Display Share Capatilisation

How about showing the total number of outstanding units for a particular prediction

Two ways to extrapolate on that...

You talking total shares "out there"? Cause if so, we need to notice one interesting bit.. For every buy, there needs to be a sell. So with that in mind, we cold potentially say that liquidity is based on not one asset, but two.. so in showing the capitalization, do we show how many pairs there are? or total shares including shorts? But to add some more complexity to it (one of the reasons we actually removed this little bit of info) is that bundles, contribute to the capitalization in a one sided manor, because for bundles alone, there is no sell, for the buy. So in a market with bundles, the "pairs" number I mentioned above, becomes weird, as it may want to list as 50 (being 50 buys and 50 sells.. ) but it will list as 54.5 (50 buys, 50 sells, and something like 9 bundles), but as the bundles move around in the wild, we could result in clearing out one side (all 50 sells buy back), and then we would be down to 9 buys, 0 sells, because of the bundle. which results in a 4.5 .. which is not really the number it represents, cause it isn't a "pair" it is more or less total/2 ...

The point being that there is an ambiguous relationship between the term, and the number.

With that said, a total appears more obvious as the solution, however it's not as telling, because it's important to know the distribution across the available and held shares, are more people selling or buying? just because the number is high, doesn't mean its a liquid market, since it could be everyone buying (and the market maker selling) .. which will of course increase the numbers involved.. but if everyone is buying, then we should be concerning ourselves with the liquidity on one particular side...

I guess my point here is to demonstrate that the numbers are not immediately clear, as to the definition.
Perhaps we need a field saying exactly the differences (Purchased shares: ##, Sold shares: ##, bundles purchased: ##)
Any other ideas? Or anyone willing to explain how I may be wrong? You folks trade more then I can, so perhaps you care more about different numbers in a different way then to me.

Appreciate any more additional brain storming here, as I don't think the answer to this one is as clear cut as we would like, but I don't disagree that it is valid information.

Cheers

Surely all we need to know is the net buy by non market maker participants?

Legs Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Surely all we need to know is the net buy by non
> market maker participants?

Yes please, something like that at least.
The knowledge of market depth is greatly influence participation rate.

For example, I was looking into long term OCR stock as of today, 20 April 2009:
# Symbol: OCR.INCR.APR10
# Last Trade Price: $0.4667
# Last Trade Time: 17 April 11:11pm
# Today's Volume: 0
# Average Daily Volume: 63.9
# Todays Change: NC (0.00%)
# Start Date: 03/04/2009
# Close Date: 01/04/2010
# Status: Active

I wish to place my contrarian bets after reading all these "financial experts" and official NZ government and RBNZ forecasts.
But looking at lthe ow volume since the stock IPO almost 3 weeks ago, I could only expect that I can trade only with with market maker (and I don't want people who join the stock later to know my target price and trading plan in advance).
However, the market prediction on this stock is interesting and valuable today for everybody who is modeling NZ economy, as OCR changes need a time to propagate into the real world.

___

It is difficult to predict, especially others' predictions.

Just to be clear: "net buy" equals the number of shares bought by human traders less the number of shares sold by them?

About 25% of trades are human-human, so a trade between humans will not move the net buy (since shares bought equal shares sold on both sides?)

Or would gross figures separated out on both sides be useful?