3 ms·
By the way, the WSJ has already disappeared this article, so you know it is something important. And no it is not on google cache. I found from the google summ
by hristov 17y ago
By the way, the WSJ has already disappeared this article, so you know it is something important. And no it is not on google cache.
I found from the google summary that the boston beer company, maker of sam adams, hit started out at 50, crashed down to 0 and then immediately climbed back up to 50. Google finance has it crashing down to 14 only, probably because their graphs are not very granular.
This is really concerning. Not because it crashed (companies fail all the time), but because it went up and down so quickly without there being any changes to the actual business prospects of the company whatsoever. It really shows something is wrong.
- InclinedPlane 17y agoIt's right here: http://blogs.wsj.com/deals/2010/05/06/four-mega-drops-of-the-flash-crash-sam-adams-goes-flat/ http://blogs.wsj.com/deals/2010/05/06/four-mega-drops-of-the... Please don't invent shadowy conspiracy theories where they don't exist.
- hristov 17y agoThe link was dead when I checked it. Also the link provided by the google crawler was just as dead, so it could not have been a mistyped link. So I was correct that the link was dead when I said it was. It is possible that that blog post was so popular that a WSJ server holding it crashed while the rest of the site remained online. Or it is possible that that the WSJ saw my post and said "damn, he is onto us, bring it back up!" Anyways, I am keeping my mind open :) And regarding "inventing shadowy conspiracy theories where they don't exist", well they do exist now, since I invented them!
- lukeqsee 17y agoWhat exactly are you trying to get at? Yes, there is something really wrong. But chalk it up as an human or computer error. In a few days when they unravel it, it'll probably be some wacky algorithmic problem, or some day-trader decided to sell a couple billion shares instead of million. The later most likely.