Jump to content

Welcome to the new Traders Laboratory! Please bear with us as we finish the migration over the next few days. If you find any issues, want to leave feedback, get in touch with us, or offer suggestions please post to the Support forum here.

  • Welcome Guests

    Welcome. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest which does not give you access to all the great features at Traders Laboratory such as interacting with members, access to all forums, downloading attachments, and eligibility to win free giveaways. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free. Create a FREE Traders Laboratory account here.

zkreso

Basic Economic Theory Model to Explain the Volume and Price Relationship

Recommended Posts

In this post I plan to present a simplified view of the Volume and Price relationship based on elementary economic theory.

 

First, an introduction to supply & demand schedules for those without any prior understanding of economics. For those of you who are familiar with the economic definitions of supply & demand, you can skip this part.

 

 

Introduction to Supply & Demand:

---

In economics, we think of demand and supply as a schedules, or arrays of price and quantity combinations if you wish. That is, for every price, a certain quantity will be demanded, and likewise, for every price, a certain quantity will be supplied.

 

We assume that the higher the price, the less will be demanded.

We assume that the higher the price, the more will be supplied.

 

With these two assumptions, we can draw the supply and demand schedules in a diagram. If the price is on the vertical axis, and the quantity is on the horizontal axis, then the demand curve will be falling, and the supply curve will be rising, as shown in the first figure.

 

attachment.php?attachmentid=8224&stc=1&d=1223237772

 

In the intersection of these two curves, or when the quantity demanded equals the quantity supplied, we will have reached an equilibrium. All other prices would be unstable.

 

Sidenote: Why is this? Well, if price were any higher, then the quantity supplied would be higher than the quantity demanded. There would be a surplus quantity to which there would be no buyers. Thus, price must fall to attract additional buyers to snap up this surplus. Likewise, if the price were below the equilibrium, the quantity demanded would exceed the quantity supplied. There would be a shortage, and price must rise to attract additional sellers to fill this shortage.

 

What then do we mean when we say "an increase in demand"? What we mean is that for each price, the demanded quantity is larger than previously, or, for each price, the buyers now wish to purchase more of this good than they did before - it has become more dear to them. This can be illustrated by the demand curve shifting to the left, as shown in the second figure above.

 

Likewise, "an increase in supply" means that for each price, the supplied quantity is larger than previously, or, for each price, the sellers wish to dispose with more of this good than they did before - it has become less dear to them. This can be illustrated by the supply curve shifting to the left, as shown on the third figure above.

 

 

Basic Supply & Demand theory applied to the stock market

---

How is this then relevant to the stock market? Well, we're lucky enough that economic theory is general enough that we can apply its principles to any good. An economic good is simply something that people value, of which the total quantity in the world is limited. This certainly applies to stocks.

 

Using a simple supply/demand diagram, like the one above, we can illustrate all the combinations of changes in price and quantity (volume) of a good (stocks) and whether they are the cause of supply and/or demand shifts.

 

For example, the second figure above shows an increase in demand. As we can see, the new equilibrium point is at a place where the price, as well as quantity, is higher than at the previous point. Below is a picture that shows all the different combinations and their impacts on price and quantity.

 

Feel free to study the figure, but skip it if you wish, as it is not extremely important for you to be familiar with it to understand the conclusion.

 

Sidenote: As a guide to examining it, note that:

 

The first row shows the possible shifts in supply & demand that would cause the price to increase.

The second row shows the shifts that would leave price unchanged.

The third row shows the shifts that would cause price to fall.

 

The first column shows the shifts that would cause volume to increase.

The second column shows the shifts that would leave volume unchanged.

The third column shows the shifts that would cause volume to fall.

 

attachment.php?attachmentid=8222&stc=1&d=1223231141

 

 

Conclusion

---

For the conclusion, I will, with the help of the diagram above, explain each of the scenarios in it (from left to right) from a stock market perspective, and with that, what the theoretical explanations for changes in price and volume are.

 

Price rises, as a result of three things:

  1. Increased Demand
    as evidenced by Rising Volume. Note that ONLY demand has increased, while supply is the same. Buyers are more eager to buy, taking the offers, while sellers opinions are unchanged. This results in lots of the sellers shares to be bought and shows up as increased volume. In stock terminology we would call this scenario "offers being taken" or "buying pressure".
     
