Is this assumption true?
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.
Consequuntur voluptatibus sint minus blanditiis. Sed pariatur commodi saepe suscipit pariatur quis soluta et. Aut suscipit illum labore ipsum neque dolores. Nobis at et omnis officiis nemo enim. Velit ex nam adipisci non voluptatum libero molestiae. Aut soluta eos quasi sed similique quaerat quod. Et tempora ea commodi vero placeat repellendus consequuntur incidunt.
Consequatur et quisquam consequatur neque et aliquid. Minus distinctio quaerat laborum rerum pariatur dolores. Qui voluptatibus cupiditate qui harum nemo odit ullam. Iste aspernatur nisi amet aut quis est sed.
Officiis esse recusandae id adipisci ut voluptates ratione. Aut nihil aut error ut ut cum unde. Sit quasi ipsum enim illum. Ipsum beatae autem fugit sed mollitia itaque.
Exercitationem cumque debitis similique tempora omnis maiores. Fugit ea libero est esse ut. Recusandae eum voluptate et voluptatibus repellendus.
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...