Cracks in The Law of Supply and Demand?

[firewalker 10]

Note: Dbphoenix & gassah, you are the moderators here and if you guys should feel this thread belongs more in the Psychology forum, I perfectly understand if moderators move it over there.

______

 

Below is a quote from Soultrader posted in another thread, but I thought it was more appropriate to take the discussion here. Although I don't want anybody to think this is strictly Wyckoff related, it might encourage a discussion about "The Basic Law of Supply and Demand".

 

... higher prices will attract more buying. Its simple human pysch. Demand does not even have to be present... human greed is so easy to exploit, all you have to do is jack prices up high to lure in all the greedy public suckers. Its just how the game is played.

 

A lot to think about in only a couple of sentences there. I'm not sure that price can rise without demand, as Soultrader says... If there's no demand for a product/good/stock, the suppliers will have to lower price because in each auction process the purpose is to find an equilibrium point so a transaction can take place, right? VSA talks about "no demand" and "no supply" and we often read traders talking how "price fell of itself". So price can fall of itself (lack of demand), but how many people say price rises without demand (lack of supply)?

 

What Soultrader is saying touches some of the very foundations of economics 101 imo. We've all been taught price rises because demand outweighs supply and vice versa. Marginalist economic theory tells us that consumers will try to reach their most preferred position, a point where any further increase in consumption of a specific good (or service) no longer provides them extra "utility". So why would they buy at increasingly higher prices if previously the same good/utility/stock was available for them at a lower price?

 

Soultrader wrote "higher prices will attract more buying", so he's saying that price itself has an impact on what buyers and sellers do. Does the 'law' of supply and demand no longer works because people don't act rationally? The demand for goods and commodities is generally thought of as the result of a utility-maximizing process... Micro-economics tells us, given any set of goods, each participant in the economic process/system will try its best to obtain the best point of equilibrium which means that the consumer will strive towards utility maximization.

 

But what if this isn't the case? What if the supply & demand in itself is only a factor in an economic system where some perverse mechanisms are at work to trick those participants? Some empirical research into the field of behavioral economics tells us that there are psychological causes behind many types of not-so-smart financial decisions (plenty of examples in this book).

 

I think what Soultrader is saying here, touches some of the very foundations of economics 101. We've all been taught price rises because demand outweighs supply and vice versa. Marginalist economic theory tells us that consumers will try to reach the most-preferred position, a point where any further increase in consumption of a specific good (or service) no longer provides them extra "utility".

 

Now... you're saying that price itself has an impact on what buyers and sellers do. Does the 'law' of supply and demand no longer works because people don't act rationally? What if the supply & demand in itself is only a factor in an economic system where some perverse mechanisms are at work that make us humans make decisions that are far less than optimum? Are these elements that influence our decisions subconsciously in a sense that we can't control them? What about traders self-sabotaging their plan?

 

Back to supply and demand, does the so-called anchoring effect (where people's decisions are overly influenced by specific information or value or a bias towards any of those) come into play? Some experiments seem to imply that we -sometimes- let our objective measures of 'value' be influenced by seemingly unrelated elements.

 

How about the experiment (described in this book) where students were asked to write down (a) the last two digits of their social security number and (b) the maximum price they were willing to pay for a bottle of wine, a book and a box of chocolates. Surprisingly, the security numbers had an influence on their bids and there was a clear pattern! The higher the numbers, the more the students were willing to pay. In that case, price was not being determined by the interplay of supply and demand but - as Ariely wrote - "determining itself".

 

So how about the 'basic law of supply and demand', are there holes in the micro-economics package that teaches us this is the reason why price fluctuates?

Edited June 16, 2008 by firewalker

[Trader333 10]

In my view it will ultimately be time dependent. Prices will only fall when there is a lack of buying support rather than lack of actual increased demand. We saw this with the dot com boom as the true demand was not real and as a result the price eventually collapsed. I think that oil is doing the same at the moment because there is a reduced demand compared to 8 months ago when prices were below $80 so why has it suddenly gone up in price when demand has stayed the same or reduced and supply has stayed the same ?. I recently read that there are tanker loads of oil just sitting around in the Gulf states with no imminent need for it.

