Talk:S&P 500/Archives/2012

Non-US Stocks

The article seems to contradict itself. The first sentence says all of the stocks are from the United States. However, in the section on selection: "The index does include a handful (13 as of July 6, 2007) of non-U.S. companies."

I'm not expert enough to know which statement is correct. -- 137.104.162.48 (talk) 19:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

URL

the url for the "Information about the S&P 500 from Standard and Poor's" link is ugly, but it's the cleanest substitute that i could find for the now-defunct 'http://www.spglobal.com/indexmain500_description.html'.

It may be ugly but it is seems to be the only one being used by S&P, so I guess we should use that one, but lets keep an eye on that link. Links for the factsheet and constituents are already provided there (and for the factsheet they use another one and redirect it to the one used in Wikipedia). So wouldn't it be better to delete them and have only one link?--Andrés Djordjalian 11:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Last Close

If you're going to keep updating the close of the S&P 500, then shouldn't it be a current event article? For that matter, why dont they have such a thing on the NYSE, DJIA, or NASDAQ articles? I recommend it should be removed--Xlegiofalco 08:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

and your gay —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.33.67.195 (talk) 20:53, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

His gay what? Your sentence is missing a verb. Owen× ☎ 21:50, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. I have removed "recent close" sections from every stock market wiki except for the DJIA and NYSE, since those are the only two currently setting all-time highs. (Incidentally, the DJIA recent close is the only one that someone other than myself has been updating, so I thought it inappropriate to remove it.) 65.27.233.132 22:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)DAP

S&P 500 is more widely used than DJIA

"After the Dow Jones Industrial Average, the S&P 500 is the most widely-watched index of large-cap US stocks and is considered to be a bellwether for the US economy"

The above appears to be outdated

Considering the P/E ratio according to Standard and Poor's themselves is 143, I don't think its any sort of bellwether for anything whatsoever. But that could just be me referring to the reality of the recession ending with 20% unemployment if measured the same way as the 1930s according to DoL statistics, P/E ratios over 100 on stock exchanges, and I could go on and on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.101.59.15 (talk) 00:08, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

People in the finance industry usually consider the DJIA entirely silly, and if you want a proxy for 'the market' that would be the S&P 500 or even Russell 3000.

But i think it is more followed by the public. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.170.59.139 (talk) 23:02, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Growth

Something should be said about the S&P500's growth compared to other ETF's and mutual funds. How it is over time a better investment than many mutual funds and how mutual fund companies try, with little success to beat the market. 165.230.46.147 16:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Added return on $1.00 investment, 5 year AROI, and 10 year AROI. I'd rather enter the formulas so that others can view and correct the calculations if required, but as far as I know, I must enter in the results only. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DougDante (talk • contribs) 04:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

External link for historical returns

I recently included the link Graphs for total returns (nominal and inflation adjusted) since 1950, which was deleted by a user who considered it spam, and asked me to discuss it here if I felt the link should be kept, so that's what I'm doing.

The page contains graphs for historical total returns, including inflation-adjusted ones, and tabulated averages per decade for this and other data. I consider that to be relevant and useful information that is not easily obtained elsewhere. As a matter of fact I spent hours gathering raw data, programming a spreadsheet and designing the presentation, because I didn't find it in the Web. Nevertheless, one reason given for the deletion was that Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links, which, I understand, questions the relevancy of the article.

I was referred to Wikipedia:Spam as another rationale behind the deletion. I don't feel it represents my article. I won't insult anybody's intelligence: I was/am expecting visitors who may like the article and link it or get to know my site that way. But the article is not about promoting the site, as explained in Wikipedia:Spam. If we interpret it as self-promotion, then wouldn't that include all non-anonymous contributions?

