RE:RE:The bears still have The brokerage firm "Latimer" is definately not retail! I have watched Latimer trade in numerous stocks over the years and rarely do they trade above what is normally considered a "trade" ie: 500 shares.
I believe that Latimer is sort of like a traffic cop at a busy intersection when the traffic lights aren't functioning. Basically, Latimer uses signals in their trades that are codes to the Banksters and Pillagers who have the stock market manipulation game down to a finely honed fixture. There are so many moving parts in the Algo manipulation of shares, such as identifying what brokerages (Anonymous, TD etc) and what exchange ie. the transparent CSE or the dozen or so ATS Exchanges that are part of the dark web. This is where Latimer's role comes in---Directing who to sell and where!
What is significant is examining what transpires after Latimer "Buys" or "Sells" their miniscule sub 500 shares. I wish I had the time and the database (SPSS for statistical analysis and the $150 Monthly Unlimited Stockwatch.com ) It would be interesting to see what role and to what degree Latimer is instrumental in the price fixing for future trading.
If we retail could predict what the Scammers have up their sleeves in the future for their own manipulation of shareprice, then we could enjoy the win-win of making money the easy way via price fixing.
Below is a months worth of Latimer trades and todays few trades.
Broker Positions for C:TNY Broker Latimer from 2019/11/19 to 2019/12/17 |
20191119 | 2,500 | 998 | 0.399 | 568 | 223 | 0.393 | 1,932 | 1,932 | -775 | -775 |
20191120 | 430 | 188 | 0.437 | 1,139 | 487 | 0.428 | -709 | 1,223 | 299 | -476 |
20191121 | 0 | | 1,295 | 527 | 0.407 | -1,295 | -72 | 527 | 51 |
20191122 | 1,450 | 582 | 0.401 | 2,203 | 901 | 0.409 | -753 | -825 | 319 | 370 |
20191125 | 2,195 | 859 | 0.391 | 1,130 | 435 | 0.385 | 1,065 | 240 | -424 | -54 |
20191126 | 1,620 | 630 | 0.389 | 342 | 143 | 0.418 | 1,278 | 1,518 | -487 | -541 |
20191127 | 550 | 220 | 0.40 | 1,482 | 571 | 0.385 | -932 | 586 | 351 | -190 |
20191128 | 0 | | 453 | 171 | 0.377 | -453 | 133 | 171 | -19 |
20191129 | 318 | 114 | 0.358 | 2,096 | 774 | 0.369 | -1,778 | -1,645 | 660 | 641 |
20191202 | 2,675 | 1,008 | 0.377 | 1,258 | 474 | 0.377 | 1,417 | -228 | -534 | 107 |
20191203 | 274 | 96 | 0.35 | 2,400 | 860 | 0.358 | -2,126 | -2,354 | 764 | 871 |
20191204 | 280 | 99 | 0.354 | 246 | 86 | 0.35 | 34 | -2,320 | -13 | 858 |
20191205 | 1,995 | 680 | 0.341 | 2,590 | 893 | 0.345 | -595 | -2,915 | 213 | 1,071 |
20191206 | 909 | 309 | 0.34 | 2,439 | 851 | 0.349 | -1,530 | -4,445 | 542 | 1,613 |
20191209 | 1,040 | 392 | 0.377 | 2,135 | 760 | 0.356 | -1,095 | -5,540 | 368 | 1,981 |
20191210 | 100 | 37 | 0.37 | 356 | 140 | 0.393 | -256 | -5,796 | 103 | 2,084 |
20191211 | 900 | 333 | 0.37 | 0 | | 900 | -4,896 | -333 | 1,751 |
20191212 | 1,740 | 630 | 0.362 | 3,982 | 1,432 | 0.36 | -2,242 | -7,138 | 802 | 2,553 |
20191213 | 600 | 232 | 0.387 | 2,666 | 1,040 | 0.39 | -2,066 | -9,204 | 808 | 3,361 |
20191216 | 400 | 168 | 0.42 | 1,990 | 798 | 0.401 | -1,590 | -10,794 | 630 | 3,991 |
20191217 | 40 | 15 | 0.375 | 843 | 322 | 0.382 | -803 | -11,597 | 307 | 4,298 |
TOTAL | 20,016 | 7,590 | 0.379 | 31,613 | 11,888 | 0.376 | | -11,597 | | 4,298 |
Latimer involvement today.
Trades for C:TNY on 20191217 for broker Latimer - | 09:30:00 | C | 0.385 | -0.005 | 100 | 88 Credential | 36 Latimer | E | 09:30:00 | C | 0.385 | -0.005 | 300 | 85 Scotia | 36 Latimer | E | 09:56:34 | C | 0.385 | -0.005 | 54 | 79 CIBC | 36 Latimer | E | 10:01:04 | C | 0.385 | -0.005 | 189 | 85 Scotia | 36 Latimer | E | 10:31:06 | C | 0.375 | -0.015 | 40 | 36 Latimer | 85 Scotia | E | 10:51:02 | C | 0.375 | -0.015 | 200 | 85 Scotia | 36 Latimer | E | 11:30:17 | C | 0.38 | -0.01 | 450 | 36 Latimer | 7 TD Sec | E | |
KingKong wrote:
Latimer is -803 net for selling today, that's possibly a retailer, but that's the only negative net seller besides Anonymous, which sold -23,650 net!
It's clear as day, one or more institutions shorting to surpress the price for a hostile takeover, or they're playing both sides of the fence, who knows, but to suggest that when shareholders stop giving up their shares the bleeding will stop is nonsense, lol...