We're seeing 13,000 because of massive amounts of quantitative easing and near-zero interest rates.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Stock Trading Halted Briefly on Sudden 9% Drop
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
We're seeing 13,000 because of massive amounts of quantitative easing and near-zero interest rates.
The real story:
BATS is an alternative stock exchange and decided to IPO on their own exchange. It's all gone tits up and along with the dodgy Apple trade, they had problems with all stocks A through to BF, including their own. They have reversed the trades but not before other stock exchange invoked "self defence" measures to isolate the problem.
BATS IPO'ed in the morning at $15.25 and later in the day were down to $0.038 on other exchanges. They placed their stock into a trading halt. Investors who paid $15.25 aren't exactly thrilled. BATS has apparently pulled their IPO entirely.
The Apple blip is just collateral damage as BATS implodes.
http://www.streetinsider.com/Insiders+Blog/UPDATE%3A+BATS+%28BATS%29+IPO+Goes+Batty/7292949.html
BATS is an alternative stock exchange and decided to IPO on their own exchange. It's all gone tits up and along with the dodgy Apple trade, they had problems with all stocks A through to BF, including their own. They have reversed the trades but not before other stock exchange invoked "self defence" measures to isolate the problem.
BATS IPO'ed in the morning at $15.25 and later in the day were down to $0.038 on other exchanges. They placed their stock into a trading halt. Investors who paid $15.25 aren't exactly thrilled. BATS has apparently pulled their IPO entirely.
The Apple blip is just collateral damage as BATS implodes.
http://www.streetinsider.com/Insiders+Blog/UPDATE%3A+BATS+%28BATS%29+IPO+Goes+Batty/7292949.html
There is some major bs going on with both the blip and its explanation, 100 shares my knickers! This is not the last we are going to hear about this, the explanation will change eventually.
Become a stock trader, support the financing of companies.
Listing on a stock exchange is a great way for a company to get equity and support growth. Without stock exchanges and stock traders, the road of an entrepreneur would be a lot harder, so there'd be less innovation.
I went to finance.yahoo.com, and apparently AAPL has come back. Apparently, this trade wasn't even registered in the "daily range" of AAPL.
If you have $60,000 in cash, and if you are willing to lose $5,000 of that money, you can buy 100 AAPL shares and sell them for $50 less, sending the "last sale" price of AAPL down by $50. For approximately 200 milliseconds. Which is how long it took AAPL to come back from this.
And while some stupid idiot lost $5,000, someone was lucky and made $5,000. Because someone managed to buy 100 AAPL shares 9 percent below their value, out of sheer luck. Correction: Apparently the trade has been cancelled. No lucky winner then.
No, no, no, no, no, no, no, and no.
If you offered at $50 under the market, you would sell to the current bid.
The only way you would sell for $50 under the market would be if there were no bids higher than your offer on the exchange on which you offered. (And, even then, exchanges are now required to execute on another exchange in that case.)
There is no exchange that would be that thin in AAPL. And, then, the trade would be reversed under the exchange's "clearly erroneous" policy.
I love reading the BATty explanations and conspiracy theories here...
What we don't know (at least not from what I have read) is if the errant order was a market order or something else. A market order should never have the impact this one did since it would sell to the first buyer with a market order to buy at the current price. The only way I can imagine that this error occurred is if the bidding system recorded the sale order without finding a corresponding buy order, and automatically started bidding the price down in order to find one. It must have been a software glitch of some kind.
The scary part is that whatever software created the situation apparently didn't know that an out-of-range event had occurred. The market circuit-breakers had to trip and trading had to be suspended for several minutes before the mistake was found, presumably by manual means. The markets rely very heavily on these electronic trading systems now. It doesn't take a conspiracy theory to see that they might not be entirely up to the task.
False dichotomy.
The bailouts under Bush II (43) have been repaid with interest. In fact the Fed recently paid $75B in interest and capital gains made on that "trade" to the United States Treasury. That $75B was rapidly spent by an administration with $225B a MONTH in new deficit spending.
Had GM had a traditional bankruptcy the outcomes would be different but in no case as you present it "failed".
Under the scenario that The Obama I (44) administration implemented through unprecedented interference in free markets, the "structured bankruptcy" involved the following conventional features:
Zeroing out common stockholders
And the following unconventional features:
Zeroing out preferred stockholders
Zeroing out bondholders (owners of plant and equipment)
Maintaining Union contracts through BK
Closing down product dealers located throughout the states and counties of the United States
Bridge finance offered by the United States Government
Handing ownership of GM itself to the unions to use the revenues to fund the "excessive" pay and benefit packages that bankrupted GM to begin with.
