The axes are clearly labeled so I’m not really quite sure what the concern is.
Comment on Ubisofts stock tanked this morning ahead of the markets opening
dustyData@lemmy.world 1 day agoAnd it’s dumb. It says all you need to know about the ethical integrity of most economists. Lying for profit.
echodot@feddit.uk 1 day ago
dustyData@lemmy.world 1 day ago
[deleted]echodot@feddit.uk 1 day ago
Are you being paid by someone to be especially stupid today, or is this your normal level of comprehension? I hope so because right now you seem like this the sort of person that would find stairs confusing.
Kraven_the_Hunter@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 day ago
Y.y…y…you do know what the plural of ‘axis’ is, right?
For as much as you’re showing what you don’t know in this thread, I still can’t believe you don’t know this one.
Dremor@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Unless you are not just sarcastic:
ArtVandelay@lemmy.world 1 day ago
If you are trying to show year-over-year profit and you have $100 million give or take a few thousand, then starting your y-axis at zero is going to be a pretty worthless graph
cheddar@programming.dev 1 day ago
And that’s why I can’t take online activists seriously. 100% of agenda, 0% of brain.
intensely_human@lemm.ee 1 day ago
I totally agree man. This graph is misleading.
scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech 1 day ago
Jesus fuck no, it’s a valid graph. It shows the relative trend over time and the sudden change. It may show less of a change if it was zero based, but a drastic change that is well off the normal trend is important to visualize. Also like, all exchanges have a toggle to flip to the zero based.
dustyData@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Look at this thread and realize that it’s just a lie. You can show the exact same information with a starting at zero graph, but won’t be able to push the “stock is tanking!” panic point. Publishers and marketers do this on purpose to manipulate headlines. This is why the stock market is mostly just high stakes gambling. No one involved is making rational decisions, just moving from panic to mania like bipolar patients.
scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech 1 day ago
The stock is tanking. 20% is a huge drop for any massive company. Do you know how much money disappeared overnight because of this? From my very rough calculations, Ubisoft just lost aobut 300 million dollars because of this drop. That’s more than any fine they’ve had.
The worst day in Stock Market history was Black Thursday, the beginning of the Great Recession. The market only dropped 11% that day. These are massive numbers, that I don’t think you fully appreciate or understand. The stock market usually deals in single digit or more likely fractional amounts of change. Double digit changes are a huge deal.
dustyData@lemmy.world 1 day ago
I do know, none. Not a single cent disappeared. Because stocks aren’t liquidity. That money was never there in the first place. Some paid some money to get those stocks, that money was real and it entered the company’s liquidity. Then they spent it on something. Those stocks are but the promise of paying some dividends, some time in the future or giving some power inside the company. Their virtual fluctuations of price over time are nothing but smoke and mirrors, people exchanging virtual titles over those rights like little kids trading collectible cards. Some people cashed out for a low price (that was already grossly overinflated from the pandemic days, so they probably still made bank) and it pushed an already correcting stock to accelerate for today. That money didn’t come from the company, it was exchanged entirely by third parties, public traders. Ubisoft didn’t participate at all in whatever pushed the price drop. No matter how much I want it to, Ubisoft is not in any more danger today than it was in yesterday. They are still filthy rich, if anything the biggest danger for this is that it gives them lee way to layoff another group of underpaid developers or gut another studio to appease the stockholders.
If you were to compare Ubisoft today to Ubisoft 2 years ago, you would see they dropped nearly 93%. Dear golly, how is this poor boutique family company in business after such a massive loss? /s
intensely_human@lemm.ee 1 day ago
So they have 300 million dollars less to spend? They’re going to fire 300 million dollars worth of talent? Their bank account changed by 300 million dollars?
No, they did not lose 300 million dollars.
protist@mander.xyz 1 day ago
You can see right there at the top of the graph it’s down 20% in the given timeframe. There’s nothing misleading at all about zooming in on the data in this chart
dustyData@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Percentages are also misleading. The timeframe will always stretch the percentage. Sure, a 20% drop on the same day is significant, but it still says absolutely nothing about the overall situation, nor why it happened. There’s research on this, observing day to day changes on stock prices to describe a company is just as effective as describing people’s personalities through astrology. It’s bullshit.
chris@l.roofo.cc 1 day ago
If you are not in for the dividents or the voting privileges stocks are always a game of “I hope someone is dumb enough to pay more than me for these shares”.
intensely_human@lemm.ee 1 day ago
Or someone else is in it for those things.
Markets aren’t based on one party being dumber than the other one. Markets work because different people value different things.
yannic@lemmy.ca 22 hours ago
I’d argue it doesn’t accurately show the relative value at a cursory glance. The chart shows the area under the curve having decreased roughly 80-90%, but when looking at the y-axis, you can see that initial assessment was misled.