I would be grateful to read your opinions. Honestly, as a Wikipedia user, I wish these kinds of links were kept. If we get to know people and sites thanks to their serious non-promotional contributions, everybody wins. I'm quite sure the anti-spam guidelines were not written to stop that.--Andrés Djordjalian 10:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Andrés! We have a guideline, which, in short, says that "Wikipedia isn't a directory of links." (See WP:NOT for a listing of all things Wikipedia is not.) There are probably hundreds, if not thousands of interesting articles, webpages, and such out there about the S&P 500. Very few, if any of them, really need to be linked from here. The official S&P site, maybe the Yahoo! historical performance site, are really all that we need. I'm actually going to go and remove the "sp500.us" site now, since it mainly serves to advertise Viagra, apparently, of all things! All of that to say, I appreciate your finding something to replace the spglobal.com link, but it isn't necessary, and because of the amount of advertising on the page you found, it will likely continue to be removed. Take care, user:j 10:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello J. We were both writing at the same time :) . Thanks for the tip about new discussions at the bottom. The Yahoo historical performance site only shows the evolution of prices. The whole point of my article was giving important data that is not available there or in most sites. Total returns consider dividends, so they are what the investment really earns, it is not data of little relevance (sorry if you already knew that). The other data shown, is also interesting. I seriously doubt there are hundreds or thousands of issues as relevant. That would be more like three or four, by the way, see that someone contributed total returns for the last few years, as it is important.--Andrés Djordjalian 10:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understood your next sentence... What bothers you is the amount of advertising in the page?--Andrés Djordjalian 10:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello, again. Sorry for the mix-up earlier with regard to the placement of your comment. In any event, I'm afraid WP:NOT is fairly clear. You should also take a look at Wikipedia's policy on self-published material at WP:SPS. The issue isn't as much self-promotion as it is verifiability. Wikipedia strives to be a verifiable, reliable encyclopedia, and while I believe your self-published material may be extremely accurate and helpful, self-published material just doesn't meet the thresholds required by Wikipedia for verifiability and reliability. Hope this helps clarify. Take care, user:j 10:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, in addition to the WP:VERIFY and WP:RELY issues, the advertising on your page would likely get it flagged for removal as linkspam. The former two issues are the more important ones, but the latter is what a lot of editors will notice first. user:j 10:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the ads (other links in the article are either company websites or have adsense, take a careful look) I would take them immediately if that was feasible, but the pages are automatically generated. It is not an excuse, believe me they are a meager earning (about 10/15 visitors per day would make like $10 in a year). If I do have a self-interest, it is not because of the ads in the page, but more to let my site be known.--Andrés Djordjalian 11:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

About reliability, I am not an expert in economics but I have published scientific work about engineering which includes much number crunching (you can verify by visiting the IEEE catalog, for example). Still, I admit that I didn't double check this numbers as much as in published work (neither do most of Wikipedia's contributors) but I did quite a lot of checking. But it is not too hard for visitors to perform validation. I mean, anyone with a little knowledge may find reasons for doubting the numbers if they happen to be unreliable, and question the link then. I see that Wikipedia's policy in WP:SPS (I don't see WP:NOT applying, as I explained before) forbids me from posting it, so I won't, but I would suggest that we leave this debate here (or a summarized version) so that people can evaluate if the page is really relevant and reliable, and include the link themselves after some discussion.--Andrés Djordjalian 11:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

UPDATE: I realized a few things since writing the last post. The first is that, if the ads are the problem, I can create an ad-hoc static copy without ads. The second is that I seem to have misread WP:SPS. I (wrongly) interpreted it meant that all references had to have proven reviews by experts or editorialized, but that didn't quite make sense... I mean, why be so rigoruous with links, while content in Wikipedia is edited by anyone and they even rarely bother to cite their sources? Moreover, it didn't fit most of the external links that I encounter in Wikipedia... So I read more carefully, and I realized that they are not talking about the authorship of an external link, what they refer to are the sources for the facts given. The sources for the data I use are indicated at the bottom of the article and are very authoritative. Breaching of SPS policy would be, for example, if I stated that inflation in the 70s was such and such without providing any verifiable sources other than myself, but that's not the case.--Andrés Djordjalian 16:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

