I noticed both Smith Wesson and Sturm Ruger began to plunge on the day Smith Wesson reported earnings. That suggests the selling of the two companies is linked to a single institution or individual.
I believe the nosedive reflects forced institutional selling in response to threats. For example, Mayor Emanuel of Chicago wrote a letter to Laurence Fink, CEO of Blackrock, on January 30, asking if he was supporting the gun industry by owning $39.4 millon in Smith Wesson stock, and $43.7 million in Ruger stock. The letter can be detected by a Google search using the terms "Blackrock" and "Sturm Ruger". In addition, there is an article linked on the Ruger news board from Google, which describes how BlackRock management was "named and shamed" as a shareholder by a New York activist.
The other large shareholders of Ruger, listed on the Yahoo Finance Board, do not seem to based in New
York, and I presume are less vulnerable to pressure.
If BlackRock owns 1,1 million shares of Ruger, and is selling 100,000 shares per day, it will take them 11 business days to exit their position. If they are selling only 50,000 per day, it will take 20 business days.
I am just guessing about the identity of the large seller.....it could be somebody on margin with a huge position, but I have not read of anybody like that.
In the long run, the share price depends on what earning will be, since 40% of earnings are returned to shareholders as dividends. Earnings estimates are still going up, according to the Yahoo Finance Board, within the last 30 days.
I don't see much discussion about earnings on these boards. for some reason.
Obviously you are right that there is one or more major sellers -- that is what makes prices fall. Whether they are selling because they have been shamed or for other reasons is the question. i hope you right that it is because they have been "shamed" but it is hard to believe that they could be shamed by a politician who has no shame like Rahm Emanuel.
It looks like on 3/4/13, they sold 45,666 shares OFF the open market. They also sold 84,484 shares in the form of Option Executions. These were all done at $56.09, so were pre-planned. The total shares, even the ones off the open market are 130,150 and the daily volume was 995,790 so that is 13% of the daily volume. The stock continued to go higher after this, making a high that day of $58.48, so they left over 4% profit on the table. The next day it went up a little higher to $58.50.
It doesn't seem to me to have been the event that sparked the selloff afterwards.
this is our government hard at work with their agenda of gun control. there is nothing I see technically that would warrant a sell off- company is/was rock solid financially. nope, this is shenanigans, no doubt. same with SWHC, et al. support is going to be where ever the crooks decide enough is enough. charts are trashed......jmho, fwiw
The OFF open market sales disturb me. I suspect they were sold back to the company and thus a raid on the corporate treasury. The fact that they did a group sell disturbs me. The open market shares were sold at various prices averaging 56.09 so many were sold above that price. The fact that the price went slightly higher in the open market during a few hours does not nullify the significance of what management did. The chart tells it with emphasis, just look at the dive which began that day and has been relentless.
I used to think that the first quarter earnings to be reported at end of the month would be even better than the currently good numbers which analysts expect. But after seeing the group bail out by management, I am worried that they will be worse than analysts currently expect. It could be that management knew that since their bail out was 2/3 of the way through the quarter.
SWHC may be better now than RGR. Don't have any reason to believe that SWHC management is any better but RGR management has exposed itself as hostile to shareholders and not worthy of their confidence