 

I agree with you though that long term the law of economics will prevail and what often causes prices to keep going up is the frenzy you often see when price and volume spikes on a chart before it goes back down. This is usually everyone panic buying because they think everyone else is onto something.

 

 

Paul

[DbPhoenix 42]

Note: Dbphoenix & gassah, you are the moderators here and if you guys should feel this thread belongs more in the Psychology forum, I perfectly understand if moderators move it over there.

 

ST appears to be defining "demand" differently than Wyckoff does. However, you're welcome to conduct your discussion here.

[MC 10]

The missing piece of info is WHO is showing demand in James example.

To profit it's not about what retail or other dopey investors do, it's about what the smart money did.

 

Demand isn't defined by volume alone, it's what's being done with that volume. The retail demand was there simply because the prices moved higher. That's why volume itself doesn't always dictate demand by definition.

 

JMHO

[DbPhoenix 42]

From a practical standpoint, it really doesn't matter who is moving price or why they're doing it. What matters is that price is moving. The key to profiting from that movement has less to do with how and why and who than with being attuned to the relative strengths of the buying and selling waves as they relate to previous buying and selling waves, i.e., support and resistance. Allowing oneself to become enmeshed in the who and the why does nothing but add another layer of unnecessary and irrelevant complexity.

[MC 10]

From a practical standpoint, it really doesn't matter who is moving price or why they're doing it. What matters is that price is moving. The key to profiting from that movement has less to do with how and why and who than with being attuned to the relative strengths of the buying and selling waves as they relate to previous buying and selling waves, i.e., support and resistance. Allowing oneself to become enmeshed in the who and the why does nothing but add another layer of unnecessary and irrelevant complexity.

 

I respect your opinion and agree, though I'm not sure I see it 100% the same.

 

Either way you slice it, we're looking for a continuation or dried up volume leading to a reversal. The reversal allows the auction to reverse and seek out higher perceived value through waves or cycles. That's the part I think we agree on.

 

I don't agree that looking to see where professional money (big volume) is NOT playing is complex. This is the simple pattern James showed earlier...it shows when big money has offloaded their position to the retail herd. This test, or a similar test with lower volume is built into your TA though it seems you make an effort to not think about the "why" behind volume having dried up. Same result, different mindset is all.

 

Big money drives supply and demand so to ride their coattails is the wise thing to do IMO.

If they deem a price level too high, and therefore sell into a price. And that price then tests again on low volume showing pros aren't backing it, it's logical to short that price. Again, we are saying the same thing, I'm just adding the thought of WHY behind it where you don't worry about the why.

[DbPhoenix 42]

 

I don't agree that looking to see where professional money (big volume) is NOT playing is complex. This is the simple pattern James showed earlier...it shows when big money has offloaded their position to the retail herd. This test, or a similar test with lower volume is built into your TA though it seems you make an effort to not think about the "why" behind volume having dried up. Same result, different mindset is all.

 

My comments have to do with the two sentences that FW quoted. I have no idea what pattern you're referring to nor where the VDU is occurring. As I said, demand is nothing more than the willingness to pay the ask. If the discussion is instead about volume patterns, perhaps FW could clarify.

[MC 10]

My comments have to do with the two sentences that FW quoted. I have no idea what pattern you're referring to nor where the VDU is occurring. As I said, demand is nothing more than the willingness to pay the ask. If the discussion is instead about volume patterns, perhaps FW could clarify.

 

Sorry, I'm referring to the original thread FW has quoted from. James depicted a double top basically, with traits showing smart money had sold out of the move.

