3 ms·

> Eli Lilly is down 5% because the market for their most profitable drug, a $125k/yr mAb IL-17 inhibitor, fell 5%. This is why Novartis, their major competitor

> Eli Lilly is down 5% because the market for their most profitable drug, a $125k/yr mAb IL-17 inhibitor, fell 5%. This is why Novartis, their major competitor with Cosentyx, is also down the same amount Not everything is about Twitter! [1] > Notably, as well, Eli Lilly was ordered to pay $176.5 millipn to Teva in U.S. migraine drug patent trial on November 9th. [2] [1] https://twitter.com/quantian1/status/1591149510168039426 https://twitter.com/quantian1/status/1591149510168039426 [2] https://twitter.com/unusual_whales/status/1591154145977053184 https://twitter.com/unusual_whales/status/159115414597705318...

refurb 4y ago
Someone else posted this. Not surprised at all. People think some portfolio manager see an obviously fake tweet and immediately unloads their position?
- ethanbond 4y ago
  Which of these statements do you think is false? 1) People make trades based on information, at least sometimes 2) People are tricked by false information, at least sometimes
- xg15 4y ago
  I mean... I don't want to speculate about that particular incident, but generally, increasing parts of portfolio management seem to be done by algorithms. It seems plausible to me that the "verified" badge on twitter could be coded as some sort of trust anchor in some of those. Something like "scan all tweets of the last day for names of our stocks + some keywords, but restrict the search to verified accounts only". That kind of signal would be strongly affected by the current chaos.
- Barrin92 4y ago
  I still remember about ten years ago when Twitter went public an entirely unrelated company named Tweeter went up 2000% because it traded under "TWTRQ". So yep I wouldn't put it past a few geniuses to sell based on a fake tweet.
  - refurb 4y ago
    A few I agree, but TWTRQ had a tiny float. Doesn’t take much to move the price. Eli Lily has market cap of $335B and 3M shares traded daily.
- watwut 4y ago
  It was not obviously fake tweet if you are used to blue check meaning verified identity. Content was super suspicious, sure. But even with that, if you assume others will believe that, you will react even of you yourself don't.
  - refurb 4y ago
    Eli Lilly never even issued a press release to correct this "non-obvious fake". They later issued a correction via their real Twitter account. I mean come on. The tweet said "We are excited to announce insulin is free now." Does that actually seem like corporate messaging? No product mention, no talk about how ethical they are? It was obviously fake.
- candiddevmike 4y ago
  Algorithmic trading bots took the tweet as a sell signal.
  - bombcar 4y ago
    Then shouldn’t it have bounced back up when it was shown to be a fake?
    - esperent 4y ago
      Not if real people or other bots followed the lead of the first wave.
      - viscanti 4y ago
        If bots are scraping the twitter front end to grab the checkmark, and making irrational trades now by selling based on the news from parody accounts, humans would buy the dip. The price only stays down if all the rational actors agree the new price is fair, and not underpriced because of a bot mistake.
    - altcognito 4y ago
      Who confirms it’s fake? How does that get fed back into the algorithm in a system designed to work in real time? It’s unlikely that the system has a quick mechanism to do this
      - bombcar 4y ago
        It’d be manual traders realizing there is a pricing mistake. But it didn’t happen which indicates manual traders agree with the drop in general, indicating it wasn’t caused by the tweet.
- oliwarner 4y ago
  Markets move on speculative value changes. It's not what they think about this, it's what they think others will think about this. It doesn't matter whether it's true or not; it's just market confidence. Any movement is another data point. Nobody wants to be the last one out.
phphphphp 4y ago
The companion argument is that neither of those industry changes were unexpected, and thus if the market is behaving intelligently (so much that "of course they're not buying/selling based on tweets!" applies) then they wouldn't have moved the needle as they would be priced in. Smart market actors are surely more likely to immediately respond to surprise news (like an official-seeming tweet announcing insulin is free) than they are to respond to news that was well understood. The company market cap is >$300bn, a $150m fine is a cost of doing business.
- leereeves 4y ago
  The entire healthcare sector dropped. Why would an insurance company like Cigna fall because of a tweet about Eli Lilly?

refurb 4y ago

Someone else posted this. Not surprised at all. People think some portfolio manager see an obviously fake tweet and immediately unloads their position?

ethanbond 4y ago
Which of these statements do you think is false? 1) People make trades based on information, at least sometimes 2) People are tricked by false information, at least sometimes
xg15 4y ago
I mean... I don't want to speculate about that particular incident, but generally, increasing parts of portfolio management seem to be done by algorithms. It seems plausible to me that the "verified" badge on twitter could be coded as some sort of trust anchor in some of those. Something like "scan all tweets of the last day for names of our stocks + some keywords, but restrict the search to verified accounts only". That kind of signal would be strongly affected by the current chaos.
Barrin92 4y ago
I still remember about ten years ago when Twitter went public an entirely unrelated company named Tweeter went up 2000% because it traded under "TWTRQ". So yep I wouldn't put it past a few geniuses to sell based on a fake tweet.
- refurb 4y ago
  A few I agree, but TWTRQ had a tiny float. Doesn’t take much to move the price. Eli Lily has market cap of $335B and 3M shares traded daily.
watwut 4y ago
It was not obviously fake tweet if you are used to blue check meaning verified identity. Content was super suspicious, sure. But even with that, if you assume others will believe that, you will react even of you yourself don't.
- refurb 4y ago
  Eli Lilly never even issued a press release to correct this "non-obvious fake". They later issued a correction via their real Twitter account. I mean come on. The tweet said "We are excited to announce insulin is free now." Does that actually seem like corporate messaging? No product mention, no talk about how ethical they are? It was obviously fake.
candiddevmike 4y ago
Algorithmic trading bots took the tweet as a sell signal.
- bombcar 4y ago
  Then shouldn’t it have bounced back up when it was shown to be a fake?
  - esperent 4y ago
    Not if real people or other bots followed the lead of the first wave.
    - viscanti 4y ago
      If bots are scraping the twitter front end to grab the checkmark, and making irrational trades now by selling based on the news from parody accounts, humans would buy the dip. The price only stays down if all the rational actors agree the new price is fair, and not underpriced because of a bot mistake.
  - altcognito 4y ago
    Who confirms it’s fake? How does that get fed back into the algorithm in a system designed to work in real time? It’s unlikely that the system has a quick mechanism to do this
    - bombcar 4y ago
      It’d be manual traders realizing there is a pricing mistake. But it didn’t happen which indicates manual traders agree with the drop in general, indicating it wasn’t caused by the tweet.
oliwarner 4y ago
Markets move on speculative value changes. It's not what they think about this, it's what they think others will think about this. It doesn't matter whether it's true or not; it's just market confidence. Any movement is another data point. Nobody wants to be the last one out.

phphphphp 4y ago

The companion argument is that neither of those industry changes were unexpected, and thus if the market is behaving intelligently (so much that "of course they're not buying/selling based on tweets!" applies) then they wouldn't have moved the needle as they would be priced in. Smart market actors are surely more likely to immediately respond to surprise news (like an official-seeming tweet announcing insulin is free) than they are to respond to news that was well understood. The company market cap is >$300bn, a $150m fine is a cost of doing business.

leereeves 4y ago
The entire healthcare sector dropped. Why would an insurance company like Cigna fall because of a tweet about Eli Lilly?