Talk:Swing trading

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finance & Investment, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Finance and Investment on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Finance & InvestmentWikipedia:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentTemplate:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentFinance & Investment articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This is very inaccurate[edit]

I'm an editor at a financial website and this definition is deeply inaccurate. I understand that you are sourcing from two definition websites but swing trading can be significantly longer than "several days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.16.115.245 (talk) 21:08, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Copy-editing[edit]

This reads more like an ad, while not quite abasing the NPOV it should have attention called to it.

Much of this article appears to be taken from this page. I suppose it's possible that the author of the original text in this entry and the page linked to are the same person, but I suspect it's a copyright violation. Godshatter 06:19, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agreed, researched and rewrote it. Its a much different piece now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgcalhoun (talk • contribs) 21:13, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Too upbeat[edit]

There definitely needs to be ALOT more on market efficiency, mention of statistical analysis that no one has market timing, etc —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.124.161.144 (talk) 14:12, August 23, 2007 (UTC)

This article has been totally reworked in a much more scholarly vein since this comment, which I agreed with.

Redirect[edit]

It's more often called "momentum trading"210.84.34.146 07:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)Emmanuel[reply]

Redirect. Karol 11:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree. Momentum trading is an entirely different style. 71.245.176.139 21:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)Rob[reply]

Whether the correct term is "swing" or momentum" trading...[edit]

... the description has too much opinion (e.g., The best candidates are large-cap stocks that are among the most actively traded stocks on the major exchanges, for example, Intel, Microsoft, and Cisco Systems) I personally have more success trading lesser known and smaller cap stocks. This may be due to the fact that, in this day and age of ETS (algorithmic and automated) trading, lesser traded stocks could be less "gamed". I know I just countered one opinion with another, but this doesn't negate my point.

The article also oversimplifies the topic by making no mention of the many technical analysis tools that are a basis for this type of trading. To clarify it should talk to the statistical momentum and trend indicator that enable swing trading, and contrast this to the fundamental analysis used to pick stocks that form the primary basis for longer term "Warren Buffet" style trading. 199.46.245.231 22:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC) Rob S[reply]

The correct term is swing trading however this article makes the erroneous assumption that swing trading can only be done in a trading range or sideways market. Swing Trading can work in both trending as well as trading range markets. The real essence of the approach is trading short-term, multiple day movements in a market.Browncom 04:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

5 Lots of direct plagiarism from Investopedia article[edit]

http://www.investopedia.com/articles/trading/02/101602.asp unless Investopedia plagiarized from this, but I suspect not as the other is signed by name. Ladarzak (talk) 23:07, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This has been address and the plagiarism removed, and the investopia article is referenced and cite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgcalhoun (talk • contribs) 21:10, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Huh[edit]

I don't understand this: "and which staffs its trading algorithm team more heavily than even its trading desk" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.215.74.192 (talk) 14:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Goldman Sachs employs more people and capital for algorithm research than they do for their trade desk. Goldman Sach's trade desk employees facilitate clients and trading, has fewer employees and is less funded than their algorithm research team. Their algorithm research team researches profitable trading strategies, and gets more funding and has more people than their trade desk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgcalhoun (talk • contribs) 23:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I see. Words like "skyrocket" and "staffs more heavily" seems like something a sales person would write. Clarity is better than bombastic words. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.215.74.192 (talk) 14:45, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]