 

I see demand as smart money's willingness to continue to participate (aka not sell into) prices auctioning higher. Typical traders (aka dumb money) just see higher prices as demand and jump in with no thought of distribution. To them that burst of volume (which was in actuality pros selling) was "demand" and was bullish. That was James original point as I understood it.

 

I guess in thinking about this... Do you believe there is only one S&D chain in the market?

[firewalker 10]

From a practical standpoint, it really doesn't matter who is moving price or why they're doing it. What matters is that price is moving.

 

I wholeheartedly agree. But as you probably will have noticed by the elements I raised in the first post, this isn't as much about the practical trading implications, as it is about the economic 'laws' or 'theories' that we've come use to build our foundations on.

 

Allowing oneself to become enmeshed in the who and the why does nothing but add another layer of unnecessary and irrelevant complexity.

 

Although I don't expect any of this to help anyone become a better trader, I'm not so sure that studying the (lack of) rational behavior is completely irrelevant, since there's a whole field of scientific research trying to integrate psychology with neo-classical economic theory... I'll assume you meant it was unnecessary and irrelevant to know who is moving the market (smart money, dumb money, weak hands, strong hands, the public, market makers, etc, etc...) in order to understand it or make profit from it. And that's something I obviously agree upon.

 

My comments have to do with the two sentences that FW quoted. I have no idea what pattern you're referring to nor where the VDU is occurring. As I said, demand is nothing more than the willingness to pay the ask. If the discussion is instead about volume patterns, perhaps FW could clarify.

 

No, I hope the discussion won't revolve around patterns or volume, as I mentioned neither in my primary post. I realize that perhaps not as many people would like to engage in this type of discussion, as it might have little or no practical benefits tradingwise and be more of an abstract discussion...

Edited June 16, 2008 by firewalker
added text

[firewalker 10]

I guess in thinking about this... Do you believe there is only one S&D chain in the market?

 

What exactly do you mean by "one chain"?

 

The thread initiating post raises several points, all at once, which might not be ideal if we want to make sure everybody is talking about the same thing...

 

So how about this: the law of supply & demand states (simply put) that if demand > supply => price will rise to form a new equilibrium. Looking further behind the reasons why there is demand, is something traders most of the time couldn't care about. Neither do I tbh.

 

We do assume however that buyers have sufficient reason to belief that the 'value' they perceive of the good/service/instrument is higher than the current price so they are willing to pay a premium in order to acquire some. What's interesting about it all of this, is that Ariely suggests that the 'price setting' itself influences the way the value is perceived.

 

The reason I quoted Soultrader, was not to debate his setup or his trade or what he saw at that particular moment, but to reflect for a moment about what he said about demand: " ... higher prices will attract more buying." Is this the case in each market and why would that be so? Is the public more interested in buying shares when they are on the way up, then when stocks are selling off? Are we going to buy more food because food prices are rising? Or is the demand initiated by the public (in the markets) of a different kind than the demand for primary goods?

[DbPhoenix 42]

Sorry, I'm referring to the original thread FW has quoted from. James depicted a double top basically, with traits showing smart money had sold out of the move.

 

I see demand as smart money's willingness to continue to participate (aka not sell into) prices auctioning higher. Typical traders (aka dumb money) just see higher prices as demand and jump in with no thought of distribution. To them that burst of volume (which was in actuality pros selling) was "demand" and was bullish. That was James original point as I understood it.

 

I guess in thinking about this... Do you believe there is only one S&D chain in the market?

 

There are two threads going on here, one having to do with supply and demand and the other having to do with volume. Volume has to do with trading activity. Supply and demand have to do with price movement (unless price doesn't move at all, in which case supply and demand are balanced). The two threads can be related, but there is no intrinsic correlation. Price can move substantially on practically no "volume" at all. It can also sit there buffing its nails while tons of trading activity is going on in the background.

 

Don't know what you mean by "one S&D chain".

