I totally agree.
The Street is very down on this stock. There are a lot of shorts.
I would not be surprised if they had thestreet.com in their back pocket.
In my view, it was not inadvertant.
Like you say, they were trying to create a stampede to the exits. Irrationally as it may seem, it is easier to get somebody to sell out in a panic the lower the stock goes. It is just this kind of emotion that the savvy investor who needs to buy preys on.
If you are short and can influence the stock price, why not push it down more? The panickers will sell out even cheaper and you can buy back in your short stock.
I'm wondering if the posting of the $37 price was not inadvertant, not an accident. I'm wondering if an attempt on some one's part to try to unduly influence the stock price via creating a stampeding sell-off (or at least the appearance of one) so as to coax/scare enough folks to make such a price a reality.
Normally, I'm not very cynical or a conspiracy-nut, but something doesn't feel right about that. I think somebody was engaged in a little monkey business.
Cramer and gang are short the stock so they wrote the article with the erroneous price to fulfill their wishful thinking.
thestreet.com cannot be trusted as an independent newssource. Cramer and gang have positions in the stocks they are writing about and thus cannot write an unbiased article.
As I stated, from the article which stated "Late Thursday, Columbia shares fell $6.21 to $36.70."
However, you are right, according to the NASDAQ site,http://quotes.nasdaq.com/quote.dll?symbol=COLM&selected=COLM&mode=frameset&page=
COLM was trading much higher and I am not sure where the article got their information.
"The article mentions late Thursday trading was below $37."
Let's see - AH trading has not gone below $41. Did not go below $41 in late afternoon trading. Hmmmm . . . .
I wonder where did they got the "below $37" erroneous information????
Thursday saw more lopsided put option activity...Nah, nobody saw this news coming.
Ignored the clouds, now reap the whirlwind.
Looks like the news is out...http://www.thestreet.com/_yahoo/stocks/retail/10249978.html?cm_ven=YAHOO&cm_cat=
The article mentions late Thursday trading was below $37.
>>There was a whopping 2,000 Nov. $40.00 put contracts traded Friday...not to mention activity across all strikes and months. It is interesting to me and I'll be curious to see how the next few days unfold.<<
>>If it's to happen this bounce should occur by this coming Tuesday. To ignore such indicators would be like ignoring the warnings pre-Katrina to evacuate New Orleans. Be curious to see if the storm hits the markets and/or COLM.<<
Ignoring all the melodrama that you and your friend offered, COLM is down a WHOPPING 2.3% this week. Granted that is slightly more than the 1.2% decline in the S&P 500 and the NASDAD's 1.6% drop, but nothing worth losing sleep over.
Hurricane warnings...you guys are a riot.
Think about this. For every PUT that was bought (betting on a falling stock price) someone sold it (betting on a rising stock price). The "investors" that sold the PUTs have put your money in their bank. It's theirs to keep. Only if someone exercises a PUT (because the stock price has fallen below the strike price) does the seller have to buy the stock at the strike price.
The person selling those PUTs is making a bet the stock is going UP!!! He's counting on "speculators" to panic and buy them.
Now, at $0.30 for the Nov. $40 PUT. Doesn't this all aound like a big storm in a little tea pot?