I believe what Colleen has done was use inaccurate figures, thrown them out there and they just don't make sense. She is using an average daily volume (3,907,500) based on a 52 week period of time and trying to fit it into a 5 day average volume. She needs to redo her math and post accurate figures.
Nice try there Lucky Charm, but the number I used for the AVERAGE trading volume is accurate. I obtained this number from the bottom of this screen. I am not indicating that the number I used was reflective for a one week trading volume average. It is IMPROPER and MISLEADING for you to sway people to believe that the volume generated in a ONE WEEK increase be used as a norm for the trading patterns of PRWT.
The number (I used) as the norm takes into account the volume increase (dumping) we saw during the week of DECEMBER 10th. I could have been more selective and gotten the average for the month, which would have made the numbers look even more bleak, but I was fair in my analysis and presentations.
However, in rechecking my numbers I see that I did make an error, possibly mispunched my calculator, what ever my error, it was not intentional.
Let me list the numbers that I am using so you can check me further, starting with today's volume and working backwards through the week... 7,768.8M; 7,446.0M; 7,594.4M; 4,871.1M; and 5,742.7M... added together these numbers should yield 33,423M; and divided by 5 should yield 6,684.6M for this week's average.
And this number is still 1.711% HIGHER than the norm. or 6,684.6K shares traded above the same normal trading period. |
