You think you WERE THE ONLY ONE watching it? I also watched it RT, crazy action. The only difference was that I was staring at it in the Canadian side, which, with the exchange rate, amplified even more the movement.
And you MISQUOTE me, I did NOT say a halt isn't warranted unless the stock *drops* by a certain %.
I believe that a halt isn't warranted unless the stock >>>!!!!MOVES!!!!<<< by a certain % in a very limited time frame WITHOUT REASON, UP OR DOWN.
HOW THE HECK SHOULD I KNOW why it wasn't halted before it started to drop? I ***NEVER*** said at that time it wasn't warranted. In fact I *DO* believe that it should've been halted.
What WE WERE TALKING about happened in '03 when the stock CLIMBED some 45-50%, and I believe that, but can't confirm it was following earnings. If there wasn't any earnings then I wonder what the hell happened that day.
Get your facts straight before you start hollering. Damn, we're approaching the week, the trolls are loose.
Can't wait to see the explanation, maybe it will shed some light on this.
Maybe there was a bad reaction to the news and somebody wanted to sell their stock.
I liken it to being at the horse track. Your horse is in the lead, nearing the finish when some bigshot in power stops the race. His horse wasn't winning so he wants to have a re-start.
What's the difference?
I think that may be hard to determine.
One thing that's not hard to determine, is that RIMM didn't drop 10% in 5 minutes either. It only dropped 5% in around 5 minutes. Doesn't seem like that much to me.
Why do you keep insisting that a halt isnt warranted unless the stock drops by a certain %. December 2004 rimm spiked up something like 20% in a matter of seconds. I know because I watched it RT. Was there a halt NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. Not until it started to drop. Explain that??
I'm not sure if you're misunderstanding me.
But how many stocks have you seen move 10% within 5 minutes without news triggering it? I sure don't recall many. And make sure to exclude earnings report.
But fine, I was just giving my 0.02$ take it or leave it.
I wasn't *here* on the boards but I do remember that day. I was in RIM long before then. Heck I've been playing RIM since before the bubble.
Thinking back things do take a certain delay. So I think you're right: there is human intervention.
Now I'm sure the SEC takes a close look at every halt that occurs. First, it's not like there are 50 halts a day. Second, a halt is an extra-ordinary condition, so I expect them to review those situations to keep things clean.
Now as to my scenario. If the individual was at the courts when the ruling was provided, I don't think it's a felony, unless that judge issues a non-disclosure agreement. So it's technically legal, since all the institution did was to have a guy relay the public message faster than the media. It is however a "non-level playing field" as you put it earlier (i think it was you), since that firm has ressources that the general public can't afford.
On the other hand, if that individual heard the ruling by listening to the judge mumbling to himself while he was in the washroom 5 minutes prior to giving the sentence *AND* he sent the message before that same judge pronounced it officially, THEN it is a felony. The individual had insider information and acted on it.
Anyhoo, you can bet that 50k transaction will be reviewed by the SEC, since I believe that any and every large transactions have to be reported for review (don't quote me on this though). And one that occured about a minute before the halt probably triggered a few warning flags.
That's ridiculous. Stocks move by huge amounts everyday without news or halts.
I don't really care how you "think" it should work. Read the SEC website. It says that halts occur when there is a buy/sell trade imbalance. It says nothing about halting trade when a stock moves greatly without any reason.
If this were the case, there would be a huge number of halts everyday.