For the price of a highly liquid underlying instrument to have increased, there must have been more bought than sold in the period of time measured, not considering Corporate actions that affect number of tradable stocks etc.
Is the same true for the opposite, price decrease = more sold than bought.
If not, is it likely to be true, or completely unconnected?
No. There are two sides on every transaction: A buyer and a seller. Hence, the number of assets bought must equal the number of assets sold (naked shorts and derivatives aside).
ok understood, so can we reweight the metric used to accommodate this? Prices go up because more shares were bought than were sold at the current/previous market price? Is this fair to say?
I know what you're getting at and that seems correct ... except previous makes more sense than current, since every buy/sell is always at the market price.
Voluptates et tempora ipsa labore aut quidem perferendis. Deleniti voluptatem odit distinctio consequatur ut assumenda tenetur quia.
Non et voluptatem non necessitatibus a deleniti officia. Qui a voluptatem et sed suscipit odit. Velit totam in molestias aut vitae consequuntur.
Perspiciatis minima omnis amet explicabo. Nisi numquam culpa quos sit dolores inventore nihil. Velit et perferendis distinctio sit voluptas ut.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...