Brokers who are consistently dominant as the sellers of Downtick trades reveal trading agendas motivated by control over prices rather than genuine selling.
The same group of brokers, who are prominent with Downtick sales, generally happen to be dominant as buyers of Downticks as well on other occasions, which further helps to facilitate downward movements in price.
A clear-cut indicator about broker involvement with setting artificial prices is the proportion of Downticks they have been responsible for on any given day compared to their market share of selling generally.
A large proportion of daily Downtick sales achieved with only a small market share of all selling taking place rings warning bells.
It means that pressure has been applied to the share price through large numbers of small trades that force lower prices but where the overall volume of such trades is comparatively minor.
Broker algorithms are responsible for the trades.
The trading appears even more dubious when the tiny parcels of shares used to force Downticks in price are the result of broker crossings emitted by algorithms which is often the case.
Logically, the proportion of Downtick trades caused by a broker selling into the market ought to be similar to their market share of selling generally, especially across long term data.
However consistent trends by some brokers where large numbers of Downticks are usually matched by small amounts of selling suggest trading motivated to lower prices rather than to achieve the best returns for clients.
Non-genuine selling is obviously manipulative as highlighted by copious numbers of examples from daily trading.
The same applies to where the involvement of brokers as buyers of Downtick trades is markedly different to their market shares as buyers generally.
High levels of Downtick purchases compared to their overall buying market profiles, also suggest strong motivations to facilitate lower prices.
Being able to buy at lower prices is generally a good outcome for a buyer but the anomalous levels of such purchases by particular brokers run at levels are far beyond good luck or skillful trading.
The anomalies suggest collusion.
The reality is that it is trading algorithms that deliver downward pressure on prices through certain brokers forcing Downticks as sellers, and it is algorithms that also facilitate the downward movement by having other brokers accept the Downtick trades as purchasers. The situation is most definitely one of broker algorithms delivering trades from designated sellers to preferred buyers.
As it happens, the brokers responsible for Downticks as both sellers and buyers of Downtick trades, happen to be members of a small group who have emerged as prominent brokers in controlling pricing outcomes and who tend to rotate roles as prominent brokers from one day to the next.
The rotation of roles strongly suggests collusion and cartel-like activity as all prominent brokers deal exclusively on behalf of institutions.
Selling into Announcements: Market sentiment can be controlled by ensuring that promising or even strong announcements result in minimal market impact.
The brokers responsible for the selling down of announcements are readily identifiable as the brokers who have engaged in forcing Downticks as sellers on days where announcements are released.
Such activity, when observed taking place by the same small group of brokers over long periods of time (i.e., 3.5 years), provides empirical evidence regarding attempts to create artificial pricing levels that reflect strategic trading agendas rather than company developments and company fundamentals.
News is meant to be a driver of markets, so that consistently counterintuitive responses by the market to good news are in effect a strong indicator of share price manipulation.
(20min delay)