(Total Views: 322)
Posted On: 02/18/2021 3:19:01 PM
Post# of 36541
Cody, under normal circumstances I would agree. But I am talking about the day trader influence and they are the primary influencer on the GNBT pps. Look at what happened on the lead-up and day after the Feb 5 CC.
Date High Close Volume
2/8/2021 0.48 0.419 2,063,400
2/5/2021 0.75 0.43 3,966,700
2/4/2021 0.59 0.589 2,147,800
2/3/2021 0.49 0.49 801,400
2/2/2021 0.49 0.477 727,200
2/1/2021 0.47 0.45 688,200
Leading up to the news, it climbed .139 because the PR was fixed to a day and time. Even though the news was overall good, the pps fell .159, tried to climb the next trading day then fell below the Feb 1 close. The pps fluctuation had nothing to do with what was in the cc, good or bad. As long as GNBT is under the influence of day traders, the pps will not respond in a logical manner.
Date High Close Volume
2/8/2021 0.48 0.419 2,063,400
2/5/2021 0.75 0.43 3,966,700
2/4/2021 0.59 0.589 2,147,800
2/3/2021 0.49 0.49 801,400
2/2/2021 0.49 0.477 727,200
2/1/2021 0.47 0.45 688,200
Leading up to the news, it climbed .139 because the PR was fixed to a day and time. Even though the news was overall good, the pps fell .159, tried to climb the next trading day then fell below the Feb 1 close. The pps fluctuation had nothing to do with what was in the cc, good or bad. As long as GNBT is under the influence of day traders, the pps will not respond in a logical manner.
(1)
(0)Scroll down for more posts ▼
