It would seem trading should be a tug-a-war at about every stage; even after major news comes, it would seem market efficiency should bring the stock prices to a medium price level, plus or minus a bit to give people a chance to respond/ consider a response. However, the major swings that have been occurring in the markets seem to indicate the market prices are being primarily controlled by limited parties who affect the indexes then automatically the stocks. This may also explain why such a high percentage of people lose lots of money. When the public is primarily long, their counterparty is short, and vice versa. To the extent the counterparty is the same AND has big money, means they will simply take an assessment of what their net position is, then bring the market in the opposite direction. If there are several counterparties with big money, you think they wouldn't coordinate anything between themselves? If you say they have no control over major news events--but they do have control over the level of response to those news events--and sometimes the exact opposite happens. I don't rule out the possibility two big groups will work against each other, and I don't rule out that in many/most situations each group is for itself, but when they are majorly long or majorly short, I do find what recently has happened as being quite revealing. Probably the market recovered to the level it did just when everyone dumped their long positions/ bought puts. Also, even if they are still net short, but it doesn't take away from their ability to do a temporary shakeout against the retail folks. Of course some of you will say "don't be daft" and pretend as if you know better.