[NAVEEVIa 10]

IMHO utility maximisation works most of the time when we buy something for consumption whereas if i see a stock rising & if i buy, my utility is the ability to be able to sell at a higher price in future. So in a sense i am creating demand, Higher prices do attract attention of herd though

[DbPhoenix 42]

I wholeheartedly agree. But as you probably will have noticed by the elements I raised in the first post, this isn't as much about the practical trading implications, as it is about the economic 'laws' or 'theories' that we've come use to build our foundations on.

 

You're confusing supply and demand as it relates to economics with supply and demand as it relates to the markets, and the two are only casually related. Market movements can be very calculated and deliberate, or they can be governed by greed and fear. This is largely due to the differing attitudes towards "value". Not many people are going to pay $100 for a strawberry, even if there's only one left in the bin.

[MC 10]

I didn't mean to hijack or confuse...I'll bow out of both threads, sorry guys.

 

TL is getting way too "deep" for me lately. People are over thinking everything and it's turning into a battle of the minds rather than traders helping other traders learn. I think I just need to stay focused on my screen time and spend less time trying to put what I see and feel into words on boards.

 

Good luck fellas.

[Guest forsearch]

Soon we'll be discussing SCT over here too....

[firewalker 10]

You're confusing supply and demand as it relates to economics with supply and demand as it relates to the markets, and the two are only casually related.

 

Hmm, interesting... but when Wyckoff mentioned the 'basic' law of supply and demand, did he make a big distinction between what happens in the stock market and what happens in any other market? Quote: "This is true not only of stocks; it is constantly being demonstrated in markets for wheat, corn, cotton, sugar and every other commodity that is bought and sold; also, it is reflected in other markets such as real estate, labor, etc."

 

Market movements can be very calculated and deliberate, or they can be governed by greed and fear. This is largely due to the differing attitudes towards "value". Not many people are going to pay $100 for a strawberry, even if there's only one left in the bin.

 

In any market, be it consumer goods, real estate or commodities, participants can affect price deliberately imo. Buyers and sellers are to a certain extent always governed by greed of fear. I'm thinking of asymmetric information situations, the classic used car example where the seller might try to manipulate the buyer by hiding information.

 

In an economic system there might also be external factors at work (competitors, government regulation,...) which are not as much present in the markets where each transaction usually can take place without intervention from other parties (other than a broker).

 

If supply & demand is all that moves the market, is the actual price a proper representation of the actual value of something?

 

I didn't mean to hijack or confuse...I'll bow out of both threads, sorry guys.

 

TL is getting way too "deep" for me lately. People are over thinking everything and it's turning into a battle of the minds rather than traders helping other traders learn. I think I just need to stay focused on my screen time and spend less time trying to put what I see and feel into words on boards.

 

My first impression of TL is that there are a lot more 'open debates' possible here than elsewhere, I wouldn't call these discussions "battles". I don't see any reason why you should bow out, perhaps just a slightly more focus on the topic is needed?

[zdo 20]

If nothing else, this thread is a perfect example of a very common and unfortunate tendency on boards.

 

LATC = let’s acknowledge the complexity

KISS = kiss it simple stupid

 

Two types of threads. Two trajectories too…

The KISS adherents will let you know if you’re complicating their thread and will unceremoniously escort you ‘off the premises’ if you say anything that threatens their homeostasis. 'Complicaters' are not welcome.

Yet the KISS adherents readily intrude into complex topics and impose their agenda. And generally, rather than assert their rights to exploration and complexity, LATC adherents politely and quite meekly accept the degradation in thought and inquisitiveness. Just because KISS adherents help keep it real and practical doesn't mean they should be given license to subvert complex inquiry. Now that I’ve pissed everyone off… :missy:

 

re this topic - Uncertainty is the rub for both the KISS and then LATC crowds.