Issuing stock to the United States Government with a notional value of the amount it financed to GM, hence notionally "collateralized".
Under a traditional bankruptcy which was not allowed to occur by the Obama I (44) administration, the following alternate outcomes would occur:
Zeroing out common stockholders
Zeroing out preferred stockholders
Honoring bondholders (owners of plant and equipment)
Canceling and renegotiating Union contracts through BK
Canceling and renegotiating product dealers contracts located throughout the states and counties of the United States
Bridge finance offered by the private sector through hedge funds, dark pools, and other private sector speculators on distressed businesses.
Ownership of GM itself the new stockholders, existing bondholders, perhaps at a discounted face value or interest rate.
With the unions increased pay packages over time GM had become a health care provider who incidentally made cars. BK either the way it was or the conventional way would have made GM a car maker who incidentally has workers with health insurance.
In both examples the cars keep getting made and the capital structure is deleveraged and onerous contracts canceled. The big difference which was clearly illegal (unlawful) was canceling bondholder interests and effectively giving them to the unions which has never happened before in any bankruptcy in this country.
Hope this helps to clear up a politically charged and oft repeated fallacy.
Rocketman
No, since you've repeated many of the oft repeated and politically charged fallacies, first among them that the credit markets were functional at the time and that an emergence from "traditional" bankruptcy was likely.
It would have emerged as a privately held firm, not a publicly traded stock since the liquidity crisis locked up the traditional finance system. There was and there still is large pools of cash out of the market waiting for an opportunity to reenter when/if the free market returns to this country. With the Fed announcing zero interest rates through 2014, we at least know it will take till then to return to any variation of normalcy.
For example look at an AAPL price chart. There is a "gap" at $445 a share (and other higher points) that has to be closed. That will likely occur during the next "correction" likely the typical April/May time frame, at which time there will be a tremendous buying opportunity for AAPL which will bring much sidelined cash into the name.
A similar thing happens in BK where bidders offer a price and a judge analyses it.
http://mises.org/daily/5941/HighFrequency-Trading-Menger-vs-Walras
The first example being a Menger market and the second being a Walras market.
The BK as actually done was a monologue by the FEDGOV under Obama I (44).
Last edited:
It triggers a circuit-braker. Even though the volume is small, such a trade is deemed abnormal and halts other trading:
I still don't get it. Why should a trade for 100 shares trigger a "circuit breaker". There are over 900 million shares outstanding. There must be some information missing here. Why was the trade considered abnormal?
There was a "print" (read a data point) at 9% below the price 1 millisecond before. The trading software is supposed to not let that happen according to a programmer here, which makes perfect sense. BATS is responsible for about 12% of all market volume according to two independent reports I heard today. They have been pretty popular/dominant for at least 5 years I personally know of.
These anecdotal factoids indicate to me this was a software glitch or perhaps hacking. Hacking would concern me.
AAPL never lost 9%. A single trade registered at a lower price. I was watching a terminal at that precise moment and the pin (line down) you saw in previous posts lasted a single moment. Real trades to lower levels with numerous transactions results in a visible downward movement of a line not a sudden arrival.
But then I posted about the 10,000 print in AAPL a couple of years ago too. That was actually wierder. But there was another less deep downward print only 3 days prior as I posted and as another poster posted a graph of.
Evil is afoot. Who will crash us first, hackers or the administration with $250B/mo deficit spending? It's a real contest.
The halt only lasted about 3 minutes. It was abnormally short IMHO.
Rocketman
Last edited:
Pretty often, but dozens of times not thousands of times. This is intentional.
Free advise: Buy gold coins . . . . . . . . .
IIRC the par value of AAPL stock is $0.01. I was trading on a stock the other day that was trading below par. FTR that's scary. I made bank.
Rocketman
Last edited:
If this is the understanding the average person has about the stock market and why it even exists, that explains a lot about why people are generally financially retarded.
Stock prices fluctuate for a variety of reasons. Pricing is validated over the longer term, not intra-day. What system would propose? The price of a stock never changes from the IPO price and those investors who actually gave money to the COMPANY just have to sit and hope the company get's bought? Or maybe their stock can appreciate but the next guy shouldn't make any gains because he didn't give any money to the actual company. Of course I'm sure there are millions lining up to buy stock that won't ever go up.
