RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Feel free to correct meTerrefic! I really like your subtle distincitons of various shorter-tatctics, for example slow-bleeding to keep the victim concious vs. agressive stabbing to send a message to the bystanders. And there are many others, but only a few are alive to tell the tale....
If all this goes south, we, at least, can set up a university and hand-out degrees in shorter-psychology.
Seriously, you know more about these things than I do and I have no clue what they will do next. JS-Research-article might influence TUD on Monday in Germany, but I am not sure, if that is enough to make an impact on Tuesday when the big boys will resume the game.
But you made quite a point when mentioning the legal boundaries. I hope they are enforced!!!
I am rather clueless and propably will wait untit Tuesday
fordster wrote: Tud wasn't spared by the shorts either (yes I know we all know that) TUDs drop was a slow deliberate drop. I believe they created a perfect bullish wedge, then screwed with us a little more before the breakout. It's as if they were giving us a sign " big bullish wedge forming" ....who the heck knows.
with Tuo, they were far more aggressive. Their goal seems to have been to send a psychological message. They took her down pretty quickly and held her down there. This gives me the exact opposite lead...buy Tuo because she's going to break pretty dramatically to the up side. Just the ramblings of a feeble man.
If I'm correct, there's only so far they can short a stock legally...is that correct? I really would like to know- if so what parameters do they follow?