“higher prices will attract more buying” should read “higher prices can attract more buying”. Actual ‘money flow’ does not follow KISS Supply and Demand laws. Yet I have never seen an adequate (simple or complex) explanation of what conditions can and do attract more buying and what conditions (could but) do not. Not from Wycoff and Co., not from VSA and Co, not from behavioural finance and Co, not from MP and Co., not from practical floor traders and Co, not from …

Have you?

KISSer's would accept 'random' or 'random-like'. Do you???

 

re "one chain"?

The dual auction is a viable topic to explore.

The ‘dealership’ market has different ‘memories’ of Supply and Demand than does the ‘retail market’. Is that accurate?

Size also plays with different information than does the retail. Is that accurate?

Size plays by different Supply and Demand rules than does retail. Is that accurate?

The ‘dealership market’ necessarily has different methods for managing and moving inventory than does the ‘retail’ trade. Is that accurate?

The ‘dealership’ market literally acts differently on Supply and Demand info than do ‘retail’ participants. Is that accurate?

(and, btw, don’t let appearances fool you – these points and questions are NOT intended to be building a case for vsa - that would be far too KISS for this thread)

[Soultrader 12]

Why You Win or Lose - The Psychology of Speculation by Fred C. Kelly - 1930

 

Excerpt from chapter 3.

 

"Next to vanity, I suppose the worst foe to good judgement that a person in the market must guard against, is old Uncle Greed. If I had only sold every stock I ever had at the price I expected to receive at the time I bought it, I should be far better off. Many a time I have placed a selling order on the same day I bought, and then - when the stock had reached my price, cancelled the order - because I decided that a few undred dollar profit wasn't nearly enough. And without a single exception, every time I have thus cancelled a selling order placed before my greed got to working on me, the stock later went down and I sold it below the figure I had first planned to take. Sad words are these - oh, if I had only sold when - ! But we all use them. Because we all have our human share of greed, it is always harder to make up one's mind to sell than to guy."

 

"Maybe one reason why brokers market letters favor buying twice as often as they do selling is not merely because brokers are by nature optimistic, and often wrong, but because customers want such advice. Their greed makes them eager to be told to buy."

 

"let a stock market forecaster predict an advance that doesn't come and the public will forgive him, but if h turns bearish too soon and warns of a slump long before it comes, his reputation is ruined. Greedy people who sold on his advice before the peak was reached will never forget about the money the think they might have made."

 

"The worst losses in the market come naturally from buying stocks when they are too high-priced. And the surprising fact is that people actually buy stocks knowing full well that they are over-priced - but expecting to re-sell tham at a price even higher to somebody else. That was what happened in Florida. Men who paid $10,000 for swamp land expected to pass it on to victims still more gullible than themselves."

 

"I suppose the stock market is like this: Here I have a dish of ice cream that cost me ten cents. Robert, the waiter, comes in and says the ice cream is all gone and no more is to be had tonight. My ice cream suddenly seems more valuable to you and you offer me, say, twelve cents for it. Then Bill, who had intended to order ice cream, makes you an offer of thirteen cents. You being, Scotch, can't resist taking a profit. Bill brags so much about the ice ream that I decide I was foolish to let it go in the first place and buy it back for fourteen cents. About that time I discover, to my dismay, that the ice cream has melted."

[MC 10]

Why You Win or Lose - The Psychology of Speculation by Fred C. Kelly - 1930

 

Excerpt from chapter 3.

 

"Next to vanity, I suppose the worst foe to good judgement that a person in the market must guard against, is old Uncle Greed. If I had only sold every stock I ever had at the price I expected to receive at the time I bought it, I should be far better off. Many a time I have placed a selling order on the same day I bought, and then - when the stock had reached my price, cancelled the order - because I decided that a few undred dollar profit wasn't nearly enough. And without a single exception, every time I have thus cancelled a selling order placed before my greed got to working on me, the stock later went down and I sold it below the figure I had first planned to take. Sad words are these - oh, if I had only sold when - ! But we all use them. Because we all have our human share of greed, it is always harder to make up one's mind to sell than to guy."

