3 ms·

Obviously the trades themselves and the shares available would alter the numbers, and the article mentions this at the end. While they can't really adjust for

Obviously the trades themselves and the shares available would alter the numbers, and the article mentions this at the end. While they can't really adjust for the first issue without a crystal ball, this would be far more interesting to me if they factored in at least a rough estimation of how many shares you could reasonably buy (even if they assumed the company's outstanding shares were fully liquid in a perfect market) and not had you holding 264 billion dollars worth of shares in a company with a 29 billion dollar market cap at the end. IMO, that would have made for a more interesting data modelling story. If the point is just pure fantasy of big dollar numbers based on large percentage moves they might as well have included very small penny-stocks and really goosed the number up.

ChuckMcM 13y ago
In terms of shares you could buy, probably up to about 10% of the 200 day rolling average of the daily volume. It still works if you spread that over the top performing stocks for the day (staying under the 10% cap). But you are moving a lot of shares by the end of the year :-)
jerf 13y ago
What would "really" happen is that you would probably be investigated and shut down somehow, if not outright imprisoned, as you get into the size of transactions that becomes impossible to ignore. But it's still a fun thought game. I've wondered myself just how good you could do with perfect knowledge, and really, there's a million answers to that question depending on the exact ground rules you lay down, and they're all equally false, so you might as well pick a nice, concrete one to play with in your head.