(Total Views: 361)
Posted On: 04/24/2017 12:15:26 AM
Post# of 72441
Re: lousy.engineer #33220
I believe that this was an engineered (pardon the expression, lousy.) take-down designed to hit the stop-losses that naive investors set, so that the shorts could take those shares to cover their shorts.
I do NOT believe that there was one actual large seller. I think that much of the volume was "manufactured" via what AlanC calls "wash sales" -- trades from an entity to itself or a collaborator, at an identical or almost identical price so that the only cost to them is the cost of commission, which is non-existent for the market makers. Why else would you see 500 shares "traded" at one price, and seconds later another 500 share "trade" that varies in price by 0.0001? Who trades 500 of a stock that's priced well under a dollar, and puts a limit order to 4 decimal places? Answer: no genuine individual trader.
The presentation was used as the excuse to trigger a bash-storm and take-down.
I do NOT believe that there was one actual large seller. I think that much of the volume was "manufactured" via what AlanC calls "wash sales" -- trades from an entity to itself or a collaborator, at an identical or almost identical price so that the only cost to them is the cost of commission, which is non-existent for the market makers. Why else would you see 500 shares "traded" at one price, and seconds later another 500 share "trade" that varies in price by 0.0001? Who trades 500 of a stock that's priced well under a dollar, and puts a limit order to 4 decimal places? Answer: no genuine individual trader.
The presentation was used as the excuse to trigger a bash-storm and take-down.
(5)
(0)Scroll down for more posts ▼