 

"Maybe one reason why brokers market letters favor buying twice as often as they do selling is not merely because brokers are by nature optimistic, and often wrong, but because customers want such advice. Their greed makes them eager to be told to buy."

 

"let a stock market forecaster predict an advance that doesn't come and the public will forgive him, but if h turns bearish too soon and warns of a slump long before it comes, his reputation is ruined. Greedy people who sold on his advice before the peak was reached will never forget about the money the think they might have made."

 

"The worst losses in the market come naturally from buying stocks when they are too high-priced. And the surprising fact is that people actually buy stocks knowing full well that they are over-priced - but expecting to re-sell tham at a price even higher to somebody else. That was what happened in Florida. Men who paid $10,000 for swamp land expected to pass it on to victims still more gullible than themselves."

 

"I suppose the stock market is like this: Here I have a dish of ice cream that cost me ten cents. Robert, the waiter, comes in and sas the ice cream is all gone and no more is to be had tonight. My ice cream suddently seems more valuable to you and you offer me, say, twelve cents for it. Then Bill, who had intended to order ice cream, makes you an offer of thirteen cents. You being, Scotch, can't resist taking a profit. Bill brags so much about the ice ream that I decide I wasa foolish to let it go in the first place and buy it back for fourteen cents. About that time I discover, to my dismay, that the ice cream has melted."

 

I have to borrow the ice cream one for my place. I just can't resist...it's too fitting of the 90% that fail. :o

[Soultrader 12]

Heres a little input from my own observations.

 

Profiting from greed is similar to what the consumer mentality is like in Japan. Japanese consumers are one of the most brand oriented beings on this planet....in other words we are extremely materialistic or some like to call in fashion. Young professionals making less than $3,000 a month will go out to spend that $2,000 on a Louis Vuitton bag, etc....

 

The consumer mindset of Japan is that high prices must mean better quality and more popularity. While lower prices may indicate a fault with the product. Which is why many Japanese consumers will pay retail for items when they know the same item is available for a 20% discount at a discount store. Strange isnt it? I have heard many times when business men would tell me they would rather stick to their current supplier even though prices are higher because of the relationship they have. Understandable.... but similar mindset.

 

In other words, the higher the price the more likely it is to attract more buyers as consumers feel they are missing out and need to own something expensive which they can feel good about. Of course, this is dependant on the product but in most cases works for luxury items such as branded goods, accessories, jewlery, etc....

 

I think in each and every trading day there is a wholesale price and a retail price. The only way to profit is by buying at wholesale prices and selling it at retail prices. Now with trading, those who buy at retail prices still expect to flip it to make a profit. Professionals know this and therefore can sense these emotional heights of greed. Which is why we sell at high prices and buy at low prices. The exact opposite of the typical consumer mentality.

[Trader333 10]

I have heard many times when business men would tell me they would rather stick to their current supplier even though prices are higher because of the relationship they have. Understandable.... but similar mindset.

 

I have worked in industry and had responsibility for exactly this kind of issue. Price is not the only consideration when dealing with suppliers. There is quality, service and a whole host of other issues and in many cases price is not a driving factor because the end product was not a cost focused market place.

 

I agree with your Japanese story though. It is well known that almost all luxury watches are now made in China and that only the label is the difference between a cheap and expensive model. I also remember that Rolex decided at one time to double their prices for no reason whatsoever and sales went up which pretty much confirms your comments.

 

 

Paul

[firewalker 10]

In other words, the higher the price the more likely it is to attract more buyers as consumers feel they are missing out and need to own something expensive which they can feel good about. Of course, this is dependant on the product but in most cases works for luxury items such as branded goods, accessories, jewlery, etc....

 

I have worked in industry and had responsibility for exactly this kind of issue. Price is not the only consideration when dealing with suppliers. There is quality, service and a whole host of other issues and in many cases price is not a driving factor because the end product was not a cost focused market place.

