When you hear an economist on TV “explain” the decline in stock prices by citing a slump in the market (and I have heard this pseudo-explanation more than once) it is time to turn off the television.
Thomas J. McKay, Reasons, Explanations and Decisions
I guess technically if a lot of stocks went paid their dividend on the same day (went ex-divvie) you could get a 0.5-1% fall in the stock prices (depending on the dividend yield at the time) without their being a slump—the value of those dividends which have now been paid out is simply no longer part of the market. But I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiment.
I don’t know if I agree with this. Suppose the stock market is driven by runaway herd behavior. If that’s the case, then an inexplicably bad random perturbation might have cascading effects. Saying that the initial slump in the market is driving further decline seems accurate to me.
Thomas J. McKay, Reasons, Explanations and Decisions
I guess technically if a lot of stocks went paid their dividend on the same day (went ex-divvie) you could get a 0.5-1% fall in the stock prices (depending on the dividend yield at the time) without their being a slump—the value of those dividends which have now been paid out is simply no longer part of the market. But I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiment.
I don’t know if I agree with this. Suppose the stock market is driven by runaway herd behavior. If that’s the case, then an inexplicably bad random perturbation might have cascading effects. Saying that the initial slump in the market is driving further decline seems accurate to me.
That would be a slump in the market caused by a decline in stock prices :)
I don’t understand what you’re trying to say. As used in the original quote they are interchangeable synonyms.
I was poking fun at that.