@Xking re 55k order in the closing auction:The funny thing,...

@Xking re 55k order in the closing auction:

The funny thing, Xking, is that the lizard didn't even answer your question, rather he just took it as another opportunity to have a rant about the BOD and Credit Suisse.

55k shares may not be much to some, and perhaps not to you, but I would like to think that most people who are happy to flip/trade that value of shares would at least have a basic understanding of the way the trading windows and opening/closing auctions work. Whilst I can't retrieve Friday's trade data anymore, iirc your ask of 0.84 was too high to be met in the normal trading window (up til 4pm) (either that, or you placed the order just after the 4pm mark), in which case, it was carried through into the closing auction. The other orders in the auction raised the price significantly, primarily caused by a buy order for 905k shares at 0.88, that was raised at 4.09pm to 0.91. This resulted in a final closing auction price of 0.89 which included your parcel. Any orders in the auction that went through all traded at 0.89.

The lizard's comments like
"Exposing the cosy relationship between Galaxy HQ & Credit Suisse is an inconvenient truth for Gcar"
just show his lack of research and insistence on flaky conclusions based on flaky evidence. Where exactly is the evidence?
One does not have to look very far to see that there are several analysts that have long been assigned to cover this company (below), and yes, they have access to ask questions during various conference calls. This in itself is nothing untoward and standard practice as far as I am aware.
Any form of insider trading or collusion on the part of GXY's management or BOD would see them up for serious repercussions, as I'm sure you and others are aware. i'm talking about don't-drop-the-soap penalties, not a slap on the wrist fine btw.
Others here have attempted to clarify Credit Suisse's potential role in the shorting of GXY shares, pointing out that they may simply be providing prime brokerage services to their clients - perhaps hedge funds or institutional clients. I have not seen any evidence that they themselves (CS) are directly shorting the company or are otherwise involved in some cunning plan to devalue the stock. Of course, this does not mean that they definitely are not, but it is a rather flaky conclusion to draw that they are, imo, without significant additional information/evidence. He also claims tutor is "one of theirs", and makes this claim in virtually every post now, despite it being clearly denied long ago and providing nothing but some vague "evidence" to support this, about tutor posting on a couple of stocks that CS are involved in.
Where are all the accusations against the others in this list?:




Listen to any previous calls or read the transcripts, you will hear/see many of these analysts. Someone just loves to jump at shadows it seems, and takes every single opportunity to ram it down our throats in every single damn post. On every single damn thread too. It's getting boring now and without sufficient evidence is just undermining anything else presented of potential value - of which, I note, there isn't much.


Good luck with your investments and learning how the trading action works.