction of an economic effect of a major change in market valuations so far seems about as reliable as astrological charts. A stock market crash as in 1987 can be a blip -- or a sign of an impending meltdown in the economy. The 28.3% reduction in share values (I write this on 3/13/2020) is a huge, swift drop in valuation; we may have different interpretations of what such means. We do not know what follows.

Most serious recessions have a big decline in securities prices as at the least a portent.

We do not know yet. I have thus treated the statement that the world is not on the brink of a serious recession as dubious. So far market valuations look like a 'falling knife'. That can continue or come to an end, and nobody can predict when that perception (and reality) come to an end. Pbrower2a (talk) 07:22, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Date of first closing

The Dow Jones Industrial Average article says:

It is the best known of the Dow Averages, of which the first (non-industrial) was originally published on February 16, 1885. . . . The industrial average was first calculated on May 26, 1896.

But this article says:

Since first closing at 62.76 on February 16, 1885, the Dow Jones Industrial Average has increased, despite several periods of decline.

How can the DJIA have its first closing on February 16, 1885 when it was first calculated on May 26, 1896, 11 years later? — UnladenSwallow (talk) 07:34, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

This paragraph:

The Dow Jones Industrial Average was first published on February 16, 1885. According to records, the Dow reached a peak of 78.38 on June 4, 1890. This means that the following record closing values fall below the June 1890 peak, and thus, may not be formally recognized by some sources.

is also in contradiction with the Dow Jones Industrial Average article. — UnladenSwallow (talk) 07:43, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

All-time low closing price

The § Records section lists the all-time low closing price of 41.22 on July 8, 1932. Shouldn’t it be 40.94 on May 26, 1896 (the first day of the DJIA calculation), listed in the § Complete list of record closes section? — UnladenSwallow (talk) 08:06, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

References