[quote=“New York Times”"]
a six-year-old article about a bankruptcy filing by United Airlines reappear on Wall Street traders’ screens on Monday as if it were fresh news, prompting a sell-off that erased $1 billion in the company’s market value in a matter of minutes?
[/quote]
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/10/a-stock-killer-fueled-by-algorithm-after-algorithm/?hp
Ha
Sky net :tup:
has become self aware?
Holy dick.
it begins by taking out transportation
there will be some serious dead cat bounce for UNL
lol, god people are soo jumpy
And just stupid…
These traders did not look into the date of the article? They dint call thier colleagues and discuss what was happening? UA is a pretty big effin company not double source their news.
UNL’s own lawyers (the ones who would handle a bankruptcy) would sell their shares if they were saavy enough to see the writing on the wall.
not because the circa 2002 article was mistaken for current day - but because everyone else was selling.
would you rather be the stantion of correct information and get stuck hold 10,000 shares that are plummeting in value or would you rather apologize later and get out of a trade early, before it bottoms out; there by making the decline even worse?
Were talking seconds time to find out the truth.
Do you now approximately how many “seconds” it takes to watch $10,000 disappear?
So, in those heated “seconds”, which source are you going to trust? Google news, or your counterpart on the other end of the phone?
In the end, this is probably a great buy now.
Well, You can quickly check a second news source, or a third, or a fourth, call an insider, call a few outsiders, call a few more insiders if you have them. All of thise things could be done in a minutes time.
Or,
You could sell and then cross check and when you realize it is BS, buy back ect…
you hesitate, you lose. no offense guy.
The December 10, 2002, story contains information that would clearly lead a reader to the conclusion that it was related to events in 2002. In addition, the comments posted along with the story are dated 2002. It appears that no one who passed this story along actually bothered to read the story itself.
Is my point…
or all they had to do is read the actual article… 1 minute tops. Im not saying it was stupid for them to be jumpy, im saying they are just stupid in general… guy
Did you read the article? Just because the tribune claims "The December 10, 2002, story contains information that would clearly lead a reader to the conclusion that it was related to events in 2002. In addition, the comments posted along with the story are dated 2002. It appears that no one who passed this story along actually bothered to read the story itself. " Doesn’t mean it is true.