gap up: once bitten, twice shy

Who had the foresight to sell yesterday at 95c? Maybe it was the one's who had planned to exit on news of the TOL simply because of the apparent instability in the Malaysian industrial sector - no doubt it is a tougher place to do business than elsewhere having seen the ongoing delay with the TOL issue.

If all of this volume going through the stock was 'accumulation', then wouldn't the buying pressure of this push the share price upwards? How do we know that this isn't bulk distribution into the feeble hands of private investors? We don't, and that is what concerns me. There was so much hype built up around this TOL that some seem to easily forget that LYC still has risk attached to it. It has to perform to some very strict standards and will always be at risk of interjection by an undoubtedly stringent group set to keep a very close eye on the LAMP. With first mover advantage also comes first mover risk. Everyone forecasting earnings per share is doing so on the basis that the LAMP runs perfectly; it is still an unproven asset until it demonstrates its ability to generate the forecasted productivity.

In lieu of all this, I attach this chart. Smart money was clearly selling yesterday - no doubt about it. There was pressure on the stock from the getgo, and even with a 200+pt green DOW last night as a platform, LYC today seems to be very quickly returning to its trading patterns pre TOL. In January the stock gapped up to $1.60 on high volume and completed a long wicked doji candle. The stock then proceeded to fall relentlessly. Similarly, yesterday's doji candle was on incredibly high volume, closing well below its open price. If this news was such a company maker and risk breaker, wouldn't there be an overwhelming upwards pressure on the stock? Shorters should be getting swamped here according to the wider HC community, but they're not; they've got a right old grip on this thing it seems. Why fight against them when time after time they've had such success in their trading of this stock? If indeed this stock was as cheap as some make it out to be, there would be a stronger demand for it, keeping it up near (or above) $1, but its not. Manipulation cannot alter the demand of a stock, no-matter which way you look at it. Clearly the endless supply of stock is swamping any demand that pops up.