03-02-2014, 01:53 PM
'kshen' pid='38526' datel Wrote:Whoever sold owned the shares. However, this was definitely done purely to drive down price. Now why would someone liquidate Other than purely to drive down the price? If someone had insider info, they wouldn't do something completely stupid and obvious as this. Goldbaum is clearly talking out of his ass like usual with uncertain foreshadowing of events that will never happen. Also secondly, no news has come out yet. If this was indeed news driven, anyone could have easily and quietly liquidated their shares before close in the 21s. In fact 3 large block trades went through cleanly before then. therefore this was clearly another short attack (using real shares bought) to cause retail to panic. Because a simple shorting would have triggered a stop at 10% instead of 18%. Look at the volume that ensued? Someone definitely picked up a ton of shares since an initial 128K sell netted an 18% drop and then an 8M share volume exchanging hands. At this point it could be shorts covering their positions for all we know Lets take a look at daily short volume 2/28 : 26% 10/24 : 18% 10/25 : 25% With 90%+ institutional volume, shorts are literally screwed. They literally HAVE to get their cover shares from retail investors. There's no daily volume to support any covering. So here comes this shady flash crash 128K volume drop to generate 8M trade volume before a weekend, 1 week or 2 before earnings and possible audit. You guys do the math on what is more likely. A: a blatant insider information selling due to actual bad news, with a measly 128K dump 20% below market value or desperate shorts who need to spook retail investors with 90% float owned by institutions.
Bear raid gone awry with 1500 share trade at $22.33 as the signal but it's just a theory. Best to stick with the less egregious story of human error/glitch imo.