  2. Increased Demand and Decreased Supply
    as evidenced by Unchanged Volume. Demand increases while supply decreases, suggesting that both sellers and buyers value the stock more dearly. Buyers lift bids, but sellers lift offers, causing little to no change in volume. Hard to interpret, so let's just call it the result of some "positive event" that is instantly acknowledged by both buyers and sellers.
     
  3. Decreased Supply
    as evidenced by Falling Volume. Supply decreases while demand stays the same, suggesting an unwillingness to sell. Price rises as there is less supply, but buyers opinions are unchanged, so there are fewer shares transacted (as there are not as many buyers at the higher price). We would call this scenario "offers being raised", or "selling drying up"

 

Price remains unchanged, as a result of three things:

  1. Increased Demand and Increased Supply
    as evidenced by Rising Volume. Buyers are more eager to buy, lifting bids, while buyers are more eager to sell, lowering offers, so price remains unchanged, but a great number of transactions happen. We would call this scenario in the stock market for "change of ownership"
     
  2. No changes happening
    as evidenced by Unchanged Volume. There is nothing to impact the supply and demand schedules. Bids and offers are left in place. We would call this for something along the lines of "no new information" entering the market.
     
  3. Decreased Demand and Decreased Supply
    as evidenced by Falling Volume. Buyers are less eager to buy, while sellers are less eager to sell, so liquidity falls. It's hard to interpret this one, but it could be the result of "indecision" in both camps.

 

Finally, price falls, as a result of three things:

  1. Increased Supply
    as evidenced by Rising Volume. Sellers are more eager to sell, so they are hitting the bids, while buyers opinions are unchanged, causing a lot of the buyers orders to be taken, and subsequently an increase in volume. We would call this scenario "selling pressure".
     
  2. Increased Supply and Decreased Demand
    as evidenced by Unchanged Volume. The inverse of the situation where price rises on changed volume. Here it falls because both buyers and sellers hold the stock less dear. Sellers try to sell, but if both buyers and sellers instantly acknowledge the "negative event", the bids will already be lowered, so we won't see an increase in volume as in the previous scenario.
     
  3. Decreased Demand
    as evidenced by Falling Volume. The last possible scenario. Buyers expectations fall, so they lower their bids, but sellers opinions are unchanged, and as a result, fewer shares change hands (as there are fewer available at the lower prices. We would call this scenario "buying drying up"

 

For a quick reference, I have summarized these scenarios in two matrices, one with the participants actions, and the other with the scenario names:

 

attachment.php?attachmentid=8223&stc=1&d=1223236507

 

 

Applications

---

What in the world can this be used for then? Well, as a simplified theoretical model it is of course not extremely realistic. Even if it were, we know that economic science can not offer quantifiable predictions, so it would still be pretty useless.

 

My thought is that it should be used as a framework for interpreting price and volume changes and their interrelations. It can also be compared to other theoretical approaches to the stock market, either strengthening or weakening their conclusions, or to interpret the use and validity of certain indicators that use volume and price.

pricevolume.GIF.7e8fb77332cba3d137cba550f9dc060a.GIF

pricevolumematrix.PNG.e6160ae7c74009d60c5478ad30a8bc1f.PNG

basicSD.GIF.aa5756761aa16cdfff74e5e53e71ce25.GIF

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting first post. I look forward to seeing where you go with this. There will be some sceptics that thing you are trying to sell something based on this material. I hope they do you the courtesy of not jumping to conclusions!

 

Welcome to TL and thank you for contributing so much on post 1.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the welcome.

 

I don't really know how to take this further. As I said, it's pretty theoretical, so for now its only use is strengthening/weakening empirical observations and anecdotal evidence from a theoretical point of view.

 

As for me selling something, I have nothing to sell. I have not made any trading recommendations, and if I do, I would not advise anyone to follow them, unless they want the same negative returns I have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great post.

 

Although I disagree with your conclusions. The change in the demand- or/and supply curve means a change in equilibruim. In a new equilibrium, there will be a new general price level or new general level of volume, or both (to keep things vague :p) IMO.

 

I think prices do not jump exactly from equilibrium to equilibrium, but gradually moving to new equilibria, or towards equilibrium. A price discovering proces.

 

To illustrate with a snapshot in time: Suppose price is at P1 for some reason. Suppliers are offering Q1 at this level. Buyers want Q2 at this level. This agreement is visible for al to see. Price P1 with Q1 volume (volume is matched quantity/ quantity exchanged. The pressure is upwards, since more quantities are wanted then offered, but you do not know this with this single transaction.