Paul

 

Thanks for the contribution guys. This is a well known 'anomaly' in the classic economic theory of supply and demand though. Often the high price setting of these products is used to distinguish them from other goods which are considered to be inferior to those. By rising the price of these so-called 'Veblen goods', the status and exclusivity of these products attracts a specific sort of public.

 

Once you start to think about it, the Veblen effect is actually not that odd. Think of some luxury cars or jewelry or fashion... people buy them because they want to be one of the few who own these goods. If price drops to a more acceptable level, these goods quickly lose their status and although this might lead to creating demand in another consumer segment, the vendor risks losing his initial targeted up-class target. For these consumers, the price tag is a reflection of the quality. The higher, the better.

 

Another 'anomaly' are Giffen goods, where, similar to Veblen goods, the demand rises as price rises. But there's one big difference here and that is Giffen goods are inferior goods and that in large part this is due to the income effect.

 

So, back to the markets, how does this translate into buyers and sellers of a stock? I'm not sure any of those anomalies are explanations as to why people would want to buy more when a stock is rising, as opposed to when it's falling. Stocks aren't status goods, but somehow they do seem to get more attractive after some good earnings report or good forecast report pumped it up a couple of points...

[zdo 20]

This is thread is intended to be a place for questions and theories closely related to

http://www.traderslaboratory.com/forums/f131/cracks-in-the-law-of-supply-4025.html

Firewalker, thanks for starting that thread and thanks all for the replies.

I posted a reply there but db deleted it – stated reason “inaccuracies”.

I’m still trying to figure out how questions can be inaccurate – but that doesn’t really matter.

 

Here are some questions I recreated from the destroyed post that may have value to some. They would fit in with the posts leading up to and about Veblen and Geffen goods and this post from Soultrader

I think in each and every trading day there is a wholesale price and a retail price. The only way to profit is by buying at wholesale prices and selling it at retail prices. Now with trading, those who buy at retail prices still expect to flip it to make a profit. Professionals know this and therefore can sense these emotional heights of greed. Which is why we sell at high prices and buy at low prices. The exact opposite of the typical consumer mentality.

 

so re "one chain"?

Is the concept of “dual auction” is a viable topic to explore?

The ‘dealership auction (/ market)' has different ‘memories’ of Supply and Demand than does the ‘retail (/consumer ) auction (/market)’. Is that accurate?

Size also plays with different Supply and Demand information than does the retail side. Is that accurate?

Size plays by different Supply and Demand rules than does retail. Is that accurate?

The ‘dealership auction' necessarily has different methods for managing and moving inventory than does the ‘retail’ trade. Is that accurate?

The ‘dealership auction' literally acts differently on Supply and Demand info than do ‘retail’ participants. Is that accurate?

There are actually multiple Supply and Demand chains. Is that accurate?

 

(and, btw, don’t let appearances fool you – these (points and, more importantly, these) questions are NOT intended to be building a case for NEY or VSA, etc – that would be far too KISS for this inquiry )

[DbPhoenix 42]

This is thread is intended to be a place for questions and theories closely related to

http://www.traderslaboratory.com/forums/f131/cracks-in-the-law-of-supply-4025.html

Firewalker, thanks for starting that thread and thanks all for the replies.

I posted a reply there but db deleted it – stated reason “inaccuracies”.

I’m still trying to figure out how questions can be inaccurate – but that doesn’t really matter.

 

Actually, the "inaccuracies" had nothing to do with your questions but with your personal criticisms of those who were participating in the thread. Since you acknowledged that you were likely "pissing everyone off", you were clearly aware of the likely effect. You were invited to repost your questions without the baggage and you still may do so.

[zdo 20]

It was not personal. and unfortunately, my friend, it was not baggage.

It was central to preserving inquiry. As Firewalker alluded to in his first post, the whole thread is marginally related to Wycoff anyway...