Page 1 of 1
Trading question
Posted: Wed Jun 14, 2017 6:31 pm
by sargasso
Is the price of GERN primarily driven by computer trading? Does GERN have sufficient volume to allow this type of machine driven trading to occur? Or does this only occur with larger stocks with much larger volume? Yahoo states that GERN has an average daily trading volume of almost 1.9 Million shares.
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/13/death-of ... mates.html
Re: Trading question
Posted: Thu Jun 15, 2017 3:30 am
by sargasso
What I want to know is: was this caused by computerized trading as I am aware of no fundamental reason for this price action:
Friday, 26 May 2017
“Geron Corporation (GERN) had a rough trading day for Friday May 26 as shares tumbled 7.97%, or a loss of $-0.24 per share, to close at $2.77. After opening the day at $2.99, shares of Geron Corporation traded as high as $2.99 and as low as $2.73. Volume was 2.5 million shares over 8,330 trades, against an average daily volume of 1.78 million shares and a total float of 159.18 million.”
https://www.equities.com/news/geron-cor ... -on-may-26
Re: Trading question
Posted: Fri Jun 16, 2017 7:30 pm
by Fishermangents
Hi Sargasso, it certainly is an interesting question, that I am not really able to answer. Certainly an above average of shares changed hands on the example you gave, but I have no idea who buys and sells and why. There are many of such examples, with PPS going up as well as down. Basically I don't see significant movements in the larger picture, although it seems we have left the under 2 dollar range. With so much waiting, so little news and 32M+ shares shorted (obviously the shorts think they still have time) there are various forces that play the price. Computerized trading can be one of them. I am no expert on this, so maybe one of our more technical board members can provide a better response.
Re: Trading question
Posted: Sat Jun 17, 2017 12:00 am
by sargasso
Fisher,
Thanks for your reply.
My trading question is mostly a matter of curiosity. This stock has a habit of moving for reasons that are not readily apparent. It is obvious why the stock had a nice move up upon disclosure of a positive outcome from the second internal data review conducted by Janssen. But it is not readily apparent why the stock subsequently declined.