A few points here, burn. (Trying to calm down and proof read better as john1234 sugested)
I appreciate all the research you've done out here and don't mean to minimize any of that by disagreeing an a few points.
First of all, if I'm in a "trade" for 2 1/2 years, it's not a trade anymore, it's an "investment." And a mentor of mine taught me that the definition of an investment should never be a trade gone awry. Been there done that.
I don't understand why you wanted to write a letter to FINRA about the trading on that billion share day (7/7/2014) if you thought the MM was just doing his job, with no collusion with an "outsider".
Key point to remember here is a MM will never "naked short" large without a very solid assurance that someone will sell to him at a lower price to allow hin to cover!
It would just be stupid to take on the unlimited loss potential of a naked short without such an assurance. And MMs may be a lot of things but their not stupid.
I agree that things went down that day as you described as far as large buyers coming in at the open and a shareholders having size at the ask. I was fortunate enough to be in on that Ask also. And I agree at some point, the MM started to "naked short sell" shares in that range (8-9).
My point is the MM wouldn't have done it unless he knew he had an equally large willing seller at a lower price- as it turs out around 5 or 6. Hed be a fool to do it otherwise.
And the trading that day bares that all out!
I appreciate all the research you've done out here and don't mean to minimize any of that by disagreeing an a few points.
First of all, if I'm in a "trade" for 2 1/2 years, it's not a trade anymore, it's an "investment." And a mentor of mine taught me that the definition of an investment should never be a trade gone awry. Been there done that.
I don't understand why you wanted to write a letter to FINRA about the trading on that billion share day (7/7/2014) if you thought the MM was just doing his job, with no collusion with an "outsider".
Key point to remember here is a MM will never "naked short" large without a very solid assurance that someone will sell to him at a lower price to allow hin to cover!
It would just be stupid to take on the unlimited loss potential of a naked short without such an assurance. And MMs may be a lot of things but their not stupid.
I agree that things went down that day as you described as far as large buyers coming in at the open and a shareholders having size at the ask. I was fortunate enough to be in on that Ask also. And I agree at some point, the MM started to "naked short sell" shares in that range (8-9).
My point is the MM wouldn't have done it unless he knew he had an equally large willing seller at a lower price- as it turs out around 5 or 6. Hed be a fool to do it otherwise.
And the trading that day bares that all out!
