> Every trade is proof that the market thinks the stock is a good investment at that price.

And every (short) sale is proof that the market thinks it's a bad investment at that price, which logically nullifies your point.

So to climb out of this nullification, we have to consider how many actors didn't get filled at the price they want. There isn't infinite liquidity at every price point.

▲

quantummagic 17 hours ago | parent [-]

> And every (short) sale is proof that the market thinks it's a bad investment at that price, which logically nullifies your point.

No it doesn't. It's the flip side of the one you want to focus on, and all i've been saying is that it's not the ONLY side. If it nullifies my point, it also nullifies yours. They cancel EACH OTHER out.

> There isn't infinite liquidity at every price point.

Sure, but so what? That is true of literally every product sold. The price isn't zero, so there is enough liquidity to cover every short that was actually sold. You've already admitted to that. The fact that the price goes down, (and can sometimes move back up) is immaterial.

	▲	WarmWash 12 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Nullify means cancel out To make it clear to you, >So to climb out of this [cancel each other out], we have to consider how many actors didn't get filled at the price they want. There isn't infinite liquidity at every price point. And no, there is not enough liquidity, so the price has to move to provide it. That's why you cannot hand wave away price movement, it's intrinsically part of transactions being formed. And why a headline like "Heavily shorted" captures sentiment around a stock, especially one that is tanking.