4 ms·
Someone else posted this. Not surprised at all. People think some portfolio manager see an obviously fake tweet and immediately unloads their position?
by 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 agoWhich 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 agoI 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 agoI 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 agoA 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 agoIt 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 agoEli 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 agoAlgorithmic trading bots took the tweet as a sell signal.
- bombcar 4y agoThen shouldn’t it have bounced back up when it was shown to be a fake?
- esperent 4y agoNot if real people or other bots followed the lead of the first wave.
- viscanti 4y agoIf 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 agoWho 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 agoIt’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 agoMarkets 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.