What remains to be seen if my work may be considered original research as described (and discouraged) in Wikipedia:No_original_research. First of all, no scientific journal would publish it, as there is no thesis involved nor significant capture of data. What I did was just gather data from several good sources, organize it and present it synthetically. One disallowed practice mentioned in Wikipedia:No_original_research is performing "synthesis of published material serving to advance a position". Clearly, the problem is not making a synthesis (which is the essence of an encyclopedia) but advancing a position. That surely means having a thesis, but not calculating averages and charting data.--Andrés Djordjalian 16:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The third thing I realized is that if we wait for opinions, this may fall into oblivion (there are other open questions which have been waiting pretty much). For the reasons given, I don't see grounds for not including the link, other that the ads may not be liked, but I can easily solve that. So I'd say we add it, I'm absolutely sure it adds value to the article. If you still doubt about its relevancy, note that you said that "Yahoo! historical performance" was one of the only two links we needed, nevertheless what Yahoo presents is price, not performance. If you want to see how the index performed, you have to check total return. This and other important questions can be answered by looking at the charts and table in the article (eg. what was real performance considering inflation, how the dividend rate changed through time). What pricing info unveils is much more limited.--Andrés Djordjalian 16:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid, Andrés, that, even if other opinions do arrive, they will almost certainly not be in favor of adding an external link to a self-published website. Wikipedia, and most editors on Wikipedia, are fairly stern about self-published materials. Take care, user:j 18:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

To conclude with this, based on J's suggestions, this is what I will do:

• Pages with excessive advertising should not be linked, so I will remove all ads from the external page.
• External links go at the bottom of the page, not in the body of the article, so I will include it there.
• If someone challenges the page's contents, I will show how those numbers were obtained from the sources given, and/or how they are compatible with other results from authoritative sources (some on paper). I think that is the spirit of Wikipedia. If I have time, I may write an appendix with methodological details, addressing those doubts preemptively.
• If an editor questions the link on the basis of being self-published, I will remit to Wikipedia's guidelines. What they prohibit from self-published links is original research (which this is not, as I argument above), putting people who are not recognized experts as sources of facts or opinion (which isn't the case, I'm just summarizing and presenting others' data) or blogs (which this is not, because it isn't news and opinion written chronologically with room for comments).--Andrés Djordjalian 02:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Andrés, I'm afraid the link still does not meet Wikipedia's requirements for verifiability and reliability, as it still is self-published. With that understanding, I strongly caution you to not re-add the link, as it will be removed. user:j 02:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

J, I think I already answered that. What Wikipedia discourages are self-published sources for facts, among other policies that I already talked about. My article is not an factual source, it is just a presentation of data collected from authoritative sources that I reference at the bottom, and that has been checked with other sources. Please read my postings more carefully or this will take forever. It wouldn't make sense to prohibit all self-published material... Would it be different if I published it in a company's website? It would still be self-published, as are most external links in Wikipedia, and all the content too, in a way. What makes sense is to prohibit sources to be self-published, and that is clearly what they mean in their policies.--Andrés Djordjalian 05:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Andrés, the principles are very much the same for sources and for external links. I must reiterate to you that that re-adding the link to your website will not be acceptable, as your website is a blog which has been set up to promote your own research (and currently, your own advertising, and presumably, your own investing business, as well). There are numerous policies precluding or discouraging your adding your blog to this (or any other Wikipedia articles). Specifically, Wikipedia's policies on verifiability, reliability, conflicts of interest, external link spam, and external links apply here:

• "self-published [...] personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources" (V)
  • "if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so" (V)
• "reliable sources are authors or publications regarded as trustworthy or authoritative" (R)
• "reliable publications are those with an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight" (R)
• a "conflict of interest often presents itself in the form of self-promotion, including advertising links, personal website links" which "appears to promote the private or commercial interests of the editor" [emphasis mine] (COI)
• avoid "linking to the [...] website of your organization" (COI)
• "links to an article [...] for the purpose of promoting a website [...] is not allowed (LS)
• links which contain "objectionable amounts of advertising" will be removed (LS)
  • your blog currently contains six separate advertising blocks per page
• "linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent" is generally not acceptable (EL)
• "links to blogs and personal web pages" should be avoided (EL)
  • you have listed yourself in several blog directories (EL)