 

But if you move this trough continous time, prices will move up and down around equilibrium. And this is where most of the trades are taking place.

 

So the next moment you see a decrease in P with with shrinking volume, and afterwards an increase in price with bigger volume. You don't need to be a genius to figure out the momentary pressure is upwards. A further increase of price and volume confirms all this. Until prices are above equilibrium, where see a shrinking of volume/ drying up with increasing prices, since more quatities are being offered then wanted. Selling pressure could be bigger then buying pressure and prices are moving down again.

 

This with changes in demand/ supply as you described, more combinations of volume and price are possible.

 

But yeah, I still haven't touched any financial contracts yet and this is just way to theoratical. Just the thoughts of someone with way to much time on his hands, so don't take this to heart.

demand_supply_pastexams_chocolate1.gif.9aae2f6883b70cefc783bd4dc223fd56.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you've got an interesting model/framework here, can you adapt it to do some simple forecasting? Try defining states, as you've done, develop some timeframes, and see if that maps to any future tendencies in price. It seems like something that would be fairly easy to backtest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Thx for reminding us... I don't bang that drum often enough anymore Another part for consideration is who that money initially went to...
    • TDUP ThredUp stock, watch for a top of range breakout above 2.94 at https://stockconsultant.com/?TDUP
    • How long does it take to receive HFM's withdrawal via Skrill? less than 24H?
    • My wife Robin just wanted some groceries.   Simple enough.   She parked the car for fifteen minutes, and returned to find a huge scratch on the side.   Someone keyed her car.   To be clear, this isn’t just any car.   It’s a Cybertruck—Elon Musk's stainless-steel spaceship on wheels. She bought it back in 2021, before Musk became everyone's favorite villain or savior.   Someone saw it parked in a grocery lot and felt compelled to carve their hatred directly into the metal.   That's what happens when you stand out.   Nobody keys a beige minivan.   When you're polarizing, you're impossible to ignore. But the irony is: the more attention something has, the harder it is to find the truth about it.   What’s Elon Musk really thinking? What are his plans? What will happen with DOGE? Is he deserving of all of this adoration and hate? Hard to say.   Ideas work the same way.   Take tariffs, for example.   Tariffs have become the Cybertrucks of economic policy. People either love them or hate them. Even if they don’t understand what they are and how they work. (Most don’t.)   That’s why, in my latest podcast (link below), I wanted to explore the “in-between” truth about tariffs.   And like Cybertrucks, I guess my thoughts on tariffs are polarizing.   Greg Gutfield mentioned me on Fox News. Harvard professors hate me now. (I wonder if they also key Cybertrucks?)   But before I show you what I think about tariffs… I have to mention something.   We’re Headed to Austin, Texas This weekend, my team and I are headed to Austin. By now, you should probably know why.   Yes, SXSW is happening. But my team and I are doing something I think is even better.   We’re putting on a FREE event on “Tech’s Turning Point.”   AI, quantum, biotech, crypto, and more—it’s all on the table.   Just now, we posted a special webpage with the agenda.   Click here to check it out and add it to your calendar.   The Truth About Tariffs People love to panic about tariffs causing inflation.   They wave around the ghost of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff from the Great Depression like it’s Exhibit A proving tariffs equal economic collapse.   But let me pop this myth:   Tariffs don’t cause inflation. And no, I'm not crazy (despite what angry professors from Harvard or Stanford might tweet at me).   Here's the deal.   Inflation isn’t when just a couple of things become pricier. It’s when your entire shopping basket—eggs, shirts, Netflix subscriptions, bananas, everything—starts costing more because your money’s worth less.   Inflation means your dollars aren’t stretching as far as they used to.   Take the 1800s.   For nearly a century, 97% of America’s revenue came from tariffs. Income tax? Didn’t exist. And guess what inflation was? Basically zero. Maybe 1% a year.   The economy was booming, and tariffs funded nearly everything. So, why do people suddenly think tariffs cause inflation today?   Tariffs are taxes on imports, yes, but prices are set by supply and demand—not tariffs.   Let me give you a simple example.   Imagine fancy potato chips from Canada cost $10, and a 20% tariff pushes that to $12. Everyone panics—prices rose! Inflation!   Nope.   If I only have $100 to spend and the price of my favorite chips goes up, I either stop buying chips or I buy, say, fewer newspapers.   