Don't you really understand or you just joking?The net value can...

Don't you really understand or you just joking?
The net value can be either positive or negative depending on the start date of your range. What’s more important, as I mentioned, is the fact that they sold in one month more than they bought in the entire previous year.

Here is data for 3 free months. Now it clearly negative if you like so but I don't really much care about this number. I'm more concerned about the trend.




Also, by the way, “Net Value” can be slightly misleading over longer timeframes because it’s price-dependent. I find that Net Volume is more informative, since it reflects actual units traded. Volume is volume — it directly indicates changes in holdings.

For example, imagine Citi buys 1 million shares at $1 and sells the same 1 million shares six months later at $2. Their buy value is $1M, sell value is $2M, and their net value is –$1M.
If you only look at the Net Value column, you’ll see –$1M and might assume they’re shorting or reducing their position — but in reality, their position is flat. They bought and sold the same number of shares, just at different prices.

That’s why I think the chart is more informative — it shows net volume, so you can clearly see changes in holdings over time in terms of share count.
Of course, even charts have their limitations in some cases, but they help reveal trends that raw tables often hide.