I really do appreciate your efforts to create an outside page which could contribute to this article, but for each of the reasons above, individually and combined, your link will almost certainly be removed from the article should you re-add it. Please understand that, ultimately, I am not being specifically critical of your individual goals, integrity, reliability, or research, but rather this is a long-held policy on Wikipedia which is evenly applied when it comes to external links. Only in the rarest of circumstances (for example, perhaps if Alan Greenspan or Warren Buffett had blogs) are any exclusions made to these policies. I regret that your blog, with or without the several blocks of Google advertising, is considered spam, and, again, it is not appropriate for linking from Wikipedia. Take care, user:j 07:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

My apologies, by the way, for the ridiculous "alphabet soup," as it were, in the list above, but I wanted to be certain you could reference each policy as appropriate. user:j 07:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

^{The following comments were originally "integrated" into another editor's comments, in a sort of line by line response. To see them in that manner, click here. For the diff, click here.}

J, a source and an external link are totally different things. Please read my arguments above. The SPS doesn't apply, the External_links one does.--Andrés Djordjalian 08:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

They haven't because the article is new, but these issues relate to a conflict of interest, of which I read recently. Let me post here an update I was preparing as you wrote this answer:

UPDATE: J, I just re-read Wikipedia's policies, and came accross External_links#Advertising and conflicts of interest which forbids me from posting the link as there would be a conflict of interest. Maybe that was the source of our misunderstanding, perhaps you meant this when you said self publishing, while I interpreted it was SPS (self-published source), which is a different thing. So I would like to close this debate, clear it up and leave just a short note asking neutral contributors to review the link and add it if they consider it pertinent. That if you agree with me that there are no other reasons for not including it."--Andrés Djordjalian 08:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

It is not a source. The sources are mentioned and very authoritative. These two issues are to be applied only to sources. I argumented it before.--Andrés Djordjalian 08:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The article has no self-promoting content. You need to click on the navigation bar to reach "commercial" content, but that happens in most of Wikipedia's external links. The policy doesn't forbid that, but self-promotion in articles included or linked externally. By the way, my business is not investment-oriented (check my URL without the "etf..." suffix). Other linked sites in this page are, but I don't consider that to be a reason to delete them, they still comply.--Andrés Djordjalian 08:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Promoting a website is not the purpose of inclusion. Notice that External_links talks about "Links mainly intended to promote a website" (the emphasis is mine).

Already solved. There is no advertising at all when you enter through Wikipedia. I already solved that this afternoon, what is the purpose of bringing this subject across again and making me repeat myself?--Andrés Djordjalian 08:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The article is not blog-like. In my efforts to promote the site I did request inclusion in blog directories, because I use blog software and have short articles that may interest blog surfers. Nevertheless, many rejected it for not considering it a blog. Some accepted it, which I don't think will be bad for them or anyone. Nevertheless, what is relevant here is to see Wikipedia's definition of a blog in regards to this page only, and evaluate the reasons for Wikipedia to reject blogs. Wikipedia says a blog is a site of chronological entries with news, opinion and user comments, thus it makes sense to not consider it encyclopedic material. This has no relation with the page in question.--Andrés Djordjalian 08:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

J, since the start you challenged the link on the basis of almost every policy. I had to spend hours responding each and every one. The ad issue was useful, the interest-conflict one too although it could have been put across with less hassle, but the rest were not relevant and you even made me explain them several times. I think we need to think if this is good for Wikipedia, because instead of collaborating we wrote tons of paragraphs here. Enforcing policy is good an necessary, but it also needs some rigor. Otherwise, we would lose collaboration opportunities.--Andrés Djordjalian 08:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

^{The preceding comments were originally "integrated" into another editor's comments, in a sort of line by line response. To see them in that manner, click here. For the diff, click here.}

Hi, again, Andrés. Just for the future, it is usually not advised to "integrate" or "mix" your replies into another user's comments. I've separated yours out here for clarity, and included a link so that you or others can see them as you originally posted them.