If everyone stops buying newspapers because they’re overspending on chips, newspapers lower their prices or go out of business.   Overall spending stays the same, and inflation doesn’t budge.   Three quick scenarios:   We buy pricier chips, but fewer other things: Inflation unchanged. Manufacturers shift to the U.S. to avoid tariffs: Inflation unchanged (and more jobs here). We stop buying fancy chips: Prices drop again. Inflation? Still unchanged. The only thing that actually causes inflation is printing money.   Between 2020 and 2022 alone, 40% of all money ever created in history appeared overnight.   That’s why inflation shot up afterward—not because of tariffs.   Back to tariffs today.   Still No Inflation Unlike the infamous Smoot-Hawley blanket tariff (imagine Oprah handing out tariffs: "You get a tariff, and you get a tariff!"), today's tariffs are strategic.   Trump slapped tariffs on chips from Taiwan because we shouldn’t rely on a single foreign supplier for vital tech components—especially if that supplier might get invaded.   Now Taiwan Semiconductor is investing $100 billion in American manufacturing.   Strategic win, no inflation.   Then there’s Canada and Mexico—our friendly neighbors with weirdly huge tariffs on things like milk and butter (299% tariff on butter—really, Canada?).   Trump’s not blanketing everything with tariffs; he’s pressuring trade partners to lower theirs.   If they do, everybody wins. If they don’t, well, then we have a strategic trade chess game—but still no inflation.   In short, tariffs are about strategy, security, and fairness—not inflation.   Yes, blanket tariffs from the Great Depression era were dumb. Obviously. Today's targeted tariffs? Smart.   Listen to the whole podcast to hear why I think this.   And by the way, if you see a Cybertruck, don’t key it. Robin doesn’t care about your politics; she just likes her weird truck.   Maybe read a good book, relax, and leave cars alone.   (And yes, nobody keys Volkswagens, even though they were basically created by Hitler. Strange world we live in.) Source: https://altucherconfidential.com/posts/the-truth-about-tariffs-busting-the-inflation-myth    Profits from free accurate cryptos signals: https://www.predictmag.com/       
    • No, not if you are comparing apples to apples. What we call “poor” is obviously a pretty high bar but if you’re talking about like a total homeless shambling skexie in like San Fran then, no. The U.S.A. in not particularly kind to you. It is not an abuse so much as it is a sad relatively minor consequence of our optimism and industriousness.   What you consider rich changes with circumstances obviously. If you are genuinely poor in the U.S.A., you experience a quirky hodgepodge of unhelpful and/or abstract extreme lavishnesses while also being alienated from your social support network. It’s about the same as being a refugee. For a fraction of the ‘kindness’ available to you in non bio-available form, you could have simply stayed closer to your people and been MUCH better off.   It’s just a quirk of how we run the place and our values; we are more worried about interfering with people’s liberty and natural inclination to do for themselves than we are about no bums left behind. It is a slightly hurtful position and we know it; we are just scared to death of socialism cancer and we’re willing to put our money where our mouth is.   So, if you’re a bum; you got 5G, the ER will spend like $1,000,000 on you over a hangnail but then kick you out as soon as you’re “stabilized”, the logistics are surpremely efficient, you have total unchecked freedom of speech, real-estate, motels, and jobs are all natural healthy markets in perfect competition, you got compulsory three ‘R’’s, your military owns the sky, sea, space, night, information-space, and has the best hairdos, you can fill out paper and get all the stuff up to and including a Ph.D. Pretty much everything a very generous, eager, flawless go-getter with five minutes to spare would think you might need.   It’s worse. Our whole society is competitive and we do NOT value or make any kumbaya exception. The last kumbaya types we had werr the Shakers and they literally went extinct. Pueblo peoples are still around but they kind of don’t count since they were here before us. So basically, if you’re poor in the U.S.A., you are automatically a loser and a deadbeat too. You will be treated as such by anybody not specifically either paid to deal with you or shysters selling bejesus, Amway, and drugs. Plus, it ain’t safe out there. Not everybody uses muhfreedoms to lift their truck, people be thugging and bums are very vulnerable here. The history of a large mobile workforce means nobody has a village to go home to. Source: https://askdaddy.quora.com/Are-the-poor-people-in-the-United-States-the-richest-poor-people-in-the-world-6   Profits from free accurate cryptos signals: https://www.predictmag.com/ 
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.