(Total Views: 170)
Posted On: 04/06/2018 8:52:17 PM
Post# of 72443
Comparing apples to oranges can glean some interesting information in some cases, but drawing conclusions about whether one color is the best one and is the one someone should eat all the time is probably not a good idea.
Your position is that a lowball bid is a bid at the 52-week low, and it hurts the stock.
My position is that a lowball bid is about 1-5 cents below the current bid, NOT the 52-week low, and that it is helpful to the stock because it prevents the market makers from just walking the stock down rapidly on a couple hundred shares, taking the stock from anyone who put stops in around or below the 52-week low, and then letting the stock go back up to whatever level it may then achieve. Having large lowball bids in makes it very expensive for someone to do that, because they will have to fill the lowball bids first, most likely by having to short stock to them since any actual selling is at higher levels.
There is a difference between people placing bids underneath the current bid/ask when the stock is stagnant, and people buying at the ask AND getting FILLED at the ask -- which is not what has happened for the two days before today.
You continually talk about bids being placed at the 52-week low. I continue to state that this is NOT what I or anyone else means by "a lowball bid." I have stated repeatedly that the lowball bids to which I refer are typically between 1 and 5 cents below the ask, NOT the 52-week low. Please stop referring to lowball bids as being bids at the 52-week low. That is not how the rest of us define it.
As far as buying as the ask: I know for a FACT that there were bids that went in at the ask that was shown on multiple platforms, near the close yesterday and the day before. Those bids were filled BELOW the ask.
How does buying at the ask help, when the bid is filled BELOW the ask?
This would seem to be clear evidence of manipulation. It's unlikely that someone saw a bid at the ask and said "Oh my goodness, that anonymous bidder is such a nice guy, I think I'll knock a half cent off my ask."
Today, great, people were buying at the ask and being filled at the ask.
That doesn't mean that every time someone bids at the ask it is filled at the ask. I have at least two recent examples that prove that is not true.
And I have many more examples from my own experience, when i went in at the ask and was filled below the price I specified.
Stocks behave differently when they are moving down or stagnant than they do when they are in an uptrend.
But lowball bids are very supportive of the stock, because they put a floor under the price. Buying at the ask helps when a stock is moving up. But when it's stagnant or being suppressed, buying at the ask just gives a hedge fund or market maker the opportunity to short it to someone at a higher level, and then drop it lower again.
Your position is that a lowball bid is a bid at the 52-week low, and it hurts the stock.
My position is that a lowball bid is about 1-5 cents below the current bid, NOT the 52-week low, and that it is helpful to the stock because it prevents the market makers from just walking the stock down rapidly on a couple hundred shares, taking the stock from anyone who put stops in around or below the 52-week low, and then letting the stock go back up to whatever level it may then achieve. Having large lowball bids in makes it very expensive for someone to do that, because they will have to fill the lowball bids first, most likely by having to short stock to them since any actual selling is at higher levels.
There is a difference between people placing bids underneath the current bid/ask when the stock is stagnant, and people buying at the ask AND getting FILLED at the ask -- which is not what has happened for the two days before today.
You continually talk about bids being placed at the 52-week low. I continue to state that this is NOT what I or anyone else means by "a lowball bid." I have stated repeatedly that the lowball bids to which I refer are typically between 1 and 5 cents below the ask, NOT the 52-week low. Please stop referring to lowball bids as being bids at the 52-week low. That is not how the rest of us define it.
As far as buying as the ask: I know for a FACT that there were bids that went in at the ask that was shown on multiple platforms, near the close yesterday and the day before. Those bids were filled BELOW the ask.
How does buying at the ask help, when the bid is filled BELOW the ask?
This would seem to be clear evidence of manipulation. It's unlikely that someone saw a bid at the ask and said "Oh my goodness, that anonymous bidder is such a nice guy, I think I'll knock a half cent off my ask."
Today, great, people were buying at the ask and being filled at the ask.
That doesn't mean that every time someone bids at the ask it is filled at the ask. I have at least two recent examples that prove that is not true.
And I have many more examples from my own experience, when i went in at the ask and was filled below the price I specified.
Stocks behave differently when they are moving down or stagnant than they do when they are in an uptrend.
But lowball bids are very supportive of the stock, because they put a floor under the price. Buying at the ask helps when a stock is moving up. But when it's stagnant or being suppressed, buying at the ask just gives a hedge fund or market maker the opportunity to short it to someone at a higher level, and then drop it lower again.
(3)
(0)Scroll down for more posts ▼