That being said, learning Wikipedia's policies is an important part of our growth as editors, and it is an ongoing process for all of us. However, you have apparently come to very different conclusions than I have, conclusions which I believe differ substantially from usual interpretations on external link policies, which is your right. However, I should be clear that I believe the link to your blog is not an appropriate external link, and I believe it will be removed, as such.

If you wish to seek the advice or opinions of others, you might try WP:COIN. It would normally only be utilized when you wish to report conflicts of interest, so perhaps posting a request for assistance on that noticeboard's talk page might be more helpful. You might also try WP:AN/I, although, again, I don't really think that's a great venue, either. Unfortunately, not too many editors are normally involved on this page, or else I expect someone would have spoken up by now. In any event, take care, user:j 09:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Continued discussion on simplestockinvesting.com

Please consider the following link for inclusion as an external link for the article:

Graphs for total returns (nominal and inflation adjusted) since 1950

I think it is relevant, but I can't include it myself because I manage that site, therefore it would pose a conflict of interests. If you think the link belongs to the article, you are free to add it to the External Links Section. Take into account that this is not a source but an external link (the sources, which are listed at the bottom of the article, are authoritative). Also, that the data presented is not price evolution, which is already offered by the Yahoo link, but more complete info. Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 09:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

J, why did you delete this link this time? Before was that I had entered it myself, but this time it was entered by someone unrelated to me (research it if you have doubts), based on the suggestion I wrote here. On what grounds do you classify it as "spam"? As I understand it, the only rule I might have not followed this time is Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules. I don't have the time to engage in endless discussions, please just consider that we might be acting in good faith and that your persistent deletions may not the best for the article. Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 06:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Changing subjects, do you think I really have to keep the removal of ads when coming from Wikipedia? Which policy or guideline wouldn't be followed if I reinstall them? Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 06:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Andrés, I restored the previous discussion. You were able to convince another editor into include your website in the article after you deleted the entirety of the discussion leading up to and following the removal of your website. As such, User:Afasmit had no reference to the context of why your website was removed previously. Your self-published website does not meet the reliable source standards of Wikipedia, and it will not be included on this or any other article.   user:j    (aka justen)   14:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

J, I already responded to that a zillion times, an external link and a source are two different things. The sources for the info shown are listed at the bottom of the page and are very authoritative, the data is perfectly verifiable. Self-publication would be a problem if it were cited as the source of the data (eg., if I said that Alan Greenspan did this and that, with no other source than a self-published site like mine), which is not the case. Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 22:05, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your accusation about my "tactics", you know that almost no-one is going to bother to read all our previous discussion, which has a lot of useless material, like me arguing about the validity of including the link myself before reading about the treatment of conflicts of interest, and challenges that were answered, like this one about sources versus external links. What I did is not a "troubling tactic", I only summarized what I found to be relevant, to save everyone's time and for the suggestion not to fall into oblivion. If you thought this summary needed an addition about verifiability, you should have included it, preferably taking my response into account (otherwise, I would answer the same thing again and we would have another never-ending pseudo-debate). I repeat, self publication is a problem for sources, not for external links. And please try to understand my answers before going on, research about me before assuming I'm a mischievous spammer and consider the possibility that you may not be right here. Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 22:05, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Please take a thorough look at WP:EL. It incorporates, by explicit reference, WP:V and WP:RS. Your assertion that an "external link" and a "source" are two different things is entirely correct. Your implicit argument that an external link has no requirement to meet WP:V or WP:RS is entirely incorrect. If the sources for your information are listed at the bottom of your self-published website, then please feel free to incorporate those sources in the S&P 500 article itself. As to "no one is going to bother to read the previous discussion argument," please understand your assertion is wholly incorrect and it is absolutely unacceptable to ever remove a discussion from an article's talk page, especially to potentially influence future editors who visit the page.   user:j    (aka justen)   23:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

