I'll use random name "Bill" as example 1, and pros as example 2
Hopefully this helps educate you in a way you can understand.
Example 1.. a silly trader "Bill" could hypothetically attempt to manipulate a public forum with an ongoing sell/not held set-up.
Bill at times will think the time is right to aggressively buy on market, with the hope the market will get excited, along with some "I'm in" like posts, aiming to make a quick buck.
Sometimes it backfires though, and the price doesn't continue moving upwards, so Billy is forced to continue buying.. let's pick a random amount, for example 1,471,590 at around 2.5c.
Potentially unknowingly, this also appears on holder lists temporarily, while holding the Nor trade
Unfortunately for Bill, the spike was short lived, and the price drops back, trapping poor Bill..
But, maybe there was reason for the spike? Can the shares be held beyond t+2? In this case, yes.. so, hopefully news hits quickly - maybe things can be shuffled around to cover the punt?
I've personally previous day traded and continually rolled/offset settlement for a long time.. very costly and stressful.
Then if the completely random amount of 1,471,590 nor shares is dumped with a $15 trading loss.. that is what you call someone dumping with a loss several pips lower.
..and hypothetically, you would be instantly on Nor threads the minute the dump crashed the SP, not knowing it was actually a fellow Nor basher.
Now example 2..
This is where you need to wait a couple of days to see where the shares go.
I posted yesterday about the sudden sell side stacking, which often happens prior to what you would call "someone dumping with a loss", but it might actually be shares being "moved".
When pros are potentially continuing ongoing accumulation, moving shares (appearing to be "sells") is a questionable/illegal way to help a SP lower, without actually losing the shares.
Maybe it's just coincidence that it often happens after thr sell side appears to have several larger orders stacked up?
It's somehow always the way that Nor top holder lists very rarely show top holdings reducing, and the only times a larger holding disappears or reduces on the next list, it miraculously shows similar holdings increasing..
..now, I would never want to suggest anything suss, or the possibility of dodgy practices or linked holdings of course.. let's just say that it will be interested to see if 1 of the 2 900k holdings disappears, or if a larger holding reduces by exactly 900k... and just as interesting which holdings increase.
I'll also say, 1 of the 900k holdings on the last list is a majorly interesting name.....
So, let's see next week!!
Hopefully that helps you understand, things aren't always as you think (or desperately want it to be).
