Of course. But under these circumstance the one's who sold to avoid losses made money or loss less and the ones who bought lost money or made less. It is all about using the fundamentals to predict the most likely future valuation and hoping that there is someone who believes that the stock is good to buy when you think it is no longer good to own and then being right. Someone has to lose. You can't have a winner without a loser. It is like nature. The weak get culled and the strong survive.
Some people are predisposed to lose money. The talk themselves into losing it. Some act as if stocks are supposed to go up forever yet they can find no charts to support this. Or they imagine that stocks that go down will always recover yet their are so many examples of stocks that never do. The fact is that when the fundamentals indicate that a major correction is coming you should sell and not be concerned with losses or gains because you know that this is irrelevant if more losses are likely ahead. You can't let spilt milk cloud your judgement by concluding that a loss has to be made back on the same stock it was lost on. Why think that? And if you don't understand by now why agnc went down when many of us who sold in the 30s were expecting this to happen some day then you should not be investing. This is an indication that you are not predisposed to figuring out when are the circumstances to no longer own. And if you cannot do that then you cannot make money.
That is the agreement between co. and mm. When dumping occurs the mm takes up the slack. However, when large imbalances occur, well then the mm take the sp. Down until it's close to even. but to sell orders. it's playing with house money. Not real longs.