J, I never made an argument on an external link not having to meet WP:V and WP:RS, which is why I mentioned several times that the sources for the article are stated at the bottom and are unquestionable. According to Wikipedia:External_links, an external link works as an extension of the article (excepting one used as a source, which is not the case), as such, the info given should be verifiable, thus sources are shown in the article for everything that is stated. I already responded to this argument of yours, please read the paragraphs beginning with "UPDATE [...]", "J, I think I already answered that [...]" and "J, I already responded to that a zillion [...]" above. Those are the mentions of WP:V and WP:RS on WP:EL, I don't read anything there that supports your arguments. On the contrary, I cite from that page: "You should avoid linking to a website that you own [...] If the link is to a relevant and informative site that should otherwise be included, please consider mentioning it on the talk page and let neutral and independent Wikipedia editors decide whether to add it", which is exactly what I did. I didn't say that no-one was going to read the past discussion, but almost no-one. Its removal wasn't to mischievously influence anyone but to clear this up from long, out of date debate (i.e., my COI-breached inclusion and the too-many-ads issue, which were already solved) and out of place criticism that was properly answered. It is not unacceptable practice and I believe this page to be less informative and disruptive now, as argumented on my talk page. But do whatever you like, I don't want to lose any more of my time with this. Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 22:10, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Andrés Djordjalian, you clearly have a conflict of interest in this case. Had someone else found that page and added it, things would be a bit different. You have asserted that you created that web page and then added it as an external link here, so that is clearly a violation. Now, you can add the information, properly cited even if the sources are not on the web, to the article and upload the images to Commons if they are public domain to use in the article. However, you should not, under any circumstances, include a link to a web page you created. The only place that link would be okay is on your user page. I have information on my website that might be relevant to some articles, yet I am not adding the links.

Also, do not ever ask another user to do something for you just to get around the conflict of interest. That is called meat puppetry and is very frowned upon and could lead to you and the other person getting blocked indefinitely.

If you still wish to have that link included, I would seriously suggest that you post it on the reliable sources noticeboard. Every external link, no matter if it is a reference or not, has to be reliable, notable, verifiable, and not from someone's personal website. LA (T) @ 00:11, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello Lady Aleena, thanks for helping here. I didn't enter the link myself, I only suggested it in this discussion page for someone neutral to evaluate, as instructed in WP:SCOIC, where I properly stated that I manage the page. Those are the few paragraphs you can read under the "Continued discussion..." title, much of the discussion J reinstalled above is out of date. Sock puppetry refers to a deceptive use of other accounts, which is not the case, I didn't interfere in any way with the neutral evaluation of the link. I didn't upload the article to Commons because I'm not intending to release it to the public domain, which doesn't invalidate it as an external link (on the contrary, copyright is one of the reasons for external links to be placed, as explained in Wikipedia:External_links). I believe the page complies with the requirements you mention, as stated in that page, although it is something third parties should evaluate. Third parties who are able to evaluate an investment issue, because I don't think it appropriate that J places himself as the utmost authority on the subject, deleting other people's edits with disregard of arguments given, when he confused investment return with price... I find the link to be notable because it shows the historical real performance of the index, which is important data not given anyplace else in the article (excepting a table which runs for the past few years only, is not adjusted for inflation and not shown as a graph) and I can't find in that brief visual form anywhere else on the Web. The sources are extremely reliable, making the data perfectly verifiable. They are stated at the bottom of the page. I'm sure it would be a waste of time to consult on the reliable sources noticeboard if the US government, a recognized and published Yale professor, etc., are acceptable sources, please refer to my argument two paragraphs above, because it seems to me there is a confusion between sources and external links here. Once again thanks for your help, take care. Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 22:10, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Geometric Mean

The average rate reported in the article seems to be calculated incorrectly. Apparently a simple (arithmetic) mean was used instead of a geometric mean. When reporting average rates where the rates are compounding, it can be misleading to use the arithmetic mean. Instead of [r(1) + r(2) + r(3) + ... + r(n)] / n, the mean should be calculated as [(1 + r(1)) x (1 + r(2)) x (1 + r(3)) x ... x (1 + r(n))] ^ (1/n) - 1. This gives an average of 11.82% for the current table instead of the 13.04% listed now. Davewelsh (talk) 16:34, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

It is well known that the average return and the CAGR (geometric mean) are not the same thing.

But average return is still a useful concept.

The adjustment is CAGR ≅ μ - ${\tfrac {1}{2}}$σ². —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.170.59.138 (talk) 23:09, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Index type

There are three types of the S&P 500 index: price, total return, and net total return. [1]

• When giving data, we should be clear about which type of the index we are discussing.
• Also for giving data, to avoid confusion, we should probably pick one version of the index and stick with it. For example, the chart at the beginning of the article is for price S&P 500, but the data in the table "Total Annual Returns (b)" is for total return S&P 500.
• In general, the price index is the one most cited. But I think either total return or price total return are more useful. If I had to choose between the three, I'd pick total return.

--Kalbasa (talk) 17:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree about being clear, but I don't think we need to pick only one version throughout the article, as long as we are clear. UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:15, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Return calculation

Actually, the returns should be calculated from the last day of one year to the last day of the next year. Someone just posted the 2008 return using first day to first day calculation, which is not right. Don't have time to correct it right now. --Kalbasa (talk) 20:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I corrected the 2008 total return; it matches the S&P website at: [2] UnitedStatesian (talk) 21:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The 2008 total return was wrong -- it was the price return (-38.49) not the total return (-37.00). I corrected it. I'm not sure about the other stats in the table. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikedit17 (talk • contribs) 07:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Outdated Link

The external link to indexarb.com, which is supposed to show the weights of the S & P 500 stocks, no longer does so. I have been unable to find an alternative.Carl Wivagg (talk) 21:39, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

"free float"

The phrase "free float" in the definition is not explained anywhere; the link is to the "Capitalization-weighted" article and should only cover the last two of the four words. The term free float should not be used unless it is defined; it is not a common term of either investment or economics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.156.201.88 (talk) 10:12, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Inflation

I think it's preposterous that the whole article doesn't mention the word inflation EVEN ONCE, as if it's not one of the central issues here.

The table of returns has to include inflation-adjusted data as well.

To not discuss inflation here is highly misleading and borderline dishonest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IvanAndreevich (talk • contribs) 01:35, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

S&P 700

Can we add the S&P 700 to the "see also" list. See: http://www.standardandpoors.com/indices/sp-700/en/us/?indexId=spgcmp700-usdff--p-rgul-- (My broker started using this for comparison and I wanted to learn more about it) Thanks--Lbeaumont (talk) 18:35, 13 January 2012 (UTC)!

2011 total returns

This was 2.1%, as dividends are included in this table. Someone should check my number (needs a second digit after the decimal) and also the other columns in this row. Gaohoyt (talk) 00:16, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Discrepancy 2009

For year 2009, $7.26 / $5.88 implies an annual gain of 23.47%, not 26.46%, as shown in annual return column of table b. Small discrepancies exist also for 2010 and 2011 annual return. Correcting the annual return rate for 2009 and subsequent to be consistent with the $1.00 investment column fixes a disagreement of annual returns with 5-year returns. I am leaving it to someone else to correct the article. Highway227 (talk) 22:14, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Declared double-top pattern

An anon editor has declared a double top; that may very well be but the claim is original research, Wikipedia requires a reliable source for such a statement. In my first revert I mentioned the respected John Magee. In response to the anon's uncivil edit summary, Mr. Magee is dead (obit here), so does not have a blog, nor do I. I have again reverted the double-top declaration. It shouldn't be that hard to find a real source. --CliffC (talk) 13:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I reverted the anon's edit, and will take tougher measures if this incivil behaviour persists. Original research may be a matter for content dispute resolution, but comments such as those he made are not acceptable here. Owen× ☎ 15:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

In reality, Wiki doesn't require a reliable source for such a statement. There are numerous inacurracies in the article, although I have addressed a few. Hblackhawks (talk) 21:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC)Hblackhawks

Its starting to look more like a tripple top patern now. today the S&P 500 closed at 1418.16 and this was the second highest close so far in the year 2012. if another up day comes on monday its possible that this index will have a new highest close for 2012. 76.253.133.121 (talk) 20:22, 17 August 2012 (UTC)