RE: Icebergs all the way down...red911,
Good post. Yes, the "W" marker from the exchange indicates an iceberg order. The only broker that was using icebergs while sitting on the ask and that was also hitting the bid, was RBC. Obviously, retail IAs at RBC and retail clients trading through RBC Direct, do not have the functionality to place iceberg orders (at least as far as I know; although an IA could phone the trading desk, but that is unlikely the situation here with this potentially "not-for-profit trading" by RBC).
Therefore, it is entirely possible, these are RBC institutional trades pushing the price down.
We won't say the word that rhymes with "capitulation".
Many questions come to mind:
* If RBC is legitimately selling to reduce a position, then why would they push the price down?
* Does RBC look out for the best interests of their clients (e.g., a fund) or their clients' clients (e.g., a unitholder)?
* Wouldn't RBC want to get the best price for their client?
* Isn't RBC obligated to get the price for their client?
* Wouldn't RBC's client (e.g., a fund) want the best price for their clients (e.g., unitholders of a fund)?
* Isn't RBC's client (e.g., a fund) obligated to get the best price for their clients (e.g., unitholders of a fund)?
* If RBC or their clients still hold shares of GGN, why would they cannibalize their remaining long position?
* Is RBC being "vindictive" (for some unknown reason) as red911 suggests, or are they incompetent traders who do not know how to use an algorithm (e.g., the May 2010 "Flash Crash")?
* If the(se) RBC traders are incompetent and do not know how to use an algorithm would not that warrant some managerial response, especially in light of the Flash Crash?
* Are other RBC clients who hold GGN shares aware that these RBC trades were indiscrimately and systematically pushing the price of GGN down?
* Does RBC and/or their client(s) have material non-public information about GGN and, if so, will they disclose this information if they do?
* Will RBC and/or their client continue this pattern of trading through another broker (e.g., "give-up" trades)?
* Is the pattern of trading prevalent by RBC on public companies other than GGN?
* Are other public companies, and the regulators, aware of this pattern of trading?
* IHow long has this pattern of trading been active?
* Are these short trades?
* If they are short trades was RBC and/or the client already short and are they pushing the price down?
* If these are short trades are they declared as short trades and are they able to borrow the shares?
So many questions. Usually, in cases such as this, questions lead to more questions, known and unknown.
I have confidence the regulators will answer these and any other questions during any investigation. Even if this unusual trading is legitimate, the results of any investigation would serve to restore the integrity of our capital markets as, in this instance, the marketplace for GGN is a mite curious of late.
Maybe after all of the "slings and arrows" cease and desist GGN will have its much-deserved day in the sun?
All we know right now is that GGN is a bargain for the canny investor. (Unless, of course, others are trading on material, non-public information, of which the honest GGN shareholder does not possess.)