G'day Rick
Initially when I looked at the chart I thought that there must have been some sort of announcement on 19/4 that the market didn't like and somebody was just "bag-holding" (standing at the bottom of the depth queue and just accepting all the sell orders), because when you compare bar 1 19/4 to the one I circled 22/12, look at the volume and the spread. The circled bar had a spread of 4c and that was on 1million volume, by contrast in bar 1, 5 million shares traded and the spread was only 1c. You would have expected that that much volume would have had a spread of say 20c, but it didn't, why?
But looking at the news there was no announcement, looking at the intra day chart there was a buyer/s there just hoovering up shares, what they did was absorb the available supply at that price level., this explains why bar 2 which has a volume of 6million had a spread of 4c - spread quadrupled while volume only went up less than a quarter. Bar 3 also confirms this (no supply) because it has a spread of 7c but only 1.9million volume ( so double the spread on a third of the volume). It did draw out some supply though as the close was about a third from the top.
TLDR: the dramatically falling volume on the bar you refer to meant no supply (no sellers) - in order to get that many shares buyers had to work there way up the depth queue (ie increasing the prices they were buying at)
Bars 4 is a No Demand bar, low volume, tried to rise but didn't, it closed where it started. Buyers weren't interested in pushing the price higher.
Bar 5 is a No Supply or Test bar, low volume but price only rises a small amount and closes at the top of the bar. There were no active sellers and the few buyers there were had no option but to buy what was offered.
I thought I read a post in one of the earlier weeks threads about this stock and legal action and short covering.
It will be interesting